Saturday, June 7, 2008


Too Much Crime & Too Many Laws ??

What’s the solution. Increased enforcement. But we can’t, we don’t have enough police and jails and the courts are over crowed now. The simple solution is cut the number of laws. Make the ones remaining easy to understand because they are basic. Then enforce the you know what out of them. Is that possible ? If there are half the number of laws then there should be twice the number of police available to enforce the remaining ones.
The idea also is to jump on the “little” laws. Littering, jay walking, petty larceny. Enforce these hard, make the penalty small, but also follow thru on the payment of the policy. Set up real community service. Keep the first offenders off the record sheets, except to the judges. We don’t want to brand a person a career criminal for jay walking. We just don’t want him or her jay walking. $10 or 1 hour on the service “chain gang”. Make it at least inconvenient to break the little crimes again. We of course have to still concentrate on the violent crimes. But look at all the police we have and they are still working on the small type crimes. Give them the ability to put penalties on the things they deal with. I don’t know how it would work in the specific. But in the overall picture, we need to not make a federal case out of the small stuff. Not get the kids set up for a life of crime. We need to make it a bit humiliating and inconvenient to do things that are disrespectful of others. Not just the kids either, but concentrate on them. They are the ones we have a chance to help the most.

In our lawyer crazy society, run by government populated mainly with lawyers, we have been smoozed into believing that if we pass a law against something then that something will go away. When it doesn’t then we pass another law. Well we have simply accumulated too many laws. We have forgotten that we also have to enforce those laws for them to be effective. By passing more laws simply means we have less ability to enforce current laws. And more leeway to wiggle out of being punished.

Lawyers will say we need the extra laws to make them less complicated, more specific to the specific wrong. Make the sentencing fairer. I call that “dumbing down” the judicial role in law. Are judges and juries too slow to understand the difference between premeditated murder and unpremeditated. Cannot a judge pick a sentence that fit’s the crime? Cannot he pick a sentence better than a bureaucrat somewhere else safe from the repercussions of a bad sentence. A person dies through some fault of another, why is it necessary to have such a complicated set of laws about it. Why not let the jury say guilty or not, then the judge decide on the punishment. Kill the cold blooded serial child killer for example. For the man who negligently causes death through non premeditative actions would receive a lighter sentence based upon the local situations, decided by a local judge.

As a conservative, I believe the laws should be broad and vague enough for people through their judges to make sure the punishment fit’s the crime. If they don’t fit the crime, vote out the local judge, don’t pass more laws thinking that will solve the problem. For those of you who think that the law would not be served in such a system because you’re thinking about all the possible wrong decisions: just look at what our current way has evolved into. Also look what happens when leaders are chosen by a bunch of local individuals. Why in the last election alone nearly 50% of the choices were wrong. Yet we rarely hear for a repeal of democracy. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what 50% was wrong. Some may think that we could just pass a law and say that it is illegal to vote for the wrong candidate. All radicals secretly wish for that. Luckily at least so far we have the same amount of nuts on each side. Lol.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Friday, June 6, 2008

Where Do Water Boys/Girls Come From

Where do our Great Leaders come from.?

How Important is it to have Great Leaders?

How important is the Water Boy on the team?

In America, in our democracy, due to the freedom we enjoy, both the water boy and the great leader are dependent upon each other. I’m going to try in this post to relate my ideas of the importance of freedom to the selection of leaders that are great from the millions of people trying to be. I’ll be trying to justify why my efforts at this blog are important. OK , here it goes.

I sit down and listen to Newt talk about leadership and how to achieve it, in order to help bring about the change I feel necessary. I listen to others talk of the importance of Freedom of the individual over the government and I wonder why is it so important. Why, when it is easier to change my ideas to fit the prevailing ones shouldn’t I change them? In politics why should I vote for McCain even if he doesn’t represent all of the beliefs I have? Isn’t it a contradiction for me to stand firmly for my convictions, yet vote for someone opposed to some of them?

I’m not trying to say something is better than nothing, even if that is so. What I’m trying to get to is where do great leaders come from. Great leaders bubble up from that great cauldron we call Freedom. They come from people, everyday people, millions of them having that sense of Freedom saying what they believe. As in all things, some have to work at it. To some it comes easy. But try we all do, in our own ways. We feel we are on the same team, as does the water boy on up to the quarterback. We are all trying to make a difference.

Through fate or natural selection a person bubbles up with all the right ingredients. In baseball we call him a phenom. A natural. Others as I say have to work at it more. Some presidents had to grow into the office before they became great. I have a feeling though that it is a combination of natural greatness with the ability to focus on a message plus never ending work. As much as Reagan seemed a natural, his struggles early on as an FDR Democrat thru the union problems he faced as President of the Actors Guild, which finally turned him into a Republican, showed that the work had to be done. He too had to go thru the fires of life to succeed. Even for the naturals, the work still had to be done.

The fact of the matter is that a president needs to be popular as well as have good ideas. Some become great because of their good ideas, while others simply are popular. Good ideas are the copper, the popularity is the glow. While it is easy to say popularity will fade ect. It is equally true that without popularity the good ideas will not see the light of day. It seems obvious that both are equally necessary in order to lead greatly. It is important to have great leaders because to be a great leader means that they have the same dreams and goals and ideas that the majority of the population want, and tirelessly trys to carry them out.

The point I’m making is that the more people exercising and demanding their right to exercise their freedom, the bigger the cauldron from which leaders will emerge. The internet is a great tool by which many can get their feet wet. It has created another starting point for people to express their ideas, creating another load of ingredients for our cauldron. We have had a lot of firsts running for political office for President. I see a youthfull blogger now blogging and aspiring to that position actually attaining it in the future. The point is that there will be thousands if not millions other who don’t, that is as it should be. There is no dumbing down of Freedom, it either is or it isn’t. It is the freedom of the process that matters. The freer the process the better the selection. The more open and transparent the process the better choice we will make, and the better chance for that special person to bubble up and be judged by all us water boys/girls adequet to lead our team.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

PS Like a butterfly from a catepillar, a great leader comes out of a Water Boy/Girl. In one specific species they are the same. That species is a Free People.

From Newt

Pass it on.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Somewhere In Between

I have always had a libertarian streak. When I was researching I came across the following from Ron Paul about neo-cons.
I respect his strict constitutional views. So I’m perplexed by why he did not name Newt Gingrich as one of the neo-cons. Newt’s a favorite of mine so I realized that he should of made Ron’s list. I started to do some digging.

Googling Gingrich and Neo-cons there seemed an abundance of material out there to link Newt to the cause. I assume Ron Paul would consider Newt as a neo-con. I would agree. Perhaps you are getting to see the quandary I’m finding myself in. I like both these intelligent people. Ron Paul and his followers claim that neo-cons rule by fear. If there wasn’t anything to fear they would manufacture it. That is where the most radical of that persuasion come up with the conspiracy theories about 9/11, claiming the whole thing was staged by the neo-cons. I view that as just their way of manufacturing fear in their own way. Ron Paul I’m sure does not believe this, let me be clear on that.

Newt Gingrich for those that read my blog will know that I’ve been quite impressed with him since his GOPAC days. He seems to be the only one now who is working towards change in any type of systematic concrete way. His book Real Change lays out a workable blueprint to retake the government from big government hands. I admire his organizational and leadership skills. How he can set up the networks for political change almost single handedly. The scope of his online presence is astounding. Go to the link below to see the range of his talents.
The man is tireless and ever doing. He is a true genius at what he does. I believe he genuinely wants government to work. Be sure to see the bottom of his site for other sites. He has a you tube channel, the guy never runs out of energy.
I especially like to revisit this site to help me get fired up politically.
The last three minutes are instructive.

I must at this point say that I’ve come up with my answer to my quandary. Perhaps not to yours. Just thinking quietly for a few minutes let me see the obvious. Ron Paul is of the philosophical end of my political spectrum. Newt is of the practical end. To keep those ideas separate I constantly go back to Thomas Sowell and his wonderful book. “A Conflict of Visions” which delineates the two opposing basic ideas of life that humans have. He further shows how those two opposing views find common ground and find ways to survive together to further their causes short of war when they can. The writing and acceptance of the Constitution he uses as a prime example. This is the seminal book in how I look at politics. I have to go back to it often to help me compromise my ideals with those having opposing ideals in order to get something done.

