Why do people feel they have to lie to enhance a perfectly good argument?

I've said before that lying, even in a good cause, is wrong- and now here's an even more egregious example. First listen to the President speaking about budget proposals:


Sounds compelling to me! How can anyone justify cutting infrastructure spending, when the lack of maintenance caused that bridge in Minneapolis to collapse? 13 people died in that tragedy; what bastards those Republicans are to not care how many more they kill with their penny pinching!

There's just one minor detail, a mere quibble, really: It's a lie! The bridge collapsed because of a design flaw, not poor maintenance. According to the NTSB, the primary structural members, "gusset plates", were too small even for the original design weight, much less the extra abuse they were heaping on it when it fell: "On November 13, 2008, the NTSB released the findings of its investigation. The primary cause was the under-sized gusset plates, at 0.5 inches (13 mm) thick. Contributing to that design or construction error was the fact that 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete were added to the road surface over the years, increasing the dead load by 20%. Also contributing was the extraordinary weight of construction equipment and material resting on the bridge just above its weakest point at the time of the collapse. That load was estimated at 578,000 pounds (262,000 kg) consisting of sand, water, and vehicles. The NTSB determined that corrosion was not a significant factor, but that inspectors did not routinely check that safety features were functional.[135]" (Wikipedia) You could have given the maintenance crews an extra billion dollars, and it wouldn't have saved the bridge, because they were maintaining a fatally flawed structure. Extra maintenance dollars don't mean much when you're loading more than a half a million pounds onto something that wasn't up to code to begin with!

The rest of the President's argument was good enough in its own right- why did he feel he needed to lie to strengthen it? Are politicians unaware that when they're caught at it, people often consider the entire position discredited? Why do they risk it?

Joe Republican

That's the title of a Facebook essay by Jeff Parker that I just saw, attention being drawn by Desmond Ravenstone. In this essay, Joe Republican goes through a normal day, and we see how his life is made better by things Republicans opposed. (We'll set aside for the moment that the very concept of the essay- Republicans believe all government is bad- is a straw man; after all, the reason there is a Republican party is because they believe there is a place for government- otherwise, they'd be anarchists.)

It starts off with his pills and his breakfast- "Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry." Hmmm, what girly-man liberal would that be? The Food and Drug Administration was created by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, the "Rough Rider", "Big Stick" girly-man.

In the second paragraph, "Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air." Ok, let's see; what wacko liberal was it who proposed and signed into law the Environmental Protection Agency? That would be Richard Millhouse Nixon. He goes on to talk about the subways, but I can't comment on that- like 90% of all Americans, I don't live anywhere near a subway. I do pay for them, but I don't get to use them.

He then talks about Joe's job. "If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune." Well, it's hard to talk about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat here, because these things are administered at the state level, and individual states have different political histories. But there are some federal guidelines written by the Department of Labor. And what stupid liberal took the bureau of labor out of the back offices of the Interior Department and made it a cabinet level department in its own right? That would be Republican President Taft.

Then Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae mortgage... gee, I wonder if that's one of the subprime mortgages that destroyed the housing industry, and made for the half a trillion dollar bailout? I'm afraid Jeff's got me there, that is a Democratic project.

He then plans to visit his father, in a car that's safe because of government regulations... Is he referring to regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the office that regulates industry for the safety of both the workers and their customers- created by that bleeding-heart liberal Richard Nixon? His father lives in an old house- "The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification." I wonder if he's referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the government corporation that brought electricity to the vast center of America, the portion hardest hit by the depression... you know, the creation of Republican Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska.

On the way home, of course, Joe listens to talk radio- "The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day." Perhaps he doesn't mention it because it isn't true.

Update to Monday Potpourri

In last Monday's"Monday Potpourri", I linked to an article about a study showing that elected officials know even less about the US Constitution than the general public. Here is a clip from a CNN interview in which Senator Chuck Schumer, (D, NY) delineates the three branches of government: The House, the Senate, and the President:

How is President Obama like President Bush?

They both called for a gentler tone in public debate, and both were ignored by their own parties. One week after one of President Obama's best speeches, with an impassioned plea for civility, Democrats are right back to calling Republicans Nazis.
I'm sure by morning Republicans will be calling Democrats socialists*, and we'll be back to normal.

*I wasn't referring to Bernie Sanders, who actually ran as a socialist.

UPDATE: The Congressman defends himself in a CNN interview by comparing the Tea Party to the KKK. His proof? That they speak of wanting to "take the country back"- which, as I pointed out, was the title of a book by Democrat party chairman Howard Dean, and the motto of out-of-power candidates in every election cycle.

Rhetoric redux

There are still today quite a number of blog posts decrying the political atmosphere they say- while admitting there's no evidence of it- contributed to the mass murder in Arizona. The latest angle, echoed in at least two UU blogs, ( Rev. Dr. Marilyn Sewell and RevThom ) concerns campaign imagery. Says Rev. Thom, "Giffords’ opponent in the last November’s midterm election traded in disturbing imagery. His campaign photos depicted him dressed in camouflage and holding an assault rifle." But when I Googled for more such campaign pictures, I found this...

Yes, that's Representative Giffords holding an assault rifle. And not just any assault rifle, but a semiautomatic version of the famous Soviet AK47.

Look people, as I noted in my previous post, nobody has an exclusive on over the top rhetoric. (Note that the phrase "Over the top" is of military origin, from WWI) Now, many have said that the right does so much more of it that the left's few examples hardly count, and to you I say, with feeling, Bullshit.

Perhaps it's because I'm older than many of my fellow bloggers; born in the 50s, I grew up in the 60s... my first memories of political violence was the assassination of JFK- by a communist. I remember the SDS and the SLA, who considered murder, bombs, and bank robbery political acts. I remember Bernadine Dhorn and the Weathermen, and their bombs. I remember vandalism at college campuses, the destruction of ROTC classrooms, and attacks on draft centers. I remember mass rioting, cities all across America burning. I remember the 68 Democratic Convention devolving into shouting inside and rioting outside. Maybe you don't remember, but what got Nixon elected- despite the fact that even a lot of Republicans thought he was a pig- was that the nation was sick of the hooliganism of the left. So I repeat- nobody has any room pointing fingers on political rhetoric.

And worse, it's insane to ascribe reasons to irrationality. From William McKinley to Harvey Milk, from Reagan to Giffords, none of their actual or attempted assassins have had a coherent political philosophy. If you wanted to ban those things that are proven to incite political assassination, you'd have to ban Twinkies and Jodie Foster movies. Call for the moderation of political rhetoric all you want- I did plenty of it in the last few election cycles. But pretending that standard political phrases and/or tactics that have been around for decades or centuries are newly minted, violent, or racist hate speech is indulging in the demonization of your enemies (who should be your loyal opposition), not warning against it.

That awful, violent, Palin/Tea Party rhetoric

I've been reading a number of UU bloggers writing about how right wing rhetoric lead to the tragedy in Arizona. They may have a point- listen to this exhortation: "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America" Take our country back from whom? Why, obviously from the black man in the White House- just another example of racist Tea Party rhetoric, with that extra little "restoring democracy" dig as a reference to Obama's non-citizen status that the TP types all believe, that democracy has been subverted and they must "restore" it by throwing him out. I've had it explained to me at length a number of times.

Of course, "You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America" is actually the title of Howard Dean's book. I will grant that it was written by a white man, though.

Well, ok, but what about the map with the targets on it? There I have to agree; that's irresponsible at best and incitement to murder at worst- I mean c'mon, look at it:

Oops, my mistake, that wasn't Sarah Palin's map with the surveyor's targets on it, that was the Democratic Leadership Council's "Targeting Strategy" map, with shooting range bull's eyes on it. That's a relief; it's ok when Democrats do it.

At least that's not as bad as when Glenn Beck said he'd cut Obama's nuts off! Oh, wait, my mistake again; that was Jesse Jackson

Hmm. This is getting complicated; why don't we try to find out if Jared Loughner is sane enough to have even had a coherent political stance, then try to sort out whether that stance is left or right from all the conflicting nonsense before we start saying whose rhetoric is to blame?

UPDATE:

Did you see it or hear it?

There's a similar effect in politics. When you watch a politician speak on TV or in person, the speaker makes sense; but when you watch it play out in real life, it turns out to be bollocks.

If you think campaign rhetoric is bad this year,

check this out from a slightly earlier campaign:

Dedicated to the politicians amongst us

I thought of the chorus of this song when I heard about Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell's old interview tapes being played during the campaign, but in fact every politician should remember it.

I'm listening to the healthcare debate in the House

on Fox radio as I write. Why? Because I don't have cable TV, so I don't have C-Span; ABC, CBS, and NBC local affiliates have 8 digital channels between them, and none are carrying this historic debate and vote. Nor is the Fox TV affiliate. The local public television affiliate, with three channels, is not carrying it. Nor is public radio around here.

I find it ironic that the only broadcast source in the 10th largest city in the nation that is carrying the whole debate live is the much-reviled right wing AM talk radio, specifically NEWSTALK 1430 WXNT I'll try not to be snarky the next time one of the big public radio/TV fans at church tell me how ignorant talk radio listeners are.

Impeach Obama!

That was the centerpiece of the campaign K. Rogers ran in the Texas primary elections for the 22nd Congressional district. It was shouted from a sound truck, and posted on an 18 foot banner. During the campaign, Rogers denounced warnings of global warming as imperialist genocide, proclaimed that London banking interests are bent on ruining America's economy and accused Obama of “pissing on the legacy of President John F. Kennedy”

So what, you say? The Republican party is chockablock full of right wingnuts, especially in the south; what's one more racist teabagger? Well, there's more:
Rogers won the primary, and is now the party's candidate for Congress from the 22nd district.

Again, so what? As Peter Jennings famously said after Reagan's reelection, "The angry white male has had his little tantrum"- let the Republicans keep marginalizing themselves. Well, there's still more:

Kesha Rogers is an African American woman, and she won the Democratic party's nomination for Congress. Here is a news story about the election, and Ms. Roger's website. Note the campaign broadcasts on her website, with their cute "Down with the traitors" theme song.

My point? One more bit of evidence that it's time to stop blaming Republicans for the lack of progress. When you own the Presidency, both houses of Congress, a majority of Governorships, a majority of state congresses, a majority of big city mayors, and a majority of those city councils, it starts getting really old really fast when you keep blaming the other party for an inability to pass legislation or implement policies.

Olbermann and the UUA

Looking up the numbers, I find I made a mistake in my comments to my last post, Maybe Keith Olbermann has a point I said that the Tea Party movement was 5% whiter than the population as a whole; I was remembering old numbers (something I find happening more often these days- I must keep reminding myself I've been out of school for 30 years)- the country is 65.6% white, not 75%

That being the case, I must reassess the question Keith Olbermann asked: "Ask yourself: Where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a president's policy and not his skin. Ask yourself one final question: Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you'll ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you?"

Leaving aside for the moment that I've only been a spectator to, not a participant in any Tea Party rallies, I had to ask myself if the premise of the question is correct: is it the whitest crowd I'd ever be surrounded by? Not according to the article Can Unitarian Universalism change? in the UUWorld. The UUA is much whiter than the Tea Party movement, 89% vs. 80%, with 95.7 percent of active ministers being white; has half the number of African Americans, 1% vs. 2%; and far fewer Latino/Latina, 3% vs. 10%. (and yes, I know that your congregation is different)

This is an old argument, with liberals saying the numbers tell all, and conservatives saying sometimes you have to ask why the numbers skew the way they do. I’ve always presumed the two biggest reasons why UU tended to be so white were first, the reputation UU has for secular humanism; African Americans consistently poll much more devout than whites- they prefer having God in their churches, and second, the reserved, Apollonian, New England style of most UU congregations; many blacks and southern whites prefer a more Dionysian, “make a joyful noise” style of worship. Combine that with the BAC walkout in ‘69 and our demographics were inevitable. But if you agree with Keith Olbermann that numbers tell all, then to be intellectually consistent, you’d have to rate the UUA as the most racist organization in America not listed by the government as a hate group.

To me, part of assuming the inherent dignity and worth of all people is to make an effort to understand why people hold the views they do. To not presume evil intent unless it is demonstrated. I do not assume that all big government fans are budding Stalinists, nor that their opponents are budding Hitlers. When I know that Paleoconservatives and Libertarians have been bashing Bush for years for spending money like a drunken cliché, loudly protesting his deficits and bailouts, I am not surprised when they protest President Obama’s, too. If the protests are bigger now, well, so are the deficits and bailouts- you don’t have to be a racist to be afraid of the numbers.

I’ve written before about the need to take a breath, relax, and examine the arguments before leaping to conclusions and insulting people, posts such as How can you respect silly beliefs? and How theists and atheists can share UU and no doubt I’ll do so again. And sometimes I fail. But we have to try- not merely because it will make more light and less heat; but because, damn it, it’s the right thing to do.

