I will NOT simply be ABH!

[WillyBrandt]

I refuse to go along with all those Under den Linden snobs who say I must be Anybody But Hitler!

Who do they think they are?

I was in Alexanderplatz the other day having a coffee and strudel, and I happened to say that I was thinking of spending election day hanging around the Tiergarten instead of voting. I'm simply sick of those phony sell-out "Social Democrats" who think just because they don't march around in brownshirts that I owe them my vote. I don't want to just vote against Hitler, I want to vote for somebody, like that other fellow who left politics. If I can't vote for someone, I just won't vote at all.

And--guess what!--one of them started yelling at me. How rude. He just started yelling at me! No way to get my vote (though it wasn't like I was going to give it to him anyway!)

I gave him a piece of my mind. I told him that the right is gaining more power, and that's because of cowards like him. And therefore I won't give his party my vote, because only after I deny it to him will his party learn to earn and respect it. I'm not going to vote for just another-corporate stooge party. Except for the the names, the posters, and the tuba songs, the parties are pretty much the same in my opinion.

Maybe ABH is good for other people, for those who are willing to go along with the once-great, now-corrupted social Democrats.

But don't expect me to go goose-stepping in line with them!

[Old and In the Way]

1. Good one WillyBrandt!

and really not too far off the mark....

[jpgray]

2. You seem to be echoing my boring, ignored threads with exciting ones :-)

Take a look.

I respect you, but I don't agree with the way you are making your points tonight. Good night. :hi:

[WillyBrandt]

4. Don't worry--You'll snap eventually

Unless you're superhuman, it'll happen.

If you can keep up the politeness, then you've got powers I lack.

Nite!

[jpgray]

8. I've snapped many a time on this forum. :-) Nite. (nt)

[RandomKoolzip]

3. I think I realize what the whole anti-ABB thing is about.

BTW, I am ABB all the way. Dean was my guy, but I'll be DELIGHTED to vote for any Dem...and yes, Ivoted Nade in 2000 (I can be an asshole sometimes.).

Anyways, I think the problem here is that these anti-ABBers like to think of themselves as independant, no-one-tells-me-what-to-do kinda people. It's not that they really really want Nader or whoever, it's that they are uncomfortably with anyone even HINTING at "telling them what to do". Take it or leave it, I think that's the whole issue here: the thought that someone MIGHT be making TOO powerful a suggestion.

However, I think voting third party in 2004, with the stakes this high, is about as smart as dipping one's genitals in a fish tank full of pirhanas. THERE IS SO MUCH TO LOsE HERE, FOLKS, AND voting "on principle" or because you simply take umbrage at someone other than yourself claiming to be the voice of authority in these matters, is selfish in the extreme. Face it, comprimise is central to American politics.

[JackDragna]

14. That's right.

It's because we don't want people to tell us what to do. Not because we don't want to elect people with stances we find abhorrent. People, say, who vote for wars under false pretenses, support ridiculous "wars" on nouns of various kinds and support draconian legislation restricting civil rights. See, it's all because we just don't want anyone telling us what to do. Insulting your opponents doesn't support your points, kemosabe. Would you like to buy a vowel?

[Zhade]

49. THANK you.

See, I don't give a fuck what people think of me. I'm preoccupied with trying to keep the larger picture in mind: even if we win this November, the battle is by no means over.

It will rage on, under Republican or Democrat, because their corporate masters are the ultimate source of danger to this country and world.

I think some like to write us off as "independent-wannabes" because there's some uncomfortable truths in what's being said.

There is a looooooooooooooong road ahead of us, and this election is not going to fix everything. Not by a long shot. So we must at least be aware of the negative things about the Dem nominee so that we can prepare for the battle with him, if we successfully throw the traitors out in November.

[tedoll78]

5. Ouch.

This one's going to be entertaining. I like it!

[Guaranteed]

6. Would you vote for somebody that voted with Hitler, though? nt

[WillyBrandt]

9. If it meant defeating Hitler, then of course. The alternative is...?

[Guaranteed]

10. They supported Hitler's policies.

What kind of logic is that?

The alternative is voting for somebody that DIDN'T vote with Hitler...you thought of that, didn't you?

[WillyBrandt]

12. Arghhhh!!!!!

Pulling hair out... William Shirer is rolling in his grave

[Wonk]

11. So, in this hypothetical, you would vote for, say, Hermann Goering?

Just asking...

[WillyBrandt]

13. Goering was a Nazi. I would have voted for the Social Democrats.

[Guaranteed]

15. But you would have made sure that you voted for somebody who

clearly opposed his policies, right? You wouldn't have voted for someone who enabled him to exterminate his own people, right?

[WillyBrandt]

16. Do you know your German History?

Your going back and forth decades. It's not making any sense.

The exterminations happened AFTER Hitler gained control and consolidated his power, though it was perfectly clear that he would do so WAY in advance.

There was no opposition party to vote for in, say, 1942. By then it was too late.

It's not yet too late here to prevent far more harm.

[Guaranteed]

19. Hey, this was YOUR brainchild. nt

[JackDragna]

21. Let's turn your history on its head.

Hitler gained significant political power because the moderate elements of the government, including Hindenburg, caved into his demands. They made him chancellor in hopes of appeasing his movement and ending the violence on the streets. If you want to make historical paralells, make them between the easily-won-over capitulators in Germany during the 30's and the Democrats nationally who beat the drum for Bush as he went to war. The only way of stopping a man like Bush is to elect those who will stand up to him, not to hope a move toward increasingly right-wing ideology and rhetoric will sap his support.

[WillyBrandt]

22. Um, no...

Hitler's power went on the fast track to absolutism not so much because of weakness within the other parties in Parliament, but for two other related reasons:

1. People failed to realize his utter radicalness, and didn't let that realization animate their actions;

and

2. Anti-Nazis did not unite. The Social Democrats were sometimes wary of the Communists; the Communists were contemptuous of everyone, hoping for instantr revolution. With a splintered Left, a united Right--and remember, conservatives helped the radical Nazis seize power, thinking they could be controlled--that had Hitler at its helm took over.

It's not because left-wingers did not yell from rooftops. It's because the Right were united, organized, and determined, and the Left was not.

[JackDragna]

25. Um, yes...

..if Hitler had not been appointed chancellor to appease the Nazi party, the party may have collapsed under its own weight. Hitler's appointment gave him a good deal of political cache and galvanized the Nazi movement. And don't feed me the line about how people didn't realize his "radicalness." Maybe people didn't know he was going to cause the frigging world war, but Germany was a place full of anti-Jewish sentiment and xenophobia for centuries before the 30's. Germans read Mein Kampf and they knew what it meant.

[Zhade]

51. Isn't that an eternal problem, though?

Leaving aside the current ABB discussion, in the larger socio-political sense, isn't the left often less organized than the right, particularly the right under the neoconservative/fundamentalist Christian construct?

The nature of inclusive democracy, with its "Big Tent" mentality and expansive ideals, doesn't march to the beat of one drummer. The extreme right, supported by its less zealous but ever-loyal conservative base, can fall into lockstep mentality over almost every issue.

I was just pondering the organizational chaos of the current left this evening, and your comment regarding the disunited Anti-Nazis stirred this in my mind.

Interested in your thoughts.

[Zhade]

52. Sorry, you've contradicted yourself.

"People failed to realize his utter radicalness, and didn't let that realization animate their actions"

Reconcile that with this earlier statement you made, please:

The exterminations happened AFTER Hitler gained control and consolidated his power, though it was perfectly clear that he would do so WAY in advance.

Did they recognize his radical nature, since "it was perfectly clear that he would do so WAY in advance"? Or did they ignore the danger and enable Hitler's rise to power, like the current Democratic frontrunners have enabled b*sh?

[WillyBrandt]

60. Amendment: It SHOULD have been perfectly clear to everyone

who bothered thinking.

[AntiCoup2K4]

68. Yes it should have been

Just like the PNAC agenda,(Mein Kampf of the 21st century) including the fact that it called for a takeover of Iraq, should have been perfectly clear to everyone.

But that didn't stop Kerry and the rest of the pink tutu wearing appeasement "democrats" from voting for it.

