Video: Obama To Fire Howard Gutman? Dream On

On Friday's Laura Ingraham radio show (audio here), a member of the Obama campaign's National Finance Committee, Howard Gutman, directly and forcefully questioned the parenting of Gov. Sarah Palin:

"This has nothing to do with gender, whether Todd Palin was the nominee or Sarah Palin was the nominee," [Howard] Gutman said. "If my daughter had just come home at 17 years old and said, 'Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant, we have a family problem,' I wouldn't say, 'You know what we're going to do? We're going to take this private family problem...and you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to go on the international stage and broadcast this to the world.'"

Gutman continued, "this wasn't a working mother issue, this was a parent issue…The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn't run for vice president with five kids, it's that a parent, when they have a family in need, a Down's baby who needs them -- mother or father."

"So you are judging her parenting skills," Ingraham said. "You're saying you don't think she's a good parent for doing this job."

"I'm saying the proper criticism is not that it's a woman or man – it doesn't matter whether it's Todd or Sarah," Gutman said.

[my emphasis]

Gutman explicitly goes to great lengths to avoid offending women voters. He is obviously more afraid of vanquished opponent Hillary and her PUMAs than his own boss, Barack Obama:

Obama should have fired Howard Gutman immediately for his insubordination, instead he has a spokesman issue a typically flaccid warning:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton, asked to respond to Gutman's remarks, said "Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated views that families of the candidates should be off limits."

Gutman directly challenged the leadership of Obama and gets away scot free with an emailed apology to a reporter:

Gutman e-mails to say, "I am writing about certain comments I said on the Laura Ingraham Show.  The comments were largely taken out of context, although by the end, I plainly went too far, for which I apologize.

Obama fails yet another mind-boggling simple test of his authority.

Judgment to Lead.

UPDATE: Thanks, Ace, Jay, Sundries Shack and Rightwingprof. Contrast this to the lengths other politicians go to fire jerks.

UPDATE: When I say Gutman is a "member" of Obama's National Finance Committee, I mean it. He's a "BSD" --- one of only 35 bundlers to raise over $500,000 for Obama on par with David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

No wonder he thinks he can ignore Obama's orders; Howard Gutman owns Obama.

Oh, and there's this gem:

Other notable bundlers include former registered lobbyist and defense attorney Howard Gutman, who in 2001 represented Susan Rosenberg a member of Bill Ayers’s domestic terror group the Weather Underground, someone who was “Lobbyist of the Year” in 2006

Obama on lobbyists:

Dude.

Comments

[rhodeymark]

Dear Gutman - I hope Greg Gutfeld (just 'cuz his similar name means he's "up") kicks your nuts off and sends them freeze dried to Alaska for reindeer bells. Let's go to the tape again, shall we?
"The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn't run for vice president with five kids, it's that a parent, when they have a family in need, a Down's baby who needs them -- mother or father."
Hey asshole - who's your party's nominee for VP again? What is the only humanizing story he can tell in his entire sorry life? FAIL!!

[torabora]

He was for firing staffers before he was against it.

[CJ]

**defense attorney Howard Gutman, who in 2001 represented Susan Rosenberg a member of Bill Ayers’s domestic terror group the Weather Underground...**

...Annnnd, Ayers' lovely wife Bernadine (co-host of the 1995 tea party for Obama in their home) was previously sent to prison for refusing to testify against Rosenberg, who was among a group of left wing thugs who gunned down two police officers and security guard during a robbery. In 1981. (Gotta love the references to "60s" radicals.)

[Chris Crawford]

I'm here only to dip my toes into the waters, to see if this is a location where I can discuss rather than argue. Although many conservatives call me liberal, some liberals call me conservative. So I'm not a member of your team nor am I one of your enemies.

On this case, I would prefer to let things simmer before drawing any conclusions. After all, Mr. Obama has had less than 24 hours to respond to this situation, and there will be a lot of crow-eating around here if he *does* take action against Mr. Gutman. So I'd rather take a wait-and-see attitude.

But the real reason I'm here is to ask a question: why are conservatives so full of hate? I was appalled at the ugliness of Ms. Palin's speech to the Republican convention. The contrast between the strategies of the two parties is quite striking: Mr. Obama talks about policies, about problems and how he intends to tackle them. Ms. Palin -- and to a lesser extent Mr. McCain -- said very little about policies and spent most of their time talking about themselves or attacking Mr. Obama. Why is this so personal? Why is there so much hate? Why can't conservatives concentrate on solving problems rather than attacking other people?

[Howard]

I cannot understand a reference to Palin's speech as hate filled, ugly, or in the words of some Hollywood has been, scary. I think that when someone on "the other side" really does a number we all react instead of thinking and listening. Hell, it was a really clever piece of political theater delivered in a perfectly professional manner, precisely timed and worthy of any Hollywood Oscar winning scumbag. I have no idea what she said I just know that, like a really catchy tune, I loved the music but I don't know the lyrics at all. We can all agree that she stirred the waters like a hurricane stirs the cold water from the deep to replace the warm water at the top; the result is a near eradication of said hurricane. I think we all just heard the most significant political speech since Reagan spoke in "support" of Ford. We all know she could actually be president IF she has the moxie and ability. She needs to be taken very seriously by all of us.

[Chris Crawford]

Howard, the particulars that I found ugly were the snide references to Mr. Obama's work as a community organizer. The people who do this work are providing a valuable service to society, and to denigrate them as Ms. Palin did is ugly.

Yes, Ms. Palin's delivery was excellent. But I do not measure a politician's merit by the quality of the delivery, but by the content of the words. Inspiring ideas powerfully delivered are the basis for a historically memorable speech. Ugly ideas powerfully delivered are the stuff of demagoguery.

You write I have no idea what she said I just know that, like a really catchy tune, I loved the music but I don't know the lyrics at all.

This disturbs me. I *do* pay attention to what politicians say, and I *do* care about the lyrics, and when American voters tell me that they don't pay attention to what the candidates are saying, that makes me tremble for the future of our Republic.

I think we all just heard the most significant political speech since Reagan spoke in "support" of Ford.

