Politics, Society and Technology: the Perils of Entitlement

As I was cruising the intertubes this morning, waiting patiently for the NFL to kick off, I came across a blog entry on Huffington Post by Jeffrey Feldman, entitled “The Outrage Pandemic“. It describes the rising tide of outrage from both the Right and the Left in regard to President Barack Obama, particularly now that he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. This got me to thinking about a few seemingly random things, which may not be so random.

We live now in an age where everything is instant – gratification of the need for attention, for knowledge and for fame is mere moments away for most people. Blogs for example are, or rather were, unique venues for the everyday individual who once was one of the faceless masses to be fed information to provide tasty opinionated snacks to the world (I am as guilty as anyone of checking the blog stats to see if anyone is reading what I have written, and how the ‘Kog is doing in general – I respect and admire my co-authors, and I’m glad I was invited to participate in this grand experiment). Add YouTube videos and Wikipedia to the mix, and we have unprecedented access to instant gratification, in the form of information, entertainment, or infotainment, from almost everywhere in the world.

What is problematic in the access to ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ we all enjoy is the atomization of social life – when everyone can write their own newspaper, or make their own movies, or, more tellingly, limit themselves to reading the ‘news’ from the viewpoint they prefer, shared experience becomes less… shared. The common experience of having access to a limited number of media that still existed until about 15 years ago has been lost, replaced by the ability to create a world that reflects you, and to search for others who share your views, no matter how extreme.

Add to the atomization phenomenon the usual action and interaction associated with anonymous communication, and the landscape becomes considerably more volatile. It has been said, quite rightly, that you can be literally anyone online – it’s why I don’t bother with chatrooms. The sneaking suspicion that the 18-year-old nymphet at the other end of an intertube is actually a hairy, naked trucker in a cheap hotel ruins the whole experience for me. Sometimes it is possible to know, or suspect, too much. But, that’s not the important aspect I am talking about (whew). The translation of thought into text without much usable context (the emoticon is useful, if annoying, but not foolproof) leads to misunderstanding, and the usual human interaction to perceived disagreement or outright verbal or textual attack is an emotional one, completely out of proportion with any reaction to a similar real-world situation. To borrow from theories of collective behavior, a group of individuals becomes a mob because of the combination of:

1. A reasonably large group of people (critical mass, if you will)
2. A precipitating or ‘trigger’ event
3. An individual who recognizes the protection of numbers, and escalates his behavior to violence
4. A cascade effect in which others in the collective follow the extreme behavior, losing shared or ‘normal’ morality in the crowd, as it were.

Now, imagine the same idea, translated to a single individual, who wears his cloak of anonymity granted not by a crowd, but a keyboard. There are no immediate repercussions to negative actions, at least no physical threat of incarceration or personal injury, so actions and reactions can become routinely larger than life – the internet age has created a uniquely bipolar citizen. In essence, we become our own individualized mob. How’s that for a contradiction?

To cast back a bit for the next thread in the narrative, let’s take a look at the 1970′s – not too closely, or we’ll be blinded by hairspray and huge collars. The ’70s have been referred to as the ‘me decade’ – the sexual revolution resulted in a revolutionary sense of permissiveness, and an indulgence of hedonism that has been unequaled since – thanks primarily to the negative impacts of recreational drugs and sexually transmitted disease. The ’80s were the ‘greed is good’ decade, which led to more self-indulgence, not to mention teased hair and fluorescent colours. Gratification of the need for entertainment, in particular, became more the order of the day as cable television networks grew. The most important, and potentially most negative aspect of this development is the launch of CNN in 1980. News became entertainment, the personal continued to be political, and every small development in the evolution of social life was placed under a microscope. Access to this unending stream of information, rather than being a boon to society, meant that people were getting used to having all the information they needed, all the time – there arguably never was a better time to be politically active, as information was becoming more readily available, but was still limited, to a degree. The ‘me decade’ morphed into ‘me too decade’.

The commercialization of the internet in the mid-1990s enhanced the public’s access to information – which had its’ downside in the fact that not all sources are reliable – in fact, I would venture to say that 90% of the information available on the ‘net is opinion rather than objective fact. It became too easy to find others seeking information, or willing to share information in such a way as to make it more palatable to certain tastes. The ability of bloggers to vilify politicians or other public figures because of the emotional volitility of anonymity, and the ability of readers to limit their interactions to like-minded individuals has led to the evolution of the know-nothing know-it-all, and the growth of the political rabble-rousing we see constantly around us, particularly in relation to American politics.

So, we have passed the ‘me decade’ and the ‘me too’ decade, and entered, around the turn of the century, the ‘me too, right now decade’. The failure of anyone to live up to our comfortable vision of society, cultured online, of nodding heads and reinforcement of emotionally comfortable and fiercely defended beliefs leads to the inevitable volatility of reaction. What we have is a generation of people who have grown up online, in which very few vote but almost all pontificate on the slightest outrage committeed by those who do not respect the boundaries of our own little undiscovered countries.

This is not limited to the political Right – we see now the political Left dogging the footsteps of a President with intelligence and wisdom, but who is unable, as is any human or organization, to fulfil the immediate wants and needs of everyone, all at once. Therefore, the rhetoric becomes more vehement, the outrage more emotional – those who do not agree or who do not cater to our beliefs are instantly the ‘enemy’, the ‘other’, the traitor who consorts with terrorists because they diagree with your vision of America – which in reality is limited to the boundaries of your home office or your parents’ basement. There is no longer an ‘America’ for people to be proud of, but several million Americas on every street, and sometimes more than one in every home.

Sometimes the citizens of these atomized Americas come together and share their outrage, but the emotional reaction, unmuted by people who may disagree, continues to build until the individual begets the crowd, which begets the mob. We are not, and are unable to, translate the interactive processes that are built by personal contact and childhood interaction to the internet – rather, the interactive rituals and emotional responses of the internet are being translated to real life, with dire consequences. Disagreement becomes hatred, disappointment becomes betrayal, caution becomes intolerable delay. The lure of the emotional and the instant is too strong.

President Obama has had the misfortune of becoming the leader of the free world at a time when personal interaction has degraded to black and white – the ‘for us or against us’ mentality was not limited to the inside of President Bush’s head. If Obama fulfils his promise of hope and progess, he will earn the hatred of those who benefit from the status quo, either emotionally or financially. If he fails, he will be vilified by those who feel that change is the only way to make the world better – in every way, both politically and personally. If he even achieves half of his lofty goals, he will still make enemies of people on both sides.

As has become obvious from some of my prior posts, I have high hopes for Barack Obama – I think he represents a change long overdue in American politics, as well as in global relations. My fear is that the Lyndon Johnson-esque Great Society that he envisions will be sabotaged by the millions of ‘better’ societies that live in the emotional cores of those on both sides, and that people will guard their personal borders against unwanted information or action to such a degree that co-operation in moving forward will be impossible. Those that are most highly motivated to speak are inevitably the loudest and most dogmatic on both sides, and the voices of entitlement, the shouts of the ‘me too, right now’ generation may drown out the reasoned, intelligent dialogue he offers.

The telegraph linked us on a very basic level. The telephone enabled contact with one another. Television and radio showed us, through pictures and words, the world outside our windows. Now, the internet, the great boon to mankind, has enabled us to examine, to know, and to experience, the inside of our own heads.  Will it rule us, and decide our future for us, or will we reclaim ourselves, our knowledge, and our bonds to each other? Who knows.

Make no mistake, however, the future may depend on our mastery of our tools, and of ourselves.

A Letter to A Neighbor

Dear America:

How are you? We’re fine up here. I’ve been looking at the news coming from your part of the world lately, and it’s beginning to trouble me a bit. As a Canadian, I, along with millions of your citizens, felt hopeful that the Obama administration would be able to pull you out of the morass you found yourselves in – a morass created by the subservience of previous administrations to the dual addictions of profit and power. I was under no illusions that November 5 would dawn on a country where everything was fixed, nor did I believe that 6 months, even a year, would be enough to enact real change. Nevertheless, I continue to keep an optimistic outlook on your future.

The strength of your culture has always come from the “melting pot” philosophy that was the guide for the many to unite into the one – everyone, regardless of origin, was an American, dedicated to the continued prosperity of the nation. It was the best example of a shared value – an ideal, of course, never achieved but at least remaining as a spiritual goal of the country. It was shared values that brought you together in the first place, united the first thirteen colonies, and continued until America was the world’s last superpower. Much of the strength and unity that was built was a result of perceived external threats; competing ideologies like Nazism or Communism that united you in opposition to an external threat. The problem is that there is currently no external threat that can compare to entire ideologies as represented by discrete nations or united movements. In physics, it is accepted that energy doesn’t ever go away, it just goes somethere else, and that is what has happened to the once-great beacon of liberty. In the absence of unified or concrete opposition, the energy that defined by opposition had to go somewhere, and, unfortunately, it has turned inward.

The conservative element in America has always been there, and they look upon particular times in your history as ‘golden ages’, times that were better than now, primarily because America was united, was strong, and had shared values (keep in mind, however, that these were rarely, if ever, golden ages for anyone beyond white males, but it is to be expected if that is the group that is reminiscing). The population went from “Russia? We’re not like them!”, to being unable to define themselves through opposition. Who’s next on the list? The people within your own country who disagree with you: “My neighbors, I’m not like them!” It’s always easier to define something by what it is not, and American culture is no exception.

Sadly, America, your citizens are just as proficient at creating divisions as they are at justifying them, in order to create a sense of identity. They dig in their heels and refuse to hear other opinions, because it takes them outside of their comfort zone, violates their own vision of their identity, so inextricably bound up is that identity in the persona of “America the Beautiful”. For the purposes of simplification and ease of rationalization, there is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘black’ and ‘white’, ‘victim’ and ‘victor’. There is no grey, just the heavily fortified extremes of the emotional spectrum. When people stop listening to one another, they stop learning, when they stop learning, they stop maturing, and when they stop maturing, they feel as if their own opinions are the only ones worthy of respect. In the country of the self-centred, the most selfish man is king.

I could go on at length (and I have) about the motivating factors behind the polarized and increasingly violent culture that has evolved: religion; political ideology; profit; race; gender identity and so on, but that isn’t necessarily the important thing – zeroing in on one or two background motivations is not the purpose of this letter. What is the purpose of this is to decry the dangerous combination of a lack of respect and an extreme, almost allergic sensitivity to criticism or even simple disageement. Your media isn’t helping (I’m looking at all of you, not just picking on Fox) by feeling and acting on the ‘necessity’ to amp up the emotion in everything to the detriment of the actual sharing of information that could empower the populace and nurture debate – is it a reflection of the extreme form of the current culture, or one of the root causes? I think it’s probably best not to look too closely at that chicken/egg scenario right now, this letter is already too long as it is.

So, America, my southern cousin, what do I suggest? I thought you’d never ask.

Respect is the number one suggestion I have. It is obvious that many Americans hold opposing views on health care reform, for example, but it shouldn’t be necessary to have armed police present at town hall meetings. Everyone needs to feel as if they are being listened to, and their opinions understood and respected. As an additional benefit, this is kryptonite to the radio and television hate mongers inhabiting your airwaves – fairness and respect are difficult to criticize. Paradoxically, my other suggestion, this one to your leaders, is that they currently have the power to make things happen, to make bold and historic strides, to make your citizens healthier and more prosperous – use it. The outreach program that preached inclusion is obviously not working. Learn from others who have had the hand of conciliation slapped away enough times to understand that cooperation is neither wanted nor realistic. Listen to the concerns of the public, take note of the feelings and desires of the populace, as befits a democracy, but ultimately, you must use the mandate given to you to enact solutions that are feasible, affordable, and create the most benefit. Your leaders have already stumbled, but that shouldn’t stop you from moving forward – we are all meant to learn from our mistakes, and your leader is particularly intelligent. Do what you can, for the benefit of the majority, because you can. The political benefits can be great, but the benefits to your society will be greater and more long-lasting. In short, defuse the emotional cries with understanding, defeat the hatred with respect, but ultimately, steer the ship as your people have chosen you to do, despite stormy waters ahead.

All this, of course, is my opinion. I share it with you because I look at you and see the potential for greatness, or renewed greatness, inherent in you. I would hate to see that potential go to waste because of internal disruption or, in the worst case, catastrophic partisan violence. Yer a good country deep down, and I know you mean well, but now is the time to act before this goes any further. You have been a good neighbor so far (I’m overlooking that whole 1812 thing for now), and it makes me sad to see you in such despair.

The sooner you all realize that your goal, a greater and more prosperous America, is the same, and you can all agree that the benefits of peace are more deireable than those of conflict, the easier it will be to bring America closer to her ideal. Naive? Probably, but sometimes things just need to be said. I feel better for having gotten this off my chest. I’m looking forward to continuing our friendship for a long time to come.

All the best,

Flash

P.S.: Stop picking on our health care. Seriously, it’s really pissing some of us off. It’s not perfect, but it’s ours, and for the most part, it works. Knock it off.

Leave it to Fox…

To be utterly wrong about simply everything. Today they “take on” the upset over the recently-seen Obama=Joker posters that have appeared at the Republican-sponsored grassroots anti-healthcare reform demonstrations, declaring confusion that this should be such a big deal. After all, didn’t Vanity Fair do it last year to Bush?

You’re totally right, Fox, displaying a white man and a black man in whiteface makeup is exactly the same in this obviously post-racial society.

Fox News, just doing it’s job as Republican Party shill, even to the point of stoking racial hatred if it’s deemed to be politically expedient.

Obama’s first big foreign emergency test – passed

Just a quick comment on the killing of three of the four Somali criminals holding US ship captain Richard Phillips.

The killing is dangerous and is bound to result in an increase in violence against foreign sailors in the region – but what of it? It’s already a dangerous situation and it’s only getting worse. The solution is two-pronged, and this might just be the spark to get things going. First and foremost, we have to help clean up the civil war in Somalia – the primary cause of the lawlessness offshore. This will take time and will not be accomplished by a single event, but a single event might provide the focus needed to support an more focused international effort on the ground.

Secondly, the threat of  increased violence will result in a more active response by NATO, the US, and maybe even the UN. Arming and/or escorting merchant ships in the Gulf of Aden and along the East African coast is the only interim mitigation measure available on the water right now.  The US and NATO are sure to respond with some sort of shipping plan. It won’t solve the problem, but it will make merchant ships harder to hit and bring some measure of policing to a region long short of it.

Finally, I just have to say that Barack Obama handled the situation so well it must be driving the wingnuts bonkers. First, he resisted grandstanding during the crisis, something I can’t imagine Bush doing. It showed class, calm, and confidence. In addition, by giving authority to the commanders in the field to handle the situation, he showed that he trusts those around him to make decisions and do their jobs, and that he will not micromanage the situation to the level the point of interference.

It must be quite a change to go from working under W to a guy with self-confidence and respect. It must be driving the wingnuts absolutely batshit.

I might actually sit and watch me some Glenn Beck this week to bathe in the freakshower.

The trouble with bipartisanship

I am not sure if Barack Obama is arrogant or naive enough to believe that he can somehow craft a bipartisan agreement to save the American economy from the worst of what’s coming, but he’s learning a painful lesson right now if Paul Krugman is right. It appears that in order to buy enough Republican votes, votes from the party that was largely responsible for creating the mess in the first place, Obama has had to convert huge chunks of the stimulus package into tax cuts, cuts which many, including Krugman, have argued will not provide immediate stimulous benefits, and may in fact lead to further problems down the road as the governments’ resources dwindle.

As Krugman points out, expenditures at low levels, where they will have the greatest effect, have either been reduced (such as proposed additional funds directly to states), or eliminated altogether. This flies in the face of a Moody’s report last year that determined that the greatest immediate stimulus effects come from increases to food stamp and unemployment insurance programs; far greater than the effects of tax breaks.

The Democrats need to be told who won the election. The Republicans have nothing to lose if Obama’s stimulus package doesn’t work and everything to gain in 2012. It is a farce that Obama should sacrifice the chances of producing real progress at the altar of bipartisanship. This would work if one believed that the Republicans actually wanted what’s best for the country, but anyone alive the last eight years should know better than that. Like Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans want Barack Obama to fail, and they will do anything they can to see that he does. They don’t give a rat’s ass about good governance – the only thing they care about is winning elections. If Obama provides a stimulus package that works, they will indeed lose the next time around, and maybe the next, and maybe the next. Their only hope is to make sure that it doesn’t work, and if they can promote their failed agenda while doing it, while at the same time make it look like it was the Democrats’ ideas that failed, all the better.

Obama either has to punk the Republicans or be punked by them – there is no middle ground.

How far would it reach if you stretched them end-to-end?

Just to put the economic challenge facing the new American administration in context, new estimates have the US running a one-trillion dollar deficit for the next fiscal year. Yes, it’s insanity, but adjectives aside, it makes it very difficult for Barack Obama to perform the FDR miracle.

Don’t let Bush shyly smile his way out of the office and suggest that you speak kindly of him as he leaves, this is his doing. He is, and always was, a piss-ant, this should not ever be forgotten. The damage he has done to the world’s economy will be felt probably for the rest of my lifetime.

Southern Man: Now Your Crosses are Burning Fast

An interesting article in the New York Times this morning about the loss of political influence in the American South, as evidenced by the residents’ worst nightmare – the election of an African-American president. As I was reading it, I was struck by the disparities in attitude between the rest of the states, particularly places like California, and the attitudes in the majority of the states making up the former Antebellum South.

Look, I understand belief systems and their place in society as well as, if not slightly better than, the average person, but I’m still taken aback at how racism can apparently be an acceptable component of everyday life. What motivates such bigotry? What would make the individuals quoted in the article so afraid?

One white woman said she feared that blacks would now become more “aggressive,” while another volunteered that she was bothered by the idea of a black man “over me” in the White House.

…

“I am concerned,” Gail McDaniel, who owns a cosmetics business, said in the parking lot of the Shop and Save. “The abortion thing bothers me. Same-sex marriage.”

“I think there are going to be outbreaks from blacks,” she added. “From where I’m from, this is going to give them the right to be more aggressive.”

Based on what, exactly? Do you think perhaps that being constantly degraded and often killed while trying to achieve the delerious American fever-dream might have made them just a touch angry? As is common for racists, guilt by association is the easiest way to keep your safe, selfish illusions of superiority – a black man is Prresident, therefore they will all benefit by being able to be more aggressive. As if they had  – *shudder* – equal rights under the law.

Particularly troubling is the comment from a functionary in the local government:

Don Dollar, the administrative assistant at City Hall, said bitterly that anyone not upset with Mr. Obama’s victory should seek religious forgiveness.

“This is a community that’s supposed to be filled with a bunch of Christian folks,” he said. “If they’re not disappointed, they need to be at the altar.”

Because, of course, god favors one race over another – I’m sure it’s all right there somewhere in the Handy Dandy Book O’ Prejudice you call the Bible, and, if not, I’m sure people won’t check if you tell them that it is. Lucky for you, if they believe in that crap, they won’t question, particularly if not questioning maintains their moral and civil superiority. Self-interest is, as I’ve said before, a great motivator of religious belief.

My dismay at having an enclave of such backward, medieval belief and unquestioning devotion to a way of life that should not exist outside of the Third World in the 21st century (and not even then, really) is profound. The fact that it exists within one of the most technologically advanced nations on the globe is doubly depressing. To have the very fact that the color of the President-elect’s skin is darker than yours lead to irrational fear is devastating.

That noise you hear is the lessons of history knocking on your doors. Once upon a time, it took a civil war to illustrate how wrong some of your most cherished traditions were, and how the majority of people in your own country disagreed with the degradation and slavery you visited upon your fellow men. Now, the lesson is reinforced by the free choice of a majority of your fellow citizens. The “audacity of hope” has brought your worst nightmare to life, and you need to ask yourselves: are these beliefs actually helping me, or are they just trapping the population of the south in a stagnating quagmire of backwardness, superstition and irrational clinging to a dishonorable past?

As the old guard are slowly replaced by the new generation who reject your narrow-minded avarice and insecurity, you may not even be aware of the new civil war being fought, slowly and inexorably taking away your right to hold your bigoted attitudes and thinking of your fellow humans as somehow less than human. There will be no loud skirmishes, there will be no Antietam, no Chancellorsville, no Gettysburg or Bull Run. The battle for hearts and minds will be won with the weapons of hope and inclusion. Your small, fearful, god-given, safe, black vs. white world will be replaced by an America that moves as one, fearlessly and proudly into the future.

Your world will end, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

It’s a Fiery Flash Fact

The new president must also carry a sword

Call me a bastard, but the Democratic victory last night is only the start of the catharsis the United States and the world needs. The glory of the victory (and the speech, here), of the intention behind the victory, is something special to be sure, but one cannot walk away from the damage caused by the Bush Regime with mere intentions and platitudes. 236.com says part of it here:

Speaking of Bush, it is clear now, if it wasn’t before, what his legacy is going to be: Obama.

Obama is going to be Bush’s legacy, but he cannot simply turn the page on history, on Iraq, on Guantanamo Bay, as if a new chapter erases the damage of the old. Amends must be paid, illegally imprisoned released, evils met face to face. Bush and Cheney cannot be allowed to quietly slip into retirement, without being put to the question. If the US is to regain respect it will have to first demonstrate that it stands for justice within as it does without – that is true greatness. Obama has the steel for it, I hope the party and the nation as a whole does, too, because it has to happen.  Seymour Hersh is going to push, but I hope he only is half right:

‘You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on 20 January [the date of the next president's inauguration],’ he says, with relish. ‘[They say:] “You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.” So that is what I’ll do, so long as nothing awful happens before the inauguration.’ He plans to write a book about the neocons and, though it won’t change anything – ‘They’ve got away with it, categorically; anyone who talks about prosecuting Bush and Cheney [for war crimes] is kidding themselves‘ – it will reveal how the White House ‘set out to sabotage the system… It wasn’t that they found ways to manipulate Congressional oversight; they had conversations about ending the right of Congress to intervene.’

Perhaps I am fooling myself, but I’d like to think that we won’t just paper over the disaster this century has been so far.

-kvd out

A Thought Upon Watching the Barack Obama Prime-Time Ad

I really wish I could cast a ballot in the U.S. election on the 4th. I really, really do. I can think of only a few people who were truly noble and inspired, and who have inspired me, and I must say that Barack Obama is one of those people.

As a Canadian citizen (one-quarter American), I sincerely wish Sen. Obama, and every other citizen of the United States, the very best fortune on November 4th.

It is a Feverish Flash Fact.

On Obama’s broken promise

In her daily commentary, Campbell Brown takes Barack Obama to task (moderately, as she always does) on his broken promise to accept public financing. Her comments are relevant, particularly in the final week of a long campaign, but especially today, being the day that Obama launches his half-hour prime-time infomercial.

As is obvious to anyone who has read any of my posts on the topic, I have been on the Obama wagon for some time, dating officially back to March (I think) when he made his brilliant speech on race during the Jeremiah Wright affair. Bias declared, I agree with Brown’s statement (I paraphrase) that Obama broke his spending promise, and breaking promises is bad.

For most politicians, the breaking of a promise is commonplace enough to go without notice. However, when one wraps themselves in a cloak of honour, as Obama has done throughout the campaign, it is noteworthy. That this single promise stands out is as more a testament to how clean a campaign Obama has run, especially when compared to the clusterfuck of vectoring, slander, and lies of his opponent. Considering how negative this campaign has been (steered directly into the ditch by McCain), that this broken promise and a handfull of references to McCain’s age are all the “slime” and negativity that can be pinned on him, Obama has done a remarkable job.

When he announced the decision to not accept public financing, Obama released a video explaining that his reason for doing so was to be better able to fight off the 527′s and other attack groups that operate outside traditional campaign financing (not to mention, moral) constraints. (Under Karl Rove, the Republicans had mastered the use of these groups. Sure the Democrats dabbled, but like Bill Clinton, they didn’t inhale – 527′s operate best when they slime the opponent, and by and large, Democrats are leery of too much of that.) However, what the Democrats were beginning to understand was the lesson Howard Dean taught them in 2004 – big donors are passe when the internet can provide the advertisement and revenue base for a groundswell of small donations should a candidate be able to mobilize the masses. By the time of the announcement, the Obama campaign had already raised enough money, and the machinery was in place to raise much more, that it looked like they would be able to defend themselves against the 527-style attacks without having to get dragged too far into the mud.

To say the least, Barack Obama mobilized the masses.

(Revelatory aside: We used to play a game called Star Fleet Battles, in which you would create Star Trek warships and create battles with your friends’ ships. In almost every case, given the same amount of build money, the person that built a massive warship, well armed and armoured, would lose to the one with a half dozen speedy little frigates. Election campaigns are big, armoured ships, and 527′s the frigates. The Democrats have proven unable to use the frigates very well, so they have been forced to put more and more money into armour. Not only does this explain why the Democrats need all this money, but is should also explain why I never got laid until I was in university.)

To be sure, the decision to counter 527′s with campaign funds could (and should) have been made before promising to accept public funding, but I don’t think that even Obama understood the wave that was beginning to form, fanned by his campaign.

It was a stupid promise to make, and a smart one to break. If you’re going to break any, break the stupid ones – not all of them as John McCain has.

-kvd out