Where I might ask does Obama find his grant to give salvation collectively or otherwise? No earthly power can confer such, no matter what Marx and Engels have said. This “collective salvation” is not merely alien to the American compact signed and delivered in the American Constitution, but it is, if meant metaphysically, a grotesque lie, if not so meant, then the secularist should clarify himself, and since when, I might ask the empiricist, is the world according to him never perfect, anyway? For the empiricist the world never is nor could it ever be a possibility, but is always exact and perfect, as it perfectly exists by self-evident definition. Either or as they say, or should if they are honest. Can Darwin come out to play? Hmm, if possibility is never extant, as you cannot have your possibility and extantness too, then possibility is a metaphysical play, yes?

Well be that as it may, neither you, nor I, nor any may confer salvation upon anyone, nor more pertinently, is my salvation dependent upon you or anyone; you cannot share yours with me, confer yours upon me, or in anywise give me any part of any salvation you may have.

“Vergie, listening to him [a minister], was no longer Vergie Wrather of the Bottoms. She was an individual, a human being, precious in the sight of the Lord, a person from whom great things might come. She thought, I’m going back to school. Some way I’ll see it through.

“The decision was of the spirit (c.f. p. 74).”

The above is or rather was not so remarkable an idea or even concept that such a passage would be considered unusual or singularly profound. Such a passage would seem pedestrian, common during a previous era, as it is or at least was the common American understanding.

Or as Mr. Lincoln put it in a slightly different way:

Some time ago I mentioned that I was reading Dr. Zhivago, well I finished it some time ago. Superb novel, not perfect, but superb. And so Dr. Zhivago dies at the end, or at least near the end of the novel in an absurd setting, his friends and well-wishers come to mourn his death, celebrate his life, but the grand new society denies him a religious burial. No surprise, as we are in the midst of Lenin’s New Man world.

And what of Larisa his great romantic love?

And that’s it. Outside the collective she no longer existed. The state, the amoeba, had no use for her and therefore could not recognize her. She didn’t so much disappear, but for some select memories, she never was.

Riddle me this, when is man out of balance with nature according of course to the empiricist. Tick tock life is a clock, but whoever said “never” is the very clever knock off the old block. Because of course, “out of balance” is a possibility that can never be realized as nature is forbidden from transcending itself. And as Man is nature, so says the empiricist, then Man is always in balance and never out--Nature cannot transcend nature. Well so much for the Post-Moderns whether or no of a nominally professed spirituality or no.

Oh yes, I know, post-modernism is more resilient than that, too bad really, and I’m sure I’ve heard a couple of artful rebuttals, or so they seemed at the time, I think, too artful really to recall. But anyway as riddles go I have to admit Mr. Kant’s is far better.

So yes I do think it strange that Darwin had recourse, resorted to, a metaphysical concept for the linchpin of his theory, a scandal really, especially for the Neo-Darwinists. Now I’m not saying evolutionary theory is all wet or anything, but the metaphysical concept at its heart does change the dynamic a wee bit.

“Hey, what’s this, I thought we were talking about Kant’s riddle.”

So we are, so we are, but I guess I got a little ahead of myself, an evolutionary leap if you will. So where does this randomness reside? In what element or elements does it inhere? Of what property or properties does this randomness consist, are intrinsic to it if you will? Hmm, I can’t think any, can you? Nope. Well then what can we say of this randomness? Well for randomness to be random it must be unconditioned otherwise by definition it isn’t random, which is to say it can’t be conditioned by anything in the natural world (or we might ask where does the conditioning end), as such, perforce it is a metaphysical, transcendent, rather than any kind of natural or physical thing, force, what-have-you. So if it isn’t nothing whatsoever, whatever it possibly could be would be a metaphysical thing, property, whatever, transcendent of the natural world. Naturally there implications.

Now did Darwin know this when he presented his great theory? Who knows? But we do know that empiricists, atheists, secular mythio-traditionalist holders and whatever have hidden behind a seemingly innocuous word afraid of the either-or implications of their faith.

“You can’t say that!”

Anyway, no I didn’t say that it is wrong to celebrate one’s self identified inclusion in this or that population, celebrating an ethnic origin, culture, or whatever sub-group within the American Nation you wish to celebrate. When doing so we celebrate an indelible part of our identity as delimited by this or that group, but never ever our whole identity. Fine. Still, I would not vote for someone merely because he or she belonged to some sub-group that I too belonged. My sub-groups are not a valid basis as far as I’m concerned for justifying my vote, except for that sub-group that shares my political point-of-view. Oh, I’m sure there is elaboration available here, perhaps another time.

But really did we become a “cool” nation but for no other reason than we elected a black president? Really? Isn’t it a little unseemly and condescending to pat ourselves on the back because we elected a “black” president? Surely no attribute could be less important than the color of a man’s skin, which is to say none, as a qualification for public office, unless of course we are a terribly shallow and frivolous people. But apparently many in MSM believe so, and many in Academia too, and sadly sundry sophisticates sing the same chorus.

I know such thoughts are so yesterday, but as I mentioned previously just because President Obama is quick, quick, quick to scud over the peace that sleep and dreams may bring does not mean that either you or I must greet every morning with the dreariest red eye.

“…To tell them that behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil and the image of that evil was a parade of people marching by with raised fists shouting identical syllables in unison.”

No, we did not suffer an invasion or occupation by outside forces: although Obama supporters would have us believe otherwise; that his appearance had restored order; that he had conquered. So his entrance to the city elicited imperator or its modern equivalent. Nor missing were vulgarities shouted by the base toward his predecessor and wife--as if they were Obama‘s prize presented to the people. Yes I found it as you think. His call to unity in Government, his spectacle, compelled me to leave the parade; leave it to others to participate. I stand athwart.

But all this is well known.

So I state neither now nor never will I ever admire or denigrate a Man’s ethnicity for the sake of his ethnicity. Now I am not so fallen as to not understand that there are many who are relieved and even joyed to acclaim as proof and fact that Obama is symbolic of our transcending our racist past. But I must seek pardon, for I never doubted that our society had long since abjured racism as a vehicle for public expression or approbation, so that any among us who captured our fancy would not be denied office on that account. And to dispense with the tedious, of course there are racists and there ever will be--such a thing can no more be eradicated than murder, or for that matter the poor.

But alas such stories have their complications and ironies. Not least is the official racialism at the core of post-modern liberalism, and consequently, the Democrat party, which to its shame has merely re-invented the Plantation structure: still averred for its order and more its dispersing of resources.

Regrettably, the Obama campaign, and even he himself with his allusive jokes, “oh by the way did I mention he’s black,” or the, “I look different than those other guys on the dollar bill,” put the spur to the Ministry of Propaganda, as if it really needed an invitation, and taking due heed, the moronic talking heads, left wing pundits, liberal celebrities, the likes of folks akin to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Bill Maher piped for his voting. We should give the guy who looks different a chance we heard; that this election was all about race was said; that if he wasn’t elected it was because this country is racist was slurred; that his color would redeem this nation. So a racialist chorus pealed across the land. A retrograde and sordid appeal.

Though I concede our president was suave enough to merely intone his ethnicity with hardly disguised winks, while explicitly promising redemption, the aforementioned other sundry had no such caution. And so premised his election has redeemed the presidency, the nation, America. Yet I must ask how this earthly occurrence, this election, how has it redeemed the horror of slavery or the fallen dead in the Civil War? How indeed has his election redeemed America? The proper answer: Not one whit, not at all. His color is our hue, as indeed every hue of our nation is embedded in our very fiber, our very nation. No John Adams, no Barack Obama.

No such earthly power can redeem such earthly sins. Neither slavery, the war, nor the dead are justified by his election; who would diminish such suffering; only an ego maniac would suggest such; only the most cynical would allow anyone to believe such perfidy. Neither their lives nor their suffering is in anyway derivative to our own inflated egos, and it is just such thinking that has allowed, nay justified, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other kindred spirits. Is it wrong to mark the exceptional occurrence? No. He is our first black President and as such confirms yet again our own Declaration Of Independence and Constitution, but he does not justify either text--they were justified at their writing or not at all.

Perforce I must believe that President Obama believes no such thing: that the racialism that appeared in his campaign, that he allowed to theme through MSM and other outlets was merely a necessary avenue leading to the Whitehouse. Sadly it was not necessary, and more lamentable, I must believe the President is unscrupulous and deceitful in his lust for power, I say must, because the alternative is so much worse.

Oh wait, you’re right, I forgot, he was merely saving the cornerstone of the Democrat Party, of the left you say. What would they do without racialist demagoguery? If he hadn’t and the left in general hadn’t tooted the horn of racialist politics it would have put to rot the cornerstone of Democrat structures, strategy, tactics.

Sadly I suppose you’re right. Lamentably, even redemption was never in the cards, there was no misguided but at least well intentioned motive. So even though he and they didn’t have to do it, they did.

*****

Oh I know that was so last week, or 10-days ago, but I protest, in geologic time it is damn immediate.

Anyway because only subsistence property is legitimate property, it is at the sufferance of our government that any and all of us citizens have any discretionary property, of which President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have decided Government suffers too much.

Travel costs will sky rocket. Business operating costs will go through the roof. And what do you suppose will happen to hospitals, clinics, and all manner of places that administer to the sick and infirm. How much energy do they use? How will they fare with the rolling brown/black outs that will be sure to come. And what of food production?

Office buildings, hotels, theme parks will they stay sustainable? Some? Most? Surely not all. What will that do to the economy.

Do you recreate: fish, hunt, hike, camp, water-ski, snow-ski, surf, hang glide, parachute, fly private planes; recreate with boats, snowmobiles, motor-cycles, quads, motor homes--forget about it. All of that is illegitimate. Do you barbecue? You’re the enemy. Do you go to museums, concerts, plays, sporting events? Forget about it. How about the movies? You are the enemy; we are the enemy; our society is the enemy. And don’t tell me this is about cooling the world’s temperature (astronomical hubris riding on hallucinatory air) by two tenths of one degree. That is pure deceit buttressed by delusion and ignorance.

Our government has met the enemy and that imbecile President Obama (I don’t care how intelligent he is, he is still an imbecile.) aided by the devil’s own idiot, the Speaker of the House Pelosi, declared the enemy is US.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often: Raise energy taxes? Sue Opec Surely you jest. Lower speed limits to 55MPR? Why not 35MPH? No? 55MPH is not only not a sane energy plan, but is rather, Chinese Water Torture!

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often: What in the world makes Senators Obama, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Speaker Pelosie and company think we want petroleum less productive let alone more expensive by way of raised taxes. I don’t recall saying that we wanted to lose jobs. The petroleum you know will simply flow where it‘s most productive.

But enough of Barack Obama. Let’s talk about Michelle Obama. So as we all know Michelle Obama is all-in for the “struggle”.

Oh yes, I heard Senator Obama’s edict. Senator Obama says blah blah blah. Well in response I say blah, or in other words if you don’t want Michelle’s political formulations critiqued then tell her not to make political speeches, otherwise clam up, quit whining, have some gripe-water. It’s unbecoming in a presidential candidate, bans on this bans on that why not just ban free speech, your list is too large and ungainly, I can’t keep up. Besides, Michelle doesn’t strike me as a shrinking violet.

Sure upon many circumstances, I think, family members are not fair game without qualification, but the boundary is limited by the family member. So by dint of her own political elocutions she has entered the public square, and therefore, it would be disrespectful to not treat her as a participant. Senator Obama’s command then is an unwarranted transcursion of the public square’s limits. To the measure of Mrs. Obama’s public speech is to the measure we are right to respond.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often: No we’re not clamoring for socialism (that would be Progressives). Actually we’re telling the government to get the heck out of the way so that private industry can provide the goods and services that fuels our dynamic economy.

But on such account as dullness her speech wasn’t unique. Too many political speeches fall victim to that malaise to raise so much as an eyebrow. Also, though it ought not need be said, to criticize a speech is not synonymous with taking a position one way or the other as concerns her person. I have more than a couple friends and family members whom though I’m fond of, like and love even, I would never ever vote for them to any political office.

Anyway, I read through her speech a couple of times and I noted the familiar political touch stones, objects, symbols as it were common to many political speeches. However, hers was not a political speech as much as a literary event.

Sure, it should have been readily apparent as after the preliminary stuff she starts her speech proper:

“And when you look over the year and what has happened, you realize just how amazing this journey is, so come with me for the last fifteen or so months when it started in Sprinfield, Illinois at Barack’s announcement in February, a year or so ago.”

And quickly and soon enough we are retailed with the Obama Odyssey, “an amazing journey” of sorts that actually begins in the middle and rings out epic over the course of many words and symbolic rhetoric. So yes former President Clinton was not altogether wrong when he described the Obama campaign as a “fairy tale,” he simply guessed wrong on the genre. An easiest enough mistake I think to make.

“And talent in the highest and broadest sense means a talent for life.” That sounds familiar doesn’t it? so familiar I can’t say if Boris Pasternak was the first to pen it (in the character of Yuri). Not a terribly bad saying in itself, but it does sound like one of those artsy clichés you would find on a coffee mug, or poster, or if willing to pay extra price, engraved on some stained glass artifact. It sounds like a cliché because it’s a mantra of the left, modern, post-modern or otherwise. It is at the core of the left’s world-view. Is it the sole symbol of that view? No, I wouldn’t be so bold to make that assertion.

But nonetheless as we’re talking not about a quality, but rather a reductionist caricature of life, claiming that life can be reduced to a “talent,” quickly enough life is understood as a craft. A craft that can be developed and mastered into a narrative. The Romantic hero struggling against circumstances, or perhaps the Epic hero struggling against circumstances.

So it is that Barack and Michelle have mastered the post-modern craft. So yes, I like more than one reader was taken with the political statement themed by “struggle,” “fear,” “challenge,” “hope,” etc. Yes, her dystopian landscape peopled by the trembling masses made its impression. It was inescapable I’m afraid.

“And see what happens when you live in a nation where the vast majority of Americans are struggling every day to reach an ever-shifting and moving bar, then what happens in that nation is that people do become isolated.”

“And the problem with fear is that it cuts us off. Fear is the worst enemy. It cuts us off from one another and our own families, and our communities, and it has certainly cut us off from the rest of the world.”

Isolated, alienated, cut and divided. So in our singular, excuse me, “isolated,” existence Mrs. Obama goes on to say:

“They do live in a level of division [division, as in not unity, or is that labor?], because see, when you’re that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, that you don’t have time to get to know your neighbor. You don’t have time to reach out and have conversations, to share stories. In fact, you feel very alone in your struggle, because you feel that somehow, it must be your fault that you’re struggling so.”

I was flinching soon enough by her repeated use of “struggle.” Soon enough I knew she was all-in for the “struggle.” And Marx’s “class struggle” felt like a bat hitting me over the head--thus the flinching. As in yes I get it, Barack and Michelle claim proletariat bona fides. It is the ground of “unity” from which they stand, which idea is more Hegleian than Marx, but they go together well, or so says Georg Lukacs, a dull and dreary Marxist critic, I know, but never mind that for now.

Are we really to believe living in Kansas qualifies as an unthinkable hardship? And though we commend Michelle’s father for providing for his family, does that not put him squarely in the American tradition? Have we come so far that we now equate paying back student loans as the thing of greatest hardship? Attending Ivy League schools qualifies as drudgery? Well…Since when is taking a job as a community organizer and living a middle class life the thing equated with great sacrifice. Making a choice and doing what you want to do is now the definition of sacrifice? Only in America.

Yes it is absurd, Mrs. Obama’s epic narrative indicts, refutes and is contradicted by the reality of her and Barack’s real life narrative, but fortunately Lukacs (to pick but one of many possible modern/post-modern thinkers) in an essay titled The Ideal of the Harmonious Man in Bourgeois Aesthetics comes to our aide a bit, albeit unwillingly (yea, I don‘t know whether I was feeling penitential myself, or just a little empathetic with Mr. Patterson, but reading Marx‘s tomb, er tome, was out of the question, not feeling that penitential today or yesterday): So Lukacs says,

“Gorky [no idea who he is, but he’s a writer] achieves a coincidence of the artistic and the political unity [unity?] that is neither automatic or mechanical [artful then?]….Thus a principle of artistic representation turns into a political and social principal.”

Art like everything then is derived from politics, everything is politics, either a unified singularity, or an illegitimate and wanting dichotomy. Such is the vision of the left where “think globally act locally” is the sole vision. Or to put it another way, the revolutionary makes art of his own life, and conversely every artist is a revolutionary, which is to say singular clap trap or worse.

Which may explain why the “they,” principal villain, of her epic morphs from the Clintons to this:

“And this is where Barack gets it. He understands that our challenge is us, that we have lost a sense of empathy.”

In a singular, political, artistic existence the villain must be us, society. What other villain could there be if (raise consciousness anyone?) our lives are wholly defined as a singular event rather than a dynamic dichotomy, let alone a manifold of expressions.

And so the Clintons lost because they were ran a political campaign that had some mythical (event staging) overtones against what Yuri (Dr. Zhivago) describes as:

“It seems to me that socialism is the sea, and all these separate, these private, individual revolutionaries, are flowing into it--the sea of life, the sea of spontaneity. I said life, but I mean life as you see it in a great picture, transformed by genius, creatively enriched. Only now people have decided to experience it not in books and pictures but in themselves, not as an abstraction but in practice.”

The Clintons lost to a literary event, an artful fiction, which helps explain why our MSM, self defined intelligencia, and others are all agog. They hunger to make of themselves papyrus, canvas, marble, and things. Dr. Zhivago I think begins to see the folly in what he says above, as the passage in the previous post suggests, but we’ll have to see. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

But to answer the question of the Obama genre that eluded former President Clinton; theirs is not an epic at all, but rather a parody of an epic, a genre made famous by Alexander Pope and his mock epics.

So it is meet that we give Mr. Pope the last words from the Dunciad:

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often! No, no, no we didn’t ask you Obama, Reid, Pelosie, to tell us to go pound sand, thank you, and I’ve had quite enough cake lately. No we’re telling you to drill in our oil fields, get it, or you can go pound the pavement, thank you.

What’s that you say? Obama wasn’t calling his supporters bigots and racists, but McCain’s; that the only reason someone wouldn’t vote Obama is because he has an “uppity” wife and so forth…hmm, well never mi…, wait! never mind never mind, that’s still, at best, stridently bigoted, which is, shockingly, consistent with Obama’s at best bigoted remarks about voters “clinging to God and guns” and so forth Why it would seem there is a consistency of malicious intent. Well that’s racial healing for you.

Which reminds me, lest I should forget, here’s a PSA for our liberal friends, acquaintances and others: if for some reason you find yourself in a church preaching Revolutionary Theology, grounded in Marxism, and anchored in racism, Trinity Church (I don’t have to link that do I?) for example, may I suggest that you don’t walk out, but run, as walking may take you 20 years or so and by then the damage may well be done.

Well yes now that you mention it that structure does seem eerily familiar, appearances not withstanding.

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often: Supply and demand is a law of nature that not even King Obama and all his Minstrel Acolytes can ever hope to suspend.

Well of course Obama is a socialist, it would be fraudulent to say he wasn’t.

“What’s that?

“I said you’re interrupting the coronation of the ‘one we’ve been waiting for.’ The promised one!”

“Right. Sure, but can you do me a favor and turn your head when you gush. The splatter is making me nervous.”

“All America is all aswoon with the rising pandemonium.”

“Do tell.”

“You need to get on board”

“But I don’t like life boats.”

“You’d better, because the world is sinking.”

“Really? to where, pray tell, is it sinking?”

“You know where!”

“I didn’t say gesture wildly when gushing, I said please gush the other way, but anyway, I thought the waters were receding.”

“That’s right because the waters obey Obama.”

“Does Gore know about this?”

“Of course he’s on board; just like us bestowing dutiful hosannas, oblations…”

“I’m sure he is, but I was wondering is this a weekly, monthly or annual event?

“He’s the brightest star; he’s a happening.”

“Yes yes I know all the world is all a pandemonium and a pabulum and the glamourati and true believes are chanting he’s the one we’ve been waiting for, our enchanting Obama.”

“That’s right and you better too.”

“But is the chanting both a taxing and a tithing, or rather, should I say a waxing annuity?”

“What?”

“Or do we need a Clinton in time and a VP in place to bag it.”

“Clinton, I hate Clinton.”

“Exactly.”

Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill Often: No dummies, not where the oil isn’t. 68-million acres of unknown or worse, no oil, is not the place to drill today. Are you Democrats sure you use 10 percent of your brains. I have my doubts, either you’re 5%’s or you’re duplicitous. Either way, if it’s all the same to you, we want the oil that we know we can get.

“ ‘That’s naïve,’ said Pogorevshikh [he’s a radical]. ‘What you call disorder is just as normal a state of things as the order you’ve been so keen about [he‘s speaking to Yuri Andreievich; the hero of the novel]. All this destruction--it’s a natural and preliminary stage of a broad creative plan. Society has not yet disintegrated sufficiently. If must fall to pieces completely, then a genuinely revolutionary government will put the pieces together and build on completely new foundations [Yuri, to his credit, wasn’t pleased with Pogo’s sanguine destruction].’ ”

Or to put it another way, after government has cleared away social, cultural, and economic norms and self regulating institutions then society, including those who “cling to guns and God” will clamor for relief and then we will be able, “yes we can,” to manipulate and stamp them into whatever we want.

“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

With symbolic thinkers and their symbols (which pretty well accounts for the whole of progressives) it’s usually helpful to have a Rosetta Stone handy, sort of like having a GPS on board in a foreign country, otherwise, too easily, we may sway in sophistry and an inscrutable maze of cleverness.

What we should call the Obama economic vision is the rationing society. In fairness we will all be miserable, except for apparatchiks of course. Well people in a life boat generally are collectively miserable and you know, have to ration. Of course when you’re not really in a life boat, and there’s no cause for the discomfort of one, you have to force people into one. They won’t go willingly. Hmm, I wonder why. Anyway, the only way to get there is? Quite right, socialism, of one sort or another. You can’t make people ration without cause, that is, without a great big beast of a centralized state. Thus socialism.

And you know the thing about lifeboats, well at some point, sooner or later, you have to throw the infirm, the weak, the elderly, infants and so forth overboard.

But the real utility of the above Rosetta Stone is its clarity, transparent properties, which I put to use transcribing an Obama speech given in North Carolina:

"I want to start by congratulating Senator Clinton on her victory in the state of Indiana. And I want to thank the people of North Carolina for giving us a victory in a big state, a swing state, and a state where we will compete to win if I am the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

“More importantly, because of you, we have seen that it's possible to overcome the politics of division and distraction; that it's possible to overcome the same old negative attacks that are always about scoring points and never about solving our problems. We've seen that the American people aren't looking for more spin or more gimmicks, but honest answers about the challenges we face. That's what you've accomplished in this campaign, and that's how we'll revolutionize this country together.

"This has been one of the longest, most closely fought contests in history. And that's partly because we have such a formidable opponent in Senator Hillary Clinton. Tonight, many of the pundits have suggested that this party is inalterably divided - that Senator Clinton's supporters will not support me, and that my supporters will not support her.

“Well I'm here tonight to tell you that I don't believe it. Yes, there have been bruised feelings on both sides. Yes, each side desperately wants their candidate to win. But ultimately, this race is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain. This election is about you - the American people - and whether we will have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future.

"The woman I met in Indiana who just lost her job, and her pension, and her insurance when the plant where she worked at her entire life closed down - she can't afford four more years of tax breaks for corporations like the one that shipped her job overseas. She needs us to give tax breaks to companies that create good jobs here in America. She can't afford four more years of tax breaks for CEOs like the one who walked away from her company with a multi-million dollar bonus. She needs middle-class tax relief that will help her pay the skyrocketing price of groceries, and gas, and college tuition. That's why I'm running for President.

“The college student I met in Iowa who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill - she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy; that allows insurance companies to discriminate and deny coverage to those Americans who need it most. She needs us to stand up to those insurance companies and pass a plan that lowers every family's premiums and gives every uninsured American the same kind of coverage that Members of Congress give themselves. That's why I'm running for President.

"The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet inscribed with the name of the son she lost in Iraq; the families who pray for their loved ones to come home; the heroes on their third and fourth and fifth tour of duty - they can't afford four more years of a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. They can't afford four more years of our veterans returning to broken-down barracks and substandard care. They need us to end a war that isn't making us safer. They need us to treat them with the care and respect they deserve. That's why I'm running for President.

“The people I've met in small towns and big cities across this country understand that government can't solve all our problems - and we don't expect it to. We believe in hard work. We believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

“But we also believe that we have a larger responsibility to one another as Americans - that America is a place - that America is the place - where you can make it if you try. That no matter how much money you start with or where you come from or who your parents are, opportunity is yours if you're willing to reach for it and work for it. It's the idea that while there are few guarantees in life, you should be able to count on a job that pays the bills; health care for when you need it; a pension for when you retire; an education for your children that will allow them to fulfill their God-given potential. That's the America we believe in.

“That's the America I know.

“This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the GI Bill when he came home from World War II; a country that gave him and my grandmother the chance to buy their first home with a loan from the government.

“This is the country that made it possible for my mother - a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point - to send my sister and me to the best schools in the country on scholarships.

"This is the country that allowed my father-in-law - a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant - to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary. This is a man who was diagnosed at age thirty with multiple sclerosis - who relied on a walker to get himself to work. And yet, every day he went, and he labored, and he sent my wife and her brother to one of the best colleges in the nation. It was a job that didn't just give him a paycheck, but a sense of dignity and self-worth. It was an America that didn't just reward wealth, but the work and the workers who created it.

“Somewhere along the way, between all the bickering and the influence-peddling and the game-playing of the last few decades, Washington and Wall Street have lost touch with these values. And while I honor John McCain's service to his country, his ideas for America are out of touch with these values. His plans for the future are nothing more than the failed policies of the past. And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.

“Yes, we know what's coming. We've seen it already. The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas. The same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy in the hope that the media will play along. The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences to turn us against each other for pure political gain - to slice and dice this country into Red States and Blue States; blue-collar and white-collar; white and black, and brown.

“This is what they will do - no matter which one of us is the nominee. The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they'll run, it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. I didn't get into race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it.

“We will end it this time not because I'm perfect - I think by now this campaign has reminded all of us of that. We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will just lead us down the same path of polarization and gridlock.

"The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it's not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda's leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it's not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies - like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.

“I trust the American people to realize that while we don't need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government that stands up for the middle-class by giving them a tax break; a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity; compassion and prosperity aren't liberal values or conservative values - they're American values.

“Most of all, I trust the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences. Because no matter where I've been in this country - whether it was the corn fields of Iowa or the textile mills of the Carolinas; the streets of San Antonio or the foothills of Georgia - I've found that while we may have different stories, we hold common hopes. We may not look the same or come from the same place, but we want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

“That's why I'm in this race. I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it's the only reason I'm standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.

“It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean.

“It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather's coffin stands for - it is life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“So don't ever forget that this election is not about me, or any candidate. Don't ever forget that this campaign is about you - about your hopes, about your dreams, about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

“Don't ever forget that we have a choice in this country - that we can choose not to be divided; that we can choose not to be afraid; that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we've talked about all those other years in all those other elections.

And as noble as all that may be, it put me in mind of biology. Yes I know it is a bit off the associative grid, what can I say? Now I don’t know about you, but as for me my most enduring memory is dissecting earth worms and frogs. Somehow or other we were supposed to identify this or that tripartite or other heart or some such organ. Wasn’t my best subject in high school, but it was easy to be the hero for a girl or two because of the ick factor.

Anyway, we’re talking about energy conversion for useful purposes. Yes, it’s at the cellular level, but then if the cells don’t get enough of what they need they get sick, with Scurvy or some such. Well actually if any cell doesn’t receive enough energy it gets sick, has malnutrition so to speak, and ultimately dies. And what’s good for the cell is good for you and me, not to mention the economy.

Energy we might justifiably say, and I see no reason not to, sustains life, ergo, Kyoto is immoral. Or as Groovy Al Gore would say, “let them eat ethanol.” Well, what would you say about a pie-in-the-sky fantasy which has zero practical benefit, but does manage to contract useful, gainful, food providing enterprise?

Non sequitur or not:

Well, it seems that Capitalism is not only the most efficient economy, but also the most moral as well!

Surprise, highway men and pirates, they’re always on the look out for leveraging, greasing an oily deal.

“It would be but a simple matter in arithmetic and government, however, to limit private fortune by law and take back the surplus of excess for the nation…

The Standard Oil Company would not go out of business if the government became the principal stockholder through a transfer of securities from Rockefeller to the government.”

Well yea, the idea is ancient (whether of the Sun King variety, Babylonian, etc., pick your poison, or any conflated state/society structure, though confessedly, this veneer was new and diversifying through various forms of socialism--Fabian, Marxist, etc. for a start, but not a finish, with people and resources belonging to the state) even at the time Henry H. Klien was writing, 1918, whose worldview, hauntingly enough, echoes fascism. He says, “they [the people] must be made to realize that socialism is a vision, Bolshevism means anarchy [excuse me?], and that a single tax is impracticable as an economic engine” (in his essay Why Private Fortunes Should Be Limited--Book Title and brief bio in post below).

Who pays? Don’t be silly. You and me, naturally: Um, can you say massive, unprecedented, redistribution of property--that is Ponzi scheme. But you will plant Eucalyptus trees in Brazil, and on farm land and old growth forests in Africa--so forth and so forth. Well done.

But as it is I’m out of energy--so…

As you well know the Dims are utterly aghast that the modern world uses economy driving fuels, energy, and are quite certain the sky is falling. Hence they have drafted without aide of much, meaning common sense, an energy plan that will benefit no one.

Revolutionizing, evolving certainly (using Marxist nomenclature that I’m sure our progressive friends applaud) into this:

Sustained Mobility, Or Going Do Doo

And there you have it our slide slow--if I had more energy I would supply more, but I’m restricted by green stricture, that and the scope of the Dim Energy Plan.

Barrack Hussein Obama. Goodness me, such a hush, such a gasp. How such trepidation? Am I to infer that his name may not be mentioned in polite company, except in the most reverenced and whispered tones? Pisshaw! Give me a break! What clap trap! He’s a man right? Like any other? Or as our old friend Michel De Montaigne says, “Both kings and philosophers defecate, and so do the ladies.” [That’s from his essay On Experience.]

So then if not a sanctified thing, well then are you saying that his name is a dirty word--why wasn’t I informed of this? Where’s the memo stating Barrack Hussein Obama is such a dirty word as not be typed in print, or given voice on radio, or must be stricken from television?

Well of course I can certainly imagine the embarrassment, the humiliation, the unmitigated shame. What were his parents thinking? Wait a second his parents named him, yes? With love I presume. And now I’m given to believe that they gave their son a humiliating, embarrassing, shameful name on purpose? What ingrates say this? What fops promulgate such a dishonorable view? Oh, of course, twittering sycophantic popinjays like Keith Olbermann. Well that‘s to be expected.

What’s that you say? “That’s not what you meant and I know it.”

Well of course I agree the whole thing is silly. Schoolyard silly. Does it really have to be said, he gives meaning to his name and not the other way around. Yes, it would have been nice had Senator Obama said something that amounts to the same rather than piously accepting gratuitous apologies. And so a silly thing that could have been put down with a word or three has festered into a most unseemly thing.

I suppose temptation is always an insidious thing, always difficult to ward off, how else to explain the conduct of his own supporters using his own name as a weapon--using it to bludgeon and silence. But are they so daft as to not know that in doing so they accentuate rather than eviscerate, confirm rather, that there is something there that is embarrassing, humiliating, shameful in the mere mention of his name. Are they so half-witted that they’re unaware that their sanctimonious indignation reflects not only back on Barrack Hussein Obama, but his parents too. So then I must, being charitable, reject the premise. It is the only charitable thing to do.

But to tarry a moment longer, who wouldn’t agree that if a man asks you to refer to him by this or that appellation, being respectful, we should simply comply. Many of us have a preference, all? Some of us don’t really care for our middle name. Some of us don’t like our first name--so it goes. And unless Billy Bob Blutarsky is having a Billy Bob Blutarsky “you stop that right now because I’m not telling you twice moment”--well then…The point is that it is up to Barrack Hussein Obama to tell us how he would prefer this or that usage, not some screeching peevish supporter.

Still, how much better it would have been for Barrack to simply say, “my name is Barrack Hussein Obama, and simply enough I love my parents and I’m honored by the name they gave me, and if it is true that some see my name besmirched by the actions of others similarly named, well all the good my opportunity to give not merely honor to my parents, but by my actions redeem mine own name, and if as you say it is true that it has been so dishonored that it ought not to be mentioned in polite company, than all the more righteous and sublime my achievement, my victory, where none anywhere willingly refrain from shouting my own true name from every rooftop, prairie, dale, and mountain.” Or some like soliloquy or other. That he didn’t do so, that was unexpected.

****

So Eliot Spitzer, former Governor of New York, David A. Paterson, current Governor of New York, and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick have all been exposed as men who have seen fit to consummate their inappropriate dalliances, though in Mr. Spitzer’s case we can, as he did, dispense with the dalliance because he went straight to go, and I don‘t mean Park Place.

Now it is true that dalliance and its near relation, concupiscence, recognize no creed, religion, or political party, and further what is good in one case may be bad in others, sort of like those neutral terms that have zero moral value whatsoever, tolerance and diversity, or any value, come to think of it, without some informing qualification. For example, I’m intolerant of Jihadi Nazis, and frankly that’s a diversity I can do without.

But to return to our subject, misguided dalliance and such, so who was that dolt who said “religion is the opiate of the people”? Freud was much closer to the truth; sex is the opiate of the people. Not just in our own day, though we may have refined it to a finer substance, but take infidelity, which has a long and storied pedigree: Some say that the curse on the house of Tantalus was at fault; if not for the curse King Agamemnon would have lived to a nice ripe old age. Well maybe, and then again maybe not, but I’ll tell you what bringing home his paramour Cassandra to a meet-and-greet with Clytemnestra after being away for ten years probably wasn’t such a hot idea. And it’s not like he didn’t have chaste, or not so, examples immediately before his mind’s eye--you know Paris, Helen, Trojan war and all. But hey it did give outstanding material for a play by Aeschylus.

Which brings to mind the far more famous Greek tragedy Oedipus by Sophocles, or rather why Sophocles’ play is more famous than Aeschylus’. Because of Freud you say, well yes, but why was Freud transfixed by Oedipus? Notwithstanding Freud's reading (whatever you may think of it), I will say that Aeschylus’ Agamemon doesn’t give a troubled reading to the Progressive world-view: simply legislate against human sacrifice, cannibalism, and the like, and, in Freud’s day, have strong societal sanctions disfavoring illicit trysts. Ta da! problem solved.

Now I admit that is a rather trite reading, but then we’re talking about progressive world-views and solutions here not literary sublimity. But never mind that, we’re talking about Oedipus, and Oedipus, to the contrary, disavows, negates, does not conform even to any progressive world-view solution. And that my friends is a scandal of the first order. A scandal, an affront, to the progressive mind, which our hero, Freud, could not well let stand. Thus he found god in our unconsciousness, planted him squarely there, and named him--well you know the rest of the story.

My take? Well as the primary, profound, literary reading of the play, well, as Get Smart would say, “he missed it by that l-----l much.”

****

“The new plan…is an honest attempt to advance in constitutional legislation along lines best calculated to promote smooth collaboration of all classes of society for the good of the state…‘Power is now given to the ‘productive forces of the state’ rather than to the mere representatives of territorial division. Each art, craft, trade, and profession will be represented in this…[the] first legislative body to be based on full economic representation.”

Wait a second that’s Mussolini’s Progressive Affirmative Action plan. Sorry about that, my bad. I’m sorry, too many notes and such, like things get confused, what can I say? [If curious Mussolini is being quoted by F. Lee Burns whom I mentioned in an earlier post.]

So lets try this again. Here’s the current California plan: “Each state must have a Delegation which is 50% female, 50% male or within one, and must have a Delegate Selection Plan that includes Affirmative Action Goals (quotas are prohibited [okay I’m laughing]).” Wait! Actually that directive comes from some national Democrat Party committee or other (hmm, I‘m having a déjà vu moment), but that’s not what’s funny, rather the imbecility of people who use the words “must have” and then in the same sentence say “quotas are prohibited”--must have flunked their SAT’s, or must be nimrods, or they must think we are, whatever.

So how does this break out--no, not as artisans and such as Mussolini would have it--we’ve progressed since then--no, these buffoons have their own categories. Lets go through them shall we:

As you can see there are conundrums rapt in mystery, fogged by confusion, lying inherent in this miserable riddle; for instance, can one person count more than Once? Twice? Three times Four?

Of course the Democrats, or should I say, Progressive party, are free to organize themselves however they wish. But as for me I’m not much of one for a party that describes my primary worth as my color, my sex, or whatever preferred, politically correct, superficial phenotypic trait.

