The Morality Quiz (Not Mine, Apparently)

In an upcoming issue of Time magazine there is a story called "What Makes Us Moral?" Accompanying the article is The Morality Quiz. It's five simple questions about five situations in which you would have to choose whether or not to take a human life. Go ahead and take the quiz. After each question, you can see how your answer compared to the other people who took it. I intend to discuss each of the five questions below, and I will discuss how I answered them and reasoned them out. One hint: I was in the majority only once as of the time I took the test. I'll be here when you're done.

Insert Jeopardy "Think" music here.

The questions in the quiz are used by social scientists to determine where humans draw the line on morality. My "Golden Rule", my moral philosophy of treating other people the way I would want them to treat me, governed how I answered those questions. I would not want to be the one sacrificed on someone else's say-so, at least not without the chance to offer myself up voluntarily.

I'm not an orphaned baby whose cries could fatally expose a group of adults (BTW, did this scenario remind anyone of the last episode of "M*A*S*H"?), but I might be a severely injured adult in a great deal of unsoothable pain whose similar cries might jeopardize the lives of others. I wouldn't want someone else to make the decision that I should die or be expelled from the group to save the rest. But, believe it or not, I would be willing to voluntarily sacrifice myself to save others. I was in the 41% who would not smother the baby in the quiz. I'm a little concerned that three out of five people would do it.

Similarly, I could not order a person certain to die to be thrown overboard from an overcrowded lifeboat, but if I were the one injured and I was lucid enough to understand the situation, I would sacrifice myself to save the rest. I was a little surprised to learn that I was in that one out of every three that would not toss overboard a grievously ill person, and again I was concerned to see that two out of three people could do it. Perhaps the respondents weren't putting themselves in the place of the baby and badly-injured they would so readily sacrifice. In the case of the lifeboat sacrifice, I'm a little further disturbed that the percentage was higher than in the first question, even though this one clearly spelled out that the person being killed was fully aware of what was happening. Did people answer this way because they thought that this was the kind of resolution a leader should come to? Is it that they feel that a leader must be able to decide who lives and who dies in order to lead? Does a leader have that moral right in the first place? I do not believe that the test fully addresses that aspect of the moral question being studied.

Finally, the last three questions are based on the same basic scenario: There is a trolley about to kill five people and a way is offered for you to turn that five fatalities into only one. But it's not an easy choice like a random one of those five will die, but you can't know which. That would be simple. Yes, do what it takes to save up to four of those lives, and let the Fates determine who the unlucky one is. But in this case, the random death is not a random one of the five, but a completely different person. Each one has a different way in which that would happen, and you have to decide whether or not you would take the option given. Here's where the responses reveal something interesting. In the first one, you can throw a switch that will divert a trolley from killing five people in a group to killing one person by himself. The deaths are assumed to be imminent based on which track the trolley takes (which is determined by whether or not you throw a switch.) I couldn't do it. I couldn't knowingly throw that switch and kill that unsuspecting man on the side. I was almost shattered to learn that I was one of only 18% who couldn't throw the switch. An astounding 82% said they would do it. Remember that in my mind, I'm not simply saving five lives, I'm taking one. Even though the two are simultaneous and derivative of the same exact action on my part, I couldn't bring myself to kill another human at random. (Now I suspect that by now you're thinking I'm the romantic hero, but I do feel this way. Ask Jane. I have told her that even if we were in a group of people trying to survive a situation, and it was necessary for one person to sacrifice himself to guarantee the safety of the others, then I would do it.) If it were me stuck on the tracks and I could reach the switch and divert the trolley from their track to my own, thus killing myself but saving them, I would do it. That was not an option in this quiz though.

The fourth question changes the parameters of the first trolley car. In this one I was finally in the majority, but I suspect that it was because a lot of people taking these life and death morality questions are, at heart, cowards who don't believe in why they would do things they claim they would do. In this question, instead of throwing a switch to divert the trolley upon another innocent bystander, you have to actually throw an innocent bystander onto the track to save the five people. I was part of the five out of nine who said they could not push the bystander onto the track. Of course, in my mind, if I could push someone else off the bridge and onto the track below to save five people, I could also throw myself over. So why would four out of nine people say they could personally, with their bare hands, kill an innocent person to save five others? I'm not so sure they had alternatives in mind. Nor do they put themselves in the shoes of the guy they decided to sacrifice to save five other people. Kind of scary, when you think about it.

Even scarier are the results of the fifth and final question. Like the previous question, you have to cause another person to get thrown onto the path of the trolley, but instead of pushing them with your hands, you throw a switch that catapults them. (Again, of course, I said no.) Surprisingly enough, one of those nine people switched their position and decided that not having to actually touch the person they are condemning made it okay to go ahead and kill them. Now only four out of nine would not throw the switch, while five out of nine people said they would catapult someone to their death to save five other people. I have to wonder if they ever thought of themselves as being the one chosen to be sacrificed.

As the introduction to the quiz (and the aritcle itself) said, "The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you." I don't think I find it comforting to know that a majority of my fellow humans would sacrifice me against my will to save the lives of others. Yes, I believe it a noble thing to do it voluntarily (perhaps it's why I say I would do it, but I really would), but I also find it inhuman and inhumane to decide to sacrifice someone else, especially a particular someone else, for the good of the group. Drawing straws to see who must done for the others at least brings the element of fairness to the situation. The losing straw could be anyone's. I think we can accept the random death of one person if it ends up saving the group. But the deliberate murder of a single person, whether or not it could be rationalized as anything other than what it is, is more disturbing. Has our morality grown very high from its "deepest foundation" if so many people can forget what it might be like to be the one picked against his will to die so that others may live? I fear we have a long, long way to go before our species is ready for the next step in the evolutionary journey. We might reach it way before then, but we won't be ready for it. And that could be the momst frightening thing of all.

Private Accounts, Public Disaster

The Associated Press is reporting what some of the major party presidential candidates have to say about Social Security (see article at Raw Story.) In a nutshell, three of the Democratic candidates (Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Barack Obama, Sen John Edwards) have all said that they favor "higher payroll taxes on upper-income earners" (I agree, as millionaires who wouldn't miss their future Social Security checks if they never got them won't miss the extra taxes taken from them); and five of the Republican candidates (Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Mike Huckabee, Sen Fred Thompson, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Sen John McCain) have all said they favor private accounts (which, make no mistake about it, is equivalent to saying they wish to abolish Social Security altogether.)

Money paid out in Social Security benefits today did not come from a Lockbox, but from the FICA taxes taken out of your paycheck today. It's basically a direct payment from your paycheck (and your employer's wallet, too) to the people getting the benefits. If you start telling people they don't have to pay into the system, less money becomes available to pay today's recipients. Since benfits are guaranteed, the difference must come from one of two sources - either higher taxes or more borrowing. Of the two, it is really better that we raise taxes on those who could most afford to live without the money. Should their benfits also increase since they'll be paying lots more into the system? Like I said, we're talking about the kind of people who wouldn't miss their Social Security checks if they never got them. Why bother raising their benefits? Does anyone really need to be that wealthy? Seriously.

What about the other candidate? Well, Congressman Tom "Bold Enough To Say It...(You're All Going To Die)" Tancredo favors private accounts. (There appears to be no truth to the rumor that Tancredo wants "to tax illegal immigrants back to their home countries".) There's Congressman Ron Paul, in addition to eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits (a fine idea), also favors private accounts. Finally on the Republican side, Congressman Duncan "Chicken Pilaf Dinner" Hunter" supports, you guessed it, private accounts. One of the abilities of the super smart people is a keen eye for pattern recognition. You won't need their help to see the pattern here. The Republicans seem Hell-bent on destroying Social Security.

What about the other Democrats? Funny you should ask. I've got that right here. Sen Joe Biden promises to "Protect Social Security, Not Privatize It". (He said so on his site.) Sen Chris Dodd suggests a Universal 401(k), and no privatization. Gov Bill Richardson didn't seem to have much to say about Social Security on his campaign site, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich didn't mention a plan for Social Security on his website, either, as near as I could tell. And finally, Sen Mike Gravel, who crawled out from under a rock to run for president, didn't make it easy for me to find his plan for Social Security on his website.

To follow news about all the candidates, I recommend Politics 1. I also recommend you not focus only on the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. They are not your only choices. That's just what they want you to believe.

UPDATE: Thanks to a fellow Critter, here's what Mr. Kucinich has to say about Social Security.

Mum's Window

Almost exactly three years ago, as we were all stunned and in mourning over Bush's "re-election", my mother lay dying in a hospital bed in my old bedroom at home. We had decided not to tell Mum the outcome of the election, knowing that she would only be more worried about our futures and our country's future. Mum had been alarmed and frightened during Bush's first term, and was concerned enough (although extremely proud) about our involvement in anti-administration politics, that we didn't want to add to her worries. At this point, Mum's only contacts with the outside world were our family, good neighbors, a few visitors, and the windows of my small childhood bedroom.

One window faced west, and we had decorated it with various stained-glass pieces to catch the afternoon sunlight. One late afternoon in the week before Thanksgiving, after a cold, blustery rain, the sun finally broke through shortly before sunset. Suddenly Mum's window was gloriously lit, with the setting sun gilding every raindrop still stuck on the window's screen and glowing through the stained glass. I didn't think that I had time to get my camera, so Mum and I just watched, oohing and ahhing, until the sun finally set and the spectacular show was over. Afterward, we commiserated over my not having my camera handy, but we were both glad that we were able to share the beauty.

Luckily, Mother Nature apparently was pleased enough with her work to show it again the next evening, when I did have my camera handy. The resulting pictures (shown here both with and without flash) serve as a reminder to me that no matter how horrific circumstances are, brief moments of beauty can fill the heart, most especially when shared with a loved one.

Angry White Man (A Song Parody)

We've all heard them at one time or another. The Angry White Man on the radio or TV bitching and moaning about this or that. They're never happy (unless some liberal is getting hurt somehow), and they always seem to have this hatred they feel the need to spew at some "other". Sometimes they name the object of their vitriol, and sometimes it's just a vague, nebulous group, which may or may not exist. For them, I dedicate this song parody. It doesn't have to be about any one in particular, you can pick your favorite and I'm sure it will apply. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael "The Savage" Weiner (I hope you know his real last name is "Weiner"; it might explain things), Sean Hannity, whoever you want it to be. I hope you enjoy. This is to the tune of Billy Joel's "Angry Young Man". Thank you, Mr. Joel, for providing me with another great song to use. I hope you don't mind.

Angry White Man
(Original Words and Lyrics "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel
Additional Lyrics by Wayne A. Schneider, 2007)

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give a forum or two to the angry white man,
With a beef for the world and a hate for his land.
He was called on his lies but he misunderstood.
It's a comfort to know that his critics are good.
And he sits in a room with a microphone on.
And he wishes the non-Christian people were gone.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

I believe he's reached the stage
Of thinking he's some kind of sage.
He thinks that racial purity's a noble fight.
I still believe in causes, too,
And think I'm just as good as you.
His show goes on no matter if he's wrong or right.

And there's somehow a place for the angry white man
With his head full of crap and his fear quite at hand.
And he's never been able to see his mistakes,
So he can't understand why they call him a fake.
But his honor's in doubt and his courage as well,
And he rants and he lies and he's stupid as hell.
And he'll go to his grave as an Angry White Man

There's a place on the air for the angry white man,
With his working class act and his immigrant ban.
He refuses to think. He refuses to see.
He always believes he's the best that can be.
And he's proud of his views and the beatings he takes.
And he whines and he cries as he lays out the stakes.
And he'll likely be known as the Angry White Man.

Give 'Em the Bird, Vote For a Third! Pt 6 - The Money Game

Rep Don Young (R-AK) is a perfect example of why campaign finance reform is so necessary in this country. According to a report in McClatchy Newspapers, about 85% [Correction: I mistakenly typed 895%. This was not intentional, and I was not being sarcastic. I meant 85%. My apologies.] of the money he raised to get re-elected came from people who did not live in Alaska. (Alaska only has one US Representative At Large). Why should any candidate for US Representative or US Senator be allowed to accept money from people who would not be constituents? There is no excuse for this, and it is unacceptable.

Let me give you a broad hypothetical. Suppose I was a multi-billionaire (many times over), and I wanted to heavily influence every Congressional race in the country. I want to see people in Congress who share my view about the licensing rights of the product I make and sell. Current law is eating into the potential for me to make billions more, and I want that to change. So I contribute the maximum amount allowable under federal law to a candidate in each and every race in the country. I will also part with several hundred million more dollars in soft money to the political parties. When the time comes to have legislation passed that would benefit me and, for the most part, me alone, to the tune of billions of dollars, how can legislators, some of whom might be voting against the best interests of their own constituents over mine, justify casting that vote? I'll tell you how. They don't, because they don't have to. They do it, I make billions, and most people never learn the truth. Why should I be able to wield that kind of influence over lawmakers who do not represent me in Congress?

How many people in Alaska knew that their sole Representative on Congress was taking $17 out of every $20 he raised from people he should care less about than the people from his state? If Alaskans liked him so much, then why did he need to raise money from people he's not supposed to be representing in Congress? As I have not looked into it, I do not know what percentage of his or her campaign funds his opponents collected from non-Alaskans, but I understand they were considered weak. If so, then why did he need so much money from outsiders? More importantly, why is this even allowed?

I know it sounds naive, but so many of our elected officials, who are supposed to be representing us, their constituents, accept money from people they won't be representing in Congress, and we all know that those political contributions are expected to be rewarded. None of them will ever admit this because it would be a crime to give back such favors in exchange for political contributions. Yet they do it, and they get away with it. And the reason they get away with it is because it's allowed. And it shouldn't be.

You want to clean up politics? You must start by banning any political contributions from non-individuals (that's means both corporations and Political Action Committees, or NAMBLA) and from people who will not be represented by that candidate in Congress. Otherwise, people you don't even know and will likely never meet will have more influence over your Representatives in both Houses of Congress than you ever will. And if they don't represent you, then you are being denied your constitutional right to a republican form of government. And that should bother you a lot.

You Broke My Heart Again, John Hall

My Congressman, John Hall (NY-19), has done it again. He has failed to support the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney when brought to a vote by Rep Dennis Kucinich. I cannot understand why, nor do I accept his previous explanations. I met Mr. Hall a couple of times while he was running for the Democratic nomination. I even contributed to his campaign (it's a matter of public record). When I met him, I even mentioned that he and I were involved in the same event though with completely different roles. I was a Peacekeeper at the No Nukes Rally in Battery Park, and he was one of the many talented musicians who organized it and performed there. (And a fantastic job they did, too. It was one of the proudest days of my life to have played a small part in it.) I remember specifically telling him that I was concerned with the many abuses of power by both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He seemed to indicate to me that he was concerned also, but I guess he wasn't concerned enough to do something about it. Earlier this week, he had his chance, and he failed his constituents again.

Don't misunderstand me. I am quite happy with virtually everything else my congressman has done not only for the people of the NY-19, but for all Americans, including veterans. And he continues to oppose the use of nuclear power, especially while no safe method exists for the disposal of its deadly radioactive byproducts, and particularly when the lives and security of nearby residents are threatened by an unsafe plant. And I was pleased that he recently returned from a trip to Iraq more determined to end our involvement in the war there. And while all those were the right things to do, they did nothing to address the ever-growing threat to our constitutional and democratic way of life posed by the president and the vice president. I have even written to Speaker Nancy Pelosi about this.

It was when I spoke to him personally, and it remains to this day my number one concern. That is not to say I don't wish to see the war in Iraq ended, for that is why I and thirteen other people from our community participated in our monthly Peace March (to which, I am told, Mr. Hall was invited but could not attend. Perhaps next month, Mr. Hall? Second Saturday each month, 11:00 AM, Lakeside Park parking lot.) But the current war in Iraq and the danger of another military conflict in and with Iran, would not be a concern if Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were no longer in power. And nothing that anyone can say, especially those two men, would ever convince me that they don't want a war with Iran. Were you paying attention to the rhetoric in the run up to the war with Iraq, Mr. Hall? Does anything they've been saying lately about Iran sound eerily like any of that to you? (It does to a lot of us, in case you weren't aware.) Now, here's the most important thing to consider: Was any of what they said about Iraq that justified going to war true? Any of it? Of course not, and we all know that. Nothing they said that was true justified going to war with Iraq, and nothing they said that justified going to war with Iraq was true.

So why, I ask you, would you even consider giving them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they won't ignore the will of Congress and attack Iran anyway, whether they actually pose a danger to us or not? Has the threat of consequences stopped them before? I don't see how since, to date, there have been none! Has the fact that they are operating outside the law stopped them before? Considering how often they've blatantly (and even proudly) done it, it's hard to argue that it might. Remember all those signing statements where the president said he would ignore the law if it infringed on his "inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief"? Would you care to point out to me where in the constitution it says that the Executive Branch decides what "authority" is "inherent" in the role of "Commander-in-Chief". You can't, because it isn't in there. That authority is found in Article I, Section 8. The Congress decides how the military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will behave and what constitutes lawful and unlawful conduct. A president who abuses that authority and ignores the law, as this one has done so many times in the past, has committed an impeachable offense. Go talk to a law professor at George Washington University. Go talk to John W. Dean. They'll tell you that there are numerous impeachable offenses to charge the president with. And there are also impeachable offenses for which the vice president can be removed from office. Impeachment is the only constitutional remedy for removing men like these before their terms expire. There are no recall elections nor votes of confidence during their terms. We have to depend on our Representatives and Senators to recognize when a president and vice president have overstepped their authority and violated the sacred trust placed in them by their fellow citizens. (And I don't just mean the five who put them there in 2000.)

I will end this as I did before, Mr. Hall, for it still remains true. I cannot support a candidate for Congress who does not believe in the oath of office every public servant in Washington is required to take, including you, sir. By not supporting the impeachment of either President Bush or Vice President Cheney, two men who have frequently subverted the constitution in an effort to have their own way despite the will of Congress, one of whom has accelerated a thirty-year personal vendetta to restore power to the White House, and one of whom once told an aide to "stop throwing the Constitution in [his] face." (You remember, that document he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend?) He then continued, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Are you are going to tell me, Mr. Hall, that these two men should not be removed from office through impeachment immediately, if not sooner? Do you honestly believe that if they remain in office, that on January 20, 2009, we won't already be in a hot war with Iran (and possibly Russia)? Do you think any president should be trusted with the kind of power these two men have amassed? I believe that most of your constituents would say, "No." It's up to you, Congressman John Hall. Remember your own oath of office and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

An Open Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

It is my understanding, from an interview conducted with Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that you would prefer that the Democrats in Congress spend no time impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing from office, Vice President Richard B. Cheney (nor President George W. Bush, for that matter). You would prefer, instead, that they focus on obtaining a bigger majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House in the 2008 elections. I would remind you, Madame Speaker, that the 2008 elections are still twelve months away, and the expiration of their terms of office another two-and-a-half months beyond that. That is more than enough time for them to start a war of choice with Iran. If you do not proceed with impeaching Vice President Cheney, the driving force behind the march to war with Iran, good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die. And you will have to live with the fact that you allowed them to serve out their crime-ridden terms unpunished and undeterred in their destruction of the Constitution you took an oath to support and defend against all enemies "foreign or domestic". President Bush and Vice President Cheney are two such domestic enemies, and it is your constitutional duty to defend the constitution against them. To prioritize your political party over your nation and your constitution is inexcusable.

Both of these men have claimed extraordinary, almost plenary, Executive powers found nowhere in the Constitution. They claim that the President has this "inherent authority" in his role as Commander-in-Chief during wartime (an excuse to always keep this country in a state of war, in case you hadn't noticed). The problem, Madame Speaker, is that they are making this up. No such authority exists anywhere in the Constitution. What does exist in the Constitution are the following:

Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Clearly it is the Congress that decides how our military, including its Commander-in-Chief, will conduct themselves. Nowhere in Article II does it state that the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief or otherwise, during wartime or in peace, has the authority to do whatever he wants with the military. The authority he has comes from the Congress, and it comes with a trust, a trust that he won't abuse that authority. Yet, time after time, President Bush has done just that. He has even gone so far as to lie to Congress about a terrorist threat against the Congress in order to get them to grant him more unconstitutional authority to spy on Americans. And for no reason or rationale I can understand, you want to keep trusting that he won't overstep his authority one more time. You want to trust that he won't lead this country toward an unstoppable war with Iran. Have I mentioned that good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will die if he starts another war?

You and your party have let the President and Vice President define just how far his "inherent authority" goes. And based on their many public statements, they believe that this authority includes taking us to war pre-emptively against another nation. They cannot claim that declaring war falls within the President's constitutional authority to determine foreign policy, for declaring war is a power exclusively granted to the Congress. You know that President Bush has been listening to neo-con war hawks like Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, and Sen Joe Lieberman. All of these men have publicly advocated that we go to war against Iran. You also know, Madame Speaker, that President Bush has no interest in hearing the views of those who oppose his ideas. So not only is he not listening to anyone who might try to talk him out of a war with Iran, he must have already made up his mind about it to be listening to people who think that's what we should be doing. And what excuse do you think he's going to use? How true are his reasons going to be and, more importantly, will the true statements be justification for war? Remember everything they said about Iraq and Saddam Hussein? (If you don't, just listen to what's being said about Iran. It's very similar.) As time went on, one thing about those statements became clear: Everything that was a justification for war turned out not to be true, and everything that turned out to be true was not a justification for war. The rhetoric from this administration toward Iran is following that same path. Given the number of times that they have lied to the Congress and the American people, why on earth would you ever consider giving them the chance to resolve our differences peacefully with the rest of the world? I beg you to tell me what it is in their history that makes you think he will only go to war with Iran "as a last resort"? Why do you even accept the premise that any war with Iran is necessary in the first place? In all the intelligence estimates that you have been granted access to, have any reported on how many good men and women in our Armed Forces and innocent Iranians alike will die in a war of choice with Iran?

Madame Speaker, the ONLY way to ensure that President Bush and Vice President Cheney will not lie this country into another war of choice is if they are no longer in a position to do so. They are not going to stop themselves. The American people are counting on you to do that. You have the authority. You have the capability. You have the responsibility. Impeach them both for ignoring their oaths of office. To do otherwise is to ignore your own oath. How many good men and women of our Armed Forces and innocent Iranian civilians alike will have to die because you put loyalty to your political party ahead of loyalty to your Constitution?

Sincerely,
Wayne A. Schneider

Picking My Brain 07-11-04

I'm concerned that the Mets are going to go after A-Rod. (That's Alex Rodriguez, a third baseman, and the highest paid player in baseball. If the Yankees wanted to keep him, they would have to fork over $350,000,000. (Did you know that the only reason his contract with the Yankees was as high as it was is because he insisted that he wanted to get paid twice as much as the next highest paid player? And now he thinks he deserves more?) I don't want him to wear a Mets uniform next year. Can he deliver on the home runs and RBIs? Of course he can, I have no doubt of that in my mind. It's just that he's not a team player, he's just a hired gun. And I don't think any player is worth that much money, especially when he chokes in the post season. A-Rod's post-season performance has been historically lacking. And the goal is to win the World Series, not just get ot the playoffs. The Mets should concentrate instead on fixing their pitching propblem, especially in the bullpen. We'll see what happens when the Winter Meetings come along.

I find it hard to believe that the nominee to be our nation's next Attorney General not only refuses to acknowledge that the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" is torture (as several former Judge Advocates General said in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Pat Leahy), but that the Senate will likely confirm him thanks to such numbnuts as Sen Diane Feinstein and Sen Chuck Schumer (my own Senator). Just because the guy is from New York and was recommended by Schumer himself to the president is no excuse to stick by him anyway. The guy's clearly trying to keep the Bush Administration in the clear using bogus logic. He's using circular reasoning. "We don't torture. If waterboarding is torture, then we don't do it because we don't torture. But I can't tell you if waterboarding is torture." But when pressed if waterboarding was itself torture, he would respond, "If it is torutre, then we don't do it, because we don't torture." But notice that he's not saying we don't torture. (BTW, those are not precise quotes, just paraphrases of his reasoning. He may have actually said something close to that, but that's the gist.) Of course, if we truly never did waterboard anyone during our interrogations, then it would have very simple to say, "Waterboarding very definitely is torture, and we don't do it because it is." But he didn't. He said that if it is torture, then we're not doing it. That's not the same. Call your Senators and ask them to block this nomination, even though Bush would just recess appoint him anyway. Let him. Let it be another albatross around the Republicans' necks.

