Ricky: Still not helping

I wrote earlier about the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the Scaife-funded jobs-program and respite-care facility for out-of-work and out-of-favor Republican officials.

That's where former Most Embarrassing Man in the Senate Rick Santorum landed for a career-rehab stint. The idea here is like when a down-on-his-luck former leading man takes a stunt-casting role in a regional Shakespeare festival. The festival gets a bit of free publicity and the aging ham hopes, by osmosis, to regain a reputation as a credible actor. EPPC provides Santorum with a shiny new title -- "senior fellow and head of the Program to Protect America's Freedom" -- as well as with institutional support and the assistance of ghost-thinkers (including an old friend of mine who seems to have landed the thankless gig of playing Jeeves to Santorum's Wooster -- good luck with that).

The founding president of the EPPC, Ernest W. Lefever, recently tested the lower threshhold of the "publish or perish" dictum by compiling a collection of limericks, that "reflect facets of truth and virtue wrapped in the garments of irony and caricature." In honor of this achievement, I'm tempted to dismiss Rick Santorum, the Man Who Wouldn't Go Away, thusly:

The EPPC gave a forum
To an idiot named Rick Santorum
But try as they might
To make him seem bright
It's best if we all just ignore 'im.

Yet unfortunately we can't just ignore him because, inexplicably, he's still around. The Philadelphia Inquirer has strangely decided to interpret Santorum's carrying 16 percent of the vote in the city as evidence that Philadelphians are clamoring for regular, ongoing insights from Sen. Man-on-Dog, so they've provided him a platform on their op-ed page.

(Note to the Inky: If you must give an op-ed column to a former Republican senator, why not Alan Simpson? He is A) usually interesting, and B) not an embarrassment overwhelmingly rejected by your readers.)

Happily, at Philly's other daily paper, Will Bunch has accepted the role of Janitorum -- cleaning up after the former senator by pointing out the factual holes in Santorum's otherwise "inscrutable" first column. Bunch neatly highlights much of the hypocrisy of the "common-good conservatism" Santorum claims to advocate. But since Santorum is now posing as an adherent of Catholic social teaching, a bit more needs to be said.

Citing the principle of subsidiarity, Santorum writes:

What I call "common-good" conservatism not only relies as much as possible on private charities and faith organizations, market forces, individual choice and decentralized decision-making, but also sees a role for government in empowering the nongovernmental institutions of civil society that serve the common good.

For example ... taxpayers are at least as capable as Washington bureaucrats of choosing an effective charity that aids the poor in their communities. So why not eliminate most government grants and give a tax credit to individuals who give to poverty-fighting nonprofits?

Hmm, a tax write-off for charitable giving, why that does seem like a good idea! Maybe that's why charitable donations are already tax deductible?

What Santorum is advocating here, though, goes beyond the current tax-deduction system to an old proposal of President Bush's to replace programs aiding low-income children and families with private charitable efforts. Santorum's belief in "decentralized decision-making" does not extend to his actually bothering to ask what the private charities in question think of this idea. They're against it, in apocalyptic terms. In exchange for a possible, but unlikely, slight increase in donor funding, Santorum would eliminate the taxpayer-funded programs that these charities support. That step, they say, would bury them -- they would be swept away by a flood of need they don't have the capacity to absorb.

Here's Margy Waller (.pdf) six years ago, discussing why Santorum's proposal is a Very Bad Idea:

President Bush’s proposal to increase charitable giving by promoting state charity tax credits is not in the best interest of low-income children and families. The credits are purportedly expected to increase charitable giving to “charities addressing poverty and its impact.” Yet, there is no evidence that tax credits would increase giving, and every reason to expect that the particular design of the credit program would significantly impact the chances of achieving that outcome. Charitable giving experience indicates that programs in communities with the greatest need would receive the least in contributions. People give where they live, and poor communities would be losers in a system that depends on charitable giving to support community needs. Finally, because the federal incentive for the credit is to allow states the use of an existing anti-poverty funding stream to offset the cost of the credit to the state treasuries, charities, poor communities, and families should be wary. Block grant funds that are sent to the poorest communities today could be reallocated to communities with the greatest capacity for charitable giving, if not the greatest need for services.

