Obama, FDR and the Second Bill of Rights

Nice bite-size morsel of an opinion as only Bloomberg can deliver it.
Obama, FDR and the Second Bill of Rights

Let's list them here:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
• The right of every family to a decent home.
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.
• The right to a good education. 

The right to bear arms...just kidding.

Why does the author insist that FDR "had no interest in socialism"?  He did, and good and damn well that he did.  Sorry but "socialism", "liberal" and "progressive" are not dirty words, but perhaps they are to the usual Bloomberg readership.  And think how a conservative or a libertarian would respond to each of these bullet points...Not sure?  Here are some choice comments from a couple of them [I added the emphasis]:

r minty 1 hour ago

Rights, properly understood, are individual and personal (with limited exceptions). They cost others absolutely nothing. My (or your) religious Beliefs and political opinions do not cost some third Party so much as one red cent. My security from State imposition costs nobody.
But Obama conflates THINGS with Rights. When it is claimed that some have a Right to food, housing (decent housing, at that), and free medical, the costs must come from the earnings of others, and are therefore not Rights. A Right to a good paying job? And what if the "employee" is not WORTH the pay? The cost comes from the pockets of others.And when government muddles into the business world, to determine what is "fair" trade (even without the inherent resulting corruption), it will always cost, and the cost is paid by everyone.
Obama, always the clueless "community organizer", and never someone who's earned an honest living or bothered to learn the business end of business.
------------------

Dracovert 4 hours ago

The comments herein are instinctively correct, and there are excellent analyses of the problem on a rational level, but there is something missing.  The problem is a failure to understand the psychological factors involved.
Obama is a psychopath just as Hitler was, and Sunstein is a sycophant and enabler just as the German generals were.
[yhk: I was going to paste the whole thing but you get the idea.  Well, maybe a bit more...]
Obama and his sycophants are quite capable of destroying our Republic.  The good news is that
psychopaths always fail.  The bad news is that their failure always costs innocent people their livelihoods and their fortunes, and sometimes their lives.

-----------------

The previous commentator evidently loves to use the word "psychopath."  Why is the Second Bill of Rights so repulsive to the conservative and right-wing mindset?  Because national policy should not be about equalizing opportunity and wealth?  Do they incite class warfare because they take from the rich and give to the poor?  Are they indicative of state tyranny and demagoguery?  Too close to communism?  They do not reward the Makers and promote the Takers?  Because Ayn Rand was right?  [BTW, check out Paul Krugman's "Makers, Takers, Fakers", slamming Jindal, Romney and Ryan.]

In terms of the current gun control debate, the comment that "Obama conflates THINGS with Rights" is an appropriate one.  How is owning guns a right?  Guns are things, but gun ownership is a right?  Is this comparable to having a right to a home (not necessarily home ownership, mind you)?  Right to defend yourself? Sure.  Owning a gun?  Not a right.  Defending liberty and freedom?  Sure.  Being able to fire off guns of any type?  Not a right.  Pretty simple.  Guns or gun ownership do not equal self-defense or liberty or freedom.

Once GOP stronghold, West veers into Dems' column

This is an interesting piece from the Associated Press that speaks to the complex currents of political change. The same independent spirit that resists taxation also fuels "liberal" causes like reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and legalizing pot. Ultimately, we're all more complex than simple party labels.

It also includes this amusing quote from a libertarian: "The West is the most American part of America."

Once GOP stronghold, West veers into Dems' column - Associated Press, Jan 26, 2013

The Compromiser

BA posted what seems like ages ago, "Disappointed with Obama?" back in December 2009.  I must say that I am disappointed.  Governing IS different, much, much different than campaigning; that much is clear for the Administration.  But all the talk of being bipartisan and bringing the two parties together took his focus away from doing what is good for the country, or rather, doing what HE believes in.

Then again, what does Obama believe in?  Does he not believe in universal healthcare that is not a silly auto insurance version of mandatory purchase from a private insurer?  Does he not believe in regulating the excesses of capitalism?  Does he not believe in a tax code that is progressive and pushing it through Congress?  Does he believe in pushing his agenda through Congress?  He gave too much credit to the Democratic and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, which led to the 2010 losses in the House.  He did not take full advantage of the Democratic control nor manage to fight off the obstructionist Repub strategy.  Was he unable or unwilling or something else?

Meanwhile, his jobs bill sits at a time when the economy added only 80,000 job in October and the longtime unemployed are starting to lose their benefits.  Are we seriously looking at a Carter "malaise" once again?  I know, Obama didn't create the economic crisis, but he definitely took his left wing base for granted.  But this ain't 1980 all over again, either.  See my Republican presidential field post...

It is said that politics is the art of compromise.  Is it really, and to this extent when the nation needs true leadership?  I cannot help the feeling of disappointment and opportunties lost.  Whither America?

Late and Lame October Surprise?

I must say that it is endlessly fascinating what goes on in the political blogosphere. Take this story about Obama's aunt (half-sister of his father) who is living as an illegal alien in public housing in Boston. Yet another guilt-by-association grasping-at-straws from the right wing, a rather lame attempt at a Hail-Mary pass to change the campaign momentum, but wait, I thought Palin was the Hail-Mary pass? Anyway, take these two opposing takes on the story itself.