Finally, Barry Bonds, the man who used performance-enhancing drugs to break Hank Aaron's all-time MLB Home Run record told an interviewer that he would not go to the Hall of Fame induction ceremony if they display his record-breaking baseball with the asterisk branded on it by the man who bought it on e-bay and asked the fans what to do with it. He still feels that he did nothing wrong, and that he did not use any illegal substances. He has admitted that he has used a substance which he says was flaxseed oil, but that is only what the guy who gave it to him said it was, and Bonds didn't question it. Other players, however, who were given the same substance knew it was illegal. Bonds' ignorance was willful but not exculpatory. The record is still tainted, and Bonds is living in denial if he thinks otherwise.

My own feeling? Sure, induct him into the Hall of Fame, but only after he's dead. Same as for Pete Rose. Keep Rose's "lifetime ban" just that - his entire lifetime. Once Rose dies, they can put a plaque in there for him, too. But neither man should live to see the day when they are honored by being placed into the Hall of Fame. If we're lucky, maybe both men's accomplishments will have been surpassed by the time they die, and there won't be any need to induct them.

Call Your US Representative to Support H. Res 333

Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will be introducing H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President. I urge each and every American out there (and if you are not American but have some American friends outside our borders, urge them to do the same) to call your US Representative's office and urge them to support H. Res 333. Before any vote on the privileged resolution, there will likely be a motion to table the bill, which means to set it aside and not vote on it. This will be how the cowards duck their constitutional responsibility.

Like all members of the federal government, US Representatives are under oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney (and President Bush, for that matter) have been waging a personal war against the constitution for their own vainglory and lust for power. They must be stopped. One at a time. Start with the Vice president. This is how we maintain a peaceful transfer of power in this country (other than as a result of assassination by someone other than the one taking over). Impeach. Convict. Remove. Now. Before he launches a war against Iran, which you know he's anxious to do.

Picking My Brain 07-10-27

I had to remind myself that whenever I want to smile, I just have to imagine George Stephanopoulos hosting This Week, and he has guests Robert Reich and Madeliene Albright, and the three of them are sitting in huge oversized chairs, so their legs all dangle down the front but come nowhere the near the floor. Like Edith Ann, from Laugh-In. Try it. I guarantee it will make you smile.

Talk about irony. When Ellen Degeneres had a sitcom, she had talked to everyone involved with the show about having Ellen's character (herself, more or less) finally come out of the closet. When one of the network executives heard about this, he said, "Why can't she just get a puppy?" So, Ellen's staff decided to refer to the episode in which Ellen's character comes out as, "The Puppy." Then she got into all that trouble over giving away a puppy.

Rudy Giuliani's divorce from Donna Hanover didn't happen until July 2002. Remember that famous stunt when his cell phone rang during the middle of a speech, and he tried to pretend it wasn't set up? Remember how he said that "ever since 9/11" he and Judith would call each other to say, "I love you." I hate to say it, but "Ever since 9/11"? He was still married to Donna Hanover at the time. (In fairness, I guess I should point out that he had already announced that he was separating from Hanover in May of 2001. She learned about it at the same time we all did, as Rudy announced it at a press conference before telling her. Republican values for you.)

A Day in the Lives of Two Joes

Someone sent me the great piece below, called "A Day in the Life of Joe Republican." I thought it was a great example of the hypocrisy that many conservatives live when they denounce things they rely on every day of their lives as being liberal. Here is that piece first, and then we'll continue from there. I have no idea to whom I should give credit for the first part, as it was one of those things sent through the tubes of the Internets. As to the follow-up response to it that I'll discuss afterwards, I'll do the guy a favor and not mention his name (since I don't know it) on the off-chance that this was supposed to be satire, or humorously-intended. It just seems too much like how a conservative would "re-invent" Joe Republican, that I didn't think it was facetious. So, in case it was serious, I decided to counter it.

“A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN”

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly- man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation costs because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or an unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the country would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state-funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax- payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.

The house didn’t have electricity until some big- government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals made sure Dad could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of himself, just like I have.”-

Well, I sent that to a liberal friend of mine, and he in turn sent it to several of his friends, some of whom are conservative. One of his conservative buddies decided to answer the list back.

Of course, the web would not be “fair and balanced” if there weren’t an equal and opposite view out there. All it takes is Google, and changing one word in the title of your piece. Enjoy the dichotomy!

(signed) Mr. Fiscally Conservative Democrat


"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare, the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous law suits.

His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is unsafe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for limited liability laws so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal thought that he was too stupid to know that imbibing a pint of shampoo might be harmful to his health.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. Joe begins to cough, choke, and gasp for breath because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for passage of the Kyoto treaty, allowing Third World countries to contaminate the world air supply with carbon monoxide.

Joe doesn't dare go out at night because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the spraying or draining of malarial swamps.

Joe lost his first home to wildfire because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the thinning old growth forest land.

His dad used to take the train to work. But when the Federal highway system destroyed our once-magnificent train system, Joe had to resort to the filthy, crime-ridden subway system because some fancy-pants liberal fought to disarm law-abiding citizens so that street gangs could mug commuters, then cop a plea based on post-traumatic slavery disorder.

Joe begins his work day. Joe's dad used to support his family at a middle class lifestyle on a single income. But it now takes two or three incomes to do the work of one because liberal bureaucrats drove up the cost of doing business through overregulation and usurious corporate taxation.

If Joe gets bored with his job, he can fake an injury and collect workman's comp., retiring to the slopes of Aspen to recuperate because some stupid liberal didn't think that employees might try to bilk the system.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal thought that financial institutions should be able to defraud their customers and then file for bankruptcy, thereby shielding the pension and severance pay of board members while sticking the taxpayer with the tab.

Joe has to pay his federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to subsidize college education so that universities, freed from competitive pressure, no longer had to keep tuition costs down.

Joe had the GPA and SAT scores to get into Harvard, but he had to settle for a community college because racial quotas kept him out while admitting inner city students who couldn't read or write, but had mastered multiple techniques of fitting a condom in high school sex-ed.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. He has to practice defensive driving because some America-hating liberal had alcoholism classified as a legally-protected disease and disability.

He arrives at his boyhood home. The countryside used to be a quiet, leisurely, pristine place to live until the Federal highway system and force bussing overran the bucolic countryside with suburban sprawl as urbanites fled the cities.

His family used to live off the land, in harmony with nature, until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification, powered by fossil fuel consumption.

He is happy to see his dad. Dad will be the last generation to retire on Social Security because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals regularly raided the SS trust-fund to subsidize social programs, instead of allowing workers to invest their own earnings in compound interest-bearing accounts.

Joe's Dad was forced into early retirement, without a pension, because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a snail-darter in the cooling system of the local nuclear plant, where his dad used to work.

Joe's uncle used to be a cattle rancher until he was driven out of business because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker kept him from shooting wolves that preyed on his livestock.

Joe's cousin used to work at the local lumber mill until he was laid off because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a spotted owl on timber land.

Joe's relatives used to receive assistance from the local chapter of the Salvation Army until it had to close its doors because some liberal civil libertarian sued it for refusing to offer domestic partnership benefits to all its employees.

Wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals also invented a Constitutional right to an abortion, resulting in 45 million fewer workers to support the retirees.

In addition, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals promoted SS so that no able-bodied, adult child should ever be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents who devoted the best years of their lives caring for them when they were young and helpless.

Finally, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals lobbied for involuntary euthanasia so that burdensome parents can be put out of their children's misery.

As the day ends, Joe reflects on his nation, his liberties and his freedoms. He is free because conservative cold warriors kept commie lefty Liberals from unilaterally disarming America.

Joe resents having to be so dependent on gov't goods and services, but since he didn't ask for it, since--indeed--it was imposed on him anyway, against his will, and forcibly deducted from his hard-earned wages, the only way he can recoup a fraction of his losses is to play the hand he's been dealt--even if the deck is stacked against him.

But given a choice, he refuses to a vote for a Massachusetts liberal who was drafted; who tried to dodge the draft by requesting an education deferment to study in Paris; who volunteered for the Naval reserves (when his deferment was denied) to duck active duty service; who gamed the three-purple-hearts-and-your-out policy by writing up his own glowing after-action reports about his self-inflicted flesh-wounds; who, after receiving a dishonorable discharge, laid the groundwork for a successful political career by slandering his comrades-in-arms; who eventually ran for president on the platform that he served honorably in a dishonorable war; and who angrily denounced a war he authorized.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are good and right-wingers are bad. He doesn't mention that the beloved liberals have fought for the infringement of every freedom that Joe's old man used to enjoy and take for granted.

Well, where to begin? I guess I’ll start with the intro, since there are some things that need to be cleared up there.

Of course, the web would not be “fair and balanced” if there weren’t an equal and opposite view out there. All it takes is Google, and changing one word in the title of your piece. Enjoy the dichotomy!

I would enjoy it, if it was based on facts and the truth. Unfortunately, this list is not. And who the hell says that the internet has to be "fair and balanced"? Are you one of those people who thinks that if we're not hearing both sides of a dispute, we're not being properly informed of the truth? Did it ever occur to you that in a dispute where one side's take differs from the other's, it's usually because one of them is lying? Or is it that you think there is nothing wrong with lying to get your way?

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE DEMOCRAT"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. He can only afford to drink four ounces a day because his tree-hugging governor raised the sales tax for the fifth time in four years to pay for gov't run Daycare, the Playboy channel for incarcerated sex-offenders, free needle-exchange programs, social services for illegal aliens, and condom-vending machines in preschool.

Not so fast, Joe! I checked a recent store receipt to confirm my suspicions. If Joe thinks he has to ration his coffee because the governor raised the sales tax rate, then Joe needs to get out more. Coffee beans that you grind yourself (or at the store after you purchase them) aren't taxable. So, go ahead and have that second cup, Joe.

But he savors every drop, for next year he'll only be permitted to buy decaffeinated coffee because FDA testing found that force-feeding lab rats 20 gallons of coffee per day raised their cancer rate by .0003% per thousand.

Not quite. It must have been the caffeine that was determined to be bad, not the coffee itself, otherwise Joe wouldn't even be able to get decaf next year. When Sacharrin was found to have caused cancer in lab animals given doses equivalent to drinking 800 cans of soda a day (that's 75 gallons, not 20, and it would be physically impossible to drink that much in one day, anyway), they required that the product carry a warning to that effect. They haven't yet banned it, even though subsequent tests confirmed the potential cancer risks (see article). Drinking 10 gallons of just water would kill you, so forget about 20, let alone 75. Besides, do you really think they'll ever ban coffee outright in this country? They could announce that drinking coffee causes your sex organs to fall off, and they would still have a hard time banning it. Just never going to happen, especially not for the reasons Joe here thinks.

With his first swallow of water, he rations his daily intake of medication. He can't afford all his meds because some stupid commie liberal ambulance-chaser drove pharmaceutical costs through the roof with frivolous law suits.

Wrong again. The high cost to us of prescription medicine has nothing to do with "frivolous lawsuits". That's an old chestnut that the right still likes to throw out once in a while. Yes, there are people who file lawsuits for what appear to be stupid reasons. But if it wasn't frivolous, then it must have had merit. Which means that the pharmaceutical company probably did do something wrong for which they should be made to pay. It shouldn't be profitable to rip off customers and be protected by the law. But the most important hing to keep in mind is that the problem isn't that meds cost so much, it's that they charge so much. And one reason they charge so much is to get back some of the excessive money they spend on advertising. A company rep would drive away and give away boxes of the stuff to local doctors. Some of them, in turn, give them to their patients several at a time (if it is safe to self-medicate, such as heartburn). I was once given a pill by a doctor that came in a free sample pack from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The packaging alone for that one pill had to cost close to two dollars. (I know this because my job involves knowing such things.) It's all done in the name of advertising, to get their drug's brand name out into the public's mind. Maybe they could save themselves some money if they spent more on bringing advertising costs down and less on trying to convince you to convince your doctor to write you a prescription.

His meds are subsidized by his employer's medical plan because some liberal closed shop union workers fought their employers in order to garnish employee wages so that Joe would labor under the illusion that someone else is picking up the tab when in fact his employer is reaching into Joe's own back pocket.

Joe is laboring under an illusion. An illusion that his employer-provided medical insurance is money coming out of his own back pocket. Backing up a moment, if his meds are "subsidized by his employer's medical plan", then how come "He can't afford all his meds"? Is he on a boatload of meds per day? Is he a hypochondriac? If his meds weren't subsidized at all, which ones would he choose to take? Lucky for him he doesn't have to make that hard choice. As for the money for this coming out of his wallet, Joe doesn't understand how it works. You see, it's a "benefit" that your employer offers you. Your employer sees it as an incentive to want you to keep working for them. It has a certain dollar value that the company is paying. They can write it off as a business expense. (At some companies, if you want to cover your family, you pay the extra out of your own pocket. That way, everyone in the company is getting the same benefit, and not being given more just because they reproduce more than others.) At the same time they do it because they want you to take care of your health, because a healthy worker is a more productive worker. (Some, like my bosses, do it because it's the morally right thing to do, and they feel good about being able to do it. It's a family-owned company, so any profits would go to the few shareholders in the family. It literally is money out of their own pockets to offer it to us, and we are a small enough company that we would be exempt from any laws that mandate they do it.) But if you choose not to accept a company-offered health plan, they will only pay you what they would pay for the plan they offer, provided you can prove coverage under an equivalent or better plan. Otherwise, you pay for that plan out of your own pocket. Joe should talk to someone at his company to have his benefits program explained to him.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is unsafe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for limited liability laws so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer.

Wrong again, Joe. I don't know who's been teaching you what Liberalism is versus what Conservatism is about, but I can promise you that if liability laws are limited "so that if anyone dies of food poisoning, the meat packing industry will pay a fine and pass the cost on to the customer", it's not because liberals fought for that. It's because conservatives, especially "fiscal conservatives", fought for that. Hardcore fiscal conservatives believe that anything that hurts the bottom line profits of a company is inherently bad, so they like to see no government regulation at all. That includes regulatory standards regarding health and safety. Too costly, they say. Dead customers don't give a lot of repeat business, I say.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient because some crybaby liberal thought that he was too stupid to know that imbibing a pint of shampoo might be harmful to his health.

Not quite, Joe. You see, as technology advances and new ways are found to simulate what people use to use in their household products but can't any more (sometimes because the species of creature that produced that ingredient has been hunted to extinction), we're finding out that the human body sometimes reacts2 badly to these things. Warning labels that point out that the product contains ingredients known to cause allergic reactions in people help save lives. And is Joe in the habit of drinking just anything that comes in a bottle of some kind?

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. Joe begins to cough, choke, and gasp for breath because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for passage of the Kyoto treaty, allowing Third World countries to contaminate the world air supply with carbon monoxide.

That would more likely be because the US refused to take the lead on Global Warming and Climate Change. We can't expect the developing nations of the Third World to do anything about their own environmental pollution if we don't show them how it's done. What happened to "good old American know-how"? How come our corporations have such a defeatist attitude when it comes to trying to do something about not polluting the air that the breathe and the water that we drink? The longer we take to get started, the further we fall behind the rest of the world who are doing something about it. Joe should accept that the climate is undergoing changes resulting in weather patterns we are not used to seeing, and for which we are presently under-prepared to handle. Add to that the impending oil shortages and rising energy costs (even without the greed exhibited by certain corporations), there comes an even greater incentive to stop trying to pump as many dollars out of the ground and into the pockets of the people who are financing and supporting the very people with whom we are supposed to be at war, and start helping small businesses in this country profit from the wide-open market of renewable enery sources right here in the US. Obviously there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but the people who live in areas that get at least a decent amount of year-round sunshine should be able to buy affordable solar panels, and the people who live in areas that get a lot of wind at least some part of the year should be able to buy wind-power generators, and the people who live in areas where there is a good deal of warmth underground should be able to buy affordable thermal energy systems. There are present-day technology, real-time solutions to the problem now, and continued support by the federal government (instead of giving billions to the oil industry to explore for oil instead of making them pay for it themselves) will help bring down the price and, at the same time, do something that might help make our biosphere a little less unfriendly to us humans. A little less profit-taking, a little more planet-saving.

Joe doesn't dare go out at night because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the spraying or draining of malarial swamps.

Yes, because sometimes the government would send out helicopters to spray mosquitos while kids were outside playing. So their parents exercised their First Amendment rights and petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Besides, does Joe not own a jacket? Has his local merchant made the business decision to not stock bug repellent, even though he's apparently located near an undrained swamp?

Joe lost his first home to wildfire because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker forbad the thinning old growth forest land.

First of all, I'm sorry Joe lost his home and the memories within. Seriously. That kind of thing sucks. That having been said, did Joe know the area was susceptible to wildfires when he bought the place? Did he understand the risk? Did he have homeowner's insurance? Because he doesn't appear to be homeless today, so he must have had the money to buy another house. Did he move to some place less dangerous? It's his choice. It's a free country. What's his point? That there would never have been a wildfire if the old growth forest land had been thinned out so that some timber company could make a buck? Has Joe ever heard of lightning? These things are going to happen, regardless of how much thinning of forests is done. It can reduce the chance of someone losing his home to wildfire, but it won't eliminate it. Then there's always the occassional arsonist, as in the recent California fires. (My heart goes out to those people. If there's anything I or your fellow citizens can do, just ask.)

His dad used to take the train to work. But when the Federal highway system destroyed our once-magnificent train system, Joe had to resort to the filthy, crime-ridden subway system because some fancy-pants liberal fought to disarm law-abiding citizens so that street gangs could mug commuters, then cop a plea based on post-traumatic slavery disorder.

Is Joe referring to the marketplace of ideas favoring the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System over the rail line? And that other stuff is illogical. Perhaps Joe Democrat's creator isn't familiar with the mass transit system in some areas. I can take a train down to NYC, but once there, there are no above-ground trains to take, so I would have to take the subway to get around within the city. So the loss of the above-ground railway system to the Interstate Highway System would have had nothing to do with why Joe's father started taking the subway to work. (By the way, it hasn't stopped people from taking the train down to the City from where I live; both the trains and the highway are used. I know, I drive on the highway and over the rail tracks every day) At least, it doesn't make any sense where I live.

Joe begins his work day. Joe's dad used to support his family at a middle class lifestyle on a single income. But it now takes two or three incomes to do the work of one because liberal bureaucrats drove up the cost of doing business through overregulation and usurious corporate taxation.

No, greedy corporations drove up the cost to consumers, and wages lagged behind inflation, so families had to come up with more jobs among them to make ends meet. But those Big Oil Company execs are doing all right, aren't they? They sure look like they're getting their three square meals a day (and then some). That's Capitalism for you. The rich get richer and the fat get fatter.

If Joe gets bored with his job, he can fake an injury and collect workman's comp., retiring to the slopes of Aspen to recuperate because some stupid liberal didn't think that employees might try to bilk the system.

That would be a crime. Why would Joe automatically assume he could get away with insurance fraud which is illegal and has severe penalities? Does he think no one ever checks on these things? I've seen many newspaper reports of city officials and employees supposedly out on disability doing things they shouldn't be physically able to do if they were as badly injured as they claim. They usually get caught. Joe would have to be an idiot to think that this made sense as a financial security plan. But he would get free room, board and clothing in prison.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal thought that financial institutions should be able to defraud their customers and then file for bankruptcy, thereby shielding the pension and severance pay of board members while sticking the taxpayer with the tab.

How could Joe believe that Liberals would want banking institutions to get away with ripping people off? I have found that it usually pro-business Conservatives who like to fight for these kinds of things. Republicans, especially, like to tout "Caveat Emptor" ("Let The Buyer Beware") as the best form of Capitalism.

Joe has to pay his federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided to subsidize college education so that universities, freed from competitive pressure, no longer had to keep tuition costs down.

How exactly does making college affordable for everyone raise the price? I don't understand. Joe thinks that because education is subsidized, the colleges and universities would have no incentive to keep tuition costs down. How would constantly raising the tuition costs attract more people? Or would that only attract the kind of people who equate quality with price? Maybe they wanted to subsidize their athletic teams? Besides, if more students can afford to attend a college, there is less incentive for them to need to raise tuition, because they will be takinig in more people now that it's affordable. It's exactly like the theory that says if you lower income taxes, you'll take in more revenue.

Joe had the GPA and SAT scores to get into Harvard, but he had to settle for a community college because racial quotas kept him out while admitting inner city students who couldn't read or write, but had mastered multiple techniques of fitting a condom in high school sex-ed.

Just because Joe failed condom-fitting in high school sex-ed is no reason to be jealous. Besides, if Joe's GPA and SAT scores were good enought ot get into Harvard, then why did he end up in a community college? He must have been good enough for another prestigious school. Sounds like Joe is easily discouraged. Maybe that's why he failed condom-fitting.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. He has to practice defensive driving because some America-hating liberal had alcoholism classified as a legally-protected disease and disability.

Wrong again, Joe. It's not because alcoholism is a disease (and it is, trust me, I know) that Joe has to practice defensive driving, it's because it's too damn easy to get a license to drive! In my state (and each state varies), when I got my "Operator's License", I had to answer a 20-question, multiple-choice test. I needed an 80% score or better (16 out of 20), and of the four questions regarding road signs, I was allowed to get up to two wrong. (I aced my written test, by the way. First and only time.) Then there's a very simple road test you have to take where the purpose is to see if you can operate the vehicle correctly. Note that that's "operate the vehicle", not "drive". You learn just how to drive in my state after you get your license. And that's why we need to practice defensive driving on the highways - because not everyone who is given a license to drive has the ability, talent, and intelligence to do so. And doesn't Joe's auto insurance company offer a discount to drivers who take a defensive driving course?

He arrives at his boyhood home. The countryside used to be a quiet, leisurely, pristine place to live until the Federal highway system and force bussing overran the bucolic countryside with suburban sprawl as urbanites fled the cities.

Many people out there may be too young to remember the big debates over forced bussing. This was something ordered by the courts when certain communities (mainly in the South, but elsewhere in the country, too) refused to integrate their schools quickly enough after Brown v. Board of Education (or, as it's officially known in legal circles, Oliver L. Brown et.al. v. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) et.al.). I wouldn't be so quick to blame that on Liberals. Maybe if bigots - who tend to be conservative - hadn't fought and resisted integrating their schools so much, the courts would not have imposed that bussing plan. (Many who resisted pointed to the wording of the Supreme Court's decision that said they must integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed". Instead of interpreting that to mean "as quickly as possible", they chose to claim it meant "take your time".)

His family used to live off the land, in harmony with nature, until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification, powered by fossil fuel consumption.

Oh, Joe. Where do you get your facts? The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, one of the most successful programs in government history, allowed the federal government to provide loans to communities who needed to upgrade their electric service. But the source of the power to provide the electricity did not need to be fossil fuel-based. There is also hydro-electric power. And that "big-government liberal" to whom you refer must have been President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose programs to help lift us out of the Depression really began the modern Conservative movement. Today's Conservatism defines itself by what it's against, not what it's for. And it's against everything FDR did to rescue the country.

He is happy to see his dad. Dad will be the last generation to retire on Social Security because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals regularly raided the SS trust-fund to subsidize social programs, instead of allowing workers to invest their own earnings in compound interest-bearing accounts.

I am 47 and, as far as I know, the money for my Social Security retirement will still be there when I need it. A common falsehood promulgated by the right is that SS will go bankrupt around 2040. This is false. In 2041, money coming in to the fund will no longer exceed money going out of the fund. It will not be bankrupt. That is a lie the conservatives want you to believe so that you'll support privatization of Social Security. But privatizing Social Security means that the guarantee that your funds will be there is gone, because you will be forced to risk your money on the stock market. Just because the market has gained money overall throughout its existence, that does not mean that everyone who invests in the market will make money. And putting your retirement funds into risky investments defeats the entire purpose of having a guaranteed retirement income system.