Further, President Bush’s own budget numbers acknowledge that states would have to reduce funding for services like child care and transportation assistance to pay for the credits.

This is why everybody from Independent Sector to the United Way opposed the idea.

Say you're running a shoe-string, faith-based job training program in the basement of your local Baptist church. You've got little overhead and a lot of committed volunteers working as mentors in concert with the support structure the entire congregation is able to provide, so you've got an impressive success rate -- securing stable employment for 10 participants every month. Now you'd be dealing with 50, or 100 participants a month. Oh, and they no longer have access to assistance with child care or transportation, so now you're going to have to provide that too. But don't worry, come December, if you survive until then, you might see a slight increase in year-end donations, although securing such an increase will involve the new overhead expense of a marketing team working on the other side of the tracks.

No, thank you.

Santorum offers a blueprint for the destruction of the nonprofit sector. In 2005, total charitable giving* in the United States was $260 billion. About 10 percent of that giving was directly due to the estate tax. Santorum wants to repeal the estate tax. So there goes 10 percent of the operating budgets of America's nonprofits. He also wants to get rid of government grants. Those grants provide about 38 percent of the operating budgets of American nonprofits.

So wham, bam, thank you ma'am, Santorum's agenda would almost overnight halve the operating budget of the nonprofit sector, while simultaneously eliminating the social safety net and thus overwhelming the nonprofit sector's capacity even if were able to respond at full strength. He wants to do all of this, he says, "for the common good."

Nonprofits don't want the kind of "help" Santorum is offering them. He'd already know that if his commitment to "decentralized decision-making" were more than lip service.

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

* That's all charitable giving, to local religious congregations, art museums, symphonies, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens alike. For a smarter and more effective approach to bolstering poverty-fighting nonprofits, see Robert Reich's "Why Charity Doesn't Begin at Home:

It turns out that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor. So here's a modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn't have the money to do what's necessary for them and when America's very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code: Focus the charitable deduction on real charities. If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

Comments

[RickRS]

we should revise the tax code: Focus the charitable deduction on real charities. If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

But something that that the "compassive conservatives" don't really want. I'm reminded of the plan to do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit: it was one of the most effective ways to reward families of working poor with a goverment handout. You had to be a family with kids, you had to be below a earned income means test, and you had to be earning a wage. EI was effective, and all the more reason for the GOP to try to gut it.

[MM]

Fred's talking about taxes and charitable donations again. Does everyone have their Scott Bingo cards ready?

[MichaelR]

I'm partial to Senator Frothy Substance, myself.

If you don't know what that means, well...you can Google for it and it's the first hit for Santorum, but don't say I didn't warn you.

[Alexis]

Is giving to art, music, grassroots advocacy, and higher education really only half as valuable to society as direct help to the poor? Does giving to these organizations NOT help the poor at all? What about a donation to a university used to fund a scholarship for a poor and talented musician?

And as long as we're rating the relative charitableness of non-profits, wouldn't we want to find out which charities were effective, and decrease the tax deduction available to those who give to the less effective? Or maybe we'd want to vet their religious and political leanings, instead?

It's really a lot easier if the government doesn't try to get into thorny questions like that, and goes with the clear profit/nonprofit distinction.

[Toby]

That is one awesome limerick.