One from the left, Talking Points Memo, that accuses the Bush administration of leaking the immigration status of Obama's aunt. It is interesting to note that the Times of London broke the story on October 30th, a Murdoch newspaper:
Breaking the Law for McCain (the link to which was broken at the time of this writing; it appears the entire site is down, perhaps from a denial-of-service attack from the right ;-)

The other from Michelle Malkin, who's fast becoming my favorite right wingnut, which the article's title says all:
Obama’s illegal alien aunt (and campaign donor!) is a deportation fugitive; Bush administration moves to protect her

The fury and the frenzy! Am I the only one who is amused by all this? Oh, well... I suppose one can hope that some good can come out of this by the candidates actually debating about the immigration policy.

Real McCain?

Want to share a perspective I had not really considered which occurred to me while watching "Frontline: The Choice 2008", and it has to do with why McCain picked someone like Palin. Obviously, the pick is to appease the extreme right, but I think it also shows his disdain for the right as well. Remember his "agents of intolerance" line, referring to Farrakhan, Sharpton, Robertson and Falwell?

McCain is trying to shore up the right-wing conservative base, but he really is a moderate, especially on social issues. Instead of looking at Palin as his final conversion to the right, I think it says more about his actual opinion of the extreme right; i.e. “I don’t agree with you, my friends (as he likes to say), but here’s someone to make you feel better and support me during the campaign." If McCain becomes president (God forbid and that’ll be the day I look for work in Canada), I would bet that Palin will become your typical VP, hard to locate and seldom heard from, much like Dan Quayle was to Bush 41 (see, he wasn’t really a social conservative, either. Quayle was just there for window dressing and that’s what she is--a Quaylin). I'd also bet that Palin will have ZERO influence on any administration policies or initiatives; she'll practically be the Second Lady. Am I being sexist? Perhaps, but I'll leave it to the Reps to herald the first uninfluential, token female VP ever. Clarence Thomas, anyone?

Unfortunately for McCain, I believe his best chance to win is if he acts more like a moderate than an angry conservative, and it’s too late because the battle for the center is most certainly going to Obama.

McCain Rally "Fear and Trembling" and the Conservative Backlash

It is rather fascinating trying to understand where the extreme conservative anger is coming from. For what it's worth, I do commend McCain for wanting to keep the campaign dialog "respectful" in this Minnesota "town hall meeting" and the associated TPM article (Hey, our first embedded YouTube video!):



The unfortunate reality is that he should be telling his campaign operatives and the more extreme Reps to keep things respectful. Apparently, there have been letters sent out that says Obama is an Arab. I do feel sorry for the woman who called Obama an Arab, Gayle Quinnell, as she should not be the focal point of this campaign exchange; she is only relaying the fear and misinformation coming from the McCain camp, given her limited knowledge and comprehension ("He's got Muslim in him"), but it is frustrating how some people just can't let go of false information: Post-rally conversation with Gayle Quinnell

Then, there's this from a Michelle Malkin, apparently a regular on Fox. Here's her defense of the McCain rally rage, basically that the left wing crazies do the same or worse about McCain/Palin/Bush all the time. Somehow that justifies the name-calling from the McCain supporters and the right in general, justifying intolerance with more intolerance, hate with more hate; has she heard of "two wrongs don't make a right"? Seems to me a typical conservative rebuttal, not exactly denounce the attacks from your side but point out the equally abhorrent venom from the other side, albeit none of them from an actual campaign rally or a town hall meeting.

Fair warning that some images on this blog are very crude and offensive; I did not bother to verify that they all came from the left wing extremists and are valid. Take a gander at some of the comments to the post, also (kinda my homage to Palin's frequent "also"). It indicates how far apart many of us are in how we view the world and how we should go about changing it:
Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”

Why such vehement opposition to even a hint of socialist policy? That typifies the knee-jerk conservative reaction, doesn't it? Is free-market capitalism what makes America great? Is that why we're having a global financial crisis? The Europeans and Canadians have instituted socialist policies; are their societies crumbling because of socialism? Do they have people who must go bankrupt to pay for cancer treatments?

What is THE conservative creed? Isn't it really about "I get to keep what I make" because those liberal, hippie nutjobs have no respect for the money that I earn and the personal property that I possess? I saw an image on a conservative blog of two stick figures; a red figure holding a gun to the head of the blue figure holding a bag of goods/money, with the caption "Socialism". That attitude is the ugly root of class warfare, not the liberals looking for redistribution of wealth for the greater good of the nation. This is how conservatives incite class warfare, but then blame the liberals for starting it. Tax the crap out of the rich! Karl Rove was quoted as saying that under Obama's plan the top 5 percent will pay an increase of $131 billion in taxes, according to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. And the bad news is? I say that's friggin' patriotic; they should be happy to pay more taxes because, as Palin would put it, "America has so blessed and privileged us"!