I think that Ms. Palin's speech will be remembered in much the same way that Mr. Goldwater's "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" speech is remembered: a disastrously radical speech that frightened many Americans into voting for the other party. The early poll results (and really, we need to wait a month or so for this to sink in) suggest that the rightmost 30% of Americans were inspired by the speech, the middle 30% found it somewhat distasteful, and the leftmost 40% were so repulsed by the speech that they resolved to take even stronger action. I believe that the campaign contributions taken in by Mr. Obama's campaign in the 24 hours after the speech were phenomenal.

[brian]

Wait. Chris, you say you want to "discuss not argue", and the next thing our of your keyboard is "why are conservatives so full of hate"?

Can you tell me one "problem" that Obama has a "plan" to "tackle" it with? I mean, I hear a lot of talking about how the economy is wrecked (it isn't), how the oceans are rising (they aren't), and how renewable energy will save us (it won't).

I also didn't hear a whole lot of anger in that speech. I heard a mature, intelligent person taking a child to task for daring to think he knows anything.

And can you tell me of any "community organizing" that Obama did that had a net positive impact on his community? Because I've seen only evidence of epic fail from his efforts.

And if you really want to talk about contributions meaning anything, you should consider that the Republicans saw a massive influx of cash after Palin's acceptance speech.

[MCPO Airdale]

Chris - Please name the three political accomplishments of Barack H. Obama that would convince me to vote for him.

As for me, I truly believe that, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"

[BrewFan]

Chris, it seems you hear what you want to hear. There was no denigration of community organizers in Mrs. Palin's speech. The comment, as I suspect you know, was in reference to Obama's frightening lack of any real world experience and the audacity he had to orchestrate claims that Mrs. Palin was lacking in experience to be Vice President.

Also, your citing of non-existent polls makes you look like a moron. That kind of thing will not fly around here.

Finally, the joy you take in 130,000 Obama donations seems a little excessive. Not a very impressive number when you consider the number of votes it takes to get elected.

[PattyAnn]

Chris, if you paid as much attention to listening to what Obama (and, more importantly, the MSM) are NOT saying, your scolding might be a little more realistic. Obama's definition of a community organizer is nowhere near the spirit of what a true community organizer is.
If you truly feel that the political arena should be less ugly, then I'm sure you'll be the first to call upon Obama to follow through and show some leadership in stopping the character assassination of Governor Palin and her family.

[David Gillies]

Chris, there is a world of difference between the kind of 'community organiser' who drives round getting bakeries to give her surplus bread at the end of the day so she can hand it out to homeless people, and the kind of 'community organiser' that exists solely to broker handouts from city and state bodies for a preferred client group. Barack Obama's 'organisation' was of the latter type. If you don't believe me, I suggest you Google "Barack Obama and ACORN". ACORN is an extremely radical left-wing activist group and Obama's connection with it speaks volumes as to the kind of President he would be were he, God forbid, to win in November. To even be tangentially linked to such a group of Leftist thugs would, if there were any justice, permanently disbar Obama from any position on the national stage. This is not like the Jeremiah Wright thing, which calls into question his judgement. This is like his association with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, which calls into question his character.

[Chris Crawford]

Brian, I'm sorry if my question about hate gave offense. Yes, it is a strong statement but I sense a lot of anger and hate coming out of the conservative side these days -- and that worries me a lot.

You ask about Mr. Obama's plans. His entire acceptance speech was a statement of what he intends to do if elected. If you want details, go to his website at:

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

and mouse over the word "Issues" in the uppermost bar. You'll find links to 24 different issues. It's all laid out in fairly good detail.

(Small detail: the oceans ARE rising; the data is pretty clear on that point)

You write: I also didn't hear a whole lot of anger in that speech. I heard a mature, intelligent person taking a child to task for daring to think he knows anything.

This is EXACTLY what I mean by hate. You are asserting that Mr. Obama is a child who doesn't know anything. That's not truth, that's viciousness. Mr. Obama has always treated Mr. McCain with respect, even while attacking Mr. McCain's positions. Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have made personal attacks on Mr. Obama's intelligence, his maturity, and his character. Why, I ask, must American political discourse be at such a low level? Why can't we just talk politics?

You suggest that Mr. Obama's community organizing efforts were a failure. Have you any evidence about that? I'm not denying it, I haven't seen that evidence. I'd just like to know what the evidence is.

Yes, Ms. Palin's speech drew in a LOT of contributions. Ms. Palin has greatly inspired the conservatives. But she has ALSO inspired left-wingers in the opposite direction. She is certainly a polarizing agent, and this country desperately needs to stop the polarization. We need to stop screaming at each other and get to work solving our problems.

[MCPO Airdale]

Chris -
Solving problems to a Democrat usually involves taking money out of my pocket to give to one of their beholden, "victim" classes.

The oceans are rising, and falling. It's called the tide.

As to Barack H. Obama's proposals on "issues", I assume you've added up the cost, right?

[Chris Crawford]

Wow, I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here. I want to start off by asking everybody to continue to maintain the current level of civility. I really want to discuss my disagreements with conservatives, and I try very hard to be courteous about it, but I have found that such discussions usually collapse with people calling me names (as BrewFan already has). Please, let's see if we can't discuss this in a civil manner.

MCPO Airdale would like me to name the three political accomplishments of Barack H. Obama that would convince me to vote for him.

Well, you could have a look at this page:

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/17/fact_check_on_nbcs_today_show.php

However, the many accomplishments listed here may not convince you to vote for him; I don't know your political preferences.

PattyAnn questions whether Mr. Obama really was a community organizer. I agree that there's no strict definition about the term. However, I think that we can both agree that Mr. Obama dedicated a number of years to providing services to his community.

If you truly feel that the political arena should be less ugly, then I'm sure you'll be the first to call upon Obama to follow through and show some leadership in stopping the character assassination of Governor Palin and her family.

Indeed, Mr. Obama reacted immediately to the story about Ms. Plain's daughter's pregnancy by unequivocally stating that family issues like this are private matters and are not the proper subject of political discussion. His campaign has been very clear on this point. Just yesterday one of his campaign workers violated that policy; Mr. Obama's campaign has already rejected those comments and we shall see what he does about Mr. Gutman. He is quite consistent on this matter -- unlike many conservative commentators who indulge in scads of character assassination.