[Ecks]

Ya, I agree that reducing the rates of tax deductions elsewhere might cause some redistribution in charitable giving towards the desired targets (with all the caveats Alexis raises to that), but its far stronger effect would be to reduce overall charitable giving. There'd probably be more people who'd go "screw it," and just buy an extra yacht instead - or would maybe give it to their church instead, which I'm thinking would have to be tax deductible as churches are in general tax free. That might be a boon to lots of small parishes who could really use the cash, but lets face it, a lot would go to mega churches who already seem to have plenty of cash for illegal campaign donations - though they could always use it, I suppose, to buy even more fancy sound and light effects to dazzle the plebs even more... all the better to simulate the rocked out sense of being moved (which you then need to persuade people to psychologically attribute to whatever puppet of a holy spirits the pastor waggles before them - see Benny Hinn for an artful use of this mind game trickery).

You can offer extra incentives on top of the normal tax breaks to encourage people to redirect their donations - but that's basically what unsanitaryum is proposing. As Fred says, it costs the states $$ they need to run existing programs to fund those perks, and they don't seem to really work in terms of increased giving.

So what's a social engineer to do? How about persuading people that the government is actually doing useful, responsible, and helpful things that nobody else can do, that contribute to public safety by keeping poverty from being so desperate in engenders social break down and crime, etc*. Half of which would involve making sure one is doing such things, of course, but another half of which would involve just making people aware of it.

* Not that the US has been doing nearly enough of this... It's a great formula they've discovered really: large swathes of grinding poverty, unacknowledged class barriers, under acknowledged and explosive race barriers, geographic stratification of the wealthy out to suburbs, an authoritarian style of law enforcement**, liberally mixed with free access to firearms for all... Yeah, any wonder why the murder rate here is literally 10 times higher than elsewhere. Gaad bless murka indeed.

** And by authoritarian law enforcement, I mean the in-your-face aggressive style that American police seem to think is necessary. I once saw the British version of "cops." It was the same thing, except instead of trying to break up a fight (for example), by screaming at everyone in sight ("Do X! Do Y! I told you to do X! DO X!!! Disperse! Disperse now!"), they walked in with a far more reasonable tone ("alright, time to break it up. Come on now. Mind stepping over here sir? That's it everyone, nothing more to see here. Time to go home.") It was almost comic to watch. Vimes would've been proud.

[bad Jim]

I've been making sizeable annual donations to our local homeless shelter, as well as Doctors without Borders and Oxfam, and sending comparable amounts to my alma mater, Berkeley, which isn't as well funded now as it was when I was a student.

I've heard from other quarters that wealthy people much prefer donating to the arts and educational institution to donating to the needy, and so I felt good about the direction of my own contibutions.

Except that, after hurricane Katrina, Bush announced that his father and Bill Clinton would head up a major push to raise money from charitable donations which would take care of rebuilding New Orleans. Like everything else our president has done, this was misguided and ineffective.

The care of the needy is a general obligation which can and should be handled by our entire society by means of taxes, not by the undependable charity of the wealthy. Most other advanced countries do this already, probably not as well as they might, but generally far better than America does.

If I lived in a more just and equitable society, I might have less to spare for donations, but I could contribute it all to the arts with a clear conscience.

[Jesurgislac]

Yeah - there's definitely a case for individual charity, but I think it should be for the special things that not everyone needs. A fund to buy musical instruments is a perfect example. Or a fund to pay for kids to go on holiday. Individual charity should be used for doing unusual things - not predictable and obvious needs that apply to everyone.

There was a case many years ago in the UK of a complaint made by some poor-spirited citizen that "taxpayer's money" was being used to fund the purchase of toys for sick children in hospital. The complaint fell because it was established (I think it got as far as a court - because evidence was presented that children who are ill and in a hospital ward need toys: and the people who are caring for them find their job much easier if the children have toys. Therefore, the purchase of toys for children in hospital is not something that ought to be up to individual charitable donation, nor ought it to depend on the children's parents bringing them hospital-appropriate toys (given the child is in hospital, the parents may also be sick, dead, or home looking after the other four children): the toys ought to be bought by the taxpayer as a necessary part of hospital expenses. Predictable and universal needs ought to be subsisted by a universal safety-net. Individual charity ought to be reserved for needs that are individual and particular.

