Saturday, October 22, 2005


Editor's note by Kyle and Karen Kilpatrick
Sometimes our commentary forum provides the required inspiration for a new post. This is one of those times.

by Kyle and Karen Kilpatrick

I've been thinking that we need a waym a methodology in which we could achieve the Country Club Republican/Libertarian objective of an unstable society divided along class lines with a massive worker class, a declining middle class, and a tiny Plutocratic elite, and I think I may have stumbled upon an a solution.

It begins with a return to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers.

The Constitution, as it now exists, is little more than an anachronistic document written by rich, white people for the benefit of rich, white people. Many of them believed that the American people were not wise enough to govern themselves through a direct democracy so they deliberately created a representative system in which (at least initially) only those with enough wealth to own property were allowed to vote. It seems to me that if we are to be consistent with the intentions of the Framers that we should adopt the same, class conscious attidudes and beliefs as the moneyed, land-owning Founders and do our best to limit rights and wealth to those who have already proved their moral, intellectual, and biological superiority by either earning their own wealth or pickpocketing the wealth of others.

To that end, might abolish the concept of individual rights and pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting civil liberties to organizations (i.e. corporations). We could overturn all legislation which hindered the spread of sweat shops, child labor, unsafe working conditions, and 50 cent per hour wages. This could be accompanied by a nullification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which would re-legalize slavery, although this time the institution would be based on economic caste instead of race.

In a similar veing we might limit civil liberties to those who earn more than $100,000 per year after taxes. If you aren't earning your required $100,00 by the time you turn 24 years of age, then you might be counted as a 3/5 human being and sold to the highest bidder, the bidding being limited to those who have earned the above mentioned $100,000 per anum for a minimum of five years in a row on the day of the purchase.

Having created the first generation of class-based servants, who we might refer to as "The Elois," or The Untouchables," we could institutionalize the practice by delcaring the children of such indviduals to be a part of their parents' caste. This might prove difficult in those cases where spouses come from different sides of the economic track, but that might be remedied by considering the average household income. Moreover, we could shame churches and judges who opt to marry people from different social backgrounds. Even then, some enterprising individuals might actually find ways to buy their own freedom, but if the present model is any indication--with social mobility in a state of stagnation--this won't be a significant factor in the overall economy.

Once you become the American untouchable the chances are that you won't be migrating out of your given caste at any time in near future--if ever. It's a little like what's happening now, only it would be more open and honest in its intent to burden repressed, underpaid workers with all sorts of fringe benefits such as black lung disease, tuberculosis, weakened bodies, and shortened life spans.

On the minus side, this might produce a significant number of Elois (or Untouchables) with weakened immune systems, thus increasing the possibility of a pandemic among the working class. But with medical technology limited to the dwindling middle class and tiny upper class, any viral or bacterial outbreak would be limitted to the workers, while their upper class masters would benefit from vaccinations, anti-biotics, and state of the art therapies. Obvioulsy this would require a large and constantly replentished supply of cheap, marginalized labor, but to achieve that goal we could use the power of the church to establish the political and domestic superiority of men, delegating women to second class citizenship and requiring them (i.e. fertile females of child-bearing age) to give birth to a minimum of six children during their lifetimes. Abortion and contraception would be stricly prohibitted among The Elois (Untouchables), but neither encouraged nor discouraged among the ruling classes of the new American Plutocracy.

The benefits, however, are obvious. Those who were able to use their already considerable resources to manipulate an already unfair system will reap the pleasures of unearned benefits, while the truly deserving toil until they drop.

Moreover, the possibilities, the opportunities, for Wall Street Marketers would be obvious. They could flood the corporate-owned media with propaganda, convincing the American Elois to spend their already meager "incomes" on worthless items that are neither needed nor affordable. The possibilities for a Sprawl-Fart (ur-ah, Wal Mart) sort of "Buy American" campaign are virtually endless. I can see the ad headlines even now!






And then there's my personal favorite.


Granted, the above system, which in so many ways mirrors our current system, will prove unsustainable, and will probably result in either a return to a New Deal style of legislation or a violent revolution, but what to hell? We can at least live in comfort knowing that the very few were able to cannibalize the very many for such a long period of time.


Goggalor said...

I would like to defend the Constitution from the belief that is stated above that depicts that it was written by "Rich White Men", and while this is true, it is also irrelevant to the contents. One can not assimilate the politics of today to the politics of the 18th century. The fact that the Framers were white does not mean anything at all because the culture was populated by mainly europeans, which tend to be "white." By the way, Libertarianism does not condone slaverly or such low wages. They believe that government exists only to protect the liberties of everyone.

The Young Conservatives

Rhino-itall said...

Hey, i like your thinking. Since i qualify for the " master" part of this thing, i think it's a great idea. where do i sign up? Or am i automatically signed up? You need to clear that up. By the way, i have a book reco for you, since you brought up the class warfare etc. Its titled " War Against the Weak" the author is Edwin Black. very dark period in American history. I know i know its all dark, this is the most oppressive and horrible country in the history of the world, but this is especially bad. Check it out.

Abraham said...

Excuse me, goggalor, but your're talking to someone who is both, a former Republican and a former Libertarian, and while I appreciate the noble sentiment as pharsed in goggalor's comments, I really must correct a common misconception.

When I left the Republican Party to become a Libertarian I too believed that government existed "only to protect the liberties of everyone." It was a noble idea and I still find it to be a fine objective. BUT it also flies in the face of the facts.

1. The Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of everyone by setting limits on governmental power. Not only did we deprive government of certain powers as they pertained to our civil liberties; we also divided government into three distinct branches to separate governmental power, to create a system of checks and balances.

What disturbs me about the present generation of Republicans (and they are nothing like the Republicans I knew in previous generations) is the manner in which they are trying to place more and more power in the hands of the presidency. As a case in point I would suggest the continuing acquisition of power in the office of the president. Take the delicate subject of war powers. I believe we need to amend the Constitution to specifcally deny the president the right to place troops in an extended conflict. I would specify that a declaration of war must come from Congress. Or to put it another way, the President would not become the Commander and Chief until such time as a formal declaration of war is issued. I would also give the Congress the power to end wars and thus terminate his powers as Commander And Chief. It seems ludicrous that we need to restate such a provision, considering the fact that most of this is already a part of the Constitution, but the intent of the Founding Fathers has been trampled on with increasing regularity since the Civil War, Every president since Linocln (and possibly before). I became a Republican in the mid-50s because I felt the Democrats had gone too far in acquiring federal power with the New Deal. Much to my dismay the Republicans proved to be just as or even more rapacious in the thirst for power.

My honeymoon with the Libertarians ended when I realized that they do NOT believe government exists only to protect the liberties of everyone. Would that it were so altruistic. I quickly discovered--and was told in no uncertain terms by my fellow Libertarians-- that Libertarianism is based on enlightened self-interest. Others seemed more interest in finding new and creative ways to keep their money and less concerned about civil liberties. In other words, government exists only to protect MY civil liberties. And in some cases MY could have easily meant the wealthy who were already poised to compete in an already rigged contest. That may sound like hair-splitting, but in actual practice it becomes a study in greed and selfishness. To be frank, I saw enough of those qualities in patients who demonstrated obvious personality disorders. I really was not interested in helping a political movement which was based on what Brandon might call sociopathy; although there are plenty of other personality disorders ranging from borderline personality disorder to schizoid personality disorder et cetera.

Upon being told that enlightened self-interest was the natural order of life, I realized that the Libertarian party, despite some who were genuinely consistent in their beliefs, was not for me.

In subsequent years I became an independent and I am now a moderate to somewhat left of center Democrat, which, ironically enouigh, is where my parents were in the 1930s and 1940s.

I would also like to take issue with the idea that the composition of the Founding body did not make a difference. Of course it made a difference. It makes a difference because inspite of the radical desire on the part of "strict constructionistis" (an invented term, by the way which would have little meaning to the Founders). The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. You said it yourself. We simply cannot go back to those days, and I would be willing to lead another revolution if we ever did. My younger team memebrs here have already demonstrated how limitted our freedoms were under the Constitution of 1787. If you think that had nothing to do with the class and racial composition of the founders then....Well, let me put it this way. You might want to reconsider that position.

To go back to those limitations would be both repressive and fool hardy. But that rasies the next question. If we aren't serious about going back to the Founders intentions then just what does "strict constructionist mean?" To be blunt, it means nothing. It's an emotional buzzword created by those with a possibly racist, sexist, or homophobic agenda who have a political or theological ax to grind. By the same token it is the war cry of social drawinists who genuinely believe that their already bloated pockets are not full enough but who view the lower and middle classes as prime victims for upper class larecny. In either effect, the term strict constructionist implies a truly radical, and I would also argue, brutal, series of policies that human civilization--or for that matter, the human species--should have outgrown long ago. On a separate note, I think the Afro-Americans of the 18th and 19th Century, who suffered under the then Constitutional provision that blacks were only 3/5 human might have some arguments with your hypothesis about the racial composition of the founders.

I agree with you. Libertarianism does not promote slavery, but if you go back and reread Kyle's article, you will see that it was meant as satire. Note also that he coysly shifted the topic of discussion as the article progressed. By the end he was no longer talking about libertarianism, but rather about the trly divissive ecomonomic policies which we have begun to accept as a just and moral fiscal policy in this country. The irony here is that these policies are notjust, nor moral, nor are they fiscally beneficial. Despite my initial disgust with Roosevelt's New Deal--the measures which certain segments of the GOP are so determined to eradicate--I now recognize that it was New Deal legislation which produced a viable middle class and which prevented us from making the same economic mistakes that we made in the 1920s which led to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which followed.

At the risk of sounding hateful (a term which has been given too much meaning in recent weeks) I shall quote our friend, Karen (another team member, who also happens to be Kyle's wife.

"Being a middle or lower class and voting for the modern Republican Party is a little like being a mugging victim saying 'here, beat me and rob me again.'"

Rhino-itall said...

abraham, you would take war powers away from the president? Of course you would, because the dems can't win a presidential election. I wonder where you stood when clinton was sending troops to the balkans without u.n. or congressional approval? I think i have a pretty good idea. And who knows what will become a "extended conflict"? You know of course that the troops are still in the balkans, not to mention germany. I wonder if you think we should need a 2/3 majority? a simple majority? If this current congress with kerry and kennedy was deciding on ww2 would we have entered the fight? i mean they voted against the war before they voted for it! and of course you're right about the current republican party, they'll do or say anything to remain in power, and SO WILL THE DEMS they're all the same, they want to stay in power, or increase their power and i don't think there's too many, if any at all who really care about what's best for the country. my opinion on that is that we need term limits.
The U.S. constitution is still the greatest document ever written. It has been amended many times because it is not perfect but you don't just throw it away when it suits you. We will never go backwards in time, no rational person wants a return to the days of slavery, but the new deal was not responsible for anything except to create economic problems in the U.S. and by the way, to pay off roosevelts political cronies. I've got another book reco for you guys, FDR'S FOLLIES by Jim Powell. very enlightening. And finally, while i'll agree with you that the modern republican party is no good, to me it's only because you can barely tell the difference between them and the jerks on the other side of the aisle. There's a few extremes on each side, and the rest are just trying to stay in power and keep the perks long enough to warrant a big book deal.

Abraham said...

I would place the same limitiations on a Democratic President. In this case the party or parties involved has/have little to do with it. It all comes down to the old saying: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Having said that, allow me to add that it's an institutional problem in which a system (Separation of Powers) is under attack by a sucession of presidents in both parties seem to think that the world is their personal playground. Few if any leaders are wise enough to hold that much power. In fact, I would go so far as to remind our readers that the founders, having just defeated a despotic monarch in the form of King George III, certainly did NOT want to recreate the same situation in America which had existed in England. Even you, Rhino, would have to admit that it wouldn't have made much sense to have broken away from the mother country only to infuse our own presidency with the same war powers that were "enjoyed" by european monarchs. And yet, you seem offended because I suggested that we should turn the office of President into a virtual source despotism. Amazing.

I have no problem with term limits per se, although I would prefer to see the concept enacted via Constitutional Amendment. In addition, I would also like to see it applied consistently across the board--from your local mayor and dog catcher on up to the United States Senate. The Amendment wouldn't have to mandate the limits, but it could make them Constitionally viable so that action could be taken at every level of government depending on local opinion(s). The only problem I have with term limits is this--weren't they also a part of the Confederate Constitution? The Constitution of the Confederate States of America is hardly my sepcialty, so I'd be more than happy if someone would look that up for me.

As for you comments about the New Deal, I would point out that the United States has experienced REcessions since FDR, but not the deep, painful DEpressions which took place prior to his reforms. Despite all the historical revision on the right about FDR, any serious student of history can tell you that the so-called business cycle in the 19th and early 20th Century created a series of devastating depressions, a series of booms and busts, each one of which was worse than the one preceding it. That we haven't seen 25 percent unemployment coupled with massive social unrest since the Republicans gave us the Great Depression of the late 1920s and 1930s can be attributed to Roosevelt. Was Roosevelt all that effective actually ending the Depression? No. But his polcies did prevent future cycles of boom and bust and they did create a viable and even powerful middle class. On the other hand, can you imagine what a disaster it might have been if Hoover had been re-elected? The psychological effects of another Hoover Administration would have kept America in an economic slump for od only knows how long. Roosevelt at least showed a willingness to try something new, which was in sharp contrast to the Hoover Administration. The ironic thing about Hoover (who, by the way, was a very decent and caring man under normal circumstances) is that when the country went into an economic depression, Hoover quite literally went into a severe mental depression, leaving individuals like Andrew Melon to offer him advice on the depression. And what advice it was: do nothing. Do nothing during a global economic catastrophy.

