Redstate

big business loves big government

big government puts up protectionist policies. big government hands out candy by way of "free" dollars for projects

protectionist policies ostensibly favor big business because they protect the big businesses from foreign competition.

free trade favors real capitalists. The ones that aren't afraid to get a little dirty and work when new kids show up on the block.

BTW, please cite your source for your 2/3s of R statistic

I've posted it a few times on other posts, but here it is:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html

There's also this:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm

If big biz loves big government, why would they abandon the GOP? The GOP has betrayed us on government spending and distributes handouts and earmarks and huge financial boondoggles like candy. And note that these contributors are folks who gave to Bush in the past. Now, they're not.

And the folks who have turned on the GOP in favor of the Dems are not just the stodgy, manufacturing-intensive industries. It also includes the financial industry. Shouldn't that industry favor the "real capitalists" that you refer to? And yet they are turning to the Dems despite their tough talk on trade.

IMO, the truth is that free trade (in its current form) helps a small sliver of the country greatly and suppresses or harms the progress of much of the country. I suspect that small sliver of folks helped by it are represented in that WSJ article. They are a minority group in the minority party.

I'm not against trade. I am, however, greatly in favor of more fairness in our trade policies. I think that's true of most folks. When I hear the term "free trade", I think of it as a perpetuation of our current trade policies -- without any adjustments. And that greatly concerns me.

1. If you think we have anything resembling free trade, I suggest you read up on the subject some. We do not have free trade. That is one of the greatest failings of free traders. We are failing to tell people that we don't have free trade. We have a few countries that we are able to trade freely with (which has benefited the economy greatly), but we still have massive amounts of subsidies and tariffs that protect domestic business.

2. Donors would turn on McCain because he has clearly signaled that he will fight to end the government subsidies of business and push for new free trade agreements. He has fought the Farm Bill, the mortgage bail out (by extension a mortgage company bail out), etc. He has clearly indicated that he will be no friend of the protectionist big businesses.

What I'm talking about are the trade policies that we do have -- as reflected by our dealings with China, Mexico, Central America, and other countries. I certainly wouldn't call our current trade policies "free", but I suspect I have different reasons for that than you do. As far as free trade greatly benefitting the economy, I think that's contestable. As the Business Week articles notes, it does greatly benefit some and prove harmful to many others. You'll probably claim that those job/wage losses are inevitable. However, when so many people are missing out on these great benefits of free trade, you have to wonder where the trade policy is going wrong. Why should those on the losing end support free trade (or a move towards "freer" trade) if it mainly benefits a select few? That is an exceedingly difficult argument to make to those who get left behind. And when so many get left behind, the argument is nearly impossible to make. And those left behind are not all blind, dumb, and stupid. You can get retrained for a 21st century ecomomy. Often, though, those jobs go away as quickly as you can train for them. What is the purpose of a country? Is it to make a select few filthy rich or is it to look out for the interests of its citizens? To me, it is the latter. Let's find a trade policy that provides a real win/win. I don't believe our current policy does.

As to your second point, that could possibly explain some of the shifts in support, but it doesn't explain them all. I don't believe that the financial industry's major players would benefit most under the stated policies of the Dems. McCain wants to make the tax cuts permanent. Obama wants to double the capital gains tax. And still they don't support McCain.

"fair" trade (protectionism in wolf's clothing) helps some and harms many others.

You are right in that I say that job losses are inevitable. It is not the right of the government to insure against job loss. To do so only delays the pain.

"So many people are missing out on these great benefits of free trade"?

406 of 426 House districts in Indiana have experienced triple digit growth to China (a country we have week trade policy with) Open that market up even more and I'm certain that that growth will continue.

If you want to put into place policies that will "protect American jobs" just look at China's track record here (you would be hard pressed to find a country that is more protectionist than China). David Brooks writes: "The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S."