And it‘s obvious isn‘t it? though the categories are nominally different as advanced by Mussolini and the Democrat Party, as they are clearly different on a Phenotypic level, there isn’t a hair’s breath difference between them on a structural Genotypic level, no, nary a difference between the two.

No of course not, I’m not bringing into this discussion that most exotic, infamous, distilled-evil National Socialism into this discussion--that guy and his ideology is to fascism what Stalin and his ideology is to communism (two peas in a rotten pod). No we’re talking about something like benign fascism, happy fascism, or Liberal Fascism.

Or as someone once said, “a rose is a rose no matter what you call it,” or something like that.

By the way did you pick up your copy of Liberal Fascism yet? If not go to the post below. I have a link there.

What’s that? “I didn’t say anything about Hillary?” Well, we have time yet to discuss Hillary don’t-cry-for-me Clinton.

No the grand flourish is not always the thing. Often a good cup of coffee and a long satisfying draw off a good stogy is just the thing. A fine morning under a blue sky with a bit of a crisp breeze and an allowance to simply look out at calm streets shaded with Maple like trees that don’t seem to lose their leaves in winter. I‘m not much of an arborist. There’s some kind of tree in our neighbor’s yard that has gone dormant, not a leaf on the thing, but these small finch like birds, and this one humming bird, and one lark (I think) are there just about every morning. Small things.

****

Certainly Governor Romney took no small task upon himself, and he and his family shouldered that task nobly and graciously. He brought verve, intelligence and passion to our national dialog and for that we should thank him, and I for one do. Thank you Governor Romney.

****

Moving as we all know is a large thing, on a personal scale anyway. Boxes here boxes there boxes boxes everywhere. And dust for some reason comes with the boxes. Cats don’t like moving. Initially anyway. But there are unearthed gems in every move. Did I mention I found my Horace. Yes, it’s true, I admit, I expected to find him. Would have been disappointed if I hadn’t, actually. So after a day of putting stuff here, dusting there and so forth I reclined on our two seater and opened up Horace where we had left off; he writes an ode To Maecenas (a patron of his I believe--among other things) and weaves a reassuring thought with the pay-off being this:

****

Did you know that nephews are different than nieces. It’s true. Oh sure we could talk about the Wolffian duct system and such, but really no such discussion is necessary to acknowledge the Tabula Rasa stuff of Hume as twiddle twaddle. Yes I know, since at least the 60’s feminists and other progressives have hinged too much of their social policy on just such idiocy, what to do? As if the purpose of form begins and ends with the sex organs.

Anyway, nieces quietly ask aunty if uncle Jon is awake? Nephews see stirring and decide now is the time to attack and tackle. Nephews show off their bike riding prowess by relentlessly being on the precipice of disaster. Actually sometimes not on the precipice--that’s where the skinned knees come from.

Yes, this past summer while traveling through parts of the heartland--Kansas to Ohio, with Southern Illinois, Indiana, a trip to the Mammoth caves of Kentucky thrown in for good measure--we had (that would be me, Mrs. J, and Mrs. J’s father, my friend) the opportunity to visit with in-laws here and there on warm summer nights following, yes, hot and humid days. Good conversations ranging from the this of cooking to the that of politics: amiable and stimulating all. And the food was very good.

Oh and of course I played army with the boys with those plastic soldiers (they still make them). I lost. Too, we played star wars. I lost that also.

Gorgeous country. If you haven’t been there--well, you must.

Blessings. That summer trip was a blessing. Nephews and nieces are blessings. I’m thinking now about a couple of nephews who are in good health, one a graduate from college and the other in high school. Strapping good natured young men.

And cousins. Adult and young. And the young like nephews and nieces are wonderful, delightful, charming, and occasional trouble makers, aren’t all children? But now I’m thinking of one whom we are blessed to have with us. At a very tender age she had cancer. Prayers, medicine and love is what her parents provided, and we who knew them gave what we could.

Blessed.

****

by Laura Ingram. And if you find things when unpacking, well, you lose things while packing. But thankfully I didn’t loose my copy permanently, and so I thought I would share a passage that I found particularly disturbing:

“the United Nations Children’s Fund (‘UNICEF’) has promoted its ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child,’ which would give children countless rights vis-à-vis their parents, including the right to receive ‘information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice’”

And you ask, “what could be wrong with that? Free expression and all that. Aren’t you hammering away at that all the time,” you ask.

Well of course there is nothing wrong with that except the absolute violation and negation of Free Association! Which is to say it is an absolute violation of Human Rights.

Of such a notion we can say that the UN does not recognize parents as such, but rather as wardens who are contracted to see to the clothing, feeding, and such of the State’s wards--its children not ours. Of such a notion we accurately say, abomination.

****

It says here: “The state proposes to accomplish the improvement of accident insurance, the betterment and extension of maternity insurance, the establishment of insurance against occupational illnesses, the elaboration of a system of general insurance against illness, and the extension of unemployment insurance.”

Yes, well, I did slap my knees and thrust my desk chair back when I read that. Why? Because as eerily familiar as that sounds it is actually from an old party platform, Mussolini’s and his Fascists.

I came across that little gem in another book I didn’t know I owned. True, I’m one of those people who buys books knowing I’ll get to them at some point or another. I’m quick to accept other people’s unwanted volumes, and yes I do rescue books put out by the dumpster--some I return to the dumpster, and some go to the local used book store--always one of my favorite places to visit. But I digress, “really?” I heard that.

So anyway, Mussolini is said to have developed a ruling plan that was “an honest attempt to advance in constitutional legislation along lines best calculated to promote smooth collaboration of all classes of society for the good of the village” --whoops, I meant state. Now the above was written by F. Lee Benns in his book EUROPE SINCE 1914, which when published meant all of 16 years. I peeked at his section on Germany, which is where I learned about such things as majority socialists, and I found, ironically enough, he concludes Germany with a hopeful coda.

I like his style. I think I’ll give his book a thorough read rather than a cursory glance--what can I say? that’s all I had time for.

****

Is it just me or do you get a little nervous by someone who excites passions but says nothing. You know who I’m speaking of, of course I’m speaking of Barack Obama. Grandiloquent, purple prose, bathos excites people into fainting, and I’m supposed to do what? Say what? Geez here we go again.

Really, someone who excites people only in passion is someone who is cultivating a cult of personality. Who else or what else is he referring to but himself? What ideas? What larger meaning? What in fact does he give allegiance to as that something that is larger than himself, and how or why does that something move him to informed solutions that he can articulate? And if he knows what they are then why is he not telling us? Why aren’t his ideas forcefully present in his speeches? Or is belief in Obama his campaign? His issue? Yes, I believe so.

I’m afraid to say more often then not such men prove to be very dangerous.

We must all come together is an Obama theme, whose corollary is “today, among the things for which there is no room, must be included the opposition.”

Make of that what you will, but Mussolini said that.

****

Troubles will come and they will pass, Lynard Skynard said that in the tune Simple Man. A good thing to keep in mind I think. And with that I think I’ll resist my loquacious tendencies here and not do a double LP.

What’s that? “What about McCain, you didn’t say anything about McCain,” you say. Well that’s true. I’m listening, and honestly, I respect those who are getting on board, and I respect those who are in no such hurry. I’m in the latter group. And in any case, to borrow from another song “This Time, This time will be the last time, if this time is anything like the last time.” Or something to that affect, anyway.

And remember the risk we take with “ the deformity of any government that does not grow out of the nature of things and the character of the people.” Hawthorne said that (the Gray Champion).

“What’s that? Hmm, Un no, I’m not going to go over the man’s miserable conservative record yet again.”

“Yes, yes, we all know that he’s a Big Government regulation guy, yea you can see it clearly with McCain Feingold, restricting political speech, yes, you can see it too with McCain Leiberman taking our property away--just more of the same.”

“What about taxes?” “Well yes he voted against the Bush Tax cuts--sided with the liberals. Nothing new there, and yes he does propose a massive tax hike with his CO2 tax hike. He’s John McCain, what do you expect.”

“Oh of course we could talk about him sticking it to America on illegal immigration and judges, but come on everyone knows that already.”

“No, what I thought I would do is share a conversation I over heard between two guys while I was hiking in one of local desert state parks. Because I didn’t get their names I’ll just call them cynic and credulous. It went like this.”

Credulous: Is McCain the luckiest most brilliant campaigner alive or what?

Cynic: Or what.

Credulous: I mean…

Cynic: Yes he is a mean old cus.

Credulous: Hey now that’s not what I was saying.

Cynic: Well you could’ve been.

Credulous: Now cut that out. Anyway, as I was saying, here he is given up for dead in the summer.

Cynic: Yea, I know the guys a regular Rasputin.

Credulous: Are you going to let me talk or what?

Cynic: Or what. No ok, go ahead and tell me your flummery.

Credulous: Ok, as I was saying, He’s out of money in the summer. And now look at em, he’s poised to win the Republican nomination!

Cynic: Yea right. Damned lucky I’d say. Some describe that as drawing an inside straight. I‘d say the old coot had an ace up his sleeve.

Credulous: What’s that your saying?

Cynic: I’m saying he’s a snake in the grass. He wasn’t crazy when he spent his wad in the Summer. And while it’s true he’s an old stubborn mule, he knew exactly what he was doing and how he was playing his hand.

Credulous: Oh come on. The people love him. He’s a war hero. He’s a straight talker. He’s campaigned brilliantly. He’s taken advantage of the good luck that has come his way and made the best of it.

Cynic: Yea, well, I agree about the War Hero part, but the rest is pure blarney, and if it ain’t then I don’t want him as President anyway because luck that good just don’t last.

Credulous: Well, if you happen on a gold nugget your not going to throw it back are ya? Heck no yer not. So it isn’t McCain’s fault that Huckabee has split the conservative vote. It’s not McCain’s fault that Giuliani quit campaigning when winter happened on. Or quit doin any good at it anyway. It ain’t McCain’s fault that Thompson got in the game too late. Hell, all he did was play the cards that brung em.

Cynic: Sure, that sure was a wind full. Yea, Giuliani was just like a rabit in a horse race, ran fast for awhile, got out in front, did his job, and got out. That guy couldn’t even wait a day to endorse his good friend McCain. And Huckabee? Hell man, that guys been McCain’s best friend, what with taking social conservatives out of the mix. All Huck does is run against Romney, except for that momentary fracas with Fred, otherwise you see him 24/7 gunning for Romney. So he sure as hell doesn’t want to win.  Hell man, with luck like that who needs strategy.

Credulous: Oh come on. Your sayin that all those fellows ran to clear the way for McCain. That’s ridiculous.

Cynic: Naw, not all them guys. Thompson was a wild card, and he put it out there in front of us when he said this campaign is over the “soul of the party.” He just couldn’t get it done.

Credulous: Oh, so not Thompson, but those other guys. Your saying that McCain is downright Clinton like.

Cynic: Yea, I’m sure they’re applauding, an for that matter wishing they thought of it.

Credulous: You can’t believe that.

Cynic: Yea, right. Ol McCain was crazy enough to spend all his money over the summer and stay in the race with no funding. The comeback kid they call him. More’n likely, the campaining son-of-a-gun on the backs of others. It don’t cost a thing when others are doing your dirty work. Even you know that.

Credulous: I don’t believe that. But even if I did, what can we do about it?

Cynic: Well hell man, I’m sure as heck ain’t gonna vote for the guy putting the screws to conservatives, and I sure as hell ain’t gonna vote for the guy helping him do it. Not hardly.

Credulous: Well here’s mud in your eye.

Cynic: Yea, well here’s mud in your eye too.

“So, that’s pretty well how the conversation went. Just thought I would share that with you.

“What’s that? Oh, which one is right? Well as a famous man has said a time or two ‘you decide.’

Governor Huckabee has run a spirited and vigorous campaign. He should be applauded for his run. He is a smart, witty, and calculating man. What Governor Huckabee does now will matter. He will be remembered for his actions.

So the question is? Will Governor Huckabee step aside? Will he stand up for his principles, for his party, for his country, put his stated convictions before himself? Or will he subvert his own conservative principles by staying in a race he will not win and thusly run interference for the anti-conservative McCain.?

By staying in he is saying he supports:

So the question is? Is Mike Huckabee a principled conservative who puts service to his principals before self, or is he a McCain clone? What Governor Huckabee does now matters. And he with his actions will be remembered for it.