Granted, it took World War II to get us out of the economic morass, but Roosevelt did provide a degree of psychological stiumlation which the country needed at a time of crisis. Contrary to the rants of Jim Powell, Roosevelt did in fact save the American Free Market economy by infusing it with a dose of limitted socialism. And by limitted, I mean very limitted. For some obscure reason, the far right has a very broad definition of socialism which doesn't quite fit the classical models, but which is conveniently broad enough to smear anyone who doesn't agree with their law of the jungle policies. Despite all the red-baiting twaddle about the socialistic nature of the Roosevelt administration and the New Deal, the truth of the matter is that only ONE of his projects could be considered socialist in any way, shape, or form, and that was when he brought electricty to the Tennesse Valley. All right, I guess that might have been construed as offenseive, perhaps even Communistic, to those who thought that candles, oil lamps, and outdoor shit houses were superior to running water, electric light bulbs, and modern conveniences, but I guess that's a matter of personal choice. What can I say? Some people prefer a toilet with running water and toilet paper while red-baiters seem to prefer a wood shack,a hole in the ground, and the pages from a 1923 Sears Roebuck Catalog--or a corn husk. OUCH!

I might add that it was Roosevelt who recognized that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan were a threat to world security. And who were his opponents? The Republican who were leading the "America First" movement which did its very best to keep us out of World War II. Even during my Republican Days, I was always amazed by the fact that we, as Republicans, could accuse others of appeasing Communist tyrants when the Republicans of the 1920s and 1930s were leading the chorus against stopping Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito. I know that sounds like a stretch, but since you offered your historical revisionist fantasies about Roosevelt I had to correct your prevarications with a more mainstream, less distorted image of what was happening during those days.

I'll agree with you, the American Constitution is indeed the Greatest Document that was ever written. Imperfect to be sure, but a far cry above other attempts. And I have to give you credit. You DO understand that we can't turn back the clock. But there are times when the historical example will prove useful and we can leave what the Founders gave us in the state that they gave it. On other occasions the historical example will provide a mistake from which we can learn from that mistake.

Which brings me back to my original point: the worst legislation that this country ever passed (by Democrats no less) was the assinine War Powers Act of the 1970s. In the end it only gave the President more power to conduct an undeclared war--in effect, creating more or what it was designed to remedy. At the time the issue was up for discussion I thought, "this is a disaster." It was unconstitutional legislation which had all the potential for turning into a grab bag of goodies for a president--any president-- with an insatiable craving for personal power. In actual practice it lets Congress off the hook, and it gives the president opportunity after opportunity to pick and choose what he likes from the legislation with little regard for Separation of Powers and the Constituion in general. Short of a new Constitutional Amendment shoring up what this government is based on (Separation of Powers) I would settle for a ruling from the Supreme Court that the War Powers is Unconstitutional.


Rhino-itall said...

I agree of course we don't want a monarchy, but if there is one in the united states it is the supreme court, but that is a story for another day. i'm already using my max capacity of brain cells just trying to keep up with the current topic, and also trying to get some work done. The war powers act may not be perfect, but when we need a decision to be made, i don't want to have to wait for congress (both parties) to see which way the polls are swinging before they vote. I also don't want congress to come in later in the game after they voted in favor of the war and then vote to pull us out before the job is done, which is what would be happening with Iraq right now. i'm not a red baiter by the way, fdr was very fond of the communists, especially "uncle joe", and the tva wasn't the only socialist program that he instituted. the whole cradle to the grave new deal was a big socialist grab. anyway, at least we agree on the term limits. i also think it should be across the board. any elected official should have a limit. too often we get lifetime politicians who have no idea what the real world is about because they have been in washington forever. I'm tempted to say we should limit the supreme court, but i understand why they don't have limits.
By the way, it isn't the new deal that has kept us from another great depression, it is the election of Ronald Reagan. Carter was taking us straight to depression land with his crazy policies and unbelievable tax rates. the great one saved us. I'm sure you will have an issue with Reagan, but i consider him to be one of the greatest ever.

Kelli said...

In other words we should bastardize constitutional provisions for convenience. That's redicules, not to mention chilling.

By the way--you skipped 30-some years between Reagen and Carter. It was FDR's New Deal, not Reagen's buffonery which kept us Depression free during that period of time.

Better luck next time.

Rhino-itall said...

I didn't skip it kelli, how often do you think we would have a "great depression" if it was like every year or two it wouldn't be calle the "great" depression. During the carter presidency we had a "great recession" it was crazy and getting worse and we weren't really out of it unitl '82 or '83. That's why Reagan pummelled him in the election, imean he got absolutely crushed. In fact, the margin of victory was one of the largest in history, in fact, Reagan also put a beat down on Mondale. In fact i think the Mondale crushing was worse. also, i don't know what you mean by bastardizing contitutional provisions. The war powers are already there, i don't think they should be changed, it's your people who want to make the change. I call it change, but you can call it bastardize if you want.

Rhino-itall said...

I think i want to say in fact a couple more times, so if you didn't get enough in that last post, just let me know

Kate said...

So, we call all agree that the Constitution is the greatest American document?

Good. Because now I'm adding more discord to the fray.

I do want to go back to the seemingly altruistic motives our Founding Fathers had, apparently. I must have missed that one in history class...

If you read the actual text of the document, it openly states that an African-American male (and I think that was the only time in history when that phrase was at its most literal) comprised 3/5 of a human being, aka land-owning white male. While it's true that it's more than anybody else ever gave them, is that really such an accomplishment? I mean, is there something they're not telling us? Like there was actually a whole class of African-Americans that were walking around and missing limbs (well, I suppose if they were missing legs, they weren't doing a whole lot of walking)? So, then, if that's not the case, how to explain the rationale behind the 3/5 stipulation?

Oh, I recall it now: obvious racism.

I will say one thing in the defense of the Constitution authors: that was the reality of their world at the time. 1964 hadn't happened yet, remember? They also had no reason to think it would change any time soon (and they were right, it didn't). BUT...should it change, they DID put in a provision that would allow every single word in that document to be either taken out or added to. All we had to do was get a simple 2/3 majority and if the country felt so strongly about equal rights, then let them have at it.