I think Ron Paul would not mind me stating that I am a free man and that pursuing that freedom will enhance the freedom of all. I will also take from him the desire to be more free from government. I do want government however, the amount is what is in question. If I act as a truly free person then I can keep government more as a slave to me than vice versa. Once that mental compromise is done with, I will learn from Newt how better to organize my efforts to create the outcomes I want.

The danger as always throughout history has been for people like myself to fall into the “cult of personality” trap. I and others leaning towards either end of the spectrum seem to be particularly good at that. That compromise Thomas Sowell describes in “A Conflict of Visions” helps me to get over my proclivity to invest perfection into someone so I don’t have to worry about it. I must do some of the work. I must also stay fluid in my pragmatism, while rigidly paying dues to my beliefs. I must firmly believe in something strongly enough to be willing to compromise in order to move my beliefs forward. I believe that to do other wise out of stubborn belief is to go against the very logic and reasoning of the Constitution.

As you probably well know the “devil is in the details”. I have decided that in order for me to advance what I feel is necessary, I must not only compromise but first and above all I must get involved. Let that involvement shape the compromise. This is why I have two blogs. This one is for my philosophical side, the other is for my practical, get involved side. The hard part is knowing that the two will never meet. Again Thomas Sowell’s book tells me that admitting that is what makes me a Conservative or as he calls it having a “Constrained Vision”. And as in my post about the Two Brooks, David and Arthur obliquely accept that axiom by pointing out that conservatives are happier by the acceptance, then going about doing what they can. While those having the “Unconstrained Vision” believing that perfection can be achieved can never be happy until that is achieved, whether that can happen or not it seems to be a long way off.
I notice now that both sides “constrained” and “unconstrained” have the same basic choices as far as how they will try to change things. I compare them to the Jesus way, the way of ultimate love vs. the other I’ll call the tyrants way. Here I don’t necessarily mean by saying the Jesus way to imply the necessity of religion. Just as by saying tyrants I don’t mean specific ones. Both sides have plenty of each. The point I’m trying to make is that the common ground necessary in order for civilization to exist is found in these. The type of civilization formed is found in which of the two is favored.

Well now I feel I better get back to my other blog so I can practice what I preach to see if the proof in the pudding tastes good. Hopefully the next serving here will reflect subtle changes I’ve made in the recipe of my offering from the never ending assortment of spices found in real life.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

PSIn my quest today within the sphere of the web, I’ve come across someone, who I’m not sure how has affected me and what I blogged today. I’ve linked her under my “Old Standby Links” under Neo-neocon on my side bar. The name seems to me misleading. Give it a shot and judge for yourself. For those in Rio Linda, the link is below.
It may be that I liked it because she likes baseball. lol

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

A Real Fistful of Truth, I missed yesterday

I usually don’t post again this quickly, but I missed McCain’s speech in New Orleans, yesterday.
Looks like John has decided to come out swinging. I can’t help but relate what my previous post was about to this speech. The idea that truth is such a novel idea recently in politics. More to the point John McCain is telling it like it is. While he lacks that certain finesse and nuance the pundits go ga ga over, I get the feeling he is shooting from the hip. The real tenor of his campaign and his soul has been put out there. The gauntlet thrown down. Not just for the other side but for the Republican leadership as well. I believe he is saying this is the campaign, this is what I‘m going after, what I believe in. Join with me, and we can win this thing. He has held his water well and if this speech is a portent of the things to come he has used his time well, while the Dems had their catfight.

John McCain has a chance here to lay out a new conservative agenda, by the sounds of his speech he has kept his ear to the ground and is using the best of the British Conservative and the Newt Gingrich models. The message he has had, but the delivery is where he has learned.
-----quote from speech------
“The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.”
Wishful thinking abounds after reading the speech. I realize I’m making connections where none probably exist, but what the hey. Here they come.

The obvious connection to the “new modern conservatism” being created in England, see my side bar (Updates Across the Pond) In the same side bar I recently noted that the marketing guru for Cameron’s conservative message is coming to the US for 6 months, coincidence?

This kick off speech was given in New Orleans La. Is that too a coincidence? Bobby Jindal the young, confident, get things done, “Bottom up Politics” kind of guy from the British model happens to be Governor of Louisiana ! Also happened to be invited to visit John McCain and rumored to be on his short list for VP! Below a link to what I posted about Bobby before.
Newt Gingrich has also been tirelessly preaching in his own way the same kind of change in his book Real Change and a long time before that in many other efforts. If you check out his American Solutions web site and from there his others, you will see he has been doing more than preaching.

My real wishful thinking concept is that the leadership of the Republicans whole heartedly get behind this message and that John McCain does also. Mainly I’m afraid of the message not getting out. For this to work, look at Britain. It works there because they have a strong leader, who LET the message go to his head.! Also a bunch of young turks willing to work at it.

Sen. Obama and the Dems by trying to link President Bush to John McCain, have given John the opportunity the opening needed to show the obvious to the world. It has been obviously clear to most the differences. In the Media’s hatred for Bush they have praised McCain for all the times he has gone against “his” President and party for that matter.

He has been praised for his fight against earmarks. For his bipartisan efforts from Immigration to global warming. The Media is already hard at it to cover their tracks. It is also as obvious from Obama’s short record that he is the most liberal, pro big government senator in the Senate. John McCain points this out by saying the big government idea doesn’t work and he is the only one who has actually been fighting it. Not just talking about it. It doesn’t much matter where he picked up those ideas, what matters is that the gloves are coming off, what also matters is that the truth is plain to see. Lucky for Obama that he has so much money, he will need to remain lucky, for he will not win on words alone.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

The Truth ----- Novel Concept----Never Work

“John McCain’s admitted shortcomings regarding economics”

If I hear that one more time I’ll gag.
How many times have I heard that? More than my abacus of fingers and toes, will handle.

What did John McCain say that was so shocking that every utterance since about economic matters needs that qualifier by the Media. I guess that if I was running for dog catcher I better not let anyone know that I am not completely up to date on the construction methods, models available and safety aspects of dog cages. I think I would just go ahead and on my campaign literature, under the paid for by Live Dangerously For Dog Catcher Committee thing I would put “Not Completely Versant In Animal Enclosures” I mean I don’t want people getting the wrong idea about me. They might not vote for me if the truth is out. My competitor surely is knowledgeable in cages or he would not be continually reminding the voter about how I admitted I wasn’t. Boy glad I’m not running for the post. Lol

I’ve an excellent idea for the next Presidential Candidate. Admit to not being a “know everything” about every thing. Freely and regularly admit to not being a supernatural genius and admit that is why you need the gaggle of expert advisors that you have around yourself. Admit that you even ask questions of those advisors that you don‘t know the answer to. Pretty shocking for the politicos and election junkies to grasp that concept. The concept of candidates being human. Let them know that you are not a genius (voters if they don’t know now will soon enough find it out). Admit that you have to study an issue then make up your own mind. That would indeed be a shocker.

Admitting the truth, what a shocker, what an ingenious strategy, the media would spend weeks dissecting that one. Way too obvious. For weeks after the candidate won the election. The pundits would still be puzzling out whether that damaging confession helped the candidate win the election or not, or how he could have been so clever as to slip that by us.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

What I Have In Common With The Left

What I have in common with the Left.

Much as the left, I look for inspiration to people and concepts from foreign and exotic places.

The 1930’s saw the rise of communism as a theoretically pure expression of the hope of mankind. Equality for all, (in American words) the freedom to pursue happiness. In their words to work at what you were best suited to. As is always the case it was sad to see human nature creep in and destroy the theory. Stalin comes to mind, as do relocation and reeducation camps. Purges and mass killings and mass graves. The left at first fell in love with the theory, they tended to dismiss the atrocities committed under the Red Banner. They would not fall into that trap they were different. They could make it work.

As a conservative I too have a theory. It is as lofty in it’s aims and claims as the left‘s theory. In fact we both claim to want the same ultimate goals. The happiness and well being of the individual. My theory when given full power to achieve it’s goals falls far short also. It falls to the iron fist of corruption also. It has resulted in mass killings and all sorts of atrocities also. I too as my left leaning friends do, tend to sweep that thought away as somehow not relevant to the current situation. That’s one thing we have in common, we are sure our paths are right and that we will not make the mistakes of the past.