David Gilles writes: ACORN is an extremely radical left-wing activist group

I disagree. Some of ACORN's members are radical, but remember that ACORN is an umbrella organization with many different members. There are some really radical Republicans, but I don't blame Mr. McCain for their radicalism. The Republican Party is a big organization with lots of different people and Mr. McCain is not responsible for everything said by every member of his party. Mr. McCain is responsible for what HE says. In the same way, Mr. Obama is not responsible for everything that every member of ACORN says or does; he is responsible for what HE says or does. Guilt by association is a weak argument, especially in this case.

[Chris Crawford]

MCPO Airdale writes: The oceans are rising, and falling. It's called the tide.

Please see IPCC AR4 Chapter 5, page 409, FAQ 5.1 Figure 1, showing a sea level rise of about 150mm in the last 125 years.

As to Barack H. Obama's proposals on "issues", I assume you've added up the cost, right?

Indeed I have, and they are expensive. However, in terms of a balanced budget, Mr. McCain's proposals will put us into a deeper deficit because he lowers taxes without concomitant lowering of spending.

[MCPO Airdale]

Chris - ACORN not radical?!? Name one "radical" Rebuplican group that has had as many convictions for financial misdealings, voter fraud and voter intimidation as ACORN.

As for Barack H. Obama's accomplishments, getting your name "put on" bills written by others is hardly and accomplishment!

You still have not answered my question regarding how the American people will pay for all of the Obama/Biden proposals.

[brian]

Chris - the fact that you're sensing hate that isn't present ought to give you pause.

Failed communities? How about the projects that he funneled all that government money to where nobody can live because they are a shit-hole. That's but one example of his inability to see anything through to a positive conclusion.

If you honestly think that Obama is good for this country, then I have nothing for you. If you think that socialism at the expense of the working class is beneficial, then I have nothing for you. McCain has been committed to reducing government spending his entire time in office. He hasn't gotten much cooperation from his comrades in the Congress, but he's been relatively clear on the matter.

And as far as Barack Obama's vaunted executive skills, if he can't keep HIS OWN DAMNED PEOPLE from going after Palin's kids (after he's said it was unacceptable), how in the name of God is he going to keep anyone in line in the government?

Chris - you're gonna have to face facts - The One is not only bad for this country, this country knows it, and he's going to lose by the largest margin seen since 1984.

[PattyAnn]

Until Obama cut his ties to Gutman and returns Gutman's bundled donations, then he is all words. This is his opportunity to show his supporters that he is a man of his word.

[Chris Crawford]

MCPO Airdale, I disagree with your assessment of ACORN. Again, you're looking at the misdeeds of a small number of people within a large umbrella organization that has no control over its membership. All such organizations have such people. There have been plenty of Republicans convicted of various misdeeds in the last few years, but I do not hold those convictions against Mr. McCain, nor do I believe that he suffers any guilt by being in the same political party with them.

Mr. Obama's accomplishments include far more than merely getting his name put on bills.

You still have not answered my question regarding how the American people will pay for all of the Obama/Biden proposals.

You never asked that. But yes, Mr. Obama's proposals will create a deficit. His tax proposals have made it clear that he is lowering taxes on the great majority of Americans and raising taxes on the wealthiest. His proposals don't add up to a balanced budget. Neither do Mr. McCain's. Mr. McCain's proposed deficit is greater than Mr. Obama's.

Brian writes the fact that you're sensing hate that isn't present ought to give you pause.

A great many people sensed hate in Ms. Palin's speech. I'm certainly not alone here. Yes, it's a completely subjective perception and there's no way either of us can prove that we're right. But I will ask you this: did you perceive any hate in Mr. Obama's acceptance speech?

You ask about the projects that he funneled all that government money to where nobody can live because they are a shit-hole.

The problem is that people DO live there; what are we going to do about it? I don't think it prudent to simply write them off.

If you think that socialism at the expense of the working class is beneficial, then I have nothing for you.

As I see it, you have it backwards. Our government currently provides lots of expensive services to the wealthy and taxes them very little. It's providing fewer services to the middle class and taxing them more. I perceive this as taking money from the middle class and giving it to the wealthy. Certainly the history of incomes in this country since 1980 shows that the rich have gotten much richer and everybody else has gotten poorer.

McCain has been committed to reducing government spending his entire time in office.

I agree, and I think that he would continue to attempt as much as President. However, he would also reduce taxes dramatically and increase military spending dramatically, saddling future Americans with a deeper deficit.

You ask, if he can't keep HIS OWN DAMNED PEOPLE from going after Palin's kids (after he's said it was unacceptable), how in the name of God is he going to keep anyone in line in the government?

I remind you again, you're jumping the gun. Mr. Obama has not had much time to respond to this matter. He has done a sterling job of keeping his campaign discipline and this is one of the first breaches of that discipline. In several previous cases, campaign workers left because they violated discipline. Let's see what happens here.

The One is not only bad for this country, this country knows it, and he's going to lose by the largest margin seen since 1984.

Wow! I'm really surprised you believe that. The polls have consistently put Mr. Obama well ahead of Mr. McCain. There have been a few showing a close race, but taken as a whole, the polls are very much in favor of Mr. Obama. Moreover, there are two factors that the polls cannot take into account:

1. The enthusiasm factor. I think you'll agree that the enthusiasm for Mr. Obama greatly exceeds the enthusiasm for Mr. McCain.
2. The voter registration factor. The Obama campaign has put great emphasis on registering young voters, and the results have been phenomenal. Just last night I was looking at some reports for various states and they show huge increases in Democratic registrations relative to Republican registrations.

[brian]

chris, if you're going to rely upon tired socialist tropes about the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor, when the Bush tax cuts took millions off of the federal tax rolls, I really don't know what to tell you. I really don't feel like arguing with someone who's living in a fantasy world.

Kerry and Gore were really good at getting the youth to register to vote. Fat lot of good that did them, eh?

And if there's so much enthusiasm for Obama, why isn't he 10-15 points ahead of McCain instead of in a statistical dead heat?

Once the debates come, and Obama can't fall back on his teleprompter, he's done. Once Biden is revealed for the empty suit he's been for the past 36 years in the Senate, he's done.

Unless McCain really screws up, he's got this one. By a VERY large margin.

[BrewFan]

but I have found that such discussions usually collapse with people calling me names (as BrewFan already has).

If the shoe fits, wear it you poll-number-concocting-arrogant-lying-disingenuous-asshat-wearing-fool.

This is what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy. Go look it up.

[Robert]

Chris, I think you don't know what the word hate means.

[MCPO Airdale]

IPCC report!!? HAHAHAHAHAAAAA! The same report that over 300 scientists asked to have their names removed from? HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

[Chris Crawford]

Brian, the question of whether the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer is not a matter of debate: it is a fact. The economic data are very clear on this point. Every Republican President has caused the inequality ratio to increase; Mr. Clinton held the line somewhat but the ratio has really exploded during Mr. Bush's tenure. This is all well-established fact.

I was just reading last night that in the early Roman Republic, the ratio of total wealth of the richest 1% to the average Roman citizen was about 10 or 20 to 1. Later on, in the Empire, that number increased dramatically. The current American ratio is about 200 to 1.

I do not argue that this is wrong; I argue that this is poor policy in the long run. That is, in the long run, all Americans will suffer for this. Why? It has to do with a concept called social capital. This is the degree to which people are willing to work together and trust each other. America has historically had high amounts of social capital, which has enabled it to accomplish wonderful things. Iraq, by contrast, has almost no social capital, which is why there will not be a functioning democracy in Iraq in our lifetimes.

But a variety of factors are reducing American social capital. One is simply the polarization of American politics. There was a time not too long ago when I didn't care about the politics of anyone I was working with -- we just did our business. Nowadays, I am very careful. If they're conservative, I have to watch myself and make certain that I don't say anything that will set them off. If they're liberal, it's the same way. I'm not as open with the people I work with because I've seen too much interpersonal friction between people because of politics. And this makes it harder for people to get things done.

Another factor is extreme social inequality. The rich are getting richer, and an increasing number of people are starting to resent that wealth. At the bottom end of the scale, this is a factor in crime; when poor people feel that they're getting screwed, they feel more justified in breaking the law. You may not like that (I certainly don't), but it doesn't change the reality. Sure, you can lock up a few million people, but if we get tens of millions of poor people deciding that they're being cheated, we will not be able to maintain our high standards of law and order.

Fortunately, the democratic system provides a safety valve for these kinds of pressures, and I believe that Mr. Obama's election will go a long way towards reducing these destructive forces.

You seem to contradict yourself when you state that it's a statistical dead heat and then later say that Mr. McCain has got this one by a VERY large margin. Here's a site that does some pretty good polling:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This week's poll shows Obama with a tiny lead in overall votes, but a stronger lead in electoral votes. It's a good, thorough analysis; I recommend it.

I'm also surprised that you think that the debates will favor the Republican candidates. Just watch some of the news footage of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain handling questions from reporters. Mr. Obama comes off with fewer pauses, fewer uncertainties, and a clearer message. I admit, however, that this is a subjective judgement.

But the debate between Mr. Biden and Ms. Palin is going to be a disaster for the Republicans! Do you really think that Ms. Palin can stand up to Mr. Biden, who has decades of experience in the Senate? Mr. Biden began his Senate career when Ms. Palin was 8 years old. There's absolutely no question in my mind that Mr. Biden has a much firmer grip on policy issues than Ms. Palin.

However, we must remember that most Americans place little weight on the Vice Presidential candidate. Ms. Palin's weaknesses will not be much of a handicap for Mr. McCain.

[Chris Crawford]

Robert writes Chris, I think you don't know what the word hate means.

That's not true.

MCPO Airdale writes IPCC report!!? HAHAHAHAHAAAAA! The same report that over 300 scientists asked to have their names removed from? HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

That's not true.

[Chris Crawford]

Oops! I just realized that Robert is in fact correct in stating that HE THINKS that I don't know what the word hate means.

He is incorrect in thinking that.

[Chris Crawford]

I just realized that right here on this blog we have an ideal example of what I mean when I say that conservatives are full of hate. Let's just go through the material right here on this page:

Dear Gutman - I hope Greg Gutfeld... kicks your nuts off and sends them freeze dried to Alaska for reindeer bells.

Hey asshole - who's your party's nominee for VP again? What is the only humanizing story he can tell in his entire sorry life? FAIL!!

...worthy of any Hollywood Oscar winning scumbag

This comparison of Ms. Palin to Mr. Obama:
a mature, intelligent person taking a child to task for daring to think he knows anything

Chris, it seems you hear what you want to hear.
your citing of non-existent polls makes you look like a moron

if you paid as much attention to listening to what Obama (and, more importantly, the MSM) are NOT saying, your scolding might be a little more realistic.

a reference to ACORN as a group of Leftist thugs

you poll-number-concocting-arrogant-lying-disingenuous-asshat-wearing-fool.

Now, let's start by dismissing BrewFan's comments as outliers that are not representative of the group as a whole. Indeed, there has been much substantial commentary. But even removing BrewHat's comments, there's still plenty of nastiness going on here. And that's what bothers me. Why can't I sit down with a conservative and have an open, honest discussion of the issues without nastiness creeping into the conversation?

[Michael]

I know Howard personally, and though I disagree with him politically, I know he is a man of great character who has made sacrifices for his family and is only involved in politics because he wants what is best for the country. If you've never been on a radio show before you don't know how hard it is to not make a mistake and say something silly. He should be judged on his whole life, not one minute on the radio.

[Cuffy Meigs]

Boo hoo. He fights in the political arena; all's fair.

[BrewFan]

Why can't I sit down with a conservative and have an open, honest discussion of the issues without nastiness creeping into the conversation?

These kind of questions beg to be answered by self-examination. Too nasty for you Alice?

[Jim Rhoads aka Vnjagvet]

Chris has made a valiant effort to change the subject to the portion of Gov. Palin's speech in which she defended her credentials by jokingly pointing out that she had "responsibility" when she was an elected official whereas BHO did not when he was a community organizer.

He called the passage "hateful". I think most unaligned voters would find it amusing.

Nonetheless, the subject of the post was the high ranking official from the BHO campaign ignoring his instructions and criticizing the Governor's choices as a parent.

Chris your tone is civil. That is fine. Your tactics are transparently obvious.

Your trolling is probably not influencing anyone except your fellow BHO supporters.

[itobo]

Chris, I've been wondering for years why I can't have an intelligent conversation with a left winger without 1) hearing them spout talking points that are remarkably the same as those every other leftist is spouting, and 2) when I press on, trying to engage them on a personal "how do YOU come up with that opinion", being shut down with the tactics of leftspeak, including "We are NOT going there", "So you're for killing innocent children in Iraq?", or, as in your case, "Why are conservatives so full of hate?"