And, what is the point of laundering all of the mugshots of leftist activists/extremists, let alone whether they were justly arrested in all cases? That the liberals should be marginalized as rabid America-haters, like Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk brainwash their audience every single day? That there are crazies of equal numbers on the left and right? That America has become a fascist state where dissenting opinions cannot be tolerated? That the status quo is indeed biased to the right so that only the leftist actions are criminalized? Who holds the trump cards in this society? Is a fascist oppression preferable over a socialist one?

There's so much to glean from the Malkin blog, especially this comment that somewhat reflects our earlier discussion on how conservative opinion can be dismissed, except that the writer misses the point that prejudice goes both ways (copy/pasted as posted):

On October 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm, feebiebabe said:
THE GREAT HYPOCRACY OF OUR TIMES: Anytime a conservative enters into a debate with a liberal the first given is when said liberal realizes you are conservative…liberal will find some way to throw out any one or ALL of these tired phrases;”White Trash, Uneducated, Ignorant, Racist, Warmonger, Neocon or Redneck”. This happens to me ALL the time in California, and most often times I have done absolutely zero to warrant it, most times all I say is, “I’m a conservative” – and let the tongue lashing begin. Its creepy. I live in a blue state and work for a company where most people are unabashedly “Socialist”.

The other day I had a man walk up to me because he overheard my conversation I was having with a co-worker about a Herman Melville novel (Bartleby) and Atlas Shrugged by Ann Rand. When he approached me later he said I must “NOT be voting Republican because you are obviously an elitist who reads”. AND he meant this as a compliment - creeeepppyyyyy!!! My answer, “Why I do read, but what do you mean by elitist?” “Oh, Republicans are so uneducated; people who read literature I most often find to be liberals and intellectuals and are never ever Republicans”. I imagine I am the ONLY red vote on the floor (as usual) so I bit my tongue and just said “Is that so?” Does anyone else see the absolute irony in his thinking?!

Oh yes, and then there is the violence. Yes, the “Peace, love and happiness hippies” are only spreading “Peace Love and Happiness” selectively, to those who agree with them. And their Love-O-Meter always seems to go off the charts the more someone bashes this country or says they want to kill us. Talk about an abusive relationship!!!

Now, Madonna (“Hi, I name myself after the Virgin Mary to be irreverent, feed my delusions of grandeur, because I suffer from inadequacy and because I think no one will notice I have no talent”) . “Im gonna kick Palin’s ass!?” ROFLMAO. This coming from a woman who has been living full time in England and developed the WORST fake Brit accent next to her pal Gwennie –She couldn’t look Palin in the face let alone kick her ass (aside from the fact I am pretty sure one of her brittle body parts might just fall off her crusty frame by the impact of such an event). This woman is insufferably arrogant, ignorant and is bitter- she has NO talent and has to show her boobs to sell her records. Give me a break….what is Madonna three years old? What a loser. I think it really gets to Madonna that Palin is a REAL Woman and comfortable with herself, while Madonna is a hateful, malnourished, washed-up, ex-pat who has absolutely zero talent.
Rant off/
Happy Sunday.

------------
It's rather amusing but sad how her anecdote/argument quickly deteriorates into a rant bashing Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow. This is an example of why I would not want our blog to be open to the Internet public for comment (actually, I did open it up to registered users of the blog world, but obviously we're not exactly in a high-traffic area nor worthy of it, and that suits us just fine all the same).

My hope is that our small speck in the blog universe can provide a more thoughtful dialog and work to achieve a better understanding and a common ground in the midst of the left-vs.-right, liberal-vs.-conservative echo chamber noise.

Finally, a sane conservative case on doubts about Obama

Looks like my trolling for views from the right has paid off, since BRM hasn't been gracing us with his conservative posts. Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, makes a good case of conservatives' doubts about Obama: Who is the Real Barack Obama?

Crux of the column, if you can get past the not-so-subtle condescending remarks, seems to be, "Is Obama a leftist radical or a cautious pragmatist able to reach out to the center and the right?" My personal opinion is that he is a mix of and capable of both, and given the current state of the nation, the economy and the world, I hope that he is more of a pragmatist in the tradition of FDR. My liberal preference also hopes that he will bring much needed socialist policies to reign in the runaway-greed capitalism, to enforce a loophole-less progressive tax code and to institute a healthcare system closer to a universal, single-payer model. Without a pragmatic approach, he will not get much done through legislation or achieve much in military objectives and diplomatic initiatives, if/when he is president.

Unfortunately, given McCain's campaign I have no confidence in how he would run the country as president. In other words, the liberal case on doubts about McCain will take some time to write down, so I'll save it for another post. To be fair, I have yet to find a good case for the McCain presidency that explains his policies and tendencies, beyond direct attacks and negatives on Obama.

Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama

Just after reading and seeing how McCain did his best to stomp out the flames of anger and fear against Obama fanned by him and his campaign, I came across this article. Christopher Buckley says that he's voting for Obama. Yes, Virginia, there are sensible and reasonable conservatives out there in America. Come on, this has got to move BRM to action and post something here, don't it (Buckley even sprinkles in some choice Latin like rara avis)? We are sorely missing the right-of-center viewpoint on OUR blog.