[Guaranteed]

18. You know, I'm starting to see an analogy here between the situation

you brought up and the situation we're in now. Maybe you should consider voting for a third party this time around.

[JVS]

43. You couldn't have in 1932, they ran no candidate,

[WillyBrandt]

45. Um--Hitler became CHANCELLOR, not President. His Party

did very well in the elections.

[JVS]

50. Hitler ran for any position. Wanted president, glad to take chancellor

He was wiley.

[JVS]

42. The SPD did when they supported the grand coalition that made Kiesinger...

a former Nazi party member the Chancellor in the 60's. The best part is Kiesinger was then a member of the CDU, Germany's primary conservative party. Way to collaborate, SPD!

[JackDragna]

7. Wow. You managed all the distortions about the election..

..in one post! Let's see..first off, Bush is not a fascist, despite what we think of him. Secondly, the so-called "opposition" party in this case was all in favor of "Hitler" annexing the Sudetenland, pushing for Anschluss and invading Poland on the "evidence" that a few Polish soldiers launched an attack from across the border. From all of us on DU who aren't going to vote for a warmonger..well, you know what you can do with your analogy.

[4morewars]

24. I beg to differ ...

from your post:
"...first off, Bush is not a fascist"

Mussolini's definition:
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

more here:
www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

[JackDragna]

27. You beg, but I'm not giving you anything.

It takes a little bit more than being a warmonger to be a fascist. By that definition, every nation which aggressively pursues military campaigns are fascist. Many nations of the world are aggressive, yet not fascist. They may be dictatorships, true, but they're not fascist. Fascism requires a sense of ultranationaism, populism and cultural rebirth that I don't think Bush possesses. Fascists are zealots: Bush and his cronies, with Ashcroft excepted, are just in this to hold onto power and enrich themselves. Few of them have shown significant right-wing political zeal except when appealing to their core electorate. They've even abandoned hard-core "conservative" principles like smaller government and reduction in international interventions.

[4morewars]

34. OK

from your post(#27):
"By that definition, every nation which aggressively pursues military campaigns are fascist."

That's a strawman, and I'm not going to say any more on that, nice try though !

From your post:
"Fascism requires a sense of ultranationaism"

From the American Fascist Movement web sight:
Nationalism - The AFM looks at the nation as of prime importance in every aspect of life. Every culture deserves a nation or homeland in order to secure its destiny and way of life. We will always fight for a strong country. Flag burners, criminals, and others that harm our country in any way will not be tolerated, and will be punished accordingly (ie. exile, capital punishment, jail time, or community service).
My opinion:
I believe bush* and his ilk love waving the flag around, and reminding us of what great Murikans they are. How about the opressive new set of laws called The "Patriot" Act ? Just the name sickens me, along with the implication that if one disagrees,they are unpatriotic. There are many more examples of the increased nationalism, as I'm sure you aware.

Again, from your post:
"Fascists are zealots"
My opinion:
Bush* believes he was appointed by God, and that he is doing God's work. What is more zealous than that?
Your words:
"Few of them have shown significant right-wing political zeal "
You can't be serious? In my lifetime, in this country, I have not seen ANY group, more right wing than this bunch.

If Bush* is not fascist, please, tell me a better term ? Convince me.

[JackDragna]

47. It's not a strawman.

You included one post, one definition of fascism from Mussolini: that of military aggression. It's not a strawman to dismiss your argument as such.

As for the rest of your post (covering both ultranationalism and zealotism), you simply don't know much about Bush's inner circle. Bush and his inner circle are primarily businessmen. They give lip service to flag burning, Jesus and religious causes because it plays well to their base. Bush has made all kinds of declaration about God, but this is a man who didn't have much use for religion until he was elected president. He had a reputation as a drinker, a socialite and a corporate gadfly. Most members of his inner circle, like Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, have similar backgrounds. The Patriot Act is an oppressive piece of control, but it's not anywhere near as invasive or devastating to democracy as Hitler's Enabling acts. Fascism requires a whole hill of beans more evidence than you and the alarmists are peddling.