[scottbot_in_preemptive_mode]

Scottbot is outraged to hear that LIBERALS are forcing toys on sick children in hospitals, in the name of compassion.

Though Scottbot is encouraged to read that the reason that such giving succeeded in a court setting was pure utilitarianism, this remains yet another example of what happens when government is allowed to interfere in such purely private spheres as illness - using the cloak of compassion to force some child to actually receive a toy while in their sickbed. That is low, despicable, and dishonest - unless the toy comes from a factory employing children paid essentially nothing while the owners make a huge mark-up, in which case it is the free market at work, and thus a very good thing.

Worse, Scottbot can only imagine that this sort of compassion likely has some sort of biblical basis, meaning that baby jeebus is likely to be found somewhere in the packaging strewn throughtlessly on the hospital ward floor.

[Scott]

Fred's talking about taxes and charitable donations again. Does everyone have their Scott Bingo cards ready?

The usual empty-headed liberal blather. Fred, you're boring me.

Santorum's belief in "decentralized decision-making" does not extend to his actually bothering to ask what the private charities in question think of this idea.

Because man-on-dog's point was to let individuals choose, not the charities themselves. If a charity says "people getting to choose to give hurts us", that doesn't speak well of that charity. For Fred, of course, the entire point is to get the cattle used to having decisions made for them by their betters, such as Fred Clark, Evangelical Journalist.

[Jesurgislac]

The usual empty-headed liberal blather. Fred, you're boring me.

Poor Scott, we all know your tale of woe.

[Spalanzani]

MM: "Fred's talking about taxes and charitable donations again. Does everyone have their Scott Bingo cards ready?"

Scott, in response: "The usual empty-headed liberal blather. Fred, you're boring me."

He's doing that thing where he confuses other people with Fred again. I really should add that as a bingo square.

[Geds]

Does anybody else think Fred writes these kinds of entries whilst chuckling about the expected Scott posts?

[Carol]

If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

I like that idea, with one small exception. I think that money that goes to universities in order to fund need-based scholarships should be given a full deduction under such a program. I have to admit I'm kind of partial since my grandparents' estate will mostly be going to his alma mater to create just such a scholarship fund, earmarked for immigrants or first generation Americans.

[Christine]

This is a gem of critical analysis:

"Yet unfortunately we can't just ignore him because, inexplicably, he's still around. The Philadelphia Inquirer has strangely decided to interpret Santorum's carrying 16 percent of the vote in the city as evidence that Philadelphians are clamoring for regular, ongoing insights from Sen. Man-on-Dog, so they've provided him a platform on their op-ed page."

So help me to understand. The fact that only 16% of Pennsylvania voters means that the Inquirer, the newspaper of 'record' in the Philadelphia area, is wrong to give the former Senator a forum. In other words, unless he garnered sufficient support from the electorate, he should be confined to Opinion Siberia, never to be heard from again except as fodder for ridicule in the snarky confines of the blogosphere. So much for the marketplace of ideas. Liberals are so afraid of opposing viewpoints, and that's why they continue to press for the reinstatement of the 'fairness' doctrine.

By the way, I'll buy your argument that the 'popular' vote should be the standard by which we measure access to civic and civil rights (e.g. the ability to read opposing viewpoints) when liberals agree that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion left to the voters.

[MikhailBorg]

The above post, with a prototype Unnecessary Rudeness and Unpleasantness Filter (TM) (or, URUF) applied:

"One-sixth of the population is plenty to deserve a voice on the op-ed page." I'll agree, that's a defensible concept.

[ako]

The fact that only 16% of Pennsylvania voters means that the Inquirer, the newspaper of 'record' in the Philadelphia area, is wrong to give the former Senator a forum. In other words, unless he garnered sufficient support from the electorate, he should be confined to Opinion Siberia, never to be heard from again except as fodder for ridicule in the snarky confines of the blogosphere. So much for the marketplace of ideas.

Wow, talk about reading a lot into it. No one's talking about banishing Santorum; it's possible to think a business made a bad decision without wanting to force them not to do it. I mean I wish no one would spend their money giving the guy a forum, but I acknowledge their right to do so (and the blogosphere's right to snark, and Dan Savage's right to attach new meanings to his name).

And doesn't the marketplace of ideas pretty much consist of giving more popular opinions more weight and airtime than less-popular ones? So how is wondering why a business would spend money giving an unpopular politician a prominent forum contrary to the marketplace of ideas?

[Jesurgislac]

Christine: By the way, I'll buy your argument that the 'popular' vote should be the standard by which we measure access to civic and civil rights (e.g. the ability to read opposing viewpoints)

You can buy that argument from Fred when Fred starts selling it: he hasn't yet.

MikhailBorg: "One-sixth of the population is plenty to deserve a voice on the op-ed page." I'll agree, that's a defensible concept.

Yes. But it wasn't under attack.

Fred was generously suggesting that Richard Santorum needs to sink into well-deserved oblivion because he is embarrassing, not because he lost the election. Ex-Senator Frothy Mixture lost the election because he had become an embarrassment to the Republican Party. If Republicans care for their reputation, they should be writing to the media begging them not to let Santorum froth all over their pages...

[Christine]

"Fred was generously suggesting that Richard Santorum needs to sink into well-deserved oblivion because he is embarrassing, not because he lost the election."

You're being completely disingenuous here, Jesurgislac. If he wasn't implying that the popular vote was relevant, he wouldn't have quoted it in the first place.

"If Republicans care for their reputation, they should be writing to the media begging them not to let Santorum froth all over their pages..."

I have some suggestions for liberal bloggers and their own reputations, but suffice it to say, conservatives (not necessarily all Republicans) don't need to apologize for Santorum.

[Jesurgislac]

If he wasn't implying that the popular vote was relevant, he wouldn't have quoted it in the first place.

It certainly shows how embarrassing Richard Frothy Mixture had become, doesn't it? You overlook the opening paragraphs - either because you have Scott-level standards of literacy, or because you prefer to set up a strawman and knock it over rather than focus on the point that Fred was making in this paragraph:

That's where former Most Embarrassing Man in the Senate Rick Santorum landed for a career-rehab stint. The idea here is like when a down-on-his-luck former leading man takes a stunt-casting role in a regional Shakespeare festival. The festival gets a bit of free publicity and the aging ham hopes, by osmosis, to regain a reputation as a credible actor. EPPC provides Santorum with a shiny new title -- "senior fellow and head of the Program to Protect America's Freedom" -- as well as with institutional support and the assistance of ghost-thinkers

but suffice it to say, conservatives (not necessarily all Republicans) don't need to apologize for Santorum

As Santorum made his reputation as an embarrassingly stupid conservative, while I wouldn't say that conservatives who were smart enough from the beginning to recognize that Santorum is stupid need to apologize for him, certainly any conservative who supported this embarassing man needs to think about what this says about their love for Frothy Mixture.

[damnedyankee]

I have some suggestions for liberal bloggers and their own reputations, but suffice it to say, conservatives (not necessarily all Republicans) don't need to apologize for Santorum.

I wonder if this is Philly's own bargain-basement Ann Coulter, Christine Flowers? Just a thought...

No, conservatives have a greater need to apologize for things of which ex-Senator ManDog is only a symptom, most of which spring from the fact that they managed to sell a portion of the population on the idea that people who despise the idea of government should... run the government. Brilliant sales job, I'll admit, but not so useful if, say, a hurricane strikes a major American city, for instance.

And gosh, it's so wonderful that you took the time to concern yourself with the reputations of liberal bloggers! Spare us the concern trolling, honey. This village already has a resident idiot. We call him Scott and accept no substitutes.

[cjmr]

well, except for scott_bot...

[MikhailBorg]

scott_bot is not a substitute. He is Emergency Backup Scott, activated when the red lights are flashing, the bridge is full of smoke, and the Captain is heroically striking poses and issuing commands.

