The thugs vs the U.S.

Fhrida Ghitas is fortunately not published in the Spokesman-Review very often. I think it is actually a blessing that she isn't. If there was ever a definition of liberal, she would meet that definition to a "T." So, reading her republished editorial in the 5 January 2010 edition of the Spokesman-Review, you could immediately get the impression that because Iranian President Ahmedinajad only happens to be an extremist who undoubtedly hates the west as much as he hates Israel and the U.S.; our failure to "make nice" to such a thug and make him see sweet reason, well; it can't be GW's fault, now can it? No kidding? Really?

Let's lay aside for the minute that countries with governments and leaders who absolutely detest this nation; one of the lasting legacies of GW was that he spent more time alienating his friends than putting together at any time an effective foreign policy. Only if you ignore such a legacy as Ms. Ghitas sets out to do, then you can opine away that GW can't be blamed for countries with "mutually exclusive" policies (that at the same time, hate us). Well no, if for example Iran spent better than 20 years calling us the "Great Satan" regardless of who was in office, that would be true. On the other hand, how about attacking France for refusing to step up to the plate on a contemplated invasion (by the U.S.) of Iraq. Anything associated however loosely with France could be renamed: Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast; and French wines could be dumped down the gutter. And "French cleaners" could get vandalized with graffiti written all over the building, etc. I am quite sure that the French government (that was demonstrating mutually exclusive policies when it came to GW's two terms in office) breathed a sigh of relief when GW was replaced by Dem successor President Obama. As did other nations known to be our allies before being confronted with the last president's belligerence.

Now to take into consideration, Hugo Chavez. Would it be impossible for the man to not know the world's opinion of President Bush when he was in office? The point to be made is, that of course the man isn't stupid, he'd have radio, TV, some kind of newspaper, and without a doubt the capacity to obtain international news. Just as he would travel to other nations at odds with this one, quite prepared to make deals with those countries just to p.o. the last administration in particular. Ever consider that Chavez is a master manipulator very capable of pushing the hot buttons of people most passionate? Well, yeah; is the Pope Catholic?

I remember when people started screaming away about President Obama's poor choice of "friends." In letters to the editor in the Coeur d'Alene Press and again in the Spokesman-Review and even on blogs. President Hugo Chavez who gave Obama a book, Chavez who at one point spoke approvingly of the new president before the U.N. brought a rain of rants that insinuated a question of disloyalty by Obama to this nation. And from there, attacks on the (old) left in general. So, when Chavez who'd be just as capable of knowing all about the criticisms of American media such as CNN and Fox News about Obama obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize so soon into his presidency; well now it wouldn't be impossible for the man to simply capitalize on that American-based criticism and change his opinions about Obama "his dear friend" in a matter of months. While I did not hear about Chavez' mutually exclusive domestic and foreign polices vis a vis Obama until Ms. Ghitas brought this matter front and center. I do know that there did come a time when Obama wasn't being attacked for his anti-American "friends." Not now, anyway when one of them turns on him.

No, I don't guess that diplomacy is going to work on Ahmedinajad. But neither did drawing a line in the sand, backing away, drawing another line in the sand, backing away and drawing another line in the sand; which was the Iranian foreign policy under the GW administration ever effective either. So, what should we do? Well, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to do something toward cutting off Iran's oil profits, which no doubt does go a long way toward funding Ahmedinajad's nuclear ambitions. We ask the rest of the western world to follow suit. Then we turn to Iran's neighbors and tell them that it would be in their best interests, that whenever Ahmedinajad throws a tantrum, to send him to his room without supper. Maybe applying the right sort of diplomacy not directly with Iran but with those who do business with Iran would do more to curtail Iran's thuggish attitudes. If Iran no longer had the profits to support a nuclear program, how quickly would Iran come to the negotiating table?

Decent and enlightened Republicans

I thoroughly enjoyed Leonard Pitts, jr.'s editorial this morning (republished in the Spokesman-Review) about what the Republican party was commencing to do wrong when it came to expanding its own base and trying to make that long climb back into power. Namely, being a little too prepared to continue to alienate what ought to be a natural constituency—African-Americans. His column is definitely worth reading for the anti-racist rant that is the message he puts forth. And his appeal to decent and enlightened Republicans to tell their party about what ought not a party platform any longer; precisely: using racial and racist overtones against this nation's first African-American president.