As for the shift in funding: It has been happening over the last decade. One example that I will use is Citigroup. For a long time, under prior managment, the company's directors were mostly supporting R candidates. Under current The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S., the company has shifted to supporting mostly D candidates. This happened prior to McCain announcing a run for President, prior to his campaign imploding, and prior to him resurrecting his campaign and winning the nomination. This is simply the continuation of a trend that has been going on for a few years now.

A common fallacy is that large information based companies care about the cap gains tax. If a company is big enough and based in people and not technology, then they will stay regardless of the cap gains tax. These companies know that they will be able to make money regardless. If taxes go up they raise their prices and pass the tax on to their consumers. Profit levels remain about the same.

"Open that market up even more" (re: China)

And that's what I want. I think our trade should have a strong degree of reciprocity. If a country has tariffs, so should we. If they don't, we shouldn't.

I'm not saying all this to explicitly save every last American jobs. I know some jobs will inevitably be lost. However, our trade policies should be fair and equitable for all policies involved. In doing so, I think that we will be looking out for American citizens much better than we are now.

It certainly isn't China.

American consumers pay the tariff, not the Chinese government.

Why would you ask that the average Walmart shopper be expected to pay x% more for their goods?

"Why would you ask that the average Walmart shopper be expected to pay x% more for their goods?"

If they have more good-paying jobs here, they can afford to pay more. As it is, we're just helping China build up their military. Also, we could find other countries around that world that would play on fairer terms and produce inexpensive goods. We give up the farm to China and let them walk all over us.

"Why would you ask that the average Walmart shopper be expected to pay x% more for their goods?"

If they have more good-paying jobs here, they can afford to pay more. As it is, we're just helping China build up their military and build up their own economy -- at the expense of ours. Of course, we could also find other countries around the world (probably closer to home) that would play on fairer terms and still provide inexpensive goods. We give up the farm to China and let them walk all over us.

then it would be done. Capitalists seek out lowest cost of production (which given output is technically still in the US. It's the looser standards that China has that lowers the cost. I do grant that is a negative, but people still buy the crap, so they must be okay with it). If there was another country closer to home that could provide competitive costs, manufacturing would move there.

That still wouldn't make the "fair trade" crowd happy. They would still be living caricatures of the Sout Park "They took our jobs!".

I wouldn't worry about China too much either. They seem to be doing a fabulous job of tanking their own economy (partially supported by the lousy dollar...they own a lot of them) and probably won't be able to sustain their military growth much longer.

Besides, so what if they flex their muscles. Then we cut them off and they starve.

"That still wouldn't make the "fair trade" crowd happy. They would still be living caricatures of the Sout Park "They took our jobs!"."

That's the kind of condescending attitude that is making people run, screaming, from the GOP -- and I think such a view is typical of many in the GOP upper-echelons. That attitude is a sledgehammer and every time it comes out, it just bashes and pummels the GOP brand a little more.

The GOP needs to start being a party of the people again -- and not just a party of the multinational conglomerate. Earmarks, free trade, illegal immigration -- all of them are just signals that what business wants, business gets. Forget the silly South Park characters yelling about good-paying jobs and a system that doesn't work for them anymore. They don't matter, right?

Imagine how condescending it sounds when any politician claims that they can solve out economic problems. That is the height of condescension: The belief that government can absolutely control an economy when all proof points to the opposite (USSR falling under it's own weight, rapid economic growth in old Soviet bloc countries that have liberalized their trade and tax policies, etc.)

And you really seem to fail to comprehend my point. "Fair trade" only helps big business. It hurts the little guy. You may save a few thousand jobs here or there, but when you raise prices on the entire economy you do more harm than good. Free trade (unlike what we have now) puts the power in the hands of the people to make choices for themselves on whether they want to buy US made or Chinese made products.

They have the power as consumers to influence that decision. If enough people really believe that our products being produced overseas was a problem then they would demand with their wallets closing that businesses return their manufacturing to the US. Since there is no evidence that consumers are willing to do so, businesses will continue to produce where they see economic benefit. It is up to the consumer to act on their power.

"If enough people really believe that our products being produced overseas was a problem then they would demand with their wallets closing that businesses return their manufacturing to the US."