One hears a lot about "the intentions of the Founding Fathers," which has always confused me. Why do their intentions matter? First of all, they're dead...what are they going to do, come back and haunt us? Secondly, it's poor logic to assume that their intentions are always correct. After all, they did put in clauses that perpetuated racism. Unless someone actually wants to stand up and admit that's a good thing (I dare them!), then perhaps the FF's intentions don't always match up with the current reality. I could make an argument here about how they wrote it to adapt to the times, etc. But that would be trying to guess intentions, now wouldn't it? Rather, I suggest that we stop putting so much stock in what THEY wanted with it and put more into what WE want with it. And when I see the Constituion, the agreed-upon "greatest American document," being used to exert untold power over the American people (and in fact the world, which, shockingly, may not embrace that "greatest document" idea), rather than limiting the government, then I see that as a problem. A massive one.

I won't go into the politics discussions because that would make this comment longer than War and Peace (though I've heard it's good). There is one more comment I want to make, however.

Rhino, I hope you didn't seriously mean that America was populated by mostly Europeans at the time of the Constitutional writing. While it's true the first white men here had to come from somewhere and that somewhere just happened to be England, which, coincidentally enough, is a member country of Europe, I honestly hope you don't think that's still who was there in the late 1700s. Or, you know...the guys we were fighting. White men had been there roughly 200 years. They weren't English anymore, even if they had ancestors on the Mayflower. America was discovered by white European men, yes. It was founded by white American men.

Abraham said...

This is nothing more than historical revision.

You have an amazing talent for latching onto pedantic, unrelated pieces of information and then trying unsuccessfully to forge them into a rational whole. And what doesn’t fit--which in your case, is usually most of the evidence or the most important pieces of information in play--is promptly rewritten into some kind of right wing fiction or ignored.

How many depressions would we have had? Well, thanks to Roosevelt and the protections that he and the Democrats put into place during the 1930s, we haven't had a major depression since. On the other hand, the worst recession in the Post War years took place under Ronald Reagen when he fought inflation by putting the breaks on the economy too quickly, thus shoving the whole works into a major recession. Colleagues who were treating dysfunctional families discovered that in many cases perfectly normal families had been brought to the brink of divorce and child custody battles simply because the marriage couldn't handle the unexpected tensions of employment. In fact one of the big complaints that I hear during the early and mid 1980s went something like "under Carter we had inflation, but at least I had a job." The fact that he (Reagen) didn't completely get rid of New Deal protections is the only thing that kept us out of a Depression.

You wondered how often we have a Great Depression. The question should have been "How often did we have them before the New Deal and how often did we have them after the New Deal?" Again, the historical record on this matter is clear. We used to call it "the business cycle." The economy would balloon, the stock market would crash and there would be a period of stagnation--lost jobs, lost businesses, lost farms, bank closings etc. As for how often they took place, the period between then was hardly regular. The Great Depression of the 1930s was the worst of the lot. The one following World War I wasn't a picnic. Nor was the one of 1883. The only constant was that each downswing of the "business cycle" was worse than the one that came before it. We found a logical and rational way to prevent these kinds of economic, bi-polar mood swings—it was called the New Deal.

I’ve heard, and once used, all the old arguments about how the New Deal was a threat to private property, and civil rights, but by the same token you really have to wonder how many civil liberties one can enjoy when the economy goes broke and the bank or county is foreclosing on your home. I heard plenty of arguments about the dreaded federal government and all the supposed danger from the New Deal, but at no time did I hear my compatriots on the right complaining about the unjust concept of the property tax and how it transforms the home owner into a mere tenant, and state/local government into a money-grubbing landlord. Nor did I hear too many complaints about pirate banking practices and loan shark credit card rates. And by loan shark I am not exaggerating. There were times in the 1940s and 1950s when loan sharks—criminals—were charging the same rates as credit card companies are charging today.

In other words, I discovered quickly that Republicans care about the civil/property rights of corporations who they consider individuals, but tend to defecate on the needs concerns of the middle to lower classes. The Libertarians are so determined to remain philosophically pure and consistent, that they either can’t or won’t understand that real life and human existence is seldom if ever consistent. In short, their belief system is well-intentioned, and like the Republican mindset, utterly unpractical.

Now, if you will excuse me, it’s time for lunch. Don’t think that it hasn’t been a pleasure, because it has. Despite what’s been happening to my fingers in the past few years—not to mention my hips and knees—I really am enjoying these exchanges.


Kyle said...

Boy, Rhino must have the money coming out the wazoo! Look, bud, I don't mind working my ass off and going to school at the same time. In fact, I'm meeting a lot of great people and trying to have a blast in the process. But damnit, is it asking too much to bring home a decent check for long hours and still have some time with my kids? You people keep talking about family values. Well, when to fuck will you start valuing families? I'd really like my children to have a memory of their father as someone who had time to do things with them, instead of a virtual stranger who sleepwalks through the front door and crashes on the sofa when he's trying to read to them.

I really don't think the American people are asking for too much. On the other hand it seems to me that Corporate America is making unreasonable demands for shitty pay and excessive hours and the Republicans are helping them in that endeavor.

And don't think we won't remember them.

12:09 PM

Karen said...

As the coauthor of the original I think that it's time for me to chime in on this one.

First I want to thank my team members for taking everything so nice and easy. The only problem with that is that I'm a little like Tina Turner. I start out nice and easy but I never take ANYTHING nice and easy.

So here she goes!

Since George W. Bush came to power I feel as if I'm living in a parody of a Frank Capra movie. The Henry Potters of the world are running the show and the corrupt, silver-haired politicians are in charge.

Well dear readers, I have news for you. The last reel of the proverbial movie is being loaded and the American citizenry is about to become the real life version of a George Bailey.

With that in mind, I offer the following clip from IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, although most of us here are experienced enough to know that the Republican version should be called IT'S A WONDERFUL STRIFE. Anyhow, here's the original scene from the Frank Capra version.


Just a minute –– just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're
right when you say my father was no business man. I know that.
Why he ever started
this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But
neither you nor anybody else can say anything against his
character, because his whole life was . . . Why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right Unle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter. And what's wrong with that? Why . . . Here, you're all business men here. Doesn't it make them better
citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You . . . you said . . . What'd you say just a minute ago? . . . They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait?! Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken-down that they . . . Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about . . . they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him, but to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you'll ever be!

I'm not interested in your book. I'm talking about the Building
and Loan.

I know very well what you're talking about. You're talking about something you can't get your fingers on, and it's galling you.
That's what you're talking about, I know.

(to the Board)

Well, I've said too much. I . . . You're the Board here. You do
what you want with this thing. Just one thing more, though. This
town needs this measly one-horse
institution if only to have some place where people can come
without crawling to Potter.



Having said that I would only add the following. The American people are getting a little sick and tired of crawling to Corporate America and their Republican servants just to get a decent wage and a decent life. Did I make myself clear?


We want time with our families. We want time with our children. We'd like our children to know that their parents were something more than drained, over-worked, under-paid employees. And if you don't get it then please, PLEASE dispense with all this rhetoric about family values because you haven't got a clue as to what's going on out here in the real world.

And if I were A Republican I wouldn't take TOO MUCH comfort in the fact that Henry F.Potter, "the richest and meanest man in town," was never punished. In the real life version I strongly suspect that the American people are getting sick and tired of a party
a philosphy, that practices greed and corruption as some kind of Christian virtue.

Come November 2006 and November 2008 I sincerely hope that the American people will punish the Henry F. Potters in this world. I truly hope that they will have enough common sense to throw the proverbial wheelchairs in the Potomac--Henry F. Potters and all.

Have a nice day
(Irony fully intended)
Karen Fitzgerald-Kilpatrick

Rhino-itall said...

I am still having trouble understanding what your complaint is. Do you want your employers to pay you more to do less? Do you want your employers to be charities? I don't get it. Please tell me what it is you would like them to do. More importantly, please tell me what the president or the dastardly republican party is supposed to do. Should they just give you money so you can play with your kids? The main thing i think you're not getting here karen is that companies make money by doing what the customer wants, not what they want. If i have to charge more for my product because my employees want to play with their kids, then you won't buy my product, if you don't buy my product, i go out of business, if i go out of business my former employees will have plenty of time to play with their kids, but won't be able to feed them. This seems very simple to me, maybe i'm a super genius, but then why can't i do the times crossword puzzle? I understand your frustration, but that's on you. everyone who makes money is not a bad person, everyone who runs a small business or a large corporation is not a bad person. And please explain to me why it's the fault of the dastardly republicans that you don't make enough money to play with your kids? I can see that you're angry, but your rage is misplaced. If you can't make ends meet, that's on you, not the government, not your employer.

Karen said...

The fact that you think we want a DECENT, LIVING WAGE just to "play" with our kids shows what contempt you have for the American family. What are you anyhow? A spolied teenager or a frustrtaed middle aged man with a teenage mentality? In either event I would suggest that you're about as family friendly as a case of Avian flu.

My father ran his own hardware business for 25 years. And I have news for you--he did not have to be a tight-fisted son of a bitch to turn a profit. Nor was he interested in excessive profit. His basic attitude towards life was that he was running a business for two purposes: to earn a decent living and in so doing to support his family, and to provide a service to hs community. By service that not only mean the goods he was providing, but in the people he employed. I don't know if you have ever run a business yourself or not, but my dad was deeply involved in his employees lives. Everyone worked on a first name basis. We went to each others houses for supper on a regular basis. Business decisions were discussed with employees. You don't have to be a tyrant to run a successful enterprise and you don't need to bilk the public and cheat your workers out of a decent life to be successful.

You asked what I wanted. I want a husband who isn't too tired to spend time with his children. I want decent health insurance and a liviung wage. As I said before. This is not asking too much. You (or someone like you) suggested this in another post. Rich people are paying record numbers in taxes. Well if that's the case it means you're making record profits too. is it really asking too much for them to invest it in their employees? I don't think so. And if you don't get that then i would argue that you aren't only a piss poor excuse for a human being, you're also a piss poor business man. If you don't understand that working, American families are the backbone of this nation, then you really haven't got clue as to what's going on out here. Why in the hell should we listen to ANYONE whose life experience seems to come exclussively from a dog-eared Reagenomics text?

This may come as a shock and a revelation to you RHINO, but there's a hell of a lot more to raising kids than "playing" with them. It means sitting up with them all night when they're sick, helping them with school work (we home school by the way), thousands of every day things which have nothing to do with play. In other words, raising children is in and of itself a full time job--not a play session. The fact that you seem to think that raising children is nothing but fun and games only shows how out of touch you are with what's going on in the real world. Some of us out here recognize that child-raising is a RESPONSIBILITY. If you were more mature you'd know that.

My advice to you is this. If you have children (GOD HELP THEM!)please, do them a favor and give them up for adoption. If you don't, do society a favor and get yourself snipped. You seem to have more affection for your bank account and stock dividends than you do for flesh and blood human beings, so just go count your money and leave the impoprtant stuff to those of us who enjoy doing it and who are capable of doing so.

Goggalor said...

This is a falsity; the New Deal only led us into more debt and helped no one. The only thing that lifted us out of the Great Depression was the War. To think otherwise is a grave mistake. There were a few things that it gave us, but surely it did not help us out of the Great Depression. You may say that I do not care about those around me. You may say that I am tight-fisted with my money. You may say that Conservatives are evil because they don't want the government to own their businesses. I do care about those around me; but when I am forced, out of my free will, to care; then I am angry. I am a generous person; I helped raise one thousand dollars for hurricane Katrina; three hundred of which I raised alone. I did this of my own free will; I was not forced to pay ridiculous amounts of taxes for these people. Therefore I cared. I give quarters to the homeless; but only of my free will. This is the difference between liberals and myself; I am more willing to pay or make charities when I am not forced to do so. Children will never work in labor camps again; our society will never allow it, therefore when you exaggerate as you do, you are distorting the truth; taking it to the extremes. When things are taken to the extremes, very rarely do these extremes look beneficial. I do not view "corporations" as people because people run corporations. Therefore when I talk about economic freedom; I refer to economic freedom for people, not to corporations. I am in no way wealthy, nor is my family. But I work for what I have, and when things are stolen (whether by the Government in way of taxes for people who do not work or by thieves) I have a right, like our forefathers, no matter what their skin tone was, to be angry.


Brandon said...

First of all, the original piece was intended as satire. That's all right. Satire almost invariably uses outrageous situations (i.e. exaggeration) to drive home the point that the author intends to make. The fact that you didn't get this has told me more about yourself and a few other creatures around here than ou can possibly imagine.

Now onto your talking points.

POINT Children will never work in labor camps again; our society will never allow it
ANSWER: No, but we do allow them to go homeless and hungry. I know because my late mother saw to it on two separate occasions. (I guess I should have exercised more personal responsibility and chose the right womb in which to gestate.) That said almost everything above was a red herring to excuse truly rapacious behavior on the part of corporations. What Karen might have added is that when she and Kyle decided to get married they did an analyisis of how much it would cost them to live on his salary. They went to financial counseling at a local church and had the whole thing figured out. In the meantime, the BONEHEAD who was employing Kyle was telling his employees that he was seeking a loan to make business improvements. He didn't bother to tell the workers that they might want to make plans for the future because the place was about to go belly up. Some--my brother Kyle (who you called a liar) actually asked management if the place would be around and they were all assured that the place would be "safe and sound for years to come." Kyle wasn't so sure so he decided to go back to school just incase. He also kept a clopse eye on the want ad section of the local papers and on job searches on the net--just incase. But still, everyone believed the bonehead. Four weeks after Kyle asked it came out that the damned fool had bascially run the compamny into the fucking ground. Was that fair? Was that a good financial policy? In my opinion it absolutely stunk. Okay, Kyle did get two jobs and Karen works out of their home. But you and Rhino still haven't answered the baic question. Indeed, by not answering it you have undermined your nown argument. Americans are working ahrder than ever and are more productive than ever and yet they are nor farther ahead than they were in 1971. For all their time, effort, and sacrifice, they are not being treated well during a time of forpoprate profit. Rhino elude at this himself when he mentioned that the wealthy (or did he say corporations?) are paying more taxes than ever. of course what he didn't mention was that this suggests that they are also making more profit than ever and not letting it trickle down the way Reagenomics always claimed it would.

POINT: You mentioned debt.
ANSWER: Jeeze Lew-eez, boy! Have you looked at the borrow and spend policies that the Bush Administration has put into play? And not only at a national level, but at the personal level as well. We quite literally have an economy which is dependent on debt-saddled people going deeper into debt to buy garbage they don't even need to keep this mess afloat. Our savings rate is at or near an al time low and no one seems to give a shit. People my age (i;m 22 by the way) spend money like it's water. And here I am--I only have a debit card, I tore up all my credit cards, and I hate being in debt. Now you tell me--who has more common sense here? Me, because I want to get OUT of debt and build up a little personal security, or the truly fucked up Powers That Be in thous country who are encouraging us to fill our houses and our lives with unnecessary merchandise which only lasts a maximum of three years anyhow? I'm sorry. Anyone who thinks this is a sane system shouldn't be allowed out of the house after curfew until they can prove that they are mature enough and emotionally strong enough to tear up the not so proverbial plastic.

POINT; "You may say that Conservatives are evil because they don't want the government to own their businesses."
ANSWER: I doubt if anyone here is in favor of government ownership of corporations. That's just redicules. Let's ot confuse a little sane regulation (we are not,living in an anarchy) with outright ownership. It seems a little disingenuous of you to confuse the two.

POINT: "I am a generous person; I helped raise one thousand dollars for hurricane Katrina; three hundred of which I raised alone. I did this of my own free will; I was not forced to pay ridiculous amounts of taxes for these people. Therefore I cared. I give quarters to the homeless; but only of my free will. This is the difference between liberals and myself; I am more willing to pay or make charities when I am not forced to do so."

ANSWER: That's very nice. Kudos to you for your generous spirit. We give to charities as well. Some of us give tithes to our churches. One of us took in a homeless person in the dead of winter and is doing so again--even though the person providing the service had and still has serious health problems of his own. This same person also provides volunteer service at his local library and is politically active on a wide range of issues. He also helped me establish a relationship with my dad who I had never met until 2001.

Danny offered to physically go down to New Orleans to provide nursing services, but was told that he might be more useful in six months because the donations tend to die off after six months, and that's when his services might be needed to the tenth factor. The last I knew he still intends to go down there.

I myself have made a temporary move up to Madison to do my post grad work. While up here I've been volunteering musical service (I play guitar and mandolin--don't ask about the latter) at a local nursing home. I also provide musical services for abused and neglected kids through a local church, although i'm a secular Buddhist and not much of a Christian these days.

My half brother, Brian is HIV positive and a recovering drug addict/alcoholic. He's become very active in Al Anon and works with recovering addicts (teens in particular)on a daily basis. He Of course, you probably think that I don't even worry about him because I'm some kind of fricking socailist.

But I don't want this to turn into a running list of who's doing what for what charity. On the other hand, I will also point out that donations are a fine way to help people--they're also a nice way to keep some distance between the people you are helping and yourself. And you never really have to get your hands dirty in the process. I guess in some way, giving quarters to the homeless could also be seen as another way of saying "get out of my face." But if you did some good and if your heart was in the right place, then fine. Just go for the next step...

POINT: "I do not view 'corporations' as people because people run corporations. Therefore when I talk about economic freedom; I refer to economic freedom for people, not to corporations."
ANSWER: What do you know! We fricking agree on something!

POINT: I am in no way wealthy, nor is my family
ANSWER: Why are YOU answering this allegation? Karen didn't level it against YOU, she leveled it against RHINO. That seems a little....odd.

POINT: You may say that I am tight-fisted with my money
ANSWER: I wouldn't presume to say that at all. On the other hand I think we can safely say that there are some corporations out there that would "squeeze rthe buffalo until it shits." (Okay, have to explain. My Great Uncle uses this phrase a lot. It's a reference to the fact that old nickels once had an Indian profile on the head side and a buffalo on the tail side. Therefore if you are squeezing the buffalo until it sbits it means you're a miser.)

POINT: "This is a falsity; the New Deal only led us into more debt and helped no one. The only thing that lifted us out of the Great Depression was the War."
ANSWER: We are in agreement on the effects of the New Deal--in some ways. But not in others. I believe if you go back and read some of my team members' past posts you will see that the remark had already been made that it was World War II--the war time economy coupled with adult males being channeled into the war effort--which finally brought an end to the Great Depression.

But you missed, or rather conveniently ignored, the main point. The main point was that the American people were NOT happy campers at the time. Extremist elements were rising on both, the left and the right. The service FDR provided was basically a psychological one which kept people from losing hope. And as one member here has told me in private, when you get right down to it, economics is nothing more than mass psychology with numbers and dollar signs connected to it. You're also lumping together the different kinds of programs and reforms that were products of the New Deal. I truly believe that the regulatory ones are necessary for preventing the same kind of climate which had been building during the 1920s. On the other hands, some of the public works programs weren't all that effective in that they only provided marginal assistance around the edges to a limitted number of people. In fact, if you had been on your toes you would have pointed out that midway through the Great Depression a Roosevelt tax hike might have even caused a recessionary dip in the middle of the Depression itself. (Good God, do we have to make obvious points FOR you?) But like I said, the real benefit was provided by giving the American people hope that there would eventually be an end to the situation.

Anyhow, it's been fun.

Have a good weekend.


Kyle said...

I have to agree with you Bran. Our generation spends more money on more crap that we don't even need. In our house the kids are the top priority. If the adults have to go without we go without. The sad thing is that there are so many parents out there who think kids can be bought with merchandise.

In our house we don't go out to eat and we don't bother with Blockbuster, Starbucks, and other luxuries that we can easily do without. Yet we know we're in a minority in our own age group. So many of us are addicted to shopping.

Goggalor said...