[Zhade]

53. Hmmm. Don't be so sure.

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

On the not voting for a warmonger thing, though - I hear ya. If I have to pull that lever for Kerry or Edwards, it will hurt a lot.

[zoeyfong]

56. Exactly. It's not like it's a choice between Hitler and Mother Theresa.

[snoochie]

69. Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of that analogy n/t

[MI Cherie]

17. Sometimes voting ...

... against something is the only way to vote for something.

[WillyBrandt]

20. I'm voting against Bush, for the nominee, and for an America

that has its soul back.

[BootinUp]

23. Will WTF!

Hey man, hang in there. You are one of the 4 cornerstones here at DU.

[WillyBrandt]

26. I'm going nuts, Jim. I'm close to calling it quits on DU

Maybe... we'll see...

I don't know what's happening here. Right when it looks like we'll defeat the liar in chief, everyone here is bragging about how they're voting third party or sitting on their hands....

I mean, I just don't know... what the fuck?

[Wonk]

28. Dictionary time

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anyone
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=everyone

[WillyBrandt]

30. I apologize for the English vernacular

Where "everyone" can simply mean many people, especially in context where a person is particularly attuned to those someones for whatever reason.

I'll be sure to speak in First Order Predicate Calculus in the future so that confusion does not again recur.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

32. Will, I want you to know

that I have never felt better about our chances in November. The Bush Administration is fuckin up every gawd damn day. One day it is about job creation. The next day it is about Mcdonalds jobs should be called manufacturing jobs.

WILL! THEY ARE GOING DOWN MAN!

We can do this. Hang in there and I will see you later, and don't even think about leaving DU. :)

[WillyBrandt]

35. Thank you!

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Will, don't go!

You're one of the sanest and most intelligent voices on this board. We need you here.

The admins are just loosening things up for a little while to let people get things out of their system before we finally have to unite behind our Democratic candidate.

Please stay, you're my favorite poster.

[WillyBrandt]

36. Thanks, crunchyfrog

I'm just wasting so much time arguing the obvious. Man! It's simple:

1. These fucks need to go
2. We go to pursue the path that actualizes (1)

But thanks again CF. I might stick around, but at a lower boil :)

Night!

[Crunchy Frog]

37. If I were you, I would just chill out

for a little while, this shit is only going to be going on for a short period of time. Just put a bunch of people on ignore and make liberal use of the hide thread feature, and don't sweat things.

It will get more sane around here, I promise.:)

[WillyBrandt]

39. You're right, you're right

I need to be chasing tail and drinking wine, not arguing with fruitcakes on a message board.

You yourself should be doing the same and not giving free, extremely good advice for strangers online! :)

[zoeyfong]

57. Well I'm close to calling it quits on the democratic party.

You know, it shouldn't be that hard to offer a candidate who didn't collaborate with Bush in the most heinous of his crimes. If Kerry is the best we can do, who really needs the democrats these days? And i say this as a lifelong democrat and one who most definitely did not vote for Nader in 2000.

[JVS]

58. I also voted for Gore in 2000 and would do so gladly again to this day.

and I agree with your post entirely. Is it that hard?

[MurikanDemocrat]

62. Nader will be lucky if he gets 1% this time. Don't sweat it.

I'm finding that GD Primary doesn't represent the real world.

[Endangered Specie]

29. Nice one, you have a gift

[Crunchy Frog]

31. I think you hit the nail

right on the head with that one. :yourock:

[John_H]

38. brilliant.

[JVS]

40. NEWSFLASH: SPD ran no candidate in 1932!

http://www.pacificu.edu/academics/special/ohrc/hitlerandpolitics.html


Maybe their lack of opposition is why Hitler was able to come to power in the first place.

[WillyBrandt]

44. Two things

1. The Democrats are running a Presidential candidate this year; and
2. Hitler's power originated through his Party's parliamentary power and unity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hitler was not elected President, losing to Hindenberg (kinda like Bush) He instead became Chancellor through parliamentary machinations and through the acquiesence of the senile Hindenberg.

[Wonk]

46. One thing

If the Thule Society had been exposed in the 1920's the Nazi's quest for power may have been nipped in the bud.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Hitler+Thule
http://www.google.com/search?q=Skull+Bones+Thule

[JVS]

54. Well then, do you really think the initial comparison is valid?

In that the SPD, the biggest proponent of democracy, was irresponsible in its conduct of the 32 elections. True, the party had developed impressive discipline in the decades leading up to 1912. But the splitting of the party over war credits in WWI and the failure of the SPD to gain acceptance beyond its working-class base and it's inability to stave off Nationalism (from benign to malignant) with its loss of power in the mid 20's had largely eroded the dedication of party members. Because of this it was ridiculous for the party to believe that it could simply order constituents to vote for Hindenburg, a candidate for the nationalist Spiessbuerger. So we have an election between Hitler, the populist nationalist, and Hindenburg, the respected bourgeois nationalist. In American terms, imagine an election between George Bush Sr (Hindenburg). and a charismatic version of Pat Buchanan (Hitler), and for anyone who thinks pat is OK now, remember how he scarred people with his speech at the Republican convention. OK, so you now have the left-most party with exception of the KPD, and the SPD at the time was still a big old leftist shit-talking party, telling its voters to go with Hindenburg. The SPD was basically bowing out of politics. And not surprisingly the NSDAP did well. Particularly among the lower classes who really didn't relate well to the "respectable nationalist" parties in the election. They did so well that it was almost impossible for the other parties to build a coalition. Especially because the SPD was still considered pariah among the parties that it had sought to work with.

So you tell me, do you think that this is an accurate description of the current situation? If so is that not a pathetic statement for the condition of the Democratic party? If not, why draw historical parallels that don't fit?

Issue 2.
Hitler lost the election for Reichspraesident to Hindenburg in early 1932. Fortunately for Hitler, Hindenburg really didn't want to stand up to him at all. See what happens when you vote ABH?

"Hitler was not elected into power, he was appointed Chancellor by president Hindenburg, and that was done as a last resort. Hitler was the last person in a virtual 'parade of Chancellors' that was appointed by Hindenburg, each one could not make a go of it. In May 1932, Hindenburg appointed Franz von Papen, a conservative aristocrat whom no one took seriously, as Chancellor but he was soon ousted by Kurt von Schleicher, the devious Defense Minister, who was then appointed Chancellor. Since Hitler was the only conservative politician to have power with the masses, Schleicher thought that he could use him and control him. Schleicher also wanted to stormtroopers to be connected to the army so that he could control them too. Hitler, however, could not be used; He wanted the Chancellorship and he flatly refused anything less. He would not share power with anyone or join any coalition government."
http://www.thirdreichpages.org/chancellor.htm

So we see now that real opposition is necessary, and not just a weak platitude like ABH. Germany needed someone who would stand up to Hitler, not cooperate with him. It is the contention of many in this forum that we also need someone to fight Bush, not to collaborate with Bush.

[JVS]

55. Long version short

Does not the difference of #1 make the current situation no longer homomorphic to the 1932 situation?

[WillyBrandt]

61. Analogies don't always perfectly map

If you look at every particular. Here's the crux I was getting at:

- If you vote for party X you decrease the probability that person Y attains power, consolidates power, etc.

- For certain Y, and in certain moments of historical crisis, it's absolutely imperative that you vote for X, regardless of your dissatisfaction with Y.

It's hard to make analogies with the US and any other country in a perfectly clean way because of the oddness of our political system. In fact, the analogy isn't with the political system per se at all: it's about the individual voter, his/her motivations, and his/her responsibility at a moment of serious crisis.

[Zhade]

48. Cute.

Look, guys like me who despise the cowardice of Kerry and others, we know b*sh is the problem. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'll pull the damn lever for the Dem nominee.

Just don't expect a hell of a lotta change. There will some, on some issues. The big ones, such as corporate buying and selling of the government? Forget it, that's not going to happen under a DLC candidate.

I'll vote for the Dem, but if people want to vote 3rd party, like it or not, that's their right. It's a dangerous factor in this election, but they still have the right to do it.

I'm hoping most won't, of course. But it's their decision.