Joe's Dad was forced into early retirement, without a pension, because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a snail-darter in the cooling system of the local nuclear plant, where his dad used to work.

Joe's Dad must live in Tennessee or Alabama, the only two place where snail darters can be found. They live in gravel and sand shoals, not nuclear power plant cooling systems. I suspect that Joe's Dad lied to him about why he lost his job. Maybe Joe's Dad lost his job due to incompetence? That does still happen, despite what conservatives blame liberals for.

Joe's uncle used to be a cattle rancher until he was driven out of business because some environmentalist wacko liberal lawmaker kept him from shooting wolves that preyed on his livestock.

Wolves are such misunderstood creatures. Like all animals, they serve an important ecological and environmental function. They don't simply attack livestock, they also eat other small creatures, too. This, in turn, keeps the small creatures from overrunning the place, spreading disease and being a nuisance. It also keeps the small woodland creatures from eating too much of the plant vegetation and nuts. This leaves more plant life to take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, which we humans need to breathe. It's a great Circle of Life. Perhaps he could have kept his ranching business if he could find a better way to protect his livestock from not just wolves, but bears and other predators, too. It's one of the things you have to put up with if you want to live out in the country.

Joe's cousin used to work at the local lumber mill until he was laid off because some environmentalist wacko liberal discovered a spotted owl on timber land.

Like the wolves above, owls are predators that keep the population of the smaller animals from going wild. And if Joe's cousin's lumber mill was getting their wood from only one place in the forest, then they weren't going to be around long anyway. (I noticed Joe Democrat's problems seem to be digressing from Joe Republican's, but that's okay. He's still wrong.)

Joe's relatives used to receive assistance from the local chapter of the Salvation Army until it had to close its doors because some liberal civil libertarian sued it for refusing to offer domestic partnership benefits to all its employees.

I wondered what this was about, so I looked up the story. The Salvation Army is a religious organization that wants to receive funding from the government. [From the link:]"The group is handed millions of dollars of both federal and local funding at the same time as it fights to overturn local laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 1998, the San Francisco-based Human Rights Commission, one of the largest gay groups in the country, ordered SA to offer domestic partnership benefits or lose a $3.5-million city contract. For one whole year SA refused to comply, and was finally forced to forfeit its contract." I do not know if that meant it had to close its doors to the needy, or that it simply had less to work with in doing so. But other charitable organizations exist that could have helped out Joe's relatives.

Wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals also invented a Constitutional right to an abortion, resulting in 45 million fewer workers to support the retirees.

There is little point in getting into a debate over whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. She most definitely should have that right. But where Joe goes all mentally irregular is where he tries to deduce that had the Supreme Court not decided that the States may not deny a woman the right to have an abortion during the first tri-mester of pregnancy, when the State had no interest beyond the woman to care about, they were not inventing a right that didn't already exist. If you'll read your Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, it says:

Article IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In simple terms, that means that just because the Constitution did not spell out a right that we as citizens have, it did not mean that we didn't have it. But that's beside the point.

Just because there have been some 45 million abortions in the US (which is where I am assuming that he is getting that number; I don't really feel like doing his research, too), it does not logically follow that there would be 45 million more workers earning money and paying taxes into the treasury. For one thing, not all abortions took place long enough ago that those "potential" people would be working today. And a number of those would probably have died too young to contribute much, if anything at all. The law of averages tells us that. It's really just thrown out there at inappropriate times during other discussions to register a personal disgust on the part of the speaker to the idea of woman being allowed to control their own bodies. I treat them as baseless smears and consider them meaningless.

In addition, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals promoted SS so that no able-bodied, adult child should ever be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for the elderly parents who devoted the best years of their lives caring for them when they were young and helpless.

Did Joe's parents take care of their parents when Joe was young? And who says that "able-bodied, adult child[ren]" can't take care of their parents if they wanted to anyway? This is really a non-sensical argument. Besides, I thought Joe was on a lot of meds up above. Is Joe an able-bodied adult? If so, then why is he on so much medication? And if he isn't, wouldn't he appreciate that he doesn't "have to be saddled with the onerous burden of caring for [his] elderly parents" without at least a little help from his fellow Americans (which is what Social Security is)? It's part of that whole philosophy of us watching out for each other. That's what our taxes do. We all chip in to help all of us meet our needs, not just the rich and strong and able-bodied. All of us. Sorry if that conflicts with the Conservative ideal of "Every Man For himself."

Finally, wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberals lobbied for involuntary euthanasia so that burdensome parents can be put out of their children's misery.

Joe must be fantasizing here, because no normal person would consider euthenizing his parent against their will just to relieve his own misery. It takes a sick mind to think that this is why the Right-to-Die battle is being fought. There are many people who feel that being kept alive artificially, just to gain a few more weeks or months, at such a great cost to their family, is not worth the suffering and misery of existing pointlessly. If someone is going to die from something at any time soon, and nothing can be done to prevent it, and the only thing to look forward to is possibly weeks of pain and discomfort, then why shouldn't that person have the right to say they wish to end their own life? Why should they be forced to contrinue living against their will? Who are we to say a person must suffer, so that we don't have to let them go?

As the day ends, Joe reflects on his nation, his liberties and his freedoms. He is free because conservative cold warriors kept commie lefty Liberals from unilaterally disarming America.

Excuse me. I am a Liberal Air Force veteran and proud of it, and I was stationed at Ramstein AB, West Germany, from 1986-1988, during the Cold War. Conservatives weren't the only ones protecting your right to say such things. I was, too.

Joe resents having to be so dependent on gov't goods and services, but since he didn't ask for it, since--indeed--it was imposed on him anyway, against his will, and forcibly deducted from his hard-earned wages, the only way he can recoup a fraction of his losses is to play the hand he's been dealt--even if the deck is stacked against him.

Does Joe live in a Blue State? If not, then his state is likely receiving more back from the federal government than they send there in taxes. No one is making Joe use those programs. Besides, if people like Joe, who probably doesn't really need the help, didn't use it, it would cost less to the taxpayers and increase your annual tax refund.

But given a choice, he refuses to a vote for a Massachusetts liberal who was drafted; who tried to dodge the draft by requesting an education deferment to study in Paris; who volunteered for the Naval reserves (when his deferment was denied) to duck active duty service; who gamed the three-purple-hearts-and-your-out policy by writing up his own glowing after-action reports about his self-inflicted flesh-wounds; who, after receiving a dishonorable discharge, laid the groundwork for a successful political career by slandering his comrades-in-arms; who eventually ran for president on the platform that he served honorably in a dishonorable war; and who angrily denounced a war he authorized.

About the only thing I can say in response to this diatribe, is that Joe is seriously misinformed about a number of things. Perhaps a search through credible sources (meaning sources whose only agenda is to uncover the truth) may help Joe learn just how wrong that entire paragraph was. Oh, wait. John Kerry is, indeed, a Massachusetts Liberal. That part is correct. READ A BOOK NOT WRITTEN BY LIARS!

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on NPR. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are good and right-wingers are bad. He doesn't mention that the beloved liberals have fought for the infringement of every freedom that Joe's old man used to enjoy and take for granted.

And then Joe got stopped at an armed checkpoint. It was the third one he had come across that day since the terror alert level was raised to Red and Martial law was declared. He had managed to talk his way through the last two because he knew one of the guys from work who was manning each post. One of them had just returned from his third tour of duty in Iraq. He was relieved to hear that he would be sent home stateside, until he found out two weeks later just why that was. President George Bush had declared Martial Law just hours after Co-President Dick Cheney had already done so.

It was discovered through warrantless wiretapping of the internet that an undergraduate student in Tehran was researching how to make nuclear weapons on the internet and was close to discovering a potential way to do so which, if modified correctly, and built to a precision unachievable in his country, and tested after many years to see if it could truly work, might possibly give him the knowledge to sell to the highest terrorist bidder and thus endanger us all. According to the two presidents' foreign policies, Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, nor learn how to make a nuclear bomb, nor even read books about nuclear bombs. And since you need nucl,ear material to make a nuclear bomb, they may not even do anything that comes close to learning how to make a nuclear reactor. What Americans did not know then was that Iran was not even allowed to look at pictures of nuclear power plants, or they risked unilateral invasion and regime change. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Ain't that the truth where George Bush and Dick Cheney are involved? A lot of secrecy helps, too.