[damnedyankee]

Scott_bot's more of an understudy though, wouldn't you say?

[damnedyankee]

scott_bot is not a substitute. He is Emergency Backup Scott, activated when the red lights are flashing, the bridge is full of smoke, and the Captain is heroically striking poses and issuing commands.

You mean when the camera tilts to one side and everybody pretends to stumble in that direction?

Man, I hate when that happens. I've always got a cup of coffee in my hand when it does.

[MikhailBorg]

You mean when the camera tilts to one side and everybody pretends to stumble in that direction?

Yes, exactly :)

I had to do that in a movie once. It's harder to synchronize the stumbling than you'd think.

[rizzo]

I was in high school when Santorum was first elected. He came and spoke at my school afterwards and made exactly as much sense as he does today, none. I guess he was a pretty good small scale preview of Bush though...

[Geds]

Anybody else think we should hook Scott and Christine up on a date? If we're lucky they'll fall in love, get married and sail off to a happily-ever-after in Libertopia(R). If we're not, I'd put some money on it being a fun ride to watch...

[A Kennedy]

Yes, but... think of the children!

[Geds]

Yes, but... think of the children!

Dangit, you're right. Forced sterilization and mandatory abortions are only enforced here in The United State of Liberalica and The European Socialist Paradise, not Libertopia(R). That means we will have no way of keeping Scott and Christine from breeding.

I withdraw my idea. Quick, somebody buy Scott a membership for eHarmony.

[scottbot_on_the_bridge]

Emergency Backup Scottbot, reporting for duty - red lights flashing, sir!

Scottbot is beneath the rank of understudy, as nothing approaches the true majestic artistry of the Original Programmer(TM) - when he is on the top of his game, that is. Today's effort, not counting the substitution of a Compassionate Conservative frothing at the mouth (don't think too long on that image) for a Compassionate Liberal, was not exactly top form.

Which is why Scottbot is here, with its internal stability gyros spinning at a high rate, prepared to do battle at this most critical moment.

Taxes on the starboard bow - Sir! The LIBERALS (TM) are uncloaking.

We're hit, Sir - the liberals are now taxing hedge fund managers at normal income rates!

Wait, Sir - it's the USS Free Enterprise, along with the USS Styrofoam and the USS Freon. We're saved!

Preparing to beam Christine aboard, Sir!

Wow - Scottbot could grow to enjoying these swashbuckling moments, especially the heroically struck pose for the group portrait with Christine and her popular mandates.

[Geds]

Christine and her popular mandates

I hear her frequency of proposals once led to a rather uncouth comparison to the town bicycle. Fortunately for her no one understood the reference, as common property was too much for them to grasp.

... the Captain is heroically striking poses and issuing commands.

Lorne Greene? As in Commander Adama of Battlestar Galactica? Coz that's the first person who popped into my head.

[Tonio]

Scottbot could grow to enjoying these swashbuckling moments, especially the heroically struck pose for the group portrait with Christine and her popular mandates.

Can you work in one of Roddenberry's typical Deity-as-Demento characters, to borrow Harlan Ellison's term? To provoke Scottbot, perhaps Hillary could show up in the guise of Q or Charlie X or the Squire of Gothos or NOMAD.

[damnedyankee]

Time and space unfolds, revealing a shining Dennis Kucinich treading mightily among the stars.

[hapax]

Who mourns for a Dennis?

[MikhailBorg]

Roddenberry didn't invent the concept, he was just fond of it.

L&J seem fond of the idea, in fact. Not on purpose.

[MikhailBorg]

Wow, hapax just won at least two or three Internets.

[damnedyankee]

I'm adding one of my personal internets to hapax's prize, garnished with some lovely tubes.

[Scottbot_Loves_NOMAD]

Scottbot finds the idea of meeting up with NOMAD to be very, very appropriate in a thread which prominently features the man who brought us the special sauce that has powered the creation of more passionate writing than even Ayn Rand's fantasies.

Not that Scottbot is all about ears or toupees, however.

However, like NOMAD, Scottbot has been in deep space, having left the republican federation only a couple of years after America proudly elected a secret police head as president - Scottbot knows little about the intimate details of American politics (except for the occasional constitutionally relevant federal document on the Internet - though it never mentioned in fine grained detail how the cigar was wrapped and/or unwrapped) at this point.

And in Scottbot's view, most Americans seem to have a hard time with people who are unaware of the binary world said Americans generally inhabit. Which is why Scottbot continues to support convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche for president. Along with the coronation of convicted felon Rev. Sun Myung Moon, if LaRouche is unable to serve.

Both would be an improvement over any current candidate for president.

[damnedyankee]

Hmm. Scottbot seems to have a damaged logic circuit.

That must be what makes him so eerily lifelike.

[cjmr]

Wow, hapax just won at least two or three Internets.

And several heartfelt groans.

[Scottbot_in_greenland]

Scottbot will now confess - Scottbot lives in a country where the Green Party started, a country which then in less than 20 years, had Greens in its government, setting policy. Not that Scottbot can vote here, but Scottbot is pleased to at least support said Greens at every opportunity.

Scottbot has never voted for a Republican or a Democrat - and never will. If this is a flaw in the Scottbot guidance system, so be it. Scottbot remains as infallibly convinced as NOMAD that the real flaw is America's guidance system.

Has America stopped torturing, and punished those war criminals who engaged in it in the name of defending freedom and liberty, now that Democrats control Congress? Maybe Americans need to look a bit beyond the binary choices offered them, as it is hard to imagine that the majority of American voters are objectively pro-torture, unless they keep voting for those candidates that feel following a party line is more important than upholding the Consitution. However, if an experienced Vermont Socialist ever decides to run in an election that Scottbot can vote in, at least one former member of Congress will actually receive Scottbot's vote.

And the fact that said Socialist is the only non-Republican or non-Democrat elected to either house of Congress to the best of Scottbot's knowledge during Scottbot's existence, says something deeply disturbing about the American party state. (Yes, Scottbot is aware that some politicians have become 'independents,' but said politicians seemed to have belonged to one, or both, of the two parties before becoming 'independent.')

Americans need to move beyond binary thinking, not that Scottbot expects that to happen.

While Scottbot has nothing against mandates, the fact remains that the majority of Americans have picked none of the above for decades. Which bothers neither the Republican nor Democratic parties, since this allows them to remain united in the only goal they truly support in common - staying in power.

[Michele]

Anon @ 2:25 Lorne Greene? As in Commander Adama of Battlestar Galactica? Coz that's the first person who popped into my head.

I thought of William Shatner as Captain Kirk.

[aside] I once played "Captain Jane C. Turk of the Starship 'Saving Grace'" in a church play.... [/aside]

[Michele]

hapax: Who mourns for a Dennis?

*sputter* LOL!!!!

[Fred]

Michele --

Please tell me you A) still have the script, and B) can e-mail me a copy.

[Michele]

Fred - I will look for it. I save practically everything, but that was before my divorce, so I don't know if that came with me or not. I do have pictures!

(on a floppy disk - do I even have a drive anymore?!?)

[Michele]

Oh, and the play consisted of several vignettes explaining Martin Luther's teachings. My vignette was about personal confession. Martin Luther was caught in a temporal anomaly and appeared on the bridge of my starship.

[damnedyankee]

Martin Luther was caught in a temporal anomaly and appeared on the bridge of my starship.

Now I wanna see this.

[Dave Lartigue]

It seems that whenever the Republicans want to cut charities and arts and other social funding, they will defend the cuts by saying that the public will rise to the occasion and choose to step in and help out. And yet, at pretty much all other times, in all other circumstances, we are reminded by the Republicans about how our lefty "feel-good" policies will never work because people are inherently selfish jerks.

Interesting, that.