[DeepModem Mom]

59. Thanks, again, Willy --

I really identified with something you said in a response post. I come here to DU for news, enlightenment, lots of things, but especially to be in the company of people who understand the seriousness of the threat Bush poses, and are dedicated to getting him out of our White House. So, at this amazing point, when our candidates are leading Bush in the polls, and the press is no longer in total lockstep behind W, I would expect, after more than three years of absolute hell, that I might find some satisfaction with the glimmer of hope we see now, and pride that maybe our efforts had something to do with it. But right now, that glimmer of hope is completely drowned out by the third-partyers, Naderites, and discontented possible sit-at-homers -- and the threat those groups pose to what is only a fighting chance to beat Bush, and the unprecedented power behind him, is truly frightening.

[Kahuna]

63. Love it Willy! You are so clever!

:loveya:

[MSchreader]

64. The Social Democracy supports Bruening...

The Social Democracy supports Bruening, votes for him, assumes responsibility for him before the masses-on the grounds that the Bruening government is the "lesser evil." Die Rote Fahne attempts to ascribe the same view to me-on the grounds that I expressed myself against the stupid and shameful participation of the Communists in the Hitler referendum. But have the German Left Opposition and myself in particular demanded that the Communists vote for and support Bruening? We Marxists regard Bruening and Hitler, Braun included, as component parts of one and the same system. The question as to which one of them is the "lesser evil" has no sense, for the system we are fighting against needs all these elements. But these elements are momentarily involved in conflicts with one another and the party of the proletariat must take advantage of these conflicts in the interest of the revolution.

There are seven keys in the musical scale. The question as to which of these keys is "better" -- do, re, or sol -- is a nonsensical question. But the musician must know when to strike and what keys to strike. The abstract question of who is the lesser evil -- Bruening or Hitler -- is just as nonsensical. It is necessary to know which of these keys to strike. Is that clear? For the feebleminded let us cite another example. When one of my enemies sets before me small daily portions of poison and the second, on the other hand, is about to shoot straight at me, then I will first knock the revolver out of the hand of my second enemy, for this gives me an opportunity to get rid of my first enemy. But that does not at all mean that the poison is a "lesser evil" in comparison with the revolver.

The misfortune consists precisely of the fact that the leaders of the German Communist Party have placed themselves on the same ground as the Social Democracy, only with inverted prefixes: the Social Democracy votes for Bruening, recognizing in him the lesser evil. The Communists, on the other hand, who refuse to trust either Braun or Bruening in any way (and that is absolutely the right way to act), go into the streets to support Hitler's referendum, that is, the attempt of the fascists to overthrow Bruening. But by this they themselves have recognized in Hitler the lesser evil, for the victory of the referendum would not have brought the proletariat into power, but Hitler. To be sure, it is painful to have to argue over such ABC questions. It is sad, very sad indeed, when musicians like Remmele, instead of distinguishing between the keys, stamp with their boots on the keyboard.

L.D. Trotsky, "For a Workers' United Front against Fascism":
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/311208.htm

For more writings by Trotsky, see:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm

Martin

[Mairead]

65. Exactly! Don't vote for Hitler, vote for Göring instead--he's much better

After all, he was an officer and 'war hero', an 'ace', in the Freiherr von Richtofen's squadron during the War. Plus he has great taste in art and is a nice guy to go bummeling with.

Or Himmler! Very smart, a Christian, has a nice family. And he's not Hitler!

Die Fahne hoch! Ruhe im Glied da! Vorwääärts! links! zwo! drei! vier! Irgendeiner außer Hitler!

[Walt Starr]

66. Apples and Oranges

Bush is not Hitler and comparing him to Hitler denigrates those people who were actually harmed by Hitler.

Bush is not going to become a dictator. It doesn't work that way here. No amount of fear mongering will change that.

[InvisibleTouch]

67. There's no Goering in this Analogy

None of our candidates are "Goerings". Some of them may have sometimes voted in ways that we don't agree with, but is it really possible to find any candidate with whom each one of us agrees 100 percent? I'm sure if we dig through their voting records in detail, we'll come up with lots of instances where even our chosen favorites did or said or supported something that turns us off. But in the big picture, they're still light-years ahead of the alternative. Yes, even Kerry. ;)

Great post, Willy! Stick around....