It brings to mind a quite clumsy and laughable letter published in the Coeur d'Alene Press of recent vintage, where the writer complained about the current administration in exactly the manner that Pitts had decried. Being happy with a GOP president who could balance a Dem Congress (but he was also white, wasn't he?), who "kept them safe" (not really); who only spent "millions" (that is around a few 0s off of what the last administration had actually spent) as opposed to Obama's trillions. But who wouldn't have been treated as both "racial and a radical." Well, let's put it bluntly, that racism was behind Rush Limbaugh's encouraging the GOP to go to the polls in open primary states and vote for Hillary Clinton. Had Clinton won the Dem nod on overtly racist votes; not necessarily would she have become president because the same racists would have been equally appalled at the idea that a woman might just ascend to the highest office of the land. Vote for the woman in the Dem field of presidential wannabes only because that "black man" scares the heck out of these people. And let us also put it bluntly that Dems weren't holding TEA Parties during the last administration because they were absolutely scared spitless of how they would get treated if they did. As indeed both radical and anti-American. They got that jammed in their collective faces anyway over the last 8 years for any number of reasons. So if the writer could claim now that Democrats were out protesting excess spending by the current administration; perhaps so. But it is also safe to say that they could more safely protest the current administration than they could have the last one. And that anyone on the political spectrum could more easily protest the current administration than they could have or would have the last one. Because, this administration at least is more democratic in nature. Even though it did have valid questions for the motivations of the TEA Party activists. Well now, it would be good for the writer to have gotten the Spokesman-Review and had a chance to read Pitts' editorial; that would answer a few questions. The GOP is infested with racist hold overs; they and the religious activists are about all that is left of the party's base. In short, the TEA Parties were driven in part by racism and radicalism. If the Dem president had been white, would there have been TEA Parties? Probably not. The last time there was a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem President—Bill Clinton, no TEA Parties were held at all. So, seems to me that what scared the heck out of these TEA Party participants and had them organizing their opposition to the current administration was indeed based on race. And TEA Parties weren't in vogue when this country was in more difficult times back in the 1930s when FDR got sworn into office. How about that. After all, an activist gvt was hard at work trying to bring an economically crippled nation back into full production. The same as now. FDR was all about excessive spending to put people back to work. The same as now. The GOP lack of gratitude for FDR's helping them to achieve a middle class and higher status would only appear decades after the fact. Unlike now. Afraid that unless the TEA Party participants can really prove otherwise, race was a factor in why they organized their protests.

But, I would like to offer a couple of corrections now as to Pitts concepts of conservatism: when racist "states' rights" proponnents get called "conservative," what's "conservative" about being a bigot? Christ was a Semite, people go to church to hear the teachings that initially came from a Semite; then they go out and demonstrate nothing but hate for anyone who doesn't look like them, think like them, hold a political or religious philosophy different from their own, or even behaves differently from how they behave. The people who proclaim themselves to be biblical literalists; yet do not value their own book so as to actually live up to its teachings in their own lives. The same people, ladies and gentlemen, who'd attack the enlightened and decent as "liberal." The time that pure hatred gets called "conservative" has to be scary to anyone. The time that "love your neighbor as yourself" an erstwhile Christian commandment if there ever was one gets attacked as "liberal," as though something nasty lay underneath it; that says a lot about what has become the radicalization of the GOP. Why would anyone truly conservative go against what he says he values most? Who's actions and behavior can only be destructive of the canons of his belief? He wouldn't. In short, someone who happens to be truly conservative would be both decent and enlightened. As of now, they truly don't exist among the GOP.

Don't know much about history

Kathleen Parker's 1 May editorial republished in the Spokesman-Review demonstrated a real snit fit over the very idea (apalling) that President Barack H. Obama (pro-choice) could accept an invitation from Notre Dame University (Catholic) as a commencement speaker and even get an honorary degree. So she starts her editorial off with this declaration; "Here on planet 'What about Me,' principled people are so rare as to be oddities. Thus it was a head-swiveling moment Monday when former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon quietly declined Notre Dame's Laetare Medal." Seems Ms. Glendon is a Harvard University law professor and a respected author on bioethics and human rights. That is, given the tone of Parker's column to follow, Prof Glendon is thoroughly anti-abortion. And that it is on this highly political stance that Ms. Glendon won't accept this medal [in part] because Barack Obama was invited to be a commencement speaker. —Parker. Quite frankly, I'd suggest that "faith" wasn't behind Ambassador Glendon's refusal to accept such a medal so much as her political opposition to President Obama and his ideology. Which then begs the question, we know that GW Bush authorized the use of torture against terrorist suspects. GW being invited by Notre Dame to be a commencement speaker and a recipient of an honorary degree despite his history on international policies and the contravening of the Geneva Conventions; would a Ms. Glendon refuse such a medal on the grounds that GW wasn't a supporter of human rights or accept it because GW was opposed to abortion and stem cell research? But if Ms. Glendon were acting on the principles of "faith," to put it bluntly, her respected authorship on bioethics and human rights ought to put her at odds with the very church she was only an ambassador to; given the history of the church itself as not being a supporter of human rights. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't accept such a medal.

