Friday, October 27, 2006


Here is Marlipern's latest installment of The Great Debate.

"At long last, I have a few rebuttal comments to Squire’s recent post. It doesn’t cover every point of contention, but it’s a good start.

Minimum wage… “Why should we pay young people well?” Well, if you consider $7/hr. paying someone “well”, I have this really great bridge for sale…. No, I’m not suggesting paying the young, or the old, or the poorly qualified “well”. I’m suggesting that we make sure that they can survive in the real world. Have you forgotten what it was like to struggle paycheck to paycheck? I haven’t. As for the idea, “Let the market determine wages.” No thanks, not at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. I just don’t think “the market” is looking out for the best interests of those they consider “expenses”, rather than what employees really are, a company’s most valuable asset.

Energy independence… “Does this mean we can drill in ANWR now?” You can drill in the ANWR until you’re blue in the face, it WILL NOT solve the problem. Petroleum is not the solution. As we’ve seen for the past 30+ years in this country, petroleum IS THE PROBLEM. Let’s try thinking outside the box for a change.

Global warming… As for your point “OK – it’s a fact; based on 200 years of data on a subject that unfolds over a geologic time scale.” You are absolutely right. So what? Can we agree that based upon the latest widely accepted scientific research, burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment? Why is it that conservatives seem to feel that it’s not necessary to address an issue until it reaches crisis proportions? Here’s a concept – be proactive, rather than reactive, regarding an issue of the common good; rather than only applying that approach when waging war.

Campaign reform… “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Again, so what???? It doesn’t make it right. So, you’re saying, “that’s just the way it is”????? I’m sorry; I refuse to accept resignation when it comes to the corruption so rampant in our representative government. As for the comment “when the Founders, your radical buddies, wrote ‘We the people…’ they were referring to adult, white, male, property holders.” Well, I think we’ve certainly addressed that little oversight. And it was a Republican who got the ball rolling on that one – thank you, Abe. Are you suggesting we go back to “the good old days”?

Integrity of the election system… “You can not contest every single national election just because your candidate does not win.” I am not suggesting that, and you know it. I am referring to the specific actions that were taken by Republican operatives to “steer” elections in a particular direction. My guy has lost many times, and I haven’t cried foul. This is different, and it makes me sick. Try reading RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone. I have yet to hear anyone on the right effectively contradict the evidence he lays out.

Social Security solvency… “What about privatization?” Quite frankly, what about it? You want to implement privatization for those who are interested, go for it. But it DOES NOT address the solvency issue of the Soc. Security trust fund. Period. Apples and oranges my friend.

Well the one thing that I discovered in looking at the recent exchange between Country Squire and myself is some of the general philosophical differences between your typical conservative/Republican and your typical liberal/Democrat. I guess it boils down to the fact that we just look at things differently.My observation of those differences looks like this:
A conservative would prefer to maintain the status quo, rather than risk a change.
A liberal would like to change the things that are obviously (to them) not working.
A conservative will tell you, “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”
A liberal will tell you, “This is the way things should be. Let’s make it happen.”

You conservatives are realists. And that’s a good thing.We liberals are idealists. And that’s a good thing too.I’m not suggesting either view is right or wrong, good or bad. Just different. In the final analysis, having both perspectives active and viable has served our country well for the past 200+ years. It truly is a set of checks and balances that, unfortunately, the Republicans have desperately tried to erode in recent years through one-party control of our government.Well that “status quo” is about to change come November. And the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”

No comments: