Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
- how to bring about a positive endgame in Iraq What a rube I was. With the emergence of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate, it’s straight back to the old culture wars. How maddeningly tedious. It’s not her fault, really. I mean, sure she happens to be an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, anti-sex education, creationist. But it’s only her elevation to national stature that makes all of this irritatingly relevant. Now instead of debating the best way to face the future, we’re going to be stuck fighting off the forces of backwardness. Again. You want to know something? I’m tired of arguing about abortion rights, gay rights, sex education and creationism. As far as I’m concerned, the suite of values social conservatives love to carp on about with respect to these issues is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. If that’s what you’re into, fine. Don’t have abortions. Don’t go to your gay cousin’s wedding. Extol the virtues of abstinence and the beauty of intelligent design. Live it up. Whatever. We don’t care. No seriously. We don’t care. It may surprise you to know that we don’t sit around in our urban cafes wringing our hands (between bites of arugula salad) over the way you live your lives. We’re sort of busy living our own and we’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to codify your lifestyle choices into law. We’re aware of your values; we know the arguments. Thanks but no thanks. Can we move on? Dumb question. Of course not. Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain’s running mate to “fire up the base.” I don’t think anyone disputes that. But do you know what “fire up the base” really means?
No seriously, look it up. That’s exactly what it means. Now to be clear, as Vice President, Sarah Palin will have no power whatsoever to enforce the value judgments of this terribly sensitive gang of would-be mob rulers. Doesn’t matter. We’re going to be talking about them from now until November. We’re going to spend the rest of this presidential campaign arguing about stupid stupid things instead of the desperately important issues we actually face. Nice going, McCain. Thanks a lot. Way to be a maverick. 29 Responses to “Fire up the base!”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
Hate to say it but you just joined the tedious debate you warned of.
Yeah, but they totally started it.
Notably absent from your diatribe is any recognition that this election is also about the “suite of values” of the social liberals. Those values are arguably even more abject than any of the so-called conservative social values you list and bemoan. And, I suspect many people do not like having those left-wing values shoved down their throats, particularly when they are served dripping with condescension on a bed of arugula. Ultimately, however, I think you fret overly much. This election will be more about the substantive issues you raise in your post and less about one side’s set of moral views as opposed to the other’s. And, if your guy loses, it will not be because some pro-lifers got fired up, it will be because the American people have traditionally rejected the kind of class warfare message that resonates with the left but not the larger body politic. Or, it will be because they think Senator McCain tougher on the war on terror than Senator Obama, an issue that is still very critical to many. Or, it will be because they think the type of redistributive, welfare like tax entitlements that Senator Obama promises do more harm than good to the economy. Or, it will be because they think Senator McCain better equipped to deal with energy issues than Senator Obama. Or, it will be because the County recognizes that — at a critical strategic juncture — Senator McCain’s judgment was spot on correct regarding the troop surge and Senator Obama’s dead wrong. Or, it will be because, at bottom, people realize that Senator Obama is, at the end of the day, pretty much an eloquent but empty suit who lacks the sort of galvinizing experience that forges character. Should your guy, who still leads in most polls and on the electoral map, lose for any of the above reasons, all of which are substantive reasons to vote against him, I think the political process will have worked.
I hope you’re right, Rocketeer. I do want to be hopeful but I find it harder and harder all the time. Out of curiosity, which social liberal values do you mean to object to? Are you talking about redistributive taxation or individual rights? I’d love it if the country could have a hard-nosed economic debate about taxation and welfare. I hope we do. I just suspect we’re going to end up talking about gay marriage and abortion again.
During the Republican convention you did not hear much talk about conservative social issues. In fact, the Palin pick enables McCain and the campaign to focus on other issues, because Palin gives the ticket all the street cred they need with their base. Keep the faith.
You’re not alone in your cynicism involving the national dialogue. Like you, I am a little curious which social liberal values were being objected to and why they ought to be considered ‘abject’. Unfortunately, I also have to admit my curiosity doesn’t run too deep. Not today, anyway. If the tenor of national discourse feels too familiar, you have every right to express the fact you feel both tired and bored.
Despite evidence to the contrary, let’s hope responsible journalism drives the relevant issues home as paramount.
Doselle and Lauren, in an effort to satiate your curiousity, the moral relativism that dominates so much of the far left’s value system is abject and far more insidious to the long term health of this Country than any of the moral views highlighted in Lauren’s post. Likewise, the culture of permissiveness favored by the far left, which necessarily must denigrate near every important cultural institution, is a threat to the bedrock principles of duty, honor and fidelity to country. Measured adherence to these fundamental principles is critical to the best functioning of a democratic republic and without them no republic can endure. These issues aside, I do share the larger hope you both hold, namely, that in the weeks ahead the discourse will focus on more substantive issues, such as the war on terror, our continued dependence on foreign oil, and the economy. I cannot, however, share Doselle’s hope for “responsible” journalism to guide the debate. It is hard to be a responsible journalist, or at least to serve the public good in fostering open debate, when so many who carry the pen, hold the microphones and command the stage are so openly cheering for one team to prevail.
Amazing how Republicans who must surely admit that the regime they have so strongly supported have lead us to the lowest point in recent american history still have the gall to be so vocal. Surely anyone who supported the last current regime (twice!!!) don’t deserve to have there opinion heard. Have you no shame?
Another sparkling nugget added to the discourse by the Mighty Mighty Woof-Man. You might be better served if you confined your observations about the United States to the digital images captured by the computer chip in your camera. Anyway, I disagree with your suggestion that we are at the lowest point in recent american history. The Carter years were 1000 times worse than anything that we have endured over the past eight years and, shamefully, depending on how this election breaks, we may be condemned to repeat them.
Woofy, the anti-bush election was in 2006. Since that time, Congress has been controlled by the democrats and there can be no shame in Republicans wanting to keep the democrats from taking crontol of the White House and Congress. If anything, recent history seems to suggest that the government works better when the executive and legislative branches are split. And as much as the demoncrats want this election to be a referandum on the Bush Presidency, it is not. The Bush Presidency will officially end in January 2009 no matter what happens in November. There is simply no opportunity to vote for or against Bush in 2008. I don’t think people truly believe that a John McCain presendency would look anything like a third term of Bush. Suggesting otherwise is the type of disingenuous political rhetoric (employed by both parties) that we see all too often.
Yes, basically though if you voted for Bush you got it wrong, really wrong, twice and lots of people died etc, so when I hear you speaking about this next administration I don’t really trust what you say.
Rocketeer, I do appreciate your input, but again I’d like to ask specifically which socially liberal values you object to. Falling back on the old war horses of “permissiveness” and “cultural relativism” smells like euphemism, I’m afraid. Are you talking about gay marriage and abortion rights? And if so, why don’t you come out and say what you believe? Do you oppose a woman’s right to choose? Do you oppose the rights of gays and lesbians to get married? Or is there some other form of permissiveness you’re talking about?
I can’t claim to be a spokesperson for all social liberals, but I think it’s safe to say that for the most part we believe the following:
consenting adults should be free in their bodies and their bedrooms with no interference from the government.
If you disagree with that sentiment, why not come out and say so? My gut tells me you agree with it. But because your party has thrown in its lot with the cultural totalitarians, you seem to feel some obligation to support them. Why not disagree with them if you disagree? I don’t agree with everything my party stands for.
If more sane Republicans stood up for limited government (the way McCain originally wanted to with his VP pick) you’d have a much better party. And the political debate could move on to substantive issues.
Instead we’re going to be arguing about lifestyles. Personally, I don’t want my government to have any say in how I conduct my private life. And I actually enjoy the fact that there are people out there who live very differently from me. I don’t want to change them or punish them. I just want them to leave me and my gay friends alone.
For the sake of open discussion, I have to second Lauren in asking you to please be extremely specific when you’re discussing the liberal values you claim to oppose. As I am sure you can understand, its simply very difficult to articulate, defend or offer a counterpoint when it isn’t clear what it is we’re discussing exactly.
Like Lauren, I disagree with many of the things my party is putting forward.
Like Lauren, I, too, strongly believe consenting adults should be free in their bodies and their bedrooms with no interference from this or any government.
I’m getting involved in this because I believe we have a social responsibility to exchange in intelligent discourse in a public forum if we’ve any hope of stimulating the same–the theory being if it was good enough for Socrates, its should be good enough for me. *
Given the tenor of this election, this may sound silly but, honestly, I feel badly for Republican Party. To be more specific, I suspect there are, perhaps, as many as four or five different Republican parties that don’t have all that much to do with one another on many levels and, from an ideological perspective, I think perhaps the Republican party suffers greatly from trying to serve too many masters.
Watching these endless ‘lifestyle’ debates, I find myself wondering whatever happened to the Republicans who just wanted to hold onto a bit more of their cash?
I like those guys.
My father-in-law is one of those guys.
I agree with those guys on quite a few things.
Like the fathers of friends of mine growing up: I’m talking about reasonable, principled cats you could talk things over with who loved their kids, played golf, drove nice cars and took expensive vacations. They didn’t care what religion I was, what color I was, or what my sexual preferences were. If they did they did me the common courtesy of keeping it to themselves because they knew, in the end, it was neither their business nor a threat to their family, their values or their way of life.
As a kid, I looked up to a lot of those guys but, nowadays, on the national level, its like I can’t see the Republicans for the trees which I find frustrating and sad.
I bring this up to illustrate a point that, while I can’t speak for anyone else,
I don’t think of ‘Republicans’ as ‘the enemy’. And I’m not going to think of you as ‘the enemy’ during any continued discussion. You’re safe to come out and say what you mean as clearly and concisely as possible.
Think of this as a laboratory.
I just want to be able to put the specific social issues you have in mind on the table, both those issues and the very important ideas behind them. To put them under a microscope and see what works, what doesn’t and why.
Sound like fun?
Doselle Young
*This may, of course, be a misguided fallacy on my part, but its the theory I’m going to work with until tests and experience proves said theory unworkable.
Lauren and Doselle – thanks for your thoughtful and civil posts. I am happy to provide greater specificity, but first a more general observation. I suspect that there are very few supporters of either the Democratic or Republican parties — if any — who favor every position espoused by their chosen party. And, even if it can be said that there are four or five Republican parties, that is equally true for the Democratic Party. Indeed, to the extent the Democrats are unified at all for this election, the unity largely derives from shared animosity toward the Bush administration and not as the result of some cohesive set of guiding principles.
I also agree that consenting adults should be free in their bodies and in their bedrooms with no interference from this or any other government. Likewise, I agree that a person should be free to pursue his or her religious beliefs so long as those beliefs are not deliberately designed to do violent harm to others. Alternatively, a person should be equally free to reject all religion and there should be a sharp separation between any church and the State.
As for the abjectness of moral relativism, I find it insidious that some in the Democratic Party would foist blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the United States or its policies abroad. I find it worrisome that Senator Obama’s first instinct when Russia invaded the sovereign territory of Georgia was to call on both sides to cool their heels. At bottom, moral relativism, and the extreme liberalism that drives it, is akin to psychological self-loathing. While I believe America’s foreign policy should be put to the critical test, I find little need or usefulness in a philosophy that would blame America for acts of unspeakable evil done by others.
Permissiveness is an abject philosophy because, taken to its liberal extreme, it necessarily requires the destruction of all societal traditions and institutions. Indeed, in the absence of an external construct worthy of community respect, individual liberty cannot flourish other than to manifest itself as chaos. So, I despise permissiveness to the extent it would throw out the baby with the bath water.
Finally, as for abortion, I respect the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing abortion and, based on the principle of stare decisis, doubt very much that the decision (whatever the ideological makeup of the Court) will be revisited in our or our children’s lifetimes. I do, however, find odd the vehemence with which Lauren seems to believe that the pro-choice crowd is correct and the pro-life crowd is wrong. Leaving aside any notion of religion’s role in the debate, I do not believe that it is above my pay grade to conclude that life begins at conception. Given this, I understand and accept that a cogent, principled and persuasive argument can be made that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the growing but as yet unborn life. And, for the same reasons that one might oppose capital punishment, the State should not be in the business of taking lives. Likewise, an equally compelling (and is some ways even more profound) argument can be advanced that if a woman cannot be sovereign over her own body, then it is hard to understand how she can truly be said to have any meaningful individual liberty. At the risk of understatement, this question is incredibly complex precisely because there are compelling arguments on both sides of the issue.
Finally, the main reason I have a difficult time standing with the Democratic Party is because Democrats tend to favor the expansion of a large, central government over its reduction. It is the creeping socialism that the Democrats favor – whether in the form of nationalized health care, increased market regulation, higher taxes, or any other host of federally funded entitlement programs – that poses the greatest threat to the quality and tenor of our collective freedom. History has demonstrated, time and time again, that when the government attempts to engineer a fix to a societal ill, it almost always makes things worse. More broadly, the greatest threat to our freedom, the realization of our potential and to striving for the best of human endeavoring, is not the Patriot Act, or a religious conservative who feels differently than you on the question of abortion, or a Congressperson who thinks gays ought not to be able to marry, it is a President (armed with a compliant Congress) who thinks big government can and should solve all your problems.
Thanks for the clarification, Rocketeer. I think I understand your definition of moral relativism. For the record, I don’t think blaming America for 9/11 is a central or even an acknowledged plank on the democratic platform.
Call me dense, but I still have absolutely no idea what you mean by “permissiveness.” Which “societal traditions and institutions” are social liberals attempting to destroy? Marriage? Heterosexuality? Birth? I know a lot of liberals and they’re all in favor of all of these things. Just not when they’re forced on people against their will.
I support the rights of individuals to hold whatever opinions they want on the subject of abortion, when life begins, etc. Please note that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this point is that one party wants to force their worldview on everyone whereas the other party wants individuals to decide for themselves. I appreciate that not all Republicans want to outlaw abortion, but the official Republican platform calls for precisely this. That’s what the “human life amendment” is. Maybe it’s just window dressing or “red meat for the base” but it’s still troubling.
With respect to the rest of your post, you and I are in a strange state of agreement/disagreement. Like you, I prefer small government. I agree that government bureaucracy is uniquely gifted at cocking things up. Unlike you, however, I view the last 8 years of Republican rule as an expansion not a shrinking of government. And I’m not happy about the price tag of it all.
I think both parties have become bloated, bureaucratic, and unwilling to slash either pointless spending or petrified thinking. I guess the big difference is that Democrats will waste our money trying to provide health care, improve education and redistribute wealth; whereas Republicans will waste our money on surveillance, unwinnable wars, and theocratic nosings into people’s private lives.
For free-thinking individuals, this means you have to decide which errors you’re willing to tolerate and which principles you’ll go to the mat for. And I guess this is where you and I differ.
“Finally, the main reason I have a difficult time standing with the Democratic Party is because Democrats tend to favor the expansion of a large, central government over its reduction. It is the creeping socialism that the Democrats favor – whether in the form of nationalized health care, increased market regulation, higher taxes, or any other host of federally funded entitlement programs – that poses the greatest threat to the quality and tenor of our collective freedom. History has demonstrated, time and time again, that when the government attempts to engineer a fix to a societal ill, it almost always makes things worse.”
Do you think that governments size, spending and power has shrunk under the current Republican administration? Also what do you think of the recent bailout of Freddie and Fanny May which was the biggest bailout in US history? Doesn’t that come under government stepping in to engineer a fix making things worse? Isn’t that a brand of corporate socialism?
Missile, I think you’re at least partially right about the end of the Bush era. One of the great things about McCain’s elevation is that it seemed to state unequivocally that the party was ready to move on from its Bush phase. Unfortunately, the selection of Sarah Palin sends us right back to it. Courting then accommodating the Palin base is one of the things that made the Bush presidency such a disaster.
Woofman Jack, I agree with your observation regarding the size of the federal government over the past eight years and would concur that President Bush has not done enough to reduce the size of the government during his tenure. In that regard, he can be said to have broken the faith with a bedrock principle of the Republican Party, a criticism that many in the GOP have pointed out. As for the bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, while the government has long been in the business of guaranteeing and/or purchasing mortgages, I do suspect that the bailout will have unintended consequences that may, ultimately, do more harm than good. When a financial institution becomes too big to fail normal risk and reward metrics go out the window and federal intervention sometimes because the best from a menu of bad options. On a related note, it brings a smile to my face to have reached some rare common ground with your views. Cheerio to that old boy, I suppose.
In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” This is an example of a position taken by Obama, his opposition to gay marriage, for which I disagree and I suspect that you and many other democrats disagree as well. Sad as it may seem, the democrats have yet to nominate a presidential candidate who has been willing to say that they support gay marriage. (With the noted consolation that they each stop short of seeking to ban it) During the primary Hillary also came out in opposition to gay marriage. It is one area where political expediency seems to take precedence over principle for the democrats, and it is my personal view that McCain’s courting of the base on social issues is much of the same.
I think you’re right, Missile. It’s one of the features (or, perhaps, bugs) of electoral politics that candidates feel pressured to adopt often hypocritical and wrong-headed positions in order to court the votes of wrong-headed people. But then when you really look at it, any presidential election amounts to a distilling of the vast and varied beliefs, positions, and strategies of a diverse population into two monolithic opponents. That any candidate can survive this process and still come off sounding sane is strange indeed. But I guess that’s the nature of compromise, which is the very essence of politics.
It’s a flawed process, but probably the best possible one. I just think it would be so much better if the worst elements were omitted. And, to me, the absolutely worst element in American politics is the Christian right.
Rocketeer and Woofy, I expect you to play nice from here on in. But not too nice. That would be boring.
I am a moral relativist, an atheist, an avowed anti-nationalist and very likely “permissive” (though I’m still not sure what that means), so I believe I may be “abject” in Rocketeer’s eyes on multiple counts. I’m piping up now because I think hardly anyone is ever willing to peak from this position in US political debates, and I’d like to clarify a couple of things. I should state that I am not “in the Democratic Party,” nor ever will be.
foist blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the United States or its policies abroad.
This is a common misreading, I think, of a thoughtful position. The attacks clearly were not a complete surprise, they didn’t come out of nowhere: something caused them, and made the US a target of rage. Osama bin Laden and his followers felt they had a legitimate grievance, based on the continued US military presence in Saudi Arabia, which is one physical manifestation of a policy of propping up unpopular and autocratic regimes throughout the region. If one is to form any kind of appropriate or helpful response to the situation, it seems reasonable to start by trying to understand what caused it, and by being (or at least appearing) willing to fix the problem in some co-operative way. This does not mean giving in to terror. It means seeking to understand its sources and hoping to recognise what’s going wrong. It means attempting to find a rational basis for sensible aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks, not by killing all potential terrorists (who will multiply under extermination efforts) but by removing their reasons for terrorizing. To date, nothing has been done on this front. We know no more about what motivates the leaders of terrorist organisations than we did in 2000 – but we have built a handy ideology to justify our continued desire never to find out, a “you can’t reason with these scum” mentality Lord Curzon would find a bit simplistic.
I find it worrisome that Senator Obama’s first instinct when Russia invaded the sovereign territory of Georgia was to call on both sides to cool their heels.
Having no executive power, this might have been quite an over-reach on his part. Thank goodness he didn’t go crazy and call for another military adventure, or make rash promises to Georgia that he couldn’t keep, or try to use Georgia as a lever with which to break open NATO.
At bottom, moral relativism, and the extreme liberalism that drives it, is akin to psychological self-loathing.
I see no basis for either of the claims in this statement.
Finally, two questions:
1) what is extreme liberalism? How could it “drive” moral relativism?
2) I believe America’s foreign policy should be put to the critical test
What is this test? How would we grade it?
Sorry, above it should read “attempting to find a rational basis for sensible, if possible non-violent actions and policies aimed at preventing (or at least not provoking) future terrorist attacks”
Hi Richard. I agree that examining the motives of terrorists is not the same thing as excusing them or shifting the blame to ourselves. Rather, it’s a necessary bit of research. Unfortunately, once an act of terror has been committed, any attempt to change one’s foreign policy in response to it can be read as a capitulation. So in a way, the act of terror commits us to the status quo, even if the status quo happens to be wrong.
I don’t think Bin Laden ever represented a reasoned stance against American foreign policy; nor was he a legitimate spokesman for any aggrieved constituency. He was, and is, a theocratic Islamo-lunatic, an emblem of a doomed (justifiably doomed) worldview. But sadly, portions of our response to his act of insanity (in particular our wholly deceitful claim that Iraq was involved) has had the unfortunate effect of retroactively justifying his act of insanity in the eyes of many who now thirst for our blood. In some ways, we’ve actually become the kind of imperialist liars he accused us of being. We’re doing his stinking job for him. And when you try to point this out to people, they accuse you of capitulation. Very strange indeed.
any attempt to change one’s foreign policy in response to it can be read as a capitulation. So in a way, the act of terror commits us to the status quo, even if the status quo happens to be wrong.
It depends what you mean by status quo, though. There’s certainly a danger in making terrorist acts into legitimate forms of communication. I’d argue that its a lesser danger, though, than turning terrorist acts into a reliable means of steering the target’s ever-more-violent foreign policy.
we’ve actually become the kind of imperialist liars he accused us of being.
Worse, we’ve been effectually unmasked as those kinds of imperialist liars. Saying that is liable to start up a flame war, so I should explain: lies are indispensible to imperialism, and once you accept that it’s OK for the US to control half or more of the world’s wealth, some kind of imperialism is inevitable, as part of the government’s need to ‘manage’ the rest of the world. So I’m not posing as a moral prophet or unleashing hatred or anything when I say the US government engages in lying imperialism, I’m just being a realist. That sort of realism is very out of fashion, though.
I really should learn to post single comments…
I don’t think Bin Laden ever represented a reasoned stance against American foreign policy; nor was he a legitimate spokesman for any aggrieved constituency. He was, and is, a theocratic Islamo-lunatic, an emblem of a doomed (justifiably doomed) worldview.
Absolutely, although I wouldn’t want to speculate about the length of time it might take for doom to overcome it. As for Bin Laden, even in his lunacy I think he can be understood (I don’t think he’s some sort of Platonic ideal absolute lunatic, whose actions are random).
Can I just say? I’m a conservative but I AGREE with you. I wrote a somewhat similar post on my own blog last week. We ALL need to get our noses out of the dirt and into the really important debates, not the adiaphora of moral issues that the government should have no responsibility for, technically speaking. (Yes, I am a conservative. Really.) So while I gagged at the part about us shoving our values down your throats (pro-choicers can be as obnoxious as pro-lifers, by the way), I think you’re correct in your assessment that it’s the same old, different day. I’m so TIRED of picking between two people, neither of whom I want to do the job.
(That, and I agree with everything Rocketeer said, not as a pro-McCain or anti-Obama statement but on the hope that people will base their votes on critical thinking, not party lines or regurgitated rhetoric.)
Thanks, Jess. I love conservative input at this blog, which tends to lean leftish (in case you didn’t notice). To nit-pick, please note that as obnoxious as pro-choicers might be to you, not a single one of us wants to force our values on anyone. Pro-choice means the right to choose life too. And we would go to the mat to defend it.
That was one example of many possible ones, and perhaps you might not have met any, but I’ve had several pro-choicers feed me to wolves for not agreeing with them, and I have had them try to force their values of “choice” on me. It’s naive to think pro-choicers don’t do it just because the value technically espouses a right to choose life. Or perhaps I’ve only met the really radical crazies out in the wilds of Philadelphia. *G*
Though I appreciate that you are not one of those people, and that you RESPECT conservative opinion even when you disagree with it. I wish more people on both “sides” were so accomodating.
(I’m also one of the crazy pro-lifers who doesn’t want Roe/Wade overturned.)
Ah yes, I hear all the crazies congregate in the wilds of Philadelphia.
I can honestly say that 99% of the people I know are pro-choice and not one of them has a problem with people who oppose abortion *for themselves.* In fact I know several who are personally opposed to abortion and are staunchly pro-choice. Anyone who wastes time to trying to change another’s personal values or religious beliefs on the subject is missing the point. The point is a legal and governmental one. It’s about how intrusive we want our government to be. But I guess it’s easy for people on both sides of the debate to forget that essential point. It’s up to the it-getters like you and me to remind them. I’ll make a deal. I’ll cover the New York area. You cover Philly. We’ll knock some sense into these people eventually.