From The Daily Beast:
Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama

Some choice excerpts:

I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.
......

John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?
......

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.
......

Obama has in him—-I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—-the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

-----------
Not exactly a glowing endorsement, but "we are all in this together" and "God save America", indeed. Unfortunately, some of the comments on his column at the website still show that bipartisanship has a long, long way to go.

McCain the Next Nixon?

This op-ed by Elizabeth Drew, author of “Citizen McCain”, certainly brought up images of Nixon for me, especially in the sections below. This hadn't occurred to me, but I've come to realize more and more that many Rep conservatives are shaped in the mold of Nixon instead of Reagan: How John McCain lost me

"In his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For,” he wrote, revealingly, “I didn’t decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I’d had the ambition for a long time.”"
............
"There’s an argument that all this compromise wasn’t necessary: some very smart political analysts believed from the outset that McCain could win the nomination by sticking with his old self. And they still believe that McCain won the nomination not because he gave himself over to the base but as a result of a process of elimination of inferior candidates who divided up the conservative vote, as these observers had predicted. (These people insisted on anonymity because McCain is known in Republican circles to have a long memory and a vindictive streak.)

By then I had already concluded that that there was a disturbingly erratic side of McCain’s nature. There’s a certain lack of seriousness in him. And he does not appear to be a reflective man, or very interested in domestic issues. One cannot imagine him ruminating late into the night about, say, how to educate and train Americans for the new global and technological challenges."

Sarah's Big Night Palin Comparison to Obama

It's beyond laughable that the Reps insist on comparing Palin to Obama (ok, so I've been dying to use the "pale in comparison" pun ever since she came on the scene). She's hardly qualified to be VP, and they claim Obama does not have any experience to be president (O those haunting refrain of "Zero, zero, zero"!). It's also ridiculous how the media are now fawning all over her barely mediocre speech of no substance or content. And there's no doubt where the "fair and balanced" mouthpieces stand: see Politico article Media swoons over Palin's fiery speech. An AP article even has the headline, "Palin delivers star-turning performance at RNC". To be sure, there's no substitute for low expectations. Giuliani even said the presidency is decided not by the elite or Hollywood celebrities but by the American people. The elite and celebs who live in this country are not Americans? Yet another example of infrahumanization by the Reps. America doesn't want some Ivy League-educated president? That should've disqualified the entire Bush family by default. The Reps love to bash the liberal elite and the Hollywood celebs, but they love a lying political performance even more.

It was difficult to watch the typical elite-hating, media-bashing, liberal-baiting, flag-waving circus the Reps like to put on. I did love the part where she took credit for Alaska's budget surplus (boy, that's feat in pipeline country) and how she put the state jet for sale on eBay (this here Internet is somethin' else). As I've heard other people say, we are the laughing stock of the world. But, hey, the GOP will never apologize for America! Yeah, good luck with that.

At the Politico site above, I particularly enjoyed this rundown of RNC myths vs. facts by a Democratic responder:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform _ not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state _ by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right _ change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington _ throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McCain...is this the best the fascists on the right can do?

That last line is from the blogger, not me. It's the same ol' negative campaigning from the right. How could it be anything else, regardless of what Obama and even McCain try to do to keep it on the issues? Oh, right, I forgot:
"This election is not about issues," Davis told The Washington Post this week. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

It's time for "It's the economy, stupid", part II.

Beware of Rove-ellian Trojan Horse

Here's a very interesting article from The New Republic I found. As I have mulled over the Palin pick in my head over the last few days, I believe the Dems and liberals are falling over themselves into the Rove-ellian political trap:
The Case Against the Case Against Palin

The article ends with this:
"Sarah Palin is a living reminder that the ultimate source of political power in this country is not the Kennedy School or the Davos Summit or an Ariana Huffington salon; even now, power emanates from the electorate itself. More precisely, power in 2008 emanates from the working class electorates of Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Sooner or later, the Obama camp will realize that the beauty pageant queen is an enormously talented populist in a year that is ripe for populism. For their own sake, it had better be sooner."

The McCain camp has managed to re-define the theme of this election once again by re-invigorating the Culture War: Palin reignites culture wars

This is why they picked someone like her. She represents a lightningrod, a liberal flystrip, if you prefer, that will make all those left-wing liberals who attack her look like they're elitists alienating the working-class, heartland 'Mericans. Obama camp had better watch out and step around this political excrement-in-a-flaming-paper-bag that the Rove Sith-apprentices have put down on their doorstep. This is like "Bob Roberts" politics where an assassination (a character assassination in this case) is faked, and liberals are all too easy targets to fall for it.

Palin symbolizes the return to "God, guns and gays" political game at which the Reps are experts. This is a Simpsons' episode where the townfolk chant "Monorail!" in the Music Man cadence; a South Park episode where the townfolk misplace their anger shouting, "Dey took 'r jobs!" The Dems cannot compete in this game because the 'Merican public will never accept liberals as the defenders of their beliefs, values or culture. And don't forget the good ol' conservative whipping boy, the liberal media. McCain camp knows this and knows that this is the only way that the Reps can stranglehold the presidency.

It is truly despicable that they are going down this road again, but will the third time be the charm? I can officially declare that I have zero respect for McCain. Maverick? Hardly, just another opportunistic politician who will do and say anything to be president. Maverick McCain died a quick death prior the 2008 election season. It is also quite sickening to see the Reps pat themselves on the back for putting Palin on the ticket, as if they have accomplished something new and progressive, as if she somehow can even be a torchbearer for the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" that Hillary created.

The best course of action for Obama-Biden is to stay away from the culture war trap (as I saw Biden say repeatedly on C-SPAN tonight, "Children are off-limits!"), and let Palin be Palin. Looks like she's got a lot of political loose ends with which to fashion a noose for herself: See Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image. I realize it'd be highly unlikely and a political suicide, but I'll go out on a limb to say that Palin's VP nominee days may be numbered.

Plus, the latest Gallup poll says Obama has hit the 50% mark. Mere post-convention bump perhaps, but thank the Lord at least half of the country is able to see through the Rove-ellian politics-as-usual smokescreen.

Who is Sarah Palin?

Hey check this out.

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

• She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.¹
  
• Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.²
  
• She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. ³
  
• Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.⁴
  
• She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.⁵
  
• She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.⁶
• How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.⁷

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

It's Obama vs. McCain

Just a short one to declare that Hillary is done. Stick a fork in it! It's only a matter of time before she unplugs her campaign, and Obama will be the nominee. Hallelujah! I said to Michelle last night that a big win in NC for Obama and a narrow victory for Clinton in IN are two losses for Hillary.

Now let's really get down to some Dem vs. Rep, liberal vs. conservative talk. BRM, I know it's been really quiet, but you have yet to respond to my earlier questions about what the conservatives have achieved for America. I refer to the Feb 28 post entitled, "Opportunity to come together?"

Obama '08! All the way to the White House!

Opportunity to come together?

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:38:37 -0500

Young: Good questions and comments. I read them quickly, and look forward to responding in kind. I'm jammed time-wise at least through the weekend, though. Two snow days, one of which cancelled an all-day principal shadowing experience that sets up big assignment that consists of a huge part of my grade in one of my last to MEd classes, has put me into an undesirable circumstance. Sucks for me. So, anyway, it may take a while to offer the thorough response your quality contribution deserves. Bear with me, and keep the posts rolling even though I may seem like I'm ducking out. One process thought, though. In all your computerness, do you have the knowledge, skills, and platform to move us from e-mails to blog format? It might make things easier to follow, especially with threading, and would certainly make it easier to trace back and see what we've done. (I know I've deleted a lot of posts from all four of us that I'd like to pull up again.)
-----------------

Date:Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:26:58 -0800 (PST)
From:"Young H. Kim"

I think we all agree that the four of us are not merely "conservative" or "liberal"in the labeling-sense of the word. Here's one thing that does bother me about the Reps attacking the New Deal or the "welfare state". You can't tell me that there were no problems of urban jungles or rural trailer parks before FDR; poverty existed all through history. What have the conservative Reps done for the poor and the working class that even comes close to what FDR and LBJ achieved, especially in terms of helping those who are less fortunate and less privileged? What have conservatism offered to the nation in terms of being morally responsible in a capitalist society? Kemp's "enterprise zones"? Are these successful today? I have no idea, actually.If the conservatives in the past had their way, we wouldn't even have Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. Is this not the case? There is a reason why blacks moved from the Rep party to the Dems. Was it Dem disinformation and deception that caused this shift? I don't think so. Dems proposed and enacted policies that favored the poor and the minorities. Of course,the results of those acts are not without flaws and abuses, but I guess I'm asking for the compassionate or idealistic conservative model for a better society. It can't be just about the trickle-down economics because we've already had a quite unsuccessful application of it.To me, the definition of "conservative" for the last half century or more has been"reactionary" and "maintaining status quo". How has conservatism progressed to put forth policies for the betterment of our nation today? I absolutely agree that American conservatism has lost its way; I believe many Americans are for individual liberty and limited government, but liberty as freedom from what? And how limited should gov't be? Unregulated free market? Remove government from education and social welfare? Conservatives/Republicans are constantly critical of liberals/Democrats, but what are the alternatives they have championed that would make our capitalist society more compassionate or ideal? Why don't pro-choice,affirmative action and gun control policies fit into the concept of making a better society? Is it about separating the social and political conservatism?I assume that there have been things proposed that fall in line with the brand of conservatism that you support, but they probably were never really given a full chance for one reason or another; this is where there is a definite disconnect between conservatives and Republicans, between ideology and party politics, just asthere's a disconnect between progressives/liberals and Democrats--what the ideologues support is not (necessarily) what gets implemented through party politics. I believe we also have to make a distinction between the ideological and the partisan political arguments.If anything, our discussion is helping me to rethink and refine my own sense of what it means to be a liberal or a progressive, so I thank you all for that.
---------------------

From: "Brian Menard"
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:06:07 -0500

One of the squarepegroundhole difficulties I have always had in fitting on this side or that side is that I generally appreciate the idealism of liberals, but so often the means pursued are so based in the policy equivalent of Dream Whip that they habitually screw things up just as much - if not worse - that things as they are. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more inclined to settle for falling back upon "keep what works, and maximize freedom" as a panacea that ignores our collective imperative to improve ourselves and society. This is one reason I loved Jack Kemp. He was an idealistic conservative...steadfastly conservative in the means he prescribed in pursuit of admirable ideals. This is different, I think, from George Bush's "compassionate conservative" mantra. I lauded Bush for his efforts to make compassion respectable in conservatism, and am content to describe myself as a compassionate conservative. However, I think the idealistic conservatism of Kemp describes me better. Compassion is an important quality to have, but it is more one-way than idealism. Compassion lets you care about others, help others, improve the lot of others. Idealism, on the other hand, allows for a Platonic recognition of conceptual ideals - however unattainable they may be in reality - that we can all strive to achieve for the betterment of ourselves and others as individuals as well as collectively. The question becomes: How do we do this? Fixing creating new problems in the process of trying to fix old ones (whether or not the old ones actually get fixed) is not progress, it's just new problems. For example, Johnson's War on Poverty and the Great Society did not succeed, but they did create a massive welfare state (built on FDR's foundation for the massive welfare state established decades before) that locked generations in poverty in urban jungles and rural trailer parks with no hope and no opportunity for escape. Would the hardcore conservative "solution" of "do nothing, but remind these people that they have freedom" have done better? No, it wouldn't. But creating programs that would create real opportunity for those who actually care about doing something to escape from dire economic circumstances has a positive benefit. Jack Kemp's "enterprise zones" are one example of addressing needs and striving for improvement through more positive means based in human nature instead of in denial of human nature. Similarly, my melding of idealism and practicality recognizes that something different or foreign or new need not be something bad, yet, recognizes also that ideas and culture matter: the philosophical ideas that shaped our system and culture are not inherently bad and provide a core that in some regards draw us together and in other regards are crucial for the successful continuation of our nation as a nation. As a nation of immigrants, and a nation founded on a bold experiment in implementing enlightened political philosophy, we must be open to ideas and practices that enrich us further, but we must also be cautious of things contrary to the essence of what makes us "one from many".

----- Original Message -----
From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:38 PM

Brian M--I really appreciate you making the effort to explain your views to the left coast. I hope that you don't get too frustrated with our tone; We're just trying to understand how you guys see it. Further, it's obvious that your not too right of center or extreme--I appreciate that. I think that we all have a lot of emotion, that does not always find an appropriate outlet. Anyway, here's to understanding.I like listening to music as I write and send emails, thus all of the links.John Cruz (again)--Check out the end of the song, when he alters the lyrics, very funny.http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=07SrFYQDiAE&feature=related

B.
---------------

From: b.adamson@comcast.net
Subject: Communism, a Failure of Reason
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:11:30 +0000

One of the problems with blurring economic and political systems, is an inability to make important distinctions between the two. Certainly, some right-wing think tanks have purposed that capitalism will help bring about democracy. I believe this to be a fallacious assumption. Capitalism exists quite well without democracy. China is only the latest in a large number of examples.
Further, socialism can exist with democracy. I am reminded of democratic-socialist nations like Sweden. Can anyone argue that Sweden is not a democracy?
Yes, Marxist-Leninist doctrine--Or communism, or whatever one might call it--Is a complete fairy-tale and a total failure. Marx was a brilliant philosopher with many great ideas and insights--Nevertheless, his philosophy was inherently flawed, as humans are flawed. Anyone, who has ever been in the Army, or lived in a commune has a pretty good idea of why communism is completely unrealistic. In fact, even Marx believed that communism was just the final step in a process that would lead to Utopia.
Utopia, like Heaven cannot exist on Earth. Luckily, communism has been largely discredited. My concern however, when the extreme forces on the left fell--the extreme forces on the right took credit and gained something from it.
B.
-----------------

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:32:06 -0500

Young: Thanks for the extended version cum responses to my response to your contracted version. After getting more of your thoughts, I think we agree in a lot of these areas than it first appeared to me. A few additional response thoughts...

China: No, this is not a true communist nation. Marx would be critical were he to see it today. I think the spirit in which Marx offered his theory was somewhat romantic, in that he really wanted to create a Utopian society in place of the darkness and devastation he saw around him sweeping through the aristocratic-based unchecked capitalism that de facto locked people into their castes. I wonder if you remember the portion of Ms. Carr's "poetry notebook" assignment when we shared a favorite song with the class. I, the Nixon-worshipping heartless fascist Republican, did John Lennon's "Imagine". After I read the lyrics and played the song, Dave Lutz (who thought it would be hilarious to do the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" in Ms. Carr's class) immediately piped in, "Why, that's COMMUNISM!" A discussion on the distinction between theory and practice and idealism versus prudence versus pragmatism was not in order at the time, so I don't think I spent much time explaining that while I thought it was a nice thing to "Imagine", I did not confuse Utopian dreams with accomplishable targets. Anyway, China is an exciting and scary place in the world in an exciting and scary phase of development. Part of the underlying theory behind U.S. policy toward China for 35 years has been the expectation that if we can just plant the seeds of capitalism there, it will eventually flourish and ultimately blossom into democracy that the Party dictatorship cannot suppress. Meanwhile, the Party leadership understands that Mao led China into "communism" without first going through the capitalist phase Marx believed was required to provide a nation with the infrastructure that enables communist society to exist as it does; thus, I am convinced, they are using this current experiment in capitalism as a means to a more perfect communist end, all the while aware that they need to grow it in a controlled way or risk what U.S. policy hopes will result. Tiananmen Square is the most obvious example of what results from the tension, and I fully expect that at some point another and more wide-scale example will occur.