I would here like to make the case that the one crucial thing our failures have had in common is that when we in our zeal let the power be concentrated in a few hands (to more efficeintly use that power) at the upper level of government that power corrupts whatever system we set up to fulfill our theories. The very concept of concentrated power unchecked looking out for the individual is an oxymoron. I have always struggled back and forth with that issue. In business I always thought that the model of complete control as the most efficient. One decision maker deciding and every body else concentrating on fulfilling that decision. That old philosopher king idea. Business makes that model work, but only with the club of free enterprise. All companies use that model, however only those that produce what the people want to buy succeed. The bottom line is the “bottom up” iron fist of the consumer. Who is after all freely working in the pursuit of their happiness. The business’ that don’t produce what the consumer wants no matter how efficiently they are run, are soon out of business.

In government and it’s people side, politics; the iron fist of the voters in democracies and the “people” in totalitarian regimes through elections or revolution, eventually bubbles from the bottom up to make their wishes known replacing that which is not helping them in their pursuit of happiness.

The point is top down government doesn’t work simply due to human nature. In a democracy when one party concentrates power they start to lose touch with the people that elected them, and become more concerned about keeping that power and the easiest way to do that is to keep enlarging that power.

This is the contradiction inherent in government. Neither side has the ultimate answer because the ultimate answer doesn’t lie in government. It lies in ourselves. Our government is there only to help free us to decide for ourselves what we think we wish to do. They are there to do the mundane things like fix pot holes. Repel invaders. Not to give us happiness. How do they know what will make me happy. I expect them to make it possible for me to do what I think is best for me. Not for them to decide that for me. I forget that for that to happen, I have a responsibility to be a part of that. What that part is, is my struggle. Doing that whatever it is when mixed with all the other peoples decisions simmers and cooks in the cauldren of democracy making the majority better off. Because they are the ones deciding by majority. I may be bitterly dissappointed at times but if I was able to give it my best shot then I can live with it, as I go on to the next battle.

At this point in time when the people are bubbling up their anger at the Republicans for failing prey to the corruption of power, I look to foreign and exotic lands for inspiration. Much as other struggling democracies have looked to us, overlooking our shortcomings to guide their thoughts. The British and their concepts of the Modern Conservative movement is giving me inspiration. The idea of Bottom Up Governing is as old as democracy yet as new young energetic faces behind it in Britain. In the never ending cycle of “power corrupting” that makes “bums” out of our best leaders and ideas, only through democracy do the people have the best chance to throw those “Bums” out.

I thought of changing the title of this blog to “What the Theories of the Left and Right have in common”, I decided not to as I realized that for politics to work it has to be personal. We not only have to realize how our leaders can become corrupted by power, but that we also share their weakness.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.

PS. Please see my side bar titled "Update Across the Pond" for links to the Bristish Modern Conservative Movement.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Governmental Diversity

Just a little pause here to help myself keep on the purpose of this site. Try to nail down my reason for doing this blogging and political thing. I want to talk of one aspect of smaller or more efficient government. I’ve come up with the term “Diversify” to express the idea of decentralized bureaucracy and bringing it back down to the local level.

While the label is mine the thoughts come from different sources, and weren’t mine originally by any means. I just think they make sense, so I put my spin on them. Newt Gingrich and David Cameron are the obvious examples I have drawn from. Diversifying bureaucracy from a top down to a bottom up organization is my goal. Newt Gingrich in his book “Real Change” consistently calls for use of models based on entrepreneurial systems that have proven track records of success. His words, programs that work vs. programs that don’t. There are examples that deal with changing the bureaucracy from within such as Giuliani’s success in New York changing the police system to lower the crime rate, which made New York into the safest large city to live in. Giuliani did that by measuring at the precinct level the effects of policy and changing the policy to fit the local conditions. Other examples diversified the bureaucracy into private hands. The idea that 2 weeks after Katrina Fed Ex was on the ground shipping packages and The US Post Office put an embargo on shipping newspapers magazines ect for 6 months.

All of these examples of successfully turning systems into ones that work and succeed, were made possible through getting them back in touch with the customer’s (Citizen’s) wants and needs and continually tailoring that policy to the satisfaction of those needs. A policy’s success needs to be measured by the effects is has on the people it is supposed to help, not the affect it has on the bureaucracy. Using those measurements also will point the way for any alterations needed to the policy. Not as we do now by making a policy then trying to adjust the people to it. As companies get bigger and more bureaucratic they tend to focus more on the company, and less on the customer. Government Bureaucracy does the same thing only quicker as they are further removed at the start from the customer (Citizen) and their needs. A corollary to that is the need to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the customer (citizen). That in government means local control. In a top down system there is no local control. Newt also talks a lot about how to measure success (Metrics) and the need to measure that with a factual consistent Metric if your goal is to succeed, also the need to be able to change the policy (again easier at the local diversified level) to be able to learn and build upon your mistakes and success‘. He thinks that government bureaucracy measures things in relation to the success of maintaining and enlarging itself and not the actual success of achieving it’s stated goals. Has the welfare program for example, been more and more successful in helping people get off of welfare in the last 50 years, or successful in increasing the size of the welfare bureaucracy itself?

In education for example, a need to breakdown the centralization of every aspect seems necessary. The basic concept that one failure in a centralized bureaucracy effects all the students must be understood. Also once that mistake is enacted it becomes very hard to alter it. Why not have thousands of individual efforts to build a better mouse trap. Charter schools fit that bill. Sure there will be some mistakes,. If we allow the free movement between schools, the individuals who are directly affected will be able to affect the change by simply moving to a better school. The point is that now, when there are mistakes under the current system those mistake become very near impossible to change. Similar to compound interest, the damage from the mistake compounds as if it had a life of it’s own. The Detroit Public Schools is a prime example of mistakes made which seem uncorrectable. Akindele Akinyemi is someone trying to set up an alternative to the system in Detroit. Look through his site and you will get a sense of the struggle it is. And the huge effort he is making.
The absurdity of the near impossibility to change what is obviously a failed system is glaringly apparent to at least 75% of the people, maybe more, people are crying for a change. As one of the people I too feel frustrated. Newt’s book comes up with some solutions. Maybe some are good. People see the need for change. They keep voting to throw the bums out no matter which party. The majority of voters will appreciate change if it is coherent and honest. I hope the Republicans are the ones who can learn to give that option to the voters.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Tail Wagging The Dog???

Tail Wagging the Dog??

Well I’m sure Democrats don’t want to be called hypocrites or deceivers or worse yet politicians. I’ll let you come up with a name for the language of the politics of Chicago. In an article, Mike Flannery writing for said of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.
“Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin complained to oil company bosses at a hearing on Capitol Hill about Chicago having the highest gasoline prices in the United States”
Flannery then quoted Durbin berating the big oil companies with the following question.
"Does it trouble any of you when you see what you're doing to us”
Sounds pretty good to me. The Senator standing toe to toe with those Terrible Big Oil Bums that dare to raise prices on gas and cause such pain to the people of this land. Here I must admit to being deceitful myself by setting you up somewhat. Mike Flannery was more honest about it. I saved the punch line till last thus keeping you in the dark. The premise of Mike Flannery’s article was the high tax on gas in Chicago. Higher than LA or NY. The tax is nearly 20%. On a single gallon at $4.00 the tax is 79 cents. The thing I learned or that finally sunk in from reading this was that the tax is a sales tax which goes up, as the price of the gas goes up, therefore generating more state income. Oh yeah isn’t there a federal tax in there too?

Well getting back to the point of the story, perhaps the voters should be asking the Senator the same questions. It reminds me of the old advertising mantra that if you have something wrong with your product, that is where your advertising money should be going. Most advertising is done to try and overcome the negative impression people who have used a product have picked up. Don’t waste your money they say on people that already like it, brainwash the people into not believing their own experiences. Oops shouldn’t of used brainwash, re-educate oops I forgot the politically correct way to say this. How about this. Help the people overcome their socially misguided beliefs in their selfish considerations, in order that they may see the overall good of the product for the collective good of the public. I give, it gives me a headache to think like that. I hope you get my drift. Perhaps Durbin and his ilk should do what they tell others to do, not what they themselves do. Lol. And as they dole out sanctimonious tongue lashings and financial penalties on captive audiences, perhaps they should practice a little of the scripture paraphrased. “Do onto yourselves first what you would do onto others”.

Just a thought, now another, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative

Ps. Mike Flannery’s article, after reading it you decide what you want to call Mr. Durbin.