The comment on the fact that I am not wealthy was to stem the belief that all Conservatives are rich before I was accused of being in the "top 2%". You mentioned also that I skimmed over some points in my arguments; for that I claim that I do not know all of these arguments and that I tend to give a big picture instead of going into minute details. I am almost seventeen; therefore I do not have the ability to go down to New Orleans nor to do real community service. However, the quarters are not meant to "get out of my face", but are out of pity; out of the heart. Truly, I would rather give them food. The whole charity thing was to show that I am not the stereotypical Conservative. By the way; in the "Who's winning the class war" post I commented the exact answer you were saying I did not talk about. I thought that repeating it would of course be redundant. I was also not saying that Liberals do not give charity, I was saying that I would rather help people through my free will than to be forced to do so through taxes. When I mentioned debt I was referring to the 1920's and 30's, I realize we are in debt today; but I was commenting on the fact that the New Deal did not help us out of debt. I must also apologize due to my lack of organization in my response here. Also; George W. Bush is not my "hero", I do not agree with everything he does; He is a politician. Politicians will always be Politicians, and because they do something, it does not mean they stand for the party (Ex: Scooter Libby). Personally, in New Orleans; I believe that Bush should have put a program into place to hire the citizens of NO to rebuild it. Sort of a Civilian Conservation Corps/Hoover Dam kind of thing.

The Young Conservatives

Rhino-itall said...

Hey karen, i like you, you're bad ass. Anyway, i do not have children, but i might have some eventually. right now i'm too busy. I also think it's great that you're home schooling. I think you should get a tax break for that by the way. You know like a voucher system which i am in favor of. Anyway, i do understand that you want a decent wage, and health insurance, i just don't understand how you want to force people to give it to you? Ask your father if he wanted the government to tell him how to run his business, i will guarantee you he will say no. More importantly, he wasn't waiting for someone to hand him anything, he took the ball and ran with it himself, if you're not happy with your situation, maybe you should do the same. Also, if there was some kind of minimum, or guidline, thats what people would pay, there would be no incentive for employees to work harder, or try to get ahead in the company or whatever, they would just get whatever grid they were in. that would not be good for any business. As for the "big earners" maybe you should tell me why they should give MORE money away after the government has already raped them? Maybe they want to send their kids to private shcool, maybe they want to live in a really nice house, maybe they want to give more money to their church, or the charity of their choice. maybe they want the best of everything for their families, maybe they want their sick parents to live out their lives in comfort. that's their right, they EARNED it, they WORKED HARD for it. and how should they give it to you? in your paycheck? Simple economics, supply and demand. If no one was willing to do the work you do for the wage you get, they would pay you more. Think and Grow Rich, another book reco by the way, i read it at least once a year for the last ten years. Anyway one of the principles it teaches is "always do more than you're paid to do, eventually you will get paid more" It works, try it.

Karen said...

There's a difference between working hard and earning a DECENT LIVING WAGE and working hard (two jobs in Kyle's case), going to school, and ending up with physical health problems from a lack of sleep and down time. I'm very sorry, but you seem to be an apollogist for greedy businessmen who hoard the wealth--a portion of it which I would argue they have NOT earned through sheer laziness. Back to economics 101. Capiral does no good unless it moves throughout the economy. I'm not saying that we need to go on a fucking spending spree, but it would be nice to know that at some point all this work and sacrifice won't have been for nothing, that we really will have a bigger place to live and a brighter financial future. But there are days when I have my doubts.

The difference between you and my dad is that my dad was a genuine American and a real human being who recognized that paying taxes was a way to give back to a system which had done many fine things for him in the past. For some time now I've been amazed by the utter lack of patriotism on the part of these congenital Scrooge types who want all the benefits that are derived from living in this country, but who don't want to contribute to the overall well-being by paying taxes.

I just understand why you want to be a fat cat freeloader who is willing to live off of the cheap wages of over-worked, underpaid employees. Or, fopr that matter off of slave labor and child labor in foreign countries, which is exactly what's happening when we buy at Wal Mart. (and people wonder why we do a lot of garage saling and home cooking and home sewing. I also don't undertsand your foolish attitude which seems to suggest that mothering is not a full time profression. I'm a degreed individual, and to be frank, I just don't know what the far right wants from me any more. When Kyle and I decided together that I would stay at home to be a full time Mom (I run a small business out of out home) our conservative friends had a shit fit because we'd be giving up so much income. Prior to that those same people had been complaining because I might actually remain in the work place and not be a decent mother to my kids. Just what to fuck do you assholes want? Let me know. I really don't giove a shit anymore, since I'm going to do what's best for my family in the long run regardless as to what you and your ilk may think, but it would be nice to see a little consistency in belief from you people. Are stay at home mothers goodmparents or are we depriving our children? I won't ask you because you don't even seem to know. On the other hand, our children WILL have memories of a mother who did things with them and who was there for them for advice and caring. Now if they could only get the same from their father.

By the same token, I not undertsand why loyalty between employee and employer no longer means anything.

Like I said before, the American people ARE working hard, and they desrve more. In closing, please allow me to thank you and your ilk for destroying the American dream and then blaming the victims for your larceny and societal vandalism.

In the end I will only add this--your warped view of reality is destroying hope, families, and the future of this country.

You've done more harm than any socialist ever could have done.

Rhino-itall said...

Abraham, i wasn't ignoring you, i just haven't had time to read your whole post. I think however it is you who is revising history. lets actually go to the facts.
President Reagan inherited a high unemployment rate from Jimmy Carter and planned to decrease it with increased economic activity in the private sector. However, he also wanted to decrease the rate of growth of government spending and the balance between these two actions resulted in increased unemployment in the first year or so of his first term. In part this resulted from the fact that the government spending decreases which he requested were put into effect rather quickly while the tax cuts were spread out over a three year period.

By the time of the mid-term elections of 1984 the build-up in defense expenditures and effects of the personal income tax had begun to show their effects. The unemployment rate was back down to the 7.5 percent level that Reagan had inherited from President Carter. Reagan's success in the 1984 elections in contrast with Carter's failure of in the 1980 elections is a good example of the so-called V-[[Lambda]] or "Vee-Lambda" theory. The unemployment rate during Carter's presidency made a V, i.e. in the first two years of his presidency he worker hard to reduce the employment which was causing so much hardship. However, in 1979 the Iranian oil crisis occurred. This caused another rise in oil prices followed by a broad increase in prices. Carter turned to fight this inflation and let the unemployment rate rise. Thus the V - but not V for victory.