Does that answer your question? Perhaps you could answer one of mine. Why are so many people so quick to assume that they know what I, a white man of faith who believes in traditional values, should believe, do believe, and would believe - and why do I get called a hypocrite for those beliefs for doing exactly the same as someone who does not espouse them?

[Chris Crawford]

Well, it looks as if the discussion is going downhill already, but let me answer itobo's question:

Why are so many people so quick to assume that they know what I, a white man of faith who believes in traditional values, should believe, do believe, and would believe - and why do I get called a hypocrite for those beliefs for doing exactly the same as someone who does not espouse them?

I don't know, itobo. However, what I *can* tell you is that I myself have no interest in trying to cram my opinions down other people's throats. If you want to believe something, that's fine with me. I'd like to talk about it, especially if it differs from my own beliefs, and in that case I'd like to explore why we differ.

It really is a great shame that people with different political opinions cannot discuss their differences in a civil and -- dare I say -- amicable atmosphere.

[brian]

Chris -

It is very difficult to remain civil when one person in the argument (that would be you) lacks basic reading comprehension, and insists on assigning to people things that were not said. I said that Obama and McCain are now in a statistical dead heat, but that the final result of the election would be McCain by a large margin.

And if you think that people magically decide that crime is OK because they didn't get the same dollar amount increase in their salary as the CEO, you're off your chump. Poverty does not cause crime. Stupidity and tribalism cause crime. The inner cities are crawling with them. Iraq is LOADED with them.

Look at the most crime-ridden areas of this country. For each and every one of them, you can find another area that has similar income levels. The difference between the crime-ridden and peaceful? Tribalism. Tribalism born of 40 years of intentional cultural segregationism perpetrated by the left.

Listen to Walter E. Williams talk about his youth in Harlem. Compare it to now. What's changed?

[Chris Crawford]

It is very difficult to remain civil when one person in the argument (that would be you) lacks basic reading comprehension

I won't judge that, I'll just point out that you're engaging in personal attack rather than discussion of the issues.

You believe that Mr. McCain will win by a large margin. I suppose that there's no point in arguing about something that neither of us can prove. I will be thinking of you on election night.

Your theory of the causes of crime is not supported by research. There are, of course, many causes to crime, the largest of which appears to be the number of young males. But my point was not that poverty is a contributing factor to crime, but rather differences in wealth contribute to the crime rate. People in a village in Ethiopia won't be prone to crime, even though they are much poorer than the poorest Americans. But everybody in that village is in the same boat, so there's a sense of commonality. And it's not just crime -- it's the overall sense of civic pride and commonality. When people can readily see that some members of society enjoy hundreds or thousands of times as much wealth as they do, they start to feel cheated. You can argue that they're wrong, that in fact these people are worth exactly what they get paid, and that the people who are obscenely wealthy earned every penny of their wealth. You can argue that, but they won't believe you. Buried deep inside human nature is a sense of equity that psychologists are starting to unravel. People really do have a profound sense of fairness, and when they believe that gross injustice is being done, they will often take action that is not in their best interests to attack that injustice.

Let me digress with some experimental results. One line of research involves a game that the psychologists have people play in pairs. The rules of the game are simple. The psychologist offers the pair of people $10. Player A gets to decide how much of the $10 he gets, and how much that Player B gets. Player B has only one decision to make: whether to accept the deal that Player A gives him or reject it, so that neither player gets anything. Now, according to economic theory, Player B should accept any deal that gives him any amount of money. But people don't behave that way. Player B will kill the deal if he's not offered a goodly amount of money. People from different cultures have different prices, and Americans set a pretty high price -- they expect a lot of fairness.

The Yemeni man who left his family to go fight and die against Americans in Iraq did so because he perceived that Americans were unjustly attacking his religion, and he felt a moral responsibility to sacrifice his life to counter that injustice. You're welcome to assert that he was wrong to do so, but that didn't stop him. You still have to deal with the reality of how people think.

When a society loses its internal cohesion because a goodly portion of its members feel that they are getting a raw deal, then that society is on its way down. We aren't far down that road as yet, but we are definitely starting down it. My impression -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that conservatives don't think of liberals as fellow Americans, they think of them as "the enemy". If America is going to descend into internecine warfare, with conservatives against liberals, rich against poor, whites against Latinos and blacks, then America will become just another has-been nation.

If we want this country to be strong, then we have to build the bonds between people. We need conservatives and liberals talking to each other in a civil and courteous fashion; we need the rich accepting the fact that a healthy society requires the maintenance of greater levels of economic equality. This, I think, is the overall message that Mr. Obama is pushing: that we have to work together and stop this polarizing ugliness that is tearing this country apart.

[Vicki Davisson]

I hate this repeated stuff about "she has five kids!" One is out on his own, ready to deploy to Iraq, and her daughter is nearly ready to marry. That leaves 3 that need mom nearby. Are they implying she should resign as governor of Alaska too? Sheesh, Biden ran as a widower with two kids. The double standard is breathtaking.

[brian]

My impression -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that conservatives don't think of liberals as fellow Americans, they think of them as "the enemy". If America is going to descend into internecine warfare, with conservatives against liberals, rich against poor, whites against Latinos and blacks, then America will become just another has-been nation.

You are, again 180 degrees out of phase. A conservative speaks to a liberal, and determines that the liberal is misguided. A liberal speaks to a conservative, and determines the conservative is evil.

Let me digress with some experimental results. One line of research involves a game that the psychologists have people play in pairs.

This, like everything else you posted, is quite simply wrong. Psychological experiments on rich white college kids proves nothing about the existence or lack thereof of tribalism in the inner cities.

The "adventures" of a Yemeni muslim are an immediate RESULT of tribalism - our TRIBE attacked his TRIBE, so he must attack back. Reason and cause don't enter into it. It's none of his business, and we aren't attacking for the reasons he thinks we are, but that doesn't matter because tribe comes first.

This, I think, is the overall message that Mr. Obama is pushing: that we have to work together and stop this polarizing ugliness that is tearing this country apart.

No, the overall message that Mr. Obama is pushing (through his surrogates, so he comes across with clean hands) is "If you don't vote for me, you are a racist. You, as a guilty white American are not allowed to criticize any position I take. Vote for me, you racist redneck freak."

Obama is DRIVING the racial division he claims to be interested in erasing.

You'll understand this when you're out in the world on your own.

[Chris Crawford]

Brian, you write: A conservative speaks to a liberal, and determines that the liberal is misguided. A liberal speaks to a conservative, and determines the conservative is evil.

If this were true, then why did the speeches at the Republican convention focus upon attacking liberals in general and Mr. Obama in particular? The speeches at the Democratic convention concentrated on policy issues and made little effort to attack Mr. McCain.

Somebody carried out a "word pile" analysis of the McCain website and the Obama website. Such an analysis merely counts the frequency of the different words, ignoring particles and adjectives, and then presents the results in a block of space with the most frequent words in the largest font. On the Obama website, the most frequent words were "Obama" and "change". On the McCain website, the most frequent word was "Obama". The McCain campaign is devoting a lot more effort to attacking Mr. Obama than the Obama campaign is devoting to attacking Mr. McCain. If conservatives thought that Mr. Obama is misguided, why would they attack Mr. Obama himself rather than his ideas? If liberals thought that Mr. McCain is evil, why wouldn't they make that a centerpiece of the Obama website?

You criticize the psychological experiment I described based upon your assumption that it was carried out only with rich white college kids. Your assumption is incorrect. The experiment has been carried out many times with many different cultures and is now used as a basis for comparing cultures. They have carried out the experiment in Third World country villages where there is no electricity -- in some cases using something other than currency as the reward.

Why do you attack something based on your own assumptions, without even knowing the facts?

I agree with you that tribalism is a destructive force, something that we must outgrow. But I see tribalism as a particularly destructive force in politics. When people are waving flags, wearing party hats and party buttons, cheering their political team on -- that's tribalism. If people were truly rational, there wouldn't be so much emotionalism in politics. They'd simply analyze the positions of the candidates and make their decisions accordingly.

Let me expand on this with an observation about flag-obsession. Conservatives seem to me to have a fixation on the flag. They are furious when somebody burns it; they insist that true patriots wear it on their lapels; they wave flags enthusiastically. I have nothing against the flag; I just think this fixation is a symptom of tribalism. I think that the rule of law is a great thing, too, but I don't chant "Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law!" I don't wear buttons that say "The Rule of Law Rules!". I don't wave copies of the Constitution in the air. If I did, people would rightly think that I'm a little strange. And when people do this kind of thing with the flag, I think that's a little strange. I think that it's not about the flag -- I think it's about tribalism.

I agree with you that tribalism lies at the heart of the Yemeni fellow's self-sacrifice. And I hope you'll agree that tribalism also underlies the American response to 9/11.

the overall message that Mr. Obama is pushing (through his surrogates, so he comes across with clean hands) is "If you don't vote for me, you are a racist.

Which surrogates would those be? I think you're fabricating this. Please name names.

You'll understand this when you're out in the world on your own.

Let's delve into the thinking that could have led to such a remarkable statement. It's apparent that you assume that I am a young college kid with no experience in the world. Yet you have no information on me personally. First, why would you bother even thinking about me personally? Who cares? We're discussing ideas here, and the ideas are the only thing that matters. For all I know, you're an orphan-raping litterbug serving time in a high-security prison. I don't care, because I don't see this as a battle between you and me. I see it as a comparison of ideas.

But why would you assume that I'm young? I think it's because you disagree with my thinking. Instead of directly addressing the differences in our thinking, you seek to dismiss my ideas with an assumption that I am inexperienced. If you don't like the ideas, why not address the ideas directly rather than waste time with fantasies about the source of the ideas?

[North Dallas Thirty]

This can be answered very simply, Chris Crawford.

It's been 48 hours since Gutman made his statement.

Show us the news of the firing, or admit that Obama lied.

[Chris Crawford]

NDT, after reading more about the story, I realize that I was misled by the representation of it presented here. Cuffy presented a link to an ABC story in the post "Fox picks up...". That ABC story includes an email from Mr. Gutman explaining the context of his remarks and apologizing for his comments. I therefore believe that the matter is satisfactorily resolved.

[Cuffy Meigs]

kthxbai

[Chris Crawford]

Rly? Amzg!

[Interested Bystander]

Chris,

Although I would like to debate the issues with you, what good would it do? You have your mind made up, and so do I.

I would like to make a couple comments though.

Your "studies" do nothing to help your argument. Depending on how the study was done, you can get any result you desire. Whether it be your "seas rising" or your "tribalism" (?? what the heck is this?) argument. Both of these "studies" can be debunked by other studies.

I believe that the root cause of crime "problem" is that kids are not raised to respect other people's person or property. You can call that "tribalism" all you want, it still doesn't change that I believe that respect, or lack ther of, is the major problem with crime.

You also seem to argue the "redistribution of wealth" argument. Please explain to me how the Government can tell a company what to pay their CEO's, or Board of Director's? Or are you suggesting that maybe Washington should tax 100% of the amount over a certain amount, so that money can be given to people who "need it"?

I have an idea, maybe we should just send Washington all of our money, and let them decide who should get what. That sounds as reasonable as your argument.

When are people going to realize that it is not the Governments responsibility to "take care" of us? It is not Governments responsibility to make sure we have health insurance. It is not the Govenments responsibility to ensure that we are taken care of in retirement. It is not the Governments responsibility to make sure that people can go to college. The list goes on and on.

I will give you one good example, Social Security. SS was started as a SUPPLEMENT program to people's retirement plan. Now please tell me who in business has a retirement plan now? Only Government jobs, as far as I can tell, unless you have been with a company for 30 years. Companies now offer 401K plans that they match a certain percentage of what the employee contributes. Why is this? In my opinion it is because the Government started SS.

Health care will be the same way. Obama stated in his speech that anyone who has health insurance now will not be affected, but if you aren't covered, then you will have the same plan as the members of Government has. Now tell me what is the incentive for a company to offer health coverage if this is adopted? There is none, and it will save the company lots of money, and cost us lots of money. If a company doesn't offer health coverage, according to Obama, then he will make sure you have the plan Government employee's currently have.

I have argued this point on many occasions, and it is usually the other person who starts with the name calling.

Let's face it, the basic question is, do you want the Government to "take care" of you (Democrats), or do you want to "take care" of yourself (Republicans)?

[Chris Crawford]

Thanks for your reply, Mr. Bystander. First, you seem to strike a rather anti-intellectual stance with your assertion that studies don't mean anything. You reason that 'there's always a contradictory study'. That's just not so, and it's certainly not for want of trying. The way you get ahead as a scientist is to disprove somebody else's paper. If an idea gets bounced around for a few years, and nobody is able to blow it out of the water, then scientists start to have some confidence in it. Nothing is ever proven in science, but on both rising sea level and the little game-experiment I provided, there have been plenty of studies and neither of the ideas has been compromised by contradictory studies.

You are of course welcome to your own beliefs about the nature of crime but there have been many, many studies attempting to further our understanding of this huge social problem and the issue is far more complex than you suggest.

You argue against redistribution of wealth on the grounds that government shouldn't take care of people. I agree with the principle, but let me point out that "taking care of people" can be pretty slippery to define. Does committing over a trillion dollars and at least 4,000 American lives to invade Iraq constitute "taking care of people"? Does building roads constitute "taking care of people"? How do you draw a line here?

I will not claim that there's any moral basis for income redistribution. I instead offer a pragmatic argument: that all in all it costs less to lessen inequality than to fight its effects.

[Interested Bystander]

Chris,

Not being an "intellectual", I guess I just do not put much credibility in "studies". I say again, just as with the polls, depending on what outcome you want, you can conduct a study that will give you your desired results.

My beliefs come from experience, not some "study". I could care less about "studies". My respect argument holds much more credibility than your "study", because honestly, I have lived it and seen it in front of me. Lots of people do not respect people or property. Teach young people that first, and see how society changes. Just ask any teacher who has to try to teach young folks. The kids talk to teachers like sailors now. "F" this, and "you can't say that to me", and all of this crap. When I was in school, if I got in trouble, I knew I'd be in twice as much trouble once I got home. Now it's "My little Boy or girl didn't do anything wrong", and then the next thing is, "I'm suing". Society today is pitiful, and it starts with respect. Respect should not be something that is earned, which is what is taught now, it is something that is given until such a time that someone proves he does not deserve it. That is what I was taught.

You seem to be talking down to me, which I could care less that you are, but as life moves forward, you will learn (or maybe not), that "studies" are meaningless. A waste, each individual is different, and no "study" is going to change that. It only gives people an excuse to do or believe something.

Evolution is a good example. People will not stop believing in Jesus, just because someone says that the world evolved, and was not created.

At least you agree that you are talking about redistribution of wealth. This is sad. It is my opinion, that all of the social programs instituted by the left has indoctrinated people that believe that redistribution is ok.

If you want to debate the Iraq war, I will be glad to do it. I do not agree with the excuse given by the Bush Administration of WMDs, but there were at least 11 UN Resolutions that stated "By whatever means necessary". You look it up. Sadam stalled and hem and hawed when inspectors were going somewhere, until a resolution was passed, and this gave him time to get the WMDs out of there. You have no proof Iraq didn't have WMDs and moved them before the war started, and there have been many articles, mainly at the beginning of the war that stated that poison gas was used on American soldiers in road side bombs, and IEDs. But bottom line is, yes, I believe we were justified to go in to Iraq. We shouldn't have used WMDs as the main reason, I will give you that. And who knows, maybe in 50 years, when Iraq is expanding, someone won't come up with these weapons buried out in the desert.

The fact is, we are there now, and we need to finish the job. Obama's "cut and run" policy, is exactly what we DO NOT need. His sixteen month withdraw policy makes sense now. It wouldn't have made sense 2 or 3 or 4 years ago.

Your last sentence says lots Chris. What I see you saying is this. The easy way out is to redistribute wealth. Put a bandaid on it, and hope it fixes the problem. That is not what this country was founded on. The right thing is what this country was founded on.

One last thing, can you please show me one Government program that is doing what it was first intended to do, and is successful? I think this should give you your answer as to why I think the Government should just get out of my life (and yours), and quit telling me how to live. This is why Government is called "Uncle" Sam, and not "Mom and Dad" Sam. Oh yeah, and our "Uncle" is rich no longer.

[Chris Crawford]

Well, Mr. Bystander, if you reject rationalism, that's your business. But rationalism is the basis of science, technology, the Constitution, and American law. You seem to be happy to dispense with rationalism, but you're lucky that most people believe in it -- we wouldn't be sharing our thoughts over the Internet if it weren't for those darned intellectuals.

I'm not going to try to debate the Iraq war with you (not at this point). My point here was that you don't like government spending your money. Well, the Iraq War is costing you an enormous amount of money, yet you seem to think it was a good idea. So you appear to think that "big government" spending trillions of dollars is great idea, so long as they're spending it on your favorite things. Other people want big government to spend money on their favorite things. Me, I'd rather that the government spend money only on things that are really necessary -- and the Iraq War was never "really necessary". If Saddam Hussein were still around, things wouldn't be much different from how they were ten years ago.

But the main point here concerns not Iraq, but government spending. How do you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable?

You criticize my pragmatic approach because it's the easy way. What, you want to do it the hard way? You imply that we should be doing "the right thing". And what is "the right thing"? Building more jails, hiring more police, setting up more courts, and throwing more and more people into jail? That sounds like a pretty expensive solution to me. It costs $50,000 per year to house one prisoner in jail. That's $50 billion for every million prisoners. How many people do you want to lock up? If you want to lock up just the worst 10 million, that will cost you a cool half-trillion dollars. That's $1600 in taxes that you'll be paying every year -- as well as all your relatives and everybody else. And that doesn't cover the costs of courts and lawyers.

You're going to pay either way. Do you want to pay more?

[Interested Bystander]

Chris,

Your "studies" are not rational. They are not logical either. As I said before, you can do a study to come to any conclusion you want too. I do not think that human behavior is responsible for your "global warming" theory. The world has been around for a very long time, and has gone through many climate changes, not created by man. The world will be here long after we are gone Chris, so don't you worry your little head about the oceans rising, or the temps getting warmer, or the storms being stronger, because in fifty or one hundred years, it will be just the opposite.

As far as Iraq is concerned, where in my argument do I say I agree with going in to Iraq? I said the Government shouldn't have used WMDs as the reason, and I said we were justified for going in, but not once did I say I agreed with it. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.

As far as how do we solve this country's ills, I do not have all of the answers. But here's where I start,

Get the Feds out of Education,
Get the Feds out of Welfare Programs,
Get the Feds out of Medicare, and Medicaid
Get the Feds out of how my employer should run his/her business,
Get the Feds out of whether I should wear a seatbelt or not
Get the Feds out of what "research" has to be done before a drug can be put on the market,
Get the Feds out of whether McDonalds can use vegetable oil, or whatever crap they are using now.
Basically, get the Feds out of everything (including the UN) that has nothing to do with what the Constitution says it should do, which are basically, the Post Office, Defense, Currency, and Foriegn Relations. I may be missing a couple of things, but not many.

Where do I place these responsibilities? With the STATES which is where they belong. Read article 10 of the Constitution, and it is very clear that anything not "federal" should be handled by the States. This would make the States responsible for a bunch of stuff, or maybe not.

Take Welfare, why shouldn't the State be resonsible for this? Put it on the ballot, and let the public vote on it. Or make this issue a campaign issue, and pass legislation. The Feds should not dictate, which is what they do now.

Don't get me wrong, I know that this will not happen anytime soon. I live in reality, not some "study" generated world. But this is what is wrong with our country. The Feds have assumed too much of our liberties, and I want mine back. Telling me I have to wear a seatbelt in my own car, what a crock. But "if it saves one life", yeah right, quit taking my liberties away from me. Bull crap is what I say.

Telling a woman that the Feds will pay for an abortion without parental notification, but by golly a school can't administer an aspirin without parental consent, that makes a whole bunch of sense. Probably a "study" was done and found "rational" that it be done this way.

Since Social Security was adopted, this country has gone down hill. It will take longer to wean people off of this. Probably longer than it took to implement all of these programs.

This is how I read the Constitution Chris, maybe you should take another look at it, and tell me where it says that it is the Government's responsibility to "take care" of me? It says that they should not implement any law that would hinder my pursuit of life, liberty, and property, but this is exactly what they have done.

But I will say, the Democrats are doing a good job of telling people that that is exactly what the Government is supposed to do. And like you, they want to take the easy way, instead of the right way.

[Interested Bystander]

Chris,

I will aslo ask, why does it cost fifty grand a year to house an inmate? All I see that they need is a bed and three meals a day. How does that cost fifty grand? Sounds like maybe the "bureaucracy" has taken over and wants to do more than rehabilitate prisoners. They want them to have weights, cable TV, college, and a whole bunch more stuff that is not necessary to rehabilitate prisoners. If it wasn't so nice in prison, people wouldn't want to commit crimes. Prison is not supposed to be a vacation.

Do you disagree with Gitmo too? I'd be glad to debate that issue with you also, but I wouldn't need "studies" to have a rational opinion on that either.

[LisaRenee]

Most of the hate I've seen recently has come from some of those I used to consider friends, on the left. Comments such as this made in a live debate on the night John McCain was speaking about Cindy McCain and John McCain's mother:

are the McCain's adopted/non-white kids allowed to come?

she's so fake

that's the kind of decision you make when you are all whacked out on pills.

they did let the nonwhites there! we "just" met her because she is evidently not allowed to be around normally

i heard the best comparison to Palin: the teacher/stripper in the movie Varsity Blues.

90% of these animals only care about abortion.

the theme is "peace".....that is f--king hillarious out of these animals

are you guys really watching this dribble again after that wombat lied through her teeth about obama.

you missed Cindy posing as a human

i think mccains wearing makeup only used at a morgue

she is ridiculously nimble for a 90 something year old woman

That's just a small taste of the "hate" that is out there, including some the night before who wondered if Cindy McCain drugged the Palin baby because Trig did not cry.

I watched the same bashing of Clinton happen from those supposedly "on the same side". So if we are going to talk hate then Chris, "our side" should take responsibility for all of the hatred that we are doing before we worry about what the conservatives are...

[Chris Crawford]

First off, Innocent -- may I call you Innocent? -- I'd like to point out that, technically, the Constitution DOES assign broad powers to the Federal government:

We the people of the United States, in order to...promote the General Welfare...

That's a loophole that any Federalist can drive a truck through. Anything that the Feds do that 'promotes the general welfare' is technically within the purpose of the Constitution. As it happens, there's a lot more to this story than just that sentence. People have been arguing about this issue since BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. Most legal scholars don't really buy into this theory, but in terms of case law, the matter has been resolved: the Feds can wriggle their way into almost anything they want.

A lot of this is straight politics. For example, in the infamous Bush v. Gore case, the conservative justices who had for years been railing against the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment suddenly found it very useful. Talk about a 180 degree turn! These fellows had been arguing that the Feds should respect state sovereignty, and then when they wanted their man elected, they abandoned all that talk and ran a legal bulldozer over state sovereignty.

The funny thing is, I'm in general agreement with you on the excessive power of the Federal government. I'd like to see it cut back quite a bit, and I'd like to see spending cut back a LOT (and one of the first places I'd start is with the military). Unfortunately, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have spent the last eight years dramatically increasing both the power of the Federal government (actually, just the Executive Branch), and federal spending. We really need a big change this November, not the paltry little 10% change that we'll get with Mr. McCain.

I further agree that the Tenth Amendment has become rather threadbare of late. The problem came from the 14th Amendment. Would you revoke the 14th Amendment? Do you think that the southern states should have been able to oppress blacks as they did after the Civil War? Do you think that the Feds should not have overruled Governor Wallace at the University of Alabama? There are some very serious issues here, and it's just not black and white.

I myself would like to see some constitutional amendments tackling some of these issues. I'd like to see issues like abortion and gun rights settled by some constitutional amendments that reflect the will of a two-thirds majority of the people. But our politicians don't have the courage to tackle these problems, because the electorate is too busy screaming at each other.

Where I really disagree with you is in your dismissal of science. Every aspect of our lives is profoundly affected by science, and dismissing it all as just a bunch of studies ignores the physical realities in which we all live. Look around you: computers, plastics, medicines, television, your car, your CDs and DVDs, the Internet -- none of this would be here if science were just a bunch of studies that don't mean anything. Would you really prefer to live in a world without science?