Maybe Keith Olbermann has a point

UPDATE: Humor can be a subtle thing. The video above was not intended to agree with Olbermann, it was intended to ridicule him. Compare the faces of the NBC family surrounding him with the faces from these tea party videos:

Anybody else, any other network I would give the benefit of the doubt to, figuring that they had just automatically presumed the tea party people were racist, and so didn't bother to go to a rally and look. But as I showed in an earlier post, MSNBC has in the past actually edited footage to conceal African Americans.

Second update: Tea Party organizers respond directly to Mr. Olbermann

Race is not the overriding issue,

was the claim being made in an interview with CNN, and covered by Matt Spetalnick For Reuters. The interviewee was disagreeing with former President Carter, who had said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."

"I think there's been a long-standing debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition or when presidents are trying to bring about big changes," he said. He likened it to FDR being called a communist or socialist when the New Deal was being debated. "Things that were said about Ronald Reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the New Deal programs were pretty vicious as well," he said.

While not denying there were some racists out there, he was quick to point out the flip side- that there were those who voted for President Obama only because of his race as well.

Now I know some of you are saying, "Yeah, we've heard you and CC both say these things before, and just because you've got some pundit to quote doesn't make any of you right- who was it, George Will or Charles Krauthammer? Actually, it was President Obama who said those things. There's a short clip here and a longer story here .

Whose rights are they anyway?

There are two schools of thought concerning individual rights: one says that rights are granted to the individual by society (or the state, or whatever term fits the issue); the other says that rights reside in the individual, and society must show some compelling interest to restrict them. Conservatives like to say that this is the difference between a liberal and a conservative, but it upon examination, both sides sometimes argue both ways.

This thought struck me while listening to my favorite radio talk show, Abdul in the morning . The discussion was a proposed change in Indiana's liquor laws to allow Sunday sales. Many who would describe themselves as conservative were saying, "Are you incapable of thinking ahead and buying on Saturday? Why should we allow you to buy on Sunday?" But if you believe in the rights of the individual, the question should be, "What is the compelling state interest in restricting the sale of a legal product? Is alcohol more potent on Sunday than Saturday?" The same reversal of burden occurs in the discussion of gay marriage. If you believe in individual rights, the question is not "Why should the state recognize gay marriage?", but "If the state recognizes any marriage, what is the compelling interest preventing the recognition of this one?".

Conservatives are not alone in hypocrisy, of course. If the issue is guns, then the right to own and bear them resides in the state, to be extended to or withdrawn from the individual at the state's pleasure- but if the issue is abortion, then the right resides in the individual, and cannot be withdrawn by the state. The personal right of choice and the principle of competition are so important that there must be a public healthcare option to provide that choice and competition, with the proviso that the public choice must sink or swim on its own merits, so that the competition is genuine. Unless the issue is education, of course, in which case the public option is paramount, regardless of cost, efficiency, or effectiveness.

The lesson is that human nature dictates that the core guiding principle is "Whose ox is being gored?"*
　
　
*Do oxen gore each other? I thought bulls were made oxen and stallions were made geldings to calm them down so they wouldn't fight each other.

Who lost in the Van Jones affair?

President Obama's green jobs czar resigned Saturday, after a long summer of embarrassing video after embarrassing video, damning quote after damning quote trickling out through the internet and Fox News. But Van Jones won't really lose by this; his fans are still his fans, and he will land on his feet. But that doesn't mean there are no losers.

Rahm Emanuel is a loser. How on Earth did someone with that long a controversial paper and videotape trail make it through the vetting process? All it took was a simple Google to find the interview in which he described himself as a communist, (the thing that first interested the right wing blogs), and all the rest followed easily. If you count forced withdrawals from consideration as well as resignation, this is what, the fifth or the sixth administration embarrassment in less than a year? Rahm has to go, if only as a symbol of the President acting.

But the biggest loser was the mainstream media. This thing started late June... but as of Sunday afternoon, the day after his resignation, I found the following: NBC and CBS hadn't even reported the resignation. ABC had a story dated 9/4 about the scandals, the day before the resignation. CNN covered the resignation, but not the stories leading up to it. Ditto for the New York Times and the Washington Post. MSNBC is the most interesting; they had a story about the scandals dated 9/4, but they included an implied lie: they said that Glenn Beck (right wing radio personality who pushed the Van Jones stuff the hardest) started talking about Jones after an organization Jones co-founded started a boycott of Glenn's show; in actual fact, the boycott began after Beck started playing the embarrassing tapes.