When folks' wages are stagnant or falling (which is true for many) and inflation is increasing, most don't have the liberty to make political statements with their household budgets. BTW, have you tried to find American-made products lately? It isn't easy. Even if they wanted to, they usually couldn't (except on obvious products like cars). And when companies lobby to keep the "Made in..." labels off their products or hide/shrink such a label, it doesn't exactly make it easy to be an informed consumer.

to be an informed consumer. That is no different now than it was thirty years ago.

I distinctly remember the ad campaigns of the eighties (I'm told it was an extension of one from the seventies, but I wasn't alive then) where consumers were encouraged to "Buy American" and "Look for the Union label".

Those campaigns failed. People still bought foreign goods. Companies took that as a signal that the American consumer wasn't interested in American-only made products.

And I will say that it is easy to find American Made products. A simple google search for American Made returned:

BuyAmerican.com
HowtoBuyAmerican.com
MadeInUSA.org
Buy American Campaign
BuyDirectUSA.com

People just have to be willing to search for the products that they want. You can't expect Walmart et al to cater to the buy American crowd when they are making so much money otherwise.

Says nothing about free trade being a turnoff for Republican business donors. If I am a broken record, at least I repeat arguments that actually have a basis in reality--as opposed to demonstrating lousy reading skills and using a story to advance an argument that the story itself doesn't address in the slightest.

Read this. And read this. Then tell me that free trade does not work. And note that when I cite sources, they actually tend to back up my arguments. You might want to draw a lesson from that, young Padawan.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

but this one does (more or less): http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html

It does not say anything about "big business donors" but it does point out how Republicans have become free trade skeptics.

In an NBC-WSJ poll taken back in October 2007, an amazing 59% of likely Republican voters said that they believed free trade has been BAD for the U.S.

And 61% of Republicans favored tougher regulations to limit imports of foreign goods.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-POLL-20071003.pdf

(you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this)

With voters provoked for years by such figures as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, "there's been a steady erosion in Republican support for free trade," says former Rep. Vin Weber, now [at the time of the poll] an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html

Free trade is one of those things that makes economic sense but is a political non-starter. If even most Republicans aren't buying it anymore, McCain should just drop the subject. He's going to have enough trouble selling the electorate on continuing on with the Iraq War. One highly unpopular position is enough.

Link. Kinda puts that poll into perspective, now doesn't it? And even if we assume that the poll findings are accurate (which it is clear we cannot), that does not mean free trade is a bad policy. Unpopular policies can still be very good ones and in the case of free trade, we have a policy that is unfairly cast as unpopular although it is very good indeed.

Incidentally, none of the responding comments have disputed my point that free trade is an issue demagogued by Democrats. Indeed, the presentation of the "findings" of this poll would seem to confirm the existence and effects of such demagoguery.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

It just goes to the front page of instapundit.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

it worked fine today. I swear I tried five times to make sure I wasn't messing something up.

Thanks Pejman.

I didn't say that those donors preferred the Dems' positions on trade. Read my comments again. I just said that they weren't backing McCain and his trade policies. And, speaking of fear-mongering, you often breathlessly (and in a fevered pitch) intimate/state that the election of a Dem will be a catastrophic event for trade policies and that the oncoming protectionism will destroy the country. Apparently, a number of significant business donors don't share your paranoia. That's the relevance of the article I cited.

Listen, I get where you're coming from, Pejman. Obviously, you feel strongly about the topic. However, you could try to understand that most people don't share your unyielding faith in our current trade policies. There's a reason they don't agree with you. They're not all protectionists or anti-traders or liberals. And your grandiose tales of financial apocalypse aren't going to persuade them to move off a position that was formed based on what they've seen and felt in their own lives and neighborhoods.

I think a better strategy on this would be for you (or anyone else espousing free trade) to try to understand WHY most folks don't like our current version of what we call "free trade". Perhaps you could talk about flaws with our current trade policies and ways that those policies could be improved. Of course, if you think they're perfect as is, then you can't really do that. If that's what you think, though, you're swimming upstream in a raging river.

It is faith in free trade. I think I may go blue in the face today screaming at the top of my lungs that we do not have free trade. We subsidize (to the tune of billions of dollars) domestic business and we still hold up tariffs and outright trade blockages that are antithetical to free trade.

Pejman has been tirelessly proclaiming what needs to be changed in our trade policy. We have to make it freer. Countries that have done so have seen massive increases in economic activity to the benefit of the whole economy.

When I say free trade, I'm talking about our current trade policies (especially policies such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.) and the cessation or perpetuation of similar policies.

"Pejman has been tirelessly proclaiming what needs to be changed in our trade policy. We have to make it freer."

Then, as I said, he is swimming upstream against a raging river. People feel stung by our current trade policies. You can shout till you're blue in the face, but they trust their own paychecks and job situations and checkbooks more than they trust those who want more of what they feel has slapped them down.

which is where the biggest opponents of free trade and NAFTA are.

Let's examine the first 13 years of NAFTA against the prior 13 years (as Abassador Terry Miller does here):

-During NAFTA, U.S. employment went up from 112.2 million jobs to 137.2 million jobs, an increase of 25 million jobs. We haven't really heard Ross Perot's giant sucking sound.

-The average unemployment rate during NAFTA has been 5.1 percent, compared to 7.1 percent during the 13 years before its passage.

-Manufacturing output rose 63 percent between 1993 and 2006, compared to 37 percent between 1980 and 1993.

-Real compensation of manufacturing workers rose 1.6 percent annually during NAFTA as com pared to 0.9 percent annually in the prior period.

-Investment rose 107 percent, compared to 45 percent in the comparable prior period.

So by all these indicators, we have been better off during NAFTA than we were before its passage.

Seems like NAFTA is doing quite alright to me.

My father lost three jobs (manufacturing-related) in five years right after NAFTA passed. So Ross Perot was right in my experience. I had a job (computer-related) that was sent overseas. You can show me statistic after statistic but that doesn't sell. Statistics can be manipulated and cherry-picked to show just about anything you want them to show. When so many people say that they are hurt by "free trade" agreements, I suspect it's because they have had personal experiences -- like mine. Charts and graphs and statistics have little meaning when the near-futile process of layoff/retraining fails again and again. If you're on the losing end, you're not buying it. And it seems that a lot of people are on the losing end.

And I respect the Heritage Foundation, but come on. Terry Miller? As the article states, he is the "Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation". Of course he will "find" stats that make the case for free trade. That's as credible as La Raza arguing (with numbers) that illegal immigration is a wonderful thing for this country -- which they've done.

A more credible analysis is the one I posted from Business Week. Clearly BW is hugely in favor of freer trade and economists are as well. However, they took an honest look at it and pointed out its shortcomings.

Your father lost three jobs that were artificially propped up by protectionist policies. [It sounds heartless, but it is the correct analysis.]

My question to you rightonpeachtree, why is it the government's job to protect one industry at the loss of the overall economy?

...we are still being protectionist in many ways because we don't have pure "free trade". Will you finally be happy when we have the same salaries as India and China? Is that your endgame?

"My question to you rightonpeachtree, why is it the government's job to protect one industry at the loss of the overall economy?"

When a minority of people are getting filthy rich, but the majority of people are suffering stagnation or decline, that might be make the aggregate numbers (GDP, output, etc.) look good, but don't act surprised and offended when those suffering a decline don't agree with you. You're talking in terms of stats and figures and theories. I'm talking in terms of actual people's experiences. And the majority of the country isn't buying the stats and figures and theories. Folks aren't just work units. They are citizens who, at the very least, expect fairness in our trade policies.

Look, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I'm just sending out a warning to anybody who'll listen that this issue has been simmering and could boil over. Blind faith in free(r) trade already draws the wrath of most Dems. And now many Republicans/conservatives are getting fed up with it, too. The GOP would be wise to recognize that and figure out how to address it. Throwing easily-manipulated and often-misleading facts and figures at voters, though, is not the solution.

"Throwing easily-manipulated and often-misleading facts and figures at voters, though, is not the solution."

But then what would politicians do?

Stop calling -- or thinking of -- those people (many of whom are Republicans) as South Park caricatures would be a GREAT start.

Stop using the phrase "those jobs are gone and they're never coming back". That's true in some cases, but not necessarily true in others. Either way, it's a loathsome thing to say.

Stop telling people to retrain for a 21st century economy while expediting the loss of THOSE 21st century jobs overseas as well.

Stop REWARDING companies that moves jobs offshore.

START cutting corporate taxes so that companies don't find it prohibitive to stay here (and the GOP is on the right side on this one).

START signing trade deals that are fair to both parties. Failing to do so is anti-American, IMO.

START finding jobs/industries that can grow and thrive here in the US. And start training kids in schools now to fill those jobs. As much as I detest the global warming evangelists, the idea of green jobs -- for Americans -- is very appealing. The GOP should be have initiated that push, but the Dems beat them to it. Yet another missed opportunity.

But most of all, START taking some kind of action. Talk is cheap and that's just about all we get from politicians these days. If you have to compromise, then compromise, but do so in a way that is fiscally sane AND good for the American people.

Amen on the cutting corporate taxes. That would be the fastest way to bring business home to America and keep many that move offshore because of our oppressive tax rates.

The GOP doesn't push for training because it is anti-conservative to force the hands of people to do something they don't want to do. That is antithetical to conservative principles of personal responsibility. It is NOT the government's job to assure that everyone has a job. [Not to mention impossible both in theory and in practice.]

I really would like you to expand on why you think that any of the FTAs that have been passed have been unfair to the US. I really think that it is dubious at best to point to NAFTA as a source of wide spread (as opposed to localized, which was true to a certain extent) job loss. Especially considering the fact that the unemployment rate is at near historic lows. Not to mention the myriad of other reasons why manufacturing and high tech jobs have been lost (Technological advancement, etc in the case of manufacturing and other economies that seized on our (perceived or real) shortage of skilled labor in the technology markets). [I should put it as an aside here. No one doubts the productivity or skill of the American worker when they work. It is very easy for the rest of the world to think that we are the typical lazy Americans. They see this. They react to it. They attract businesses away that also seem to see the overall same picture.]

What do you say about the Columbia Free Trade Agreement specifically? The CFTA would essentially formalize much of the concessions that we have already made to the Columbian government. We continue to keep our market open to Columbian goods (coffee, flowers, etc) in exchange for a reduction of tariffs from the Columbian government. We stand no chance of losing in this equation. They already have nearly tariff free access to our markets. Why shouldn't we have tariff free access to theirs?

And FWIW, the above comment was a little snark about politicians. I think both of us can agree that we don't trust politicians as far as we can throw them. It begs the question then: Why should we trust politicians to manage our economy when we both know that they will screw things up even when trying to do the right thing?

Simpson, I need to check out. I can't keep going on and on. I'll let what I've posted and the articles I've cited stand for my opinions.

Quick answers:

Training: I'm talking about the re-training programs trumpeted (mostly by Republicans) upon job loss. They always talk about retraining those folks for 21st century jobs.

AFTA's: Localized job losses on a significant level is widespread job loss. Also, employment figures are very misleading. It doesn't capture whether folks downgraded to a McJob or now have to work two jobs. Real wages per capita is a better measure. That metric was discussed in the BW article.

Politician-throwing: Should be made an official sport. I think I could chunk Barbara Boxer a good distance. She's compact. Could we stand near a cliff when we do it?

It's been fun. I generally don't like being a trade naysayer on this site because I get bombarded by the "free(r) traders". I felt the issue needed to be raised, though. Folks are disgruntled over trade -- including many conservatives. We need to figure out how to get them "gruntled" again by addressing the trade issue in a constructive and honest way.

It's good to have common ground: I say, not only do it next to a cliff, but make sure the sharks are circling.

I would also look at total compensation. Wages tends to depress the numbers because of the shift in compensation growth to health care (and other non-wage benefits).

You gave some very sad stories as anecdotes. I'm sorry you suffered, BUT....

Regarding your computer job, my guess is it went to India. That country is not a signatory to NAFTA last I heard and your job loss is VERY unlikely to be related to NAFTA.

And Ross Perot's company just got sold to HP. Guess what? There are going to be massive job cuts at one company or the other (probably both) as they integrate and cut redundant functions. These cuts have nothing to do with NAFTA or any other trade agreement.

As for your father's 3 manufacturing jobs, can you provide more details than just "he lost them within 5 years of NAFTA"? For example, what industries was he in? Did the companies he worked for close or move the operations overseas? If they moved overseas, what country did the manufacturing move to?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

My computer job went to Holland. It was a cost-cutting measure. They chose the place (the US) with higher salaries and without worker protections and made cuts. I know that wasn't part of NAFTA, but it speaks to the larger issue of how our government views offshoring and job losses. Bush's economic advisor said offshoring of jobs is good for America. That's not an attitude I share.

My dad was in the textiles industry (he was a mechanic). NAFTA was like a starting pistol. Almost immediately after it passed, the whole plant shut down and went south (Mexico). Another plant he worked at shut down and went to Guatemala. I forget where the other one went. And now, after a lot of these jobs went to Mexico, why are we still having to deal with out-of-control illegal immigration? First the plants moved south. Then, the residents of those countries started migrating here in mass numbers and competing against low-skilled Americans for the few jobs that were left here in the states. This has just decimated small towns all across America. I'm not low-skilled nor do I live in a small town, but I've seen it first hand. It's not surprising that the misery index is so high. And the GOP needs to be more sensitive to the needs of those areas and those residents.

if you want to help low skilled workers, then eliminate the minimum wage. [I know. Follow my logic though. And yes, I realize that this would be demagogued.]

If you eliminate the minimum wage you will eliminate the need for illegal workers. Illegal workers are often found to be working below minimum wage because it is easier since they don't exist in the IRS system. On the other hand, a hard working, American taxpayer is in the system. It's harder to cheat. Therefore the illegals get the jobs.

No minimum wage = fewer illegals = more jobs for lesser skilled workers.

I'm not sure if it is a perfect solutions, but it would be one [along with stricter e-verify enforcement].

it would be very difficult for widespread lowering of wages by employers. It would happen in some places, but it would cause revolt. Employers would see turn over on levels unseen before. That isn't a comfortable situation. Only the scummiest people would even dream of doing that...which probably puts them in the class that was hiring illegals anyway.

When people say manufacturing is declining in the US, what they are really saying is that the number of manufacturing jobs in the US is declining. This is due as much or more to automation as it is to trade.

I live in the Detroit area and have been inside various auto-related over the course of my lifetime. Fewer people producing ever increasing output per labor hour.

This is a good thing. Otherwise, we can all go back to being subsistence farmers and achieve full employment that way.

see my link to David Brooks above for evidence of China's job losses...10 times what the US has lost.

"The imagery (and sometimes even actual gruesome pictures) of women getting "back-alley abortions with coat hangers") is nonstop."

Not at all saying it doesn't happen, but can't say I've ever seen something like this [the gruesome pictures with coat hangers]. I do, however, see flat bed trucks driving at 5 mph straight down Main Street with 20 foot billboards of aborted fetuses every few months.

Where I said that voters should "just suck it up." Because I didn't say that. I said that voters are being frightened by a party not calling itself "Republican," Newsweek's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. And I also linked to this, which indicates--quite happily--that the economic downturn may not be as bad as people thought. That doesn't mean that we can't empathize with people who are going through tough times. It does, however, mean that we ought to ensure that we don't tend to alarmism and that we should certainly not buy into the narrative suggesting that we are the ones who go out and frighten people into voting for us.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche

absentee
Also now available at Political Machine.