Random Thoughts For The Day

- Seeing as how The Modern American Right are so excited over excessively long tirades about trains ( read: Atlas Shrugged ) I'm wondering why they are so against high-speed rail.

- Why does Fox"News" boast about how most Americans watch their network while crying about how the "mainstream media" is against them? Do they not know the definition of "mainstream"?

- Why does the Modern American Right lambaste Obama's Chicago ties as "thuggish" when Ronald Reagan's childhood home is in the same city?

- When I see and hear people like Glenn Beck preach the virtues of owning gold and then complain about the devaluing of the dollar, I'm wondering if they don't understand the far reaching implications of what they are essentially doing.

- If the Modern American Right don't think we have a direct impact on our environment, then can we build a coal-fired power plant and nuclear waste dump next to Rush Limbaugh's house?

- Have you ever noticed that since Obama took office that the Modern American Right have virtually celebrated every economic negative that they can find?

An Injection Of Race And Reagan

Call me insensitive, but I could care less that it's close to the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan. I'm sure that there will be more than enough Zombie Reagan deification on Fox"News" and their sister hate-site Fox"Nation" to satiate even the most ardent of Gipper-lovers. But this piece by Reagan's adopted child Micheal is a classic representation of the memes of the modern American Right - make Reagan look on par with Jesus and frame stories about Obama within the context of race.

the past two years have made one thing clear: Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.

And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987-an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Before he was elected, in speech after speech, my father said that his economic plan would improve the lives of African-Americans. In a February 1977 CPAC address, he said, "The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: 'We offer principles that black Americans can and do support. We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs.'"

The first thing any reasonable reader will notice is the Michael is comparing almost the entire Reagan Era to one year of Obama's Presidency. The phrase "gaining traction" also leads one to understand that economic policies aren't ones that give instant gratification.

Aside from that, Michael's claims are grounded in ham-fisted representations of the realities of the 80s, relying on his citation of a "African-American" columnist to burnish his claims not on value, but on the fact that he is referencing a black man.

But moreover, this piece shows the bizarre set of standards that the modern American Right has when speaking of race, the American economy, and Presidents. Any mention of black and Obama - in regards to policy, proclamations, or initiatives - immediately results in people like Fox"News" and their talk radio allies shouting "Reparations", "Favoritism", or "White Slavery". And this piece also echoes Erik Rush's claim that Obama's "blackness" should be called into question.

At the end of the day, this is one of three things that the modern American Right only has in their rebuttal arsenal: Fear, Race, and Ignorance. While the first can work across all platforms and the later ultimately has a cure, the incessant prattling about Race from the Right will either be denied or amplified depending upon whether or not they can get any non-whites to agree with them.

Consumer Impact Indicators

While some conservatives approach Thursday economic information from what can only be described as "bragging", there's always that voice in the back of me head that asks, "where were these masters of economic analysis when Bush was in office"?

True, the American economic recovery is sluggish - to put it as gently as one can - and the vast amount of Americans are having their perceptions distorted by theories and conspiratorial ramblings of conservatives that understand the modern economic landscape about as much as I understand how to re-slipper the valve plate on a drill pump. To put it another, more simpler, way - you really need to question the source of your economic information.

And while unemployment claims dropped and "durable goods" sales dropped - when leaving out the entire transportation sector - coupled with the decrease in sales of "new" homes, it wasn't all bad news.

Americans earned more and spent more last month, and the number of people applying for unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in more than two years. At the same time, demand for long-lasting manufactured goods and new homes fell off.

All told, the latest government data released the day before Thanksgiving suggest an improving picture of the economy. Income and spending are rising, and layoffs are slowing. This comes amid a decline in manufacturing activity, which had been a source of strength for months after the recession ended, and a struggling housing market.

Analysts question whether incomes can continue to grow at a consistent pace and keep consumers spending enough to invigorate the economy.

While I think it's a bit disingenuous to home in on one particular aspect of the broader economy in order to place blame for a problem or even use it as an excuse for policy that might not be as good for the country as you would want us to believe, the fact that incomes and spending by consumers are both increasing while lay-off are declining shouldn't be overlooked by anyone.

But when I hear about "new" home sales I think about fiscal responsibility. Are people opting to rent or purchase "pre-existing " homes? Are they staying in their current home in order to save money? On the same token, are companies opting to repair equipment rather than purchasing new? Again, it's a question of how are people saving their money and does that ultimately have a negative impact on the economy?

The answer is, I really don't know - though it does seem at least marginally plausible.

Fiscal Foxes

Taxes, economics, and an alleged business anchor.



So what happened to all the investment that the top 1% earners in American did during the entirety of the Bush Tax Cuts? Where was it? What did it do?

I'll forgo the almost obvious bit about what the definition of "insanity" is, but if you kept walking the same way to school and a dog attacked you every time you went that same path, would you keep doing it?

That is essentially what Varney is advocating - a thesis that didn't pan out to start with and won't ever.

But more to the point, it seems that conservatives want more of what America has to offer but simply doesn't want to pay for it or even admit that it has to be paid for.

Deficit increases don't matter as long as you get your talking points out.

From The Mouth Of Conservative's Past

I like how Mitch McConnell says that this man absolutely has to be wrong because he held his "boss" accountable in a book he wrote. After all, we know that modern conservatives have a serious problem with accountability, even though they continually preach it.



I just love how conservatives are so intent on call Barack Obama "The Most Anti-(insert current-most abstract idea they are pretending to give two rips about) Ever"!!!!!!!

And while Mr. Stockman took the time out of his day to defend his position, I find it more than just a little telling that McConnell's handlers had to bring in a "stand-in" as it is crystal clear that Mitch doesn't have the sand or the skill to bring even a moderately understandable rebuttal. That isn't to say that the plasticine talking-point automaton that took Mitch's place did any better.

One last point I would like to bring up. While Stockman made a very clear point about reforming "entitlement" programs, he never once brought up the buzz-word that conservatives have been all too willing to repeat for the last 10 years - privatize. And this coming from the chief economic architect who worked for the man the modern conservative movement has elevated to a religious icon. Think about that for a bit.

You Can't Get There From Here

In which Paul Ryan makes absolutely no sense - again.



This whole idea that Obama, and apparently all the Democrats in Congress according to Ryan, are dedicated progressives is beyond laughable. While I would prefer Obama and Democrats in Congress to be more progressive, this simply isn't the case, as is evidenced from how often Democrats have either abandoned what they were elected to do out of some fear that America would come apart at the seams if they continued or kowtowed to conservative Republican perspectives in order to "bring people together". How is that even remotely progressive?

But here's where I think Ryan, and all like him, are completely off the rails, even though he claims to be latched onto that "third rail" that he believes will turn around the American economy. He mentioned this preposterous notion that "liberty" and the "entrepreneurial" spirit are no longer part of America. Where the fuck is this man living? Just in the last 6 months I have seen several "small businesses" open up and they are already seeing fantastic success considering where the economy still is. So, to hear this Congressman say that people aren't eager to make entrepreneurial leaps is completely outside reality. Granted, this is from my perspective in Western Kentucky, but I think that this is a signifier that shouldn't be ignored.

Conservatives are quite eager to insist that the Obama administration can't turn the economy around, even though the numbers simply don't match up with their rhetoric. The caveat to this is that the jobless numbers aren't where they should be, but I'm of the opinion that some within the private sector aren't hiring because of unfounded fears propagated by conservatives. One might call this a conspiratorial theory, but considering what is espoused by conservatives as "fact", I would have to say that my theory isn't to far outside the realm of reality.

Damning The Less Fortunate

Yep, this idiot is openly advocating for the poorest in the country to be taxed more.



I've asked this many times before - if the Bush tax cuts for the richest in the country were designed to bolster the economy ( and they clearly failed ) why are conservatives so eager to keep them in place?

Intentional Acts

In which we see how Limbaugh's racist attitudes are poisoning the airwaves - still.



While Limbaugh's full-throated idiocy from his July 2nd program goes even further than the clip highlights, one has to wonder exactly why conservatives accept such inflammatory rhetoric and racism.

There have been no words or actions from the Obama White House that suggest that they are against or have disdain of what conservatives call "American exceptionalism". It's simply something that sounds good, something that doesn't require any fact-checking or analysis, as it is so outside of reality that conservatives simply don't want to take the time to reflect on it. In that regard, conservatives are lazy, intellectually dishonest, automatons.

But this notion that Limbaugh is espousing that minorities ( in this cases, a black American that is President ) are out to destroy the American economy is utterly preposterous. The reality of Limbaugh's claim is that people like him can't stand to see a member of the American minority succeed. He and those that identify with him think that success comes to only a select few - the white, privileged, class.

And while Rush makes light of the fact that American has a very storied history of preventing the less fortunate and the non-white from attaining their goals, it doesn't surprise me that he would - quite literally - white-wash this aspect of American history away. This is one of the cornerstones of conservative ideology - to erase any wrong-doing that took place in America.

For a moment though, let's follow Limbaugh's ham-fisted logic through to it's conclusion. There are blacks in this country that have not only contempt, but explicit hatred of the white race. Why is that? How can they have such a powerful emotive response to someone, anyone for that matter, that isn't black? Just take a look at who some whites in this country elevate to celebrity status, who they get their socio-political marching orders from, and you'll have your answer.

Panic On WallStreet

Remember this clown?



So he's concerned about the deficit but not how much comes from the economy naturally? Who hired this buffoon?

In the final moments of this clip, Steve mentions 1937. That's not the first time I've heard that mentioned and it will likely not be the last. So what happened then?

By the spring of 1937, production, profits, and wages had regained their 1929 levels. Unemployment remained high, but it was considerably lower than the 25% rate seen in 1933. In June 1937, some of Roosevelt's advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWA projects were slowed to a standstill.[3] The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production of durable goods fell even faster.

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[4] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[5] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.

I've often said that the economy of today is nothing like it was during Roosevelt's tenure as President. However, the very idea of stopping all spending at once in order to balance the budget is a very risky endeavour that I'm sure Santelli knows will likely backfire, he's just too caught up in his faux populist fervor to admit it right now.

Of Numbers And How They Are Reported

Talk about a blatant lie. I'm sure Sarah Palin will defend this as "satire"' later.



The article is pretty straight-foward - 231,000 private sector jobs and 66,000 for the Census. Maybe all those years of taking drugs effected his ability to read clearly worded English.

I'll stick with reports from economists. However, to many conservatives, Limbaugh is not just a talking-head, he's an economist, foreign affairs expert, policy wonk, and overall intellectual giant.

Not all conservatives were as eager to use the data to push a specific ideological bent. Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air seemed to pull his head from his ass long enough to see that the news wasn't all that bad, but then he went back to his safe zone at the end.

...it’s important not to oversell pessimism, either. In order to bring both numbers into line with each other, we need overall job growth first. We have that in April’s figures. It’s not enough to make everything all right, of course, but it’s finally a step in the right direction. If it doesn’t pick up some momentum this month, then the growth can be called a fluke.

I detect that little Eddie is hoping the latter will occur.

Michelle Malkin plays her part in glossing over the relatively good economic news and instead favors pushing this little blog-series she has going where former Census workers talk about how they didn't like their job. Gee, Michelle, how many people outside your little bubble of a world do you know really love every aspect of their job?

Granted, 9.9% unemployment isn't a good thing. However, with the way various sectors saw some decent growth, I'm going to predict that that number is going to start shrinking come next month. Again, I'm no economist, I'm just reading the numbers and taking note of what actual economists say.

Growth Spurt

The new report on the growth of GDP is out and the Washington Post has all the details. Naturally, conservatives are going to say it's not enough - and it never is for them.

The U.S. economy grew at a 3.2 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, evidence that the economic recovery continues to plug along but that growth is not accelerating in a way that would bring down joblessness rapidly.

The first-quarter gain in gross domestic product represents a deceleration from the 5.6 percent pace of growth in the final months of 2009, and is a bit below the 3.5 percent growth analysts were forecasting.

The growth in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, was driven by a 3.6 percent rise in personal consumption expenditures. That is the largest component of GDP and suggests that American consumers are gradually coming out of their shells and returning to stores following the recession that probably ended last year.

You know what that means?

The consumer is back.

And while some within the conservative realm will pretend to be economists and dribble out their pre-screen talking points about how growth would have been better if "this" or "that" had been done, take a look at the chart below.



Granted, the growth at the end of the previous quarter was elevated due to businesses replenishing inventory ( another signal - to me at least - that businesses saw an uptrend coming and they knew they needed product ) but just take a look at how GDP has grown since Obama took office. That's a pretty clear indicator that "socialism" seems to be working.

Conservative Fail

Hey Republicans, how's that Scott Brown thing working out for you?

Newly-seated Republican Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.) on Monday joined Democrats in voting to move forward on their $15 billion jobs bill.

Brown crossed the aisle after Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) nixed an $85 billion, bipartisan plan in favor of a more narrowly-focused bill.

“I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families," Brown said in a statement. "This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work."

It's not secret that conservatives don't like the idea of Obama doing anything and are quite displeased with the Jobs Bill - even though it's specifically designed to create jobs, you know, that problem that conservative Republicans are whining about.

And all some ardent supporters of Brown can do is sigh - literally. What happened to holding your representatives accountable? Oh, that's right. It's doesn't happen when it's one of your own.

A Question Of Economics: Part VIII

I'm reminded about what has happened to Colorado Springs of late when I watch this video posted by Ellen over at Newshounds:



While conservatives lauded the Bush Tax Cuts, they have largely ignored the reality that they didn't do what they were intended to - stimulate the economy. But this cannot be brought up in modern socio-political discourse, as this would be "blaming Bush" for the economic ills that we are still facing today. But one has to wonder - who is at fault?

Back to Colorado Springs for a moment.

It seems that some "famous" residents of the conservative Mecca aren't too pleased with the fact that people are rightly pointing out how their ideology is fastly destroying their economic oasis:

I’m proud to call Colorado Springs home for myriad reasons — quality of life, cost of living, terrific schools, physical beauty, Fort Carson, the Air Force Academy, and great cultural amenities. For starters. The city leans conservative to libertarian, but is no monolith. There are “progressives” and Big Business statists and everything in between. Most importantly, politics does not poison and saturate every breath of the people who live here. They do not live to work. They work to live — bike, run, ski, climb, hike, play, explore, and enjoy their families.

Taxpayers in the Springs also happen to want to keep more of their hard-earned money away from government’s paws. They want the government to make do with less. Just like everyone else.

Which has led liberal outsiders to decry the city as it grapples with tough economic times.

That's Michelle Malkin attempting to defend the anti-tax status of her beloved, free-market, capitalist city. And much in the same way that the Bush Tax Cuts didn't help America in the least, a city almost literally dependant on nothing more than sales-taxes is one that was doomed to failure from it's very inception.

Not just within the city limits of Colorado Springs, but across the country, how exactly did giving more money back to the rich do anything to better the economy? In theory, from my limited understanding of how The Bush Tax Cuts were intended to work, the richer have more money to pump back into the economy and therefor we are all better off, as that money is used to re-oil the metaphorical gears of America. But that didn't happen, did it?

Many that I have debated over the past year on the cost, both literal and speculative, of the Bush Tax Cuts have stated that everyone got something back. And while this is barely true - even in the technical sense - it was the top 1% that could actually afford "keep" their money, while the remainder of the American people struggled with saving.

It can certainly be chalked up to "choice" and "responsibility" in spending, but when one has to chose between going to college and attaining a goal versus staying at home with your parent and attempting to make money working at the local factory, it really isn't much of a choice. Many people get stuck in that rut, as the affordability aspect of America has slipped further and further from people's reach.

I'm getting ahead of myself.

The point is that taxes in places like Colorado Springs are necessary to maintain services like the fire department, the police, schools, roads, and the "physical beauty" of those lovely parks that Malkin likely sits at while writing her screeds. When there is no money to maintain the city, the city fails - and Colorado Springs is a conservative experiment that failed, just like The Bush Tax Cuts.

Teabagger Mecca Going Bust

There's a special type of delicious irony in this happening right now:

More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.

The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.

Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that. Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.

After years and years of conservative assurances that cutting taxes, and the beloved free-market system, would make Colorado Springs a wondrous community, it looks like this little social experiment didn't work out after all.

The Illusion Of Growth?

Does the newly reported fourth quarter growth in the economy really mean what you think it does?

While there is a traditional economic law that shows a distinct relationship between GDP growth and job increases, some reports are saying that this isn't such great news, and that the relationship metric is becoming largely irrelevant.

The average person isn't going to understand the intricacies of economics and how a variety of factors ( both real and imagined ) can bring about growth or retraction. But the problem that many Americans run into is one of their own making, as they largely rely on people outside the field of economics for their information.

How good this growth is will most certainly be debated and all the noise that will likely come from Fox"News" and conservative talk radio should be recognized for what it is - noise.

The Economics Of Mental Disorders

Will this recession likely be a stimulus for the medical industry?

...we are in the midst of creating what Canadian medical historian Edward Shorter calls a symptom pool for our economic uncertainty: We are debating as a culture which symptoms and feelings we will collectively recognize as legitimate expressions of distress over this particular problem. The idea is that, while our mental issues are totally real, they are often diffuse and hard to explain. So, as we strive to communicate our internal pain, we’re drawn toward describing symptoms that are culturally legitimized. Our unconscious minds, in short, are quick to learn the language of suffering for our given time and place, even if that means adopting symptoms we didn’t notice earlier.

This phenomenon is not new. Researchers have documented that women at the turn of the 20th century commonly reported a specific set of symptoms, including leg paralysis, temporary blindness, and facial tics. These symptoms happened to fit the accepted definition of hysteria. “Patients unconsciously endeavor to produce symptoms that will correspond to the medical diagnostics of the time,” Shorter explains. “This sort of cultural molding of the unconscious happens imperceptibly and follows a large number of cultural cues that patients simply are not aware of.”

The very idea that our socio-political atmosphere essentially causes us to create our own media problems is a fascinating concept. The larger question begs to be asked - which pharmaceutical drug company is going to attempt to make money off of people's anxiety that they may lose their home? And, by extension, will this lead to an new round of interesting excuses to leave work early or ask for paid leave?

But then there's this - if you know that your fears, your apprehensions ( be they based on a realistic template or not ) will be used against you by drug companies in order to turn a profit, will you really be putting that much faith into how dangerous they are or aren't?

A Question Of Economics: Pt. V

There so much speculation going on surrounding Obama's alleged State Of The Union "spending freeze" request that it's hard to discern the facts from the fantasy.

While some conservatives are crowing that they have won, to some economists saying that this is very a "Hoovereque" move on Obama's part, one has to wonder precisely what he's going to say.

It's very easy to get lost in rank speculation, though not all of it is reactionary paranoia, but one shouldn't just simply rest back on one's heals and hope for the best. After having read Krugman, DeLong, and a variety of other economic minds, I'm inclined to be a little skeptical of this plan.

None-the-less, I'm going to wait until Thursday morning and read the political tea-leaves and see where this plan could really lead us.

How Brown Really Won

The idea is being floated by some within the progressive/liberal blogging realm, and it's starting to make a lot more sense. And this has little to do with Coakley and more to do with Obama's agenda.

No, it's not that it was wrong, it's that it wasn't enough and got derailed sometime over the summer.

Follow me to the way-back machine........

1 - The Economic Stimulus, you know that nearly $800 billion dollars that hasn't been fully spent yet and of which Republicans have been shouting "IT FAILED" since the day after Obama signed off on it, wasn't big enough. Many economists have stated as such and they are in the position to know more than Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Michelle Malkin - the trio where far too many conservatives get their economic advise.

2 - Over the summer, healthcare reform got almost completely derailed by Max Baccus and conservatives took the opportunity to use this to their advantage. This was the time during the onslaught of the "death panel" and Democrats started to invest all their time in confronting specious claims by people like Sarah Palin.

And that's when it all went downhill. The economy was forced to play second fiddle to healthcare reform. And, for all intent and purposes, Republican obstructionism worked. They shifted the focus of the Democratic party and it worked to their advantage. Then came Scott Brown.

Here's where the conservative storyline could easily have changed, because it didn't have to be Scott Brown, it could have been any conservative that had the ability to deliver a line like "it's the people's seat". Brown had a slight advantage as being a State Senator, but that would have likely been a negotiable point. After all Sarah Palin was campaigning to be a hairs breath away from the President, and look at what she had to bring to the table.

So for conservatives to claim that it was their platform, their ideological perspective, and a real "man of the people" that cause the loss for Coakley, that's pretty disingenuous. This loss is purely a matter of political malpractice and a loss of true focus from Obama and the Democrats in both houses of Congress.

But one thing Brown and his supporters should know - we are fully aware of this mistake and this win doesn't mean that the elections in November are going to reflect what happened in Massachusetts.

Revisions And Projections

I often wonder how James Carvelle can live with this woman.



Is this the new talking-point, that Sept. 11th 2001 didn't happen on Sept. 11th 2001? Dana Perino did this same thing on Sean Hannity's Fox"News" program and went unchallenged - would you expect otherwise?

But to claim that it was the Clinton administration that started the recession is somewhat of a resurgence of an old talking-point that had died out several years ago. March 2001 was the exact date of the start of Bush's first recession. And that's something that you're never going to hear from conservatives - that Bush was President during two recessions that started while he was in office.

Deregulation: Another Love Story

Raw Story has just released an article that shows that the Bush Administration blocked attempts at preventing predatory lending.

In 2004, the Office of the Currency Comptroller, an obscure regulatory agency tasked with ensuring the fiscal soundness of America's banks, invoked an 1863 law to give itself the power to override state laws against predatory lending. The OCC told states they could not enforce predatory-lending laws, and all banks would be subject only to less-strict federal laws.

And while conservatives aren't willing to accept that massive deregulation on the part of the Bush administration had anything to do with the financial collapse, they are still sticking to the talking-point that it all happened because people were taking loans that they couldn't afford.

This was a topic of discussion on last night's Hannity program where Micheal Moore presented some interesting information to counter Sean's finger-pointing.



I have often wondered why Sean Hannity favors blaming the American people the ills that the economy faces from time to time. Certainly, responsibility is a major factor, but when have you ever seen him take on big pharmaceutical companies, banks that practice in predatory lending, or companies that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or religion. You don't, because Hannity sees himself and his ideology as vastly superior to everyone else.

And as an exit question, I wonder what "stuff" is being made in America by "ethical" people that Hannity is speaking about at the end of the clip. His entire end of the argument is predicated on glittering generalities - no facts to back up his assertions. The vaugueness with which conservative approach debate in this country leaves one wondering far too often who or what they are really talking about.