In contrast unemployment followed a lambda, [[Lambda]], in Reagan's first term. There was an initial cut in the rate of growth of government expenditures which increased unemployment. However, the increase in defense expenditures took some time to take effect because appropriations had to be increased by Congress and new projects developed and funded. Also, the Congress did not give Reagan the immediate 25 percent cut in personal income taxes that he requested. Rather they strung it out over three years in installments of 5, 10, and 10 percent. The result of all this was that unemployment rose during Reagan's first year in office to almost ten percent, held steady for a year at about that level and then plunged to 7.5 percent before the 1984 elections - a beautiful [[Lambda]]. The American people responded by re-electing Reagan for another four year term.

In his second term Reagan succeeded in continuing to drive the unemployment rate down and to maintain his perfect lambda. By the end of Reagan second term he had driven the unemployment rate lower than it had been at any time since the Nixon administration. In fact, another nice example of the V-[[Lambda]] theory is the lambda which Richard Nixon followed during his first term of office before he soundly beat George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election.
Now i'm no economist, but given that the #'s are so clear, even i can understand them. Carter= Bad
Reagan = Good. It's really simple when you do the math.

Rhino-itall said...

Karen, you're taking this very personally, i don't know you, i am not one of your conservative friends who criticize you whichever way you go. I think it's great that you home school, i think it's great that you want to be home for your kids, but i wouldn't judge you if you were working either. As for the tax situation, i don't know how i can say it any plainer, the wealthy DO pay their taxes, they pay more not only in total dollars, but as a percentage! You think they're hoarding their money? well i think they're spending it, they're investing it, and of course, they're saving some of it. You call me greedy because i care about my stock dividends, but investment is the key! If I wasn't willing to take a risk by investing, these companies that employee millions of people wouldn't be in business> without investors, there is no GM, no Microsoft or Dell, no GE, or any of these companies. I took the risk, i take it every day! If i invest a million dollars in your business that you run out of your home, and my investment goes to zero the next day, i can write off 2 thousand dollars a year against my gains, if i have any gains! And by the way, if i have any short term gains i have to give the government 35% of that!! why? the government didn't share my risk, why should i share the gains?? well, i do, but i don't know why i should be happy about it. And are you on this blog going to tell me that if i criticize my government for something i'm not patriotic? well then there isn't a patriotic person on this blog, or in this country for that matter. The less i get taxed, the more i spend/invest. the more i get taxed, the less i have to invest, and that's when the government takes over and wastes my money on whatever garbage they waste money on. I mean do you really think it's better for government to control the money than individuals to control their own money?? Karen i admire you for what your doing for your children, I also said in the last comment you should get a tax break. why should your tax dollars go to a public school that you're not using? wouldn't it be better if you had that money to buy books, or computers or something for your kids? Instead the government will give it to the teachers union which keeps teacher salaries higher than they should be,(i know you all hate me for that one) and even worse, it wastes money on administrators and staff that aren't necessary.You want a break, stop complaining about the earners, start complaining about the takers, the government on all levels, all parties, is too big, too wastefull, and terribly inneficient. we should all get huge tax breaks, top to bottom. Not these little tiny breaks that we're getting now.

Rhino-itall said...

Kate to answer your question, yes they will come back and haunt us. More importantly, you said yourself they were wise enough to put a provision in there for us to change with the times, and we have. But the intentions of the FF are how we interpret the document, that's our guideline. The const. is the supreme law of the land, we can't just write a new one when we feel like it, these are the guidelines that made us great. Also we don't use it to "exert untold power" on anyone. We haven't forced our way of life on anyone ever! In fact our constit. has been used as a guidline for many nations. It is the most important and best document ever written in the history of the world.

Karen said...

The idea that the American people need to file for a tax rebate when they could be earning a decent wage to begin with only works in our favor. You have in fact admitted that Corporate America is underpaying workers, and at the same time endorsed a system with more red tape. It was a dumb thing to do but I certainly appreciate it.

Daniel Gallagher said...

You know, goggalor, the more I read your material the more I ralize you're an act unto yourself--no insult intended. Sometimes a libertarian, sometimes a liberal Republican, sometimes a budding constitutional scholar, sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal. In some ways you strike me as an independent, although I really don't like political labels.

RE the recent exchange between Rhino and Karen. My God, the two of you are actually beginning to agree on something! Maybe we should all get together and have a Halloween jammie party! Karen can supply the corn Candy, RHino can bring the choclate bars, and i'll provide the cider and make the frosting.

Beyond that the topic has become a crashing bore. Would one or both of you break out of the mould or molds while I go to make some more popcorn?

Karen said...

Actually, RHINO has agreed to babysit the kids probono this Saturday night so we can visit my Mom in Appleton! We gave him a choice of minimum wage or pictures of lesbians and he went for half minimum wage and a limitted supply of lesbian photos. I gather the two of you will be painting each other's toe nails? I recommend the melon pink with glitter.

Rhino-itall said...

Where the hell is appleton? oh and i don't believe in a minimum wage. It's a socialist idea. But we can negotiate my fee. By the way, do you guys ever check out my blog? I'm betting you would really hate my friends, even more than me.

Rhino-itall said...

oh umm karen, i hate to mention this in mixed company, but daniel is gay. I doubt that he's into lesbians, except as you know just friends. And i don't paint my toenails anymore, not since the incident..........

Karen said...

Since Danny is my brother-in-law, I know very well that he is gay. Appleton is a town in Wisconsin. No big deal. Yeah, we checked out your blog, and it say the least.

AS for the incident with the toe nails...was that before or after the incident with the Mallard Duck?

Brandon said...

Did i miss something here?

Daniel Gallagher said...

Only the boat. Karen, Kyle, and Rhino are throwing an all night Halloween/jammie party and we've all been invited to attend.

Goggalor said...

I would not classify myself as a Republican or Independent because I am not really into the whole party thing. I just have my opinions. I classify myself as Conservative because of my economic beliefs, but I also believe in personal freedom to. My friends (who are socialists) explained my political views (in graph terms) as not being a point, but a function. The real explanation would be that I am young and while I have conservative beliefs, I am ideological to some degree. No one party or person has influenced me in my beliefs, the beliefs I hold are created out of reason. I ask myself; What is wrong with Gay people marrying? How does it effect me? It doesn't, so why should It be banned? It shouldn't. That's how I think of things. Of course I do not have an opinion for many things Including abortion. Why is abortion bad? Because it removes the potential life. Why is abortion good? Because those who do not or should not have babies are prevented from raising a child that will be uncared for. Anyways.

The Young Conservatives

Daniel said...

I wish more conservativs were as free-thinking as you are.

Excuse me now. I gotta get ready for the costume party that Rhino, Kyle, and Karen are throwing.

Enlightenment said...

This may come as a shock, goggalor, but you're none of the above. The term that describes you best is "Classical Liberal," which some people today think of as conservative. But like you and Danny have already suggested, labels are meaningless. WE are what we are.

And what to hell is this business about a damned party?