Oh, and don't forget to enjoy the American way of life made possible by Liberals.

Your Money Is No Good Here

Apple computer has decided that your money isn't good enough any more to buy their new iPhones. They are no longer accepting cash as payment for the product and limiting sales to two per person. Is this even legal?

They estimate that of the 1.4 million iPhones sold so far, about 250,000 of them are bought for the purpose of being resold. They don't explain how they come up with this number, but since they were selling as many as five to a customer, perhaps they assumed that anyone buying more than two was going to sell the rest after hacking into it and making it usable on other cellular networks. On the other hand, how do they know that someone with a family of five wasn't buying one for everyone?

When I look at my dollar bills, I see the following note: THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. It sounds to me like they cannot legally refuse cash as payment, but it turns out they can. According to the Treasury Dept, "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." So a bus line can refuse to accept pennies or bills as payment (remember Star Trek IV? "What does that mean, 'exact change only'?"), and movie theaters and convenience stores can refuse to accept large denomination bills (usually anything above a $20.)

So, if you want to buy an iPhone now, you better have good credit and a large limit on your card. And if you plan on reselling those iPhones, just remember that they can trace your purchases now. If an illegally re-programmed iPhone finds its way to the hands of the cops, they will be able to trace the original purchase back to you.

Bush Is Not As Powerful As He Thinks

I just want to point out something about the Constitution that I think has been overlooked, and quite possibly for a long time, but especially since President Bush took office. Bush and his people keep talking about "the inherent authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief during wartime." What they don't point out is: There's no such thing in the Constitution. Go ahead. Show me where it points out just what these powers are. You can't, because it doesn't, because they aren't there. This whole business about how the president has extraordinary powers inherent as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is a fantasy, forced against the will of logic into the law. One could have called it a "rape" and not been far off. But what is the legal basis of this concept? First, let's review exactly, and in full detail, what the constitution says about the president's role as Commander-in-Chief.

Article II, Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

That's it. That's all it says. It does not say that he may abandon the constitution when ordering the military into action. It does not say that he can ignore the rules under which the military is required to operate in carrying out his commands. Before I go further, I feel I should point out that right above this oft-referenced part of the Constitution, the part that, for all the Bush Administration cares is the only relevant part of the Constitution, is this even more important one.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

In the Enumerated Powers Clause of the Constitution, this is what it says about the authority of Congress to determine how the military may be used during war or peace.:

Article I, Section 8, :
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal(*), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(*)A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is a license granted by a state to a private citizen to capture the merchant ships of another nation. So not even the president can order someone to do this.)

To me, that clearly means that it is the Congress, and not the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (be they at war or not, and I will get to that in a moment), who decides how the military will behave. So where does President Bush get that the idea that he decides how the Armed Forces behave, when temporarily under his command?

Remember that the Founding Fathers never intended that there be a permanent Army. They wrote into the Constitution a provision that allowed the Congress to raise and support an Army, but no appropriation could be for more than two years. (So how do the contractors working for the DoD get deals for longer than two years, if no appropriation shall be for longer than that? Separate question. In fact, how does this permit them to sign a four-year contract with me when I enlisted in the Air Force in 1982? Another separate question.) And they also decided that the Congress would decide how our military personnel, whether in wartime or not, would behave. Now, should the Armed Forces have been needed, the Founders didn't want them to be under their own command. (That's called a junta.) So they assigned the role of Commander-in-Chief to the highest elected office in the country, which happened to be the President of the United States. But, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, he is still bound by the rules the Congress lays down for behavior of our Armed Forces.

The Founders never intended that the President could take command of the Armed Forces, who are governed by the rules that Congress laid down, and institute his own rules that are contrary to what the Congress dictated. If he were to order a soldier to do something that contravened the rules the Congress set in place, then he would be giving them an illegal order under the law. (The law being what the Congress writes, not the president. See Article I.) That soldier would be perfectly within his rights to respectfully refuse to carry out that order with impunity. He (the soldier, and a hypothetical one who could be male or female, so please forgive me for not inclusing both genders each time - I liked the women I served with) took an oath to obey "the lawful orders of those appointed over" him. Any unlawful order would be as valid as an order from you or me. The president does not have the authority to order the troops to do illegal things. Bush thinks he does.

And therein lies the problem. In order for Bush to be able to order the military to do his bidding, he must have a war going on for him to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief. (By the way, you noticed how often Republicans running for "President of the United States" refer to that office as the "Commander-in-Chief", as if that was the title to which they were trying to get elected? That should tell you what they intend to do with the office of President.) And since he feels that during wartime, he is not bound in any way, shape or form by the rules for the military established by Congress (even though the role of "Commander-in-Chief" must be seen as being a member of the military bound by the same rules as everyone else), he believes that his powers during wartime are unlimited. So he must always keep us in a state of war. Without a war, he has no "inherent authority as Comander-in-Chief during wartime." Do I honestly believe that he is that petty? I can't be 100% certain about Bush though I truly believe he can be, but I am about Cheney, and it is Cheney who is the real power behind the rise of the Imperial Presidency.

For it Dick Cheney who brought in David Addington and John Yoo into the administration to write their policies of the president's powers during wartime, a state they intended to keep the country in for their entire time in office. They are the ones who took Ronald Reagan's theory of how to run a State Government (as in, the United States, not a State Nation) called The Unitary Executive. It essentially said that all Executive Branch decisions and authority in a state government should derive from a single person, the Governor, and that there not be so much power distributed to independent agencies. At least, that's the bare bones gist of it. Cheney's people tried to apply that theory to running the federal government, though it could never work. It could never work because it was contrary to how our federal system of government was designed to operate. You see, the Constitution only guaranteed the people that their states would provide a republican (small "r") form of government, meaning that they would be represented in their government body by someone else who would also represent many others. There was no guarantee made that the people coulsd have a hand in choosing those representatives in government, but that was left up to the states. Most of them saw the wisdom in letting the people choose their elected officials, except for the US Senators who, by the Constitution, would be picked by the state governments (either the legislatures, or the governor alone, or however they decided to do it; it was Democracy, and it was all the buzz!) In turn, those states were otherwise free to decide for themselves how they wished to govern themselves in all matters not empowered to the Congress.

But when it came to the federal government, the Constitution spelled out clear delineations on who would do what. The law of the land would be determined by the Congress. This power was plenary, except where the constitution specified it to the states or to the people. The President was empowered to carry out the law of the land as written by Congress. If you will recall his oath of office above, that is pretty much what his constitutional duty is, along with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. Nothing about carrying out a political agenda. Other than being empowered to determine foreign policy, nothing about the right to start a war whenever he felt like it. That power was reserved to the Congress. And nothing whatsoever about treating the Constitution of the United States like a "goddamned piece of paper". In fact, one could easily argue, quite the opposite. And the Supreme Court (and such inferior courts as Congress may create) would determine how to interpret the law in a manner consistent with the Constitution. The real Constitution. Not the one they wished they took an oath to preserve, protect abnd defend.

George Bush and Dick Cheney falsely believe that they have the authority to do whatever they want to do when acting to protect the country. But protecting the country is not what they are sworn to do. They are sworn to protect the constitution, and no amount of "breaking-the-constitution-to-protect-it"-type logic can justify their actions. When they diverted some $700,000,000 from fighting the war in Afghanistan (which, at the time, was an authorized use of the money, for fighting in Afghanistan, that is) to begin planning the invasion of Iraq (which, at the time, was not an authorized use of the money, for planning the invasion, that is), they violated the Constitution. When they detained people on the battlefield and fully intended to hold them indefinitely, never bring them to trial for anything, and periodically use torture to obtain unreliable information, they violated the Constitution. When they signed bills passed by Congress into law and then quietly issued accompanying signing statements that, for all practical purposes, said that the president would not adhere to any law which he felt infringed on his "inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief during wartime", they violated the Constitution. I ask you, I implore you, please explain to me, why are we allowing either of these gentlemen to serve out the remainder of their terms of office, when they clearly and plainly have no intention of obeying the laws or the Constitution they each took an oath to uphold? Why?