But, I highly doubt that "faith" had anything to do with it. Rather, as I suggested above, it was all about the politics.

Parker goes on to say, "It has always seemed to me that the truest form of feminism, as in the earliest days of suffrage, would be to hold abhorrent the state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts." Excuse me? Suffrage was all about women's equality. And along with Margaret Sanger's push toward the equality of women also included birth control and family planning. Thus it can be said without equivocation, that Ms. Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. But at the time of the earliest days of the feminist movement, the "conservative" reaction was to oppose women taking their place in society as workers, voters, politicians, having an independent income and managing it on their own, deciding for themselves just how many kids they'd like to have and when. The "conservative" reaction was that women's only role was to be that of wife, mother and home maker. In the century since women's suffrage made many political and economic gains, the "conservative" reaction is to now put a new dress on a very old argument; precisely, the only acceptable feminism is the woman who is wife, mother and home maker. And this comes from the pen of a woman who is not herself only a wife, mother and home maker... presumably. No, Parker actually does work for a living in the newspaper business. And is therefore a beneficiary of the feminism that Sanger helped promote. And as for the "state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts," I think she does not recall any too well what the state allowed in the 19^th century as to doctors being able to neuter women who were regarded as [retarded] by giving them hysterectomies. That is the only "state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts" that I know of. Rendering such women as incapable of bearing children. Talk about your euphemisms that not only shoot wide of the mark but head off into Never Never land. There is no life-bearing gift in getting pregnant. Only if you possess the well-functioning equipment to get there at all.

With reference to Glendon refusing to accept the medal Parker had this to say,

• President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.
• We think having the President come to Notre Dame, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.

"Glendon, who is no mortal's pawn, decided she couldn't accept the award."

Apparently, "faith" insists that neither will Prof. Glendon act very Christian, either. I am fully familiar with the bible. I am fully familiar with that scripture in Luke that advises the followers of Christ to love even their enemies. With reference to God loving even sinners by the gifts he bestows (sun and rain) upon them. True love, according to Christ, does not stop at the gate of someone you regard as a foe. In today's political language, Glendon as a "Christian" should have been more than happy to seize on an opportunity to assist Notre Dame in educating the President on the causes both she and the university cared about. But instead, she let political opposition stand in the way of Christian morality. That I regard as a real loss to herself and Notre Dame that "faith" in accordance with the bible wasn't the "principle" she wished to stand on. So, a trip down history lane: until the rise of the feminist movement, abortion really wasn't an issue from the 18^th to the 19^th centuries. It did occur but the precise records of how often the occurrence, how many hundreds, thousands, of women might have obtained such a procedure is not known. With the rise of feminism, only then did "conservatives" and religious activists go on record with a political opposition to the procedure. Anti-family planning laws were passed to include prohibiting the birth control pill as well as rendering illegal the abortion procedure. But regardless of the effort to render illegal the abortion procedure, women still sought out and obtained abortions, at great risk to themselves. "Faith" wasn't the article that drove such opposition. Rather the politics that opposed the existence and rise of feminism in this nation. If "faith" was the principle that Glendon was applauded for by Parker, well, it wasn't very evident by Parker's description since any dogma concerning abortion must also be met with respect as well for one's fellow Christians. Glendon had no such respect. The politics came first. Glendon might have been an ambassador for Christ and she refused. Good for her as she most certainly shot in the foot what credibility Christianity might have got in this world. But why should Obama bow out? He has demonstrated more than once his willingness to love even his political enemies.

The errors of hysterical screeching

E. Thomas McClanahan who is a member of the Kansas City Star editorial board and republished on 4 April 2009 began with a comedy of errors when it comes to the use of polls to argue the failure of the Obama administration barely into its 4^th month. The highly partisan Zogby poll was specified. For anyone who recalls the Zogby poll, the Spokesman-Review's blog Huckleberries online made consistent use of the Zogby poll because I do believe the blog's author didn't really care to see Obama win. But compare the Zogby poll to other polls, even to that of CNN's polls of polls, and the Zogby poll was artificially too low during the primary and general campaign season of 2008. I sure wouldn't much trust the Zogby poll that can as easily track voting demographics as can John King's "Magic Wall." And therefore, asks questions of people and only those people who wouldn't have supported Obama in the first place, before making "random calls" of anyone else. I'm sure the Zogby pollsters would have been still surprised despite their skewed attempts at polling that President Obama still has such strong support. But McClanahan, who seems to want Obama governed solely by polling sees a man who is polled in the mid 50s as a failure. Actually, Obama would have to poll worse than GW in his last year in office, about 19%, by the end of his first year in office, to be regarded as an utter failure. "Many people are worried?" Or only those people who are actually polled with typically loaded questions, worried.

One of the issues that McClanahan brings out is the cap and trade environmental policy that can only wreck our manufacturing base. We have a manufacturing base? Beyond the auto industry, most of our manufacturing base does not exist in this country any more. Perhaps one cause can be past environmental regs (which GW proceeded to relax and the manufacturing industry fled this nation regardless) but the other greater cause was the desire for cheap labor. No, cap and trade environmental policies would only affect polluting energy producing companies. They aren't going to outsource to say China before sending the energy they produce back to the consumers locally. Either a staff member of the Kansas City Star is badly misinformed or he hopes that his readers are ignorant. Given the fact that Lou Dobbs of CNN has bemoaned the fact that we don't really make anything in this country any more, then McClanahan could have watched his colleague on TV, even contacted him more personally to discuss our lack of a manufacturing base that GW's own environmental policies would not have discouraged these industries from continuing to operate here. Excuse me, but the well informed don't to date have a problem with Obama's policies or presidency.

On the health care front, health care and the insurance has become unaffordable here in this nation. The insurance policies that cover less while costing more. The "tests" that doctors perform to assure that they don't get malpractice lawsuits make hospital stays unaffordable. Doctor visits unaffordable. What has that got to do with the economic crisis that swept through Europe? Actually, nothing. While whipping away at Obama, McClanahan ignores some truly crucial factors that started economic collapses across many nations and led to the G20 Summit in the last week. Banks such as Citigroup that looked for foreign investors to keep it financed as it continued to engage in out of control business practices. Lou Dobbs faithful following was informed of that back in 2007/2008. Citigroup that went from national to international in its out of control desire to obtain more capital; as its inevitable collapse loomed, so it began to create an economic crisis in countries that had provided it with capital. As did AIG. The heavy speculation in oil futures, driving up to obscene levels the price of gas at the pump, that too was a factor in economic collapses across nations. It heavily hit the most impoverished to the point of starvation and violent rioting before gas prices began to reduce to more affordable levels. It literally caused local businesses to close. But if you want to scapegoat GW's successor, then do by all means ignore all that. But the above is exactly why the people put Obama and not McCain into office. With McClanahan, you do have to wonder who suffers most from short term memory problems.

Once an apologist, ALWAYS an apologist

The business world has become some sort of victim of a Congress hell-bent on controlling it, if you believe the hysterical screeching coming from the likes of Cal Thomas. The people who bussed to the homes of AIG executives and protested them should have really directed their anger at the politicians in Washington, D.C. People should hold "tea parties" out of "protest" at what the federal gvt is doing... The problem for Mr. Thomas is, it is a little late to make the argument that the voters should specifically target 3 Dems, including Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out of "anger," or that they simply need to "clean house," of all politicians come November 2010. The reason why is that any politician who is running for office as a newcomer, who vies for the House or Senate seat of the incumbent Thomas wants to see replaced, will also have gotten a percentage of his campaign funding from the same business interests who want the politician to provide favorable legislation for. And at one time, Thomas was actually among those opposed to the capping of campaign contributions from PACs and the business world because it was after all, "free speech." In short, he wasn't opposed to graft and corruption between Congress and the private sector as long as the private sector was ultimately a beneficiary.

What Mr. Thomas seems to fail to understand, is that when various industries and financial institutions pay out fantastic sums to politicians on the assumption that those same pols will remember them in federal legislation, the relaxing of rules, the unenforced regs, the regulatory agencies that don't and possibly can't do their jobs right; when you get the sort of financial melt down mess that happened in one year: 2008; that had been however decades in its development and catastrophic consequences; those "victimized" businesses did want it that way. Now he proclaims that we don't need "new rules," we just need to enforce the ones already on the books. Excuse me, Thomas, but the laws now on the books were just the way business lobbyists wanted them when they paid out millions in dollars to write the legislation favoring their specified special interests. So yes, we need new rules.

When the Spokesman-Review republished his latest tirade in its 24 March 2009 edition, the S-R also published a column by Robyn Blumner. She goes to great lengths to describe usury in this society, those who made great "short term" wealth trading in essentially worthless paper, and the refusal of investors to invest in something solid such as what would produce good jobs and a stable manufacturing base in this nation. Question: what is the worth of a "tea party?" Our tax dollars have been at work shoring up the business interests and catering to their very needs ever since it was decreed that corporations could be deemed private citizens. No one threw "tea parties" when politicians on the taxpayers' dime engaged in tort and bankruptcy reform. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers' dime helped business interests work against Americans having good paying jobs. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers dime allowed and even encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and the insourcing of foreign labor. They did not throw "tea parties," when gvt turned to the private sector when it came to the war in Iraq. And the private sector much epitomized by Halliburton then proceeded to bilk the taxpayers of their hard earned money by its failure to do its job right. So, what is the worth of throwing a tea party now except on a partisan "feel good" premise?

Of course, politicians can let the nation down because of one fact, only those with the money (the business world/wealthy) are the ones the politicians are going to listen to the most. But until now, to make an anti-corporatist argument was to put you on the side of "socialism." Never mind that the private sector that cozies up to gvt demanding that its short term interests get met, does run the risks of finding that it can come with plenty of strings attached. Mr. Thomas was never opposed to the one, he is only opposed to the consequences of the private sector demanding the personal attention of the federal gvt. Yeah, given the financial mess this nation now faces, there are going to be consequences.

Not stem cell research, objectifying humanity.

If there is one thing to be said about political columnists such as Kathleen Parker, they always come up with cute creative ways to not get their message across and to reaffirm to the congregation where their positions clearly are. Stem cell research if it comes from embryoes not used and would have been discarded by fertility clinics is now "objectifying humanity." In other words, if I had some debilitating disease such as Parkinson's that could be cured by an embryonic stem cell based treatment, I'd be objectifying humanity if I accepted such a treatment. But the painful shaking, the slow deterioration of the body long before death would have brought a blessed relief; I'd have that choice wouldn't I of not accepting the treatment on "moral grounds" and thereby objectify my own. No one wins in such a debate because it becomes an either or. Either you are going to be for that discarded embryo that never becomes a child or you are going to be for research done on it that saves the life of your child. Looks like objectifying humanity is a permanent fixture in the political realm already.

While Ms. Parker turns to select research to prove why we should turn only to alternative stem cell research, she mentions U.S. News & World Report in particular who's editorial staff and editor in particular happens to have a political bias. They gave full coverage to a guy once with "research" that was ultimately discredited as to a "link" between breast cancer and abortion. But discredited ultimately because the risks of breast cancer should have been just as high for women who miscarry, in itself a form of abortion. Or breast cancer risks already being high for women who never had kids. How about the breast cancer risks for women who did have kids? How about the fact that women can simply be prone to breast cancer period never mind the politics surrounding abortion? So, the researcher she mentioned, who worked initially for the first President Bush (by the way, G HW Bush was anti-abortion) a Dr. Bernadine Healy informing the readership that embryonic stem cell research is obsolete. If that were the case, then President Obama would have no cause to lift the ban or provide federal tax dollars.

Of course private research could always get private funding so Ms. Parker intoned. But given the politics surrounding embryonic stem cell research private funding would not necessarily be guaranteed. Esp. when restrictions existed that scientists could only use existing stem cell lines, most of which were unusable, private research with private funding based on such a federal restriction, would have simply driven such research to other nations with fewer restrictions. Which I believe that Ms. Parker neglected to be any too informative about that . Only because of such a restriction, not necessarily because of the efficacy of using alternative stem cells, researchers turned to seeing what might be done about that to essentially get around the ban. Which again, Ms. Parker ignored. If such research were indeed a success, again there would be no need for President Obama to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research.

The cloning of Dolly the sheep created a political firestorm. What was feared was that human cloning would be next, the creating and destroying of human embryos for research purposes. Well now, if anti-abortionists guard the door against using discarded embryos for research, they could just as easily pave the way toward scientists creating and destroying embryos for research purposes.

My position is, that discarded embryos should be used for research if there is no way that they can ever be children. To find out exactly how stem cells work, what they can be used for and eventually, to discover if alternative stem cell use can also be duplicated to the same degree of success as is done with embryonic stem cell research. But that no treatments should go out the door until all research has been done. I don't believe in objectifying humanity. If a stem cell taken from my blood or skin, etc. could be used to cure a debilitating affliction, I'd be more than happy to receive it because it would be the culmination of research that got the science to this point in time. It has to start somewhere. Why not with discarded embryos?

Regulation=Socialism

Government that gives you specific guidelines on how you operate your business, workplace safety rules, the type of product that it wants to see as to quality and safe use, the minumum pay requirements... I am quite sure that business interests operating in this country would indeed grumble over "social democracy" of the European style as expressed by Charles Krauthammer. However, while those businesses have grumbled over "too much regulation" and then started moving their operations overseas in order to avoid all that; we have ultimately letters to the editors such as this one:

Agencies failing us

Just in the last year, we have had salmonella scares for lettuce, tomatoes, spinach and now peanuts. The Chinese have sent us lead painted toys for our children to play with and poisonous milk (melamine) for our children to enjoy.
I've heard people blame farmers, the factories and the Chinese. Put the blame where it belongs: on the ineffective bureaucracies of the USDA and the FDA. How much do you want to bet that there is a USDA tag on the side of the peanut butter jar. It's being sent to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and prisons. You can't sell products in the U.S. without approval from the USDA and/or the FDA.
These bumbling agencies are in place and paid for by the American people to keep us American people safe from tainted food and tainted products.
Why not create some more government agencies so that they can maim and kill Americans too? These government agencies have become a burden and a strain on the American taxpayer.
Why do we pay these agencies when they really don't care about what they're paid to do? Our government is failing all around us. Let's not even mention the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dave Stevens
Spokane

Besides being a touch hysterical, this letter does present some valid arguments. Problem is, that in the GW years, the regulating agencies that Mr. Stevens gives a major thumbs down on were underfunded to begin with, understaffed and essentially an extension of the business interests they were supposed to regulate. The only problem with this letter is that Mr. Stevens waited until now to write this letter and denounce all agencies for failures just because of the political decisions made by the last administration at a time when a new administration has barely come into office. Mr. Stevens could have written this letter even a year ago. But given the tone of for what are we paying these agencies... Well now, the presumption is to simply get rid of them altogether, and I assume that the American people can take even more of a chance with their medicines, durable products, as well as food. The gvt funded highly regulated "private sector" that Mr. Krauthammer does much whining about well now...

I hope he doesn't have any money in a bank that failed recently. That the merchandize he bought at a high end store wasn't made as cheaply as possible in Bangledesh and sold at a high mark up price under a name brand. That he actually did get what he paid for. That the car besides being made in America isn't being recalled for faulty parts. Or as demonstrated in prior years, having a tendency to blow up on you if hit just right. How about the house he owns? Can he trust that it wasn't built with shoddy materials and priced much higher for the type of work and material that went into it? The bridge he drives on, doesn't face the immediate threat of collapse. The store he enters with a heavy snow load on the roof, the roof itself will bear the burden quite well. But well, with all those business friendly legislatures and city gvts in place, costumer friendly products and services literally, getting what you paid for, isn't necessarily a fact. Having regulations effectively enforced and you are more likely to get what you pay for.

As for gvt funding. I recall during the Reagan era that Senator Jack Kemp among others pushed from the federal gvt a desire to incentivize business interests to enter areas of high poverty and set up shop. What would it take for businesses to do that? Tax breaks? Direct funding? Don't recall that Krauthammer said anything about such a "social democracy" during the Reagan era. Well, President Obama is certainly direct funding business interests today to encourage new technology and reduce the poverty levels in this nation. To literally incentivize those businesses to help bring this country forward into the 21^st century. That wouldn't be the first time in this nation's history that this happened of course. The federal gvt provided a railway transportation grid during the Lincoln era that was ultimately a useful tool of the private sector to transport goods and services across the nation. Lincoln being a Republican, could he be accused of "social democracy?" The federal gvt under Eisenhower made possible our national freeways and bridges. Ultimately, the private sector made use of the same transportation grid to better deliver goods and services across the nation. Could Eisenhower be accused justly of "social democracy?" Eisenhower was a Republican. Oh, I see, we reserve such accusations for the Democrats in high office.