It's no wonder that UU Mom could say, "So, Van Jones's resignation was big news today. I didn't know about any of the circumstances that led up to his resignation;..."; if she were not an internet news junkie, or read foreign newspapers as I do, she'd never have heard a peep from the media. How is it that this story could percolate for months, the blogosphere going crazy over it, with the embarrassing videos being embedded in every post, and not one word be reported by ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, and CNN? Is it any wonder the right wing believes the mainstream media is merely the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, if a scandal can be big enough to force a resignation and not be covered? Ask yourselves honestly the question every conservative blog is asking today: do you really believe that they would have been equally silent if it were a Republican appointee serving under Bush? The alternative explanation is actually worse- that it's less a case of media bias than media incompetence. Heck, you'd think if the media were actively biased, they would have covered the story if only to put their own context and spin on it- silence implies incompetence, not objectivity. The reason this explanation is worse is that it's another nail in the coffin of American media. Going back more than a year ago to the primaries, when I wanted to fact check I went not to the New York Times, but to the London Times... they had better coverage of our elections. As did France 24/7. Hells bells, Al Jazeera had better, more in depth, more balanced election coverage than ABC, NBC, and CBS.

But the truth of whether the mainstream media is biased is less important in many ways than the perception. Rush Limbaugh's success can be attributed to the belief that his voice was the only alternative voice- his motto, "I don't need to give equal time- I am the equal time" resonated among tens of millions of Americans. The same is true of Fox News; even many of those who believe it to be biased say, "So what? So is everybody else, and this is the only one biased in my direction- a single channel to counter the bias coming from all the others is not too much to ask." A great many more Americans believe that Fox isn't biased at all- it's just that the other networks are so far to the left that the center looks right by comparison. As a friend once said, "Fox is biased? Let's see, forged documents used to attack the President: CBS one, Fox zero." As long as the public believes this, ratings for the traditional news media are going to continue to drop. The word of websites run from somebody's bedroom in their spare time will be given equal trust to the NY Times- and sadly, some of them will have earned it. If they go bankrupt, they can find the reasons in the mirror.

Did you ever wonder...

why there are so many climate conferences held all over the world? They tell us to start restricting and eliminating unnecessary travel- buy local produce that doesn't have to be trucked in, take public transportation or bike in to work- or better still, work from home via computer. And for God's sake, stop all that wasteful business travel- telecommute, video conference, twitter your customers! And yet, all the climate change brass hats jet all over the world non-stop, holding conferences in distant lands- why?

Politiken.DK provides the answer- the whole story is contained in the headlines: Climate conference sex boom
Copenhagen’s sex trade did brisk business during the recent business climate conference.

This suggests a new tactic for political activists, less expense than campaign contributions, and potentially far more effective: I call it "Lysistrata by proxy". All you have to do is target the conferences, seminars, and summit meetings of your special interest, arrive the day before they do, and pay all the prostitutes to stay home and watch TV during the summit meeting. Be it a climate conference or a G-20 meeting, I'm guessing they'll get bored by the second day, pass the agenda in a voice vote, and rush home to their regular mistresses... after resolving to video conference next time instead!

President Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

And it's a poor choice, in my view. Although technically qualified, the following exchange alone would have put her off my short list:

Given the implied attitude above, it is scarcely surprising that Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, objected to the opinion she participated in of Ricci v. DeStefano that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (from The Case Against Sotomayor ) Frankly, I think her primary qualification is that she would make history as the first Hispanic woman on the court.

That being said, she should be confirmed without any senate theatrics. Why? Because she is the President's choice. Elections have consequences- and the right to choose judges is one of them. The "Advise and Consent" function of the Senate was intended to prevent an ambitious President from stacking the courts with cronies that would make him emperor- it was not intended to let partisans effectively overturn the election. The rule of thumb should be that any objection that would not be grounds for impeaching a sitting judge should not be grounds for denying confirmation; any lesser standard would be a de facto attempt to change our form of government.

I know this position has made me unpopular with both sides over the years, most recently with UUs opposed to Justice Alito. But my position has been consistent through six administrations: the US can survive bad appointments better than it can survive the subversion of democracy.

Obama man

Comedian Greg Morton sings his new song, "Obama Man" on Indianapolis' own Bob and Tom Show

The charitable divide

There are two recent posts on charitable giving that touch on each other tangentially. Michael at "Postcards From Myself" has a post entitled The politics of Altruism that explores different types of giving, and The Naked Theologian has a post entitled How good are we without God? exploring who does the giving. TNT writes about a new book by Robert Brooks about the difference in giving between liberals and conservatives. “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Although liberals advocate on behalf of those who are hungