more animals

IT'S ONE THING FOR THE McCAIN/PALIN CAMPAIGN TO URGE ITS SUPPORTERS TO TONE DOWN THE VITRIOL AND START PLAYING NICE with their dominant opponent, Democratic Presidential wannabe Barack Obama.

Still, though, Your Correspondent feels that "actions speak louder than words;" hence, there may be the possibility that the sleaze and vitriol may return in this the final fortnight or so before Indecision 2008. Hence, all the more importance of remembering that YOUR vote, and YOURS ALONE, makes all the more difference to where Our Beloved Nation will be heading into the 21st century.

Whether we will remain Land of the Free ... or whether we risk becoming usurped by the New World Order.

For one thing, Your Correspondent is inclined to concur with Treasury Secretary Paulson's suggestion that isolatinist and protectionist policies, and related articles of faith, will only make the danger of socioeconomic meltdown worse.

Not to mention the potential for Certain Very Dangerous Elements exploiting same for their own perverted purposes and ends.

*************

MEANHILE, TO HIS CANADIAN READERS, YOUR CORRESPONDENT EXTENDS TO THEM BEST WISHES on this their Day of Thanksgiving.

Or, if you prefer it in French, la Fête de l'Action de graces.

Never mind that we Americans have to wait until 27 November to celebrate their Thanksgiving this year.

*************

MEANWHILE, GAS PRICES CONTINUE TO GO INTO FREEFALL AND OIL PRICES HAVE FALLEN BELOW $100/BBL in response to the prevailing climate of socioeconomic turmoil and uncertainty heading into Indecision.

As for Winona, gas prices, by Unwritten Gentleman's Agreement, are now @ $2.799/gallon (73.9¢/litre) for regular unleaded, $2.819/gallon (74.4¢/litre) for super unleaded and $2.919/gallon (77.1¢/litre) for premium unleaded; E85, thanks to subsidies, sells @ $2.199/gallon (58¢/litre).

(Remember, the per-litre price is based on 3.785 litres=1 United States gallon, and should be used primarily for comparison, especially in such countries where gasoline is sold by the litre. After all, this is the World Wide Web, is it not?)

*************

ONE OF THE MORE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS BEING ASKED IN THE ELECTORAL RUNUP FOR NOTHING LESS THAN PURE, UNADULTERATED "SWIFT-BOATING" PURPOSES from the 527 fraternity of the weird and unwholesome is "Who can you trust with the economy?"

I would have to say "Trick question!!!" in view of the ad being presented by a "swift-boating" group whose associations with the Zealots and True Believers in free-market capitalism-as-Great-White-Father (Good Christians All, remember?) are inherent. And would stop @ nothing until their ultimate article of faith is achieved: No less than complete and final regulatory relief, to be based instead solely on Self-Regulatory, Industry-Specific Codes of Good Practice.

Said Codes, on closer reading, actually serving to excuse cartel behaviour @ expense of both consumers and business equally ... howbeit by having to sugar-coat the intentions therefor with code and weasel words about such things as "preventing unhealthy and destructive competition" and "protecting traditional market share" in ways not even the most notorious of all cartels, Nazi Germany's IG Farben, could have dreamed of.

And all the while still insisting that low taxes=jobs=social order.

Not to mention seeing among other Articles of Faith held dear the belief in achieving a theoretical nil rate of unemployment within the paradigms and constraints of a free-market, self-regulated, capitalist socioeconomic model (cf. Communist propaganda forever insisting that mass unemployment would be one of capitalism's failings, that they had finally achieved nil-rate unemployment--unaware all along that such considered what amounted to "make-work" jobs to create the aura of nil-rate unemployment, let alone the use of forced and convict labour).

(Come to think of it: Can you Zealots and True Believers in the Ayn Rand vein name just one "developed" soverign state where such a concept actually works in fact and in deed? And what could America learn therefrom? Or what exactly stands in the way?)

*************

FROM THE "WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON?" DEPARTMENT, via The Capital Times (cyberspace, via Madison, Wisconsin), comes these comments in editorial form about overdoing it on the paeans for a faltering candidate to reinforce its endorsement of the opposition:

The Wisconsin State Journal says: "John McCain is a great American. He would make a fine president. McCain is impressively steeled to say 'no' to runaway government spending and commitments that could lead America to financial ruin."

That absurd statement, contained in its presidential endorsement on Sunday, was meant to soften the blow to readers of the conservative newspaper who had expected a full-fledged endorsement of the Republican nominee for president.

Instead, the State Journal made the only available choice and backed Democrat Barack Obama. At a point when McCain is discrediting himself and his party, he is unworthy of support -- by Democrats, independents or Republicans.

Yet the State Journal suggests McCain would make "a fine president" and pins it on the fantasy that the senator from Arizona is some kind of fiscal conservative.

The truth is that McCain backed the Bush/Cheney administration's high-deficit, high-debt, bridge-to-bankruptcy approach more than 90 percent of the time.

Worse yet, he has championed the radical deregulation agenda that created the current financial meltdown.

And what has McCain's response been to the crisis of the moment?

He backed the flawed $850 billion bailout and pork bill that was designed to flood more taxpayer money into the accounts of the nation's most irresponsible bankers and investors.

In fairness, Obama made the same mistake.

But then McCain added insult to injury by proposing a mortgage-restructuring scheme that would reward bad bankers with as much as $300 billion more. And he continued to promote privatization of Social Security, along lines that gamble (and lose) the retirement security of Americans on flawed and dysfunctional "investments."

The suggestion that McCain would make a "fine president" is ridiculous.

The suggestion that there is a fiscal responsibility argument for McCain is madness.

It is, as well, a dangerous deception that cannot be allowed to stand.

Sooooo: "Whose side are YOU on," readers?