----- Original Message -----
From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:17 PM

BRM, I intentionally kept my initial response short due to time, so I see that that has created some miscommunication and misunderstanding. You make it quite difficult for me to restrain myself from responding, but I mean that in the best way possible,and I certainly harbor no wrath toward you being "overly academic" though my comments must have come across to you that way; no, I welcome it, and I apologize for any offense in that regard.However, I wonder if by outlining the academic theories, you are also defending theactual practice of conservative ideology or the conservative movement. I believe weagree that the theory and the practice/reality are quite different from each other,whether it be conservatism, liberalism, capitalism or communism. I certainly am no expert on Western thought, philosophy or intellectual/political history, so I freely defer to you the details on those subjects. Please see below for a clarification of my previous comments.

YHK: Of course, there is plenty of blame on both sides; I'm not discounting anything. Michael Moore is an example of liberal extremists that comes to mind, and I certainly do not agree with all liberals or believe that all liberalism is free from blame or perfect. I certainly am not an atheist or a relativist or even a"philosophical anarchist" (remember this label that was put on me in the past by your mother, I think?). However, if you're comparing Al Franken and Michael Moore vs. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, I'll have to defend the left insofar as they align with my beliefs and world view. And I can only speak and have been speaking from what I believe, feel, and understand to be right and just.

YHK: I didn't mean to say that Marx took into account human nature. I was only talking about my view of human nature in simple terms. It's my understanding that his better known theories are purely based in political and economic terms. I don't consider him a philosopher per se who provides insight into human nature. However, I believe that he does more or less accurately describe the flaws and dangers of capitalism, as did Adam Smith. A pure communist state will be difficult to create,I agree, but what would you say of China today? A mere dictatorship? ;-)

YHK: Do you see capitalism practiced this way today, where the haves see it is in their interest to help the have-nots? I don't. Do you see that the have-nots of the world are capable of destroying the haves? Seems unlikely. USA is the superpower and even post-9/11 hasn't made the world see us as helping the have-nots. Same can be said domestically. I believe it is more likely that our nation destroys itself from within. And I see conservatism at the heart of not being morally responsible to the have-nots, and liberalism doing a frustratingly piss-poor job of looking out for and helping the interests of the have-nots. There was a very interesting series by the LA Times a while back on how philanthropic organizations like the Gates Foundation actually do more harm to the people they help through charity by keeping investments in those companies whose business practices damage their environment and hurt their living standards. This is just one paradox of capitalism today.

YHK: I am not as optimistic of Smithian capitalism as you are. I agree that Marxism as practiced in history failed because human beings need to be rewarded for individuality, entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity. A free market system must be regulated, as liberals tout, and thereby improved because left alone to human nature, it will surely fail in theory and practice. Unregulated capitalism rewards the robber barons and the Gordon Geckoes of the world, and I feel that is pretty much what we have today.
--------------------

From:"Michael Busick"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:00:11 -0800

Actually, I was just pointing out the irony in the following: This administration espouses installing a democracy in Iraq (where none have ever flourished) while being in favor of illegal wiretaps, out-of-country secret torture/interrogation facilities, and the Patriot Act in this country. This administration goes on and on about how our enemy hates our freedom and then they come out in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It just seemed to me as thought this administration doesn't really want to throw out our enemy's entire playbook. :) Doesn't Iraq have universal health care now? Aren't schools being rebuilt there while they're falling apart here? Again, since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, how come we didn't bomb them back to the stone age?
------------------

From:"Brian Menard"
Date:Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:32:15 -0500

Young: Do I take it from your response that you discount liberals from blame and rest it exclusively on conservative shoulders? If so, I think you're being disingenuous or self-delusional, either of which would surprise me. I go to great lengths to assess my side of the political debate fairly and evenhandedly, freely admitting the faults of folks professing views akin to mine. Do you not do the same because you honestly don't think your side has such faults, because you think your responsibility in this dialogue is merely to point out one side's view, or some other reason? It is one thing to assess allegations differently; something else to discount them altogether. Would you accept my challenge for you to name three recognized liberals - in politics, media, however they are known - and offer criticism of each of them? I'm happy to do the same on the conservative side. I'll even extend the challenge to all four of us, and match the combined liberal list with conservatives. As for human nature, I would agree with your assessment of such negative components of it. I would add that I believe, as did the establishers of the American flavor of political theory a couple centuries ago, that there are also higher elements of human nature (compassion, love, gratitude, etc.) that balance its negative elements (greed, self-interest, meanness, spite, etc.). At the risk of incurring your wrath again for being overly academic, the irony I find in your comment, though, is that human nature is something that Marx left out of his little equation. The reason that true communism will never be tried and that socialism fails to achieve its goals is that they build human nature out of the model. They fail to trust the positive side and fail to compensate for the negative side. Capitalism, in Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" sense, is flawed for other reasons. Adam Smith never advocated capitalism as a means for powerful individuals to profit at the expense of everyone else. His book "Capital" has a complementary volume, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". A complete view of capitalism sees the economic principals of capitalism guided by the moral principals of humanity, so that capitalism is the tool for moral society to use for its overall benefit. Tocqueville illustrates similar ideas in "Democracy in America" when he discusses the concept of self interest rightly understood. Rather than being something for individuals to practice with reckless abandon for their unending financial benefit, individuals should understand that such practice will ultimately lead to the downfall of the haves at the hands of the have-nots. Thus, those more blessed on this Earth not only have a moral responsibility to take care of those less fortunate (which allows people to say, "Okay, I choose not to be morally responsible, so screw 'em!"), but it is actually in their own broader interest to do so. Every human system put into practice has flaws, but I see the flaws of Marx as deficiencies of theory (and thus condemned to fail from the start) while the flaws of Smith are deficiencies of practice (and thus improvable). I have no doubt I'll catch things coming back my way in response, so I look forward to what folks think on the matter. Cheers,Brian

----- Original Message -----

From: Young H. Kim
Sent: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:57:12 -0800 (PST)

Whoa, you're blowing my mind with the Hegelian reference, but loving it! Just toreply briefly, I believe there is always an opportunity and a willingness to cometogether, but it is dependent on whether the people who are in control or the peoplewho represent us have true leaders and statesmen among them to open those doors ofopportunity. But, truly, I just don't see the conservative movement (at least thecurrent version of it) as exhibiting a willingness to share ideas, wealth, or power,and I don't mean just in the political sense. As long as we always think inUs-vs.-Them terms, whether domestically or internationally, the door will stayclosed. I know that is cliche, but it is the simplest way to put it.But in the philosophical sense, I think Hegel and Marx is still right on abouthistorical determinism and the engine of political struggle, especially given thatthe world is now full-on capitalist again; I wouldn't say doomed, but the world is acontentious place because the ones that have the power will always seek to controlit by whatever means necessary, and the ones that do not have power will always seekto take it away or destroy it, even little by little. This struggle will always beUs-vs.-Them. That is my ultimate view of human nature.
--------------------

From: brian_menard@hotmail
Subject: Opportunity to come together?
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:45:38 -0500

"(...wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand."

Intentionally or not, I think Michael has opened a door to collaboration that has often frustrated and confounded me about why it seems always to stay closed. To be stereotypical, liberals like to complain about all that is wrong/unfair/unjust that must be made right, and conservatives like to complain about why others can't just do things OUR way. Liberals think conservatives have no problem criticizing folks around the world, while hypocritically being apologists for insufficiencies at home; conservatives think liberals have no problem criticizing us at home, while hypocritically giving a pass to regimes around the world that do things far worse than what we live with here.

My question: Is there sufficient willingness for both sides to listen more than they talk and to prioritize action in those areas of agreement over politicizing areas of contention, or are we doomed to swing back and forth between periods of control by one side or the other as the Hegelian force of History shall determine?
--------------------

From:"Michael Busick"
Subject:RE: News Media Bias?
Date:Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:34:36 -0800

Given that the Bush administration has been getting away with much worse than what Clinton tried to get away on the Lewinsky scandal -- when it comes to media attention and scrutiny -- I honestly don't see how the media can be left-leaning. I also believe the only reason why the media isn't trying harder to "get the goods" on the Bush administration is that the Bushies have denied media access to anyone who consistently criticizes them. Therefore, no reporter wants to get "Dowded" so they've been keeping their mouth shut -- and guys like Jeff Gannon (real name Jeff Guckert -- and seriously, shouldn't a reporter be arrested for not providing a real name in order to get access to the White House press room?) from "Talon News" get free rein to lob softball questions. There's no logical reason why a waged military conflict based on lies isn't at least as big a story as an extramarital affair in the White House. I figure the buzz after that Yahoo article which counted the number of Bushie lies that led up to the invasion -- and continued through the occupation of -- Iraq (counting over 900 and still climbing) lasted about three days before the American public moved on (or back) to Britney Spears' and Lindsay Lohan's latest travails. Also, the media consolidation during the last 5-10 years hasn't been favoring the left because the mega-media companies gobbling up stations (like Clear Channel) are right-leaning. I blame Congress for this Iraq mess as much as I blame the media -- which is also as much as I blame the American people for not doing more to protest it. It seems to me that if our enemy hates our freedoms, we shouldn't continue to try to take them away -- while claiming to win said battle against the enemy. If they don't like our freedoms, then hey, let's start with legalized gay marriage, legalized marijuana use, universal health care, and equal rights for women (wouldn't that just seriously piss off their patriarchal society?) and tell them where they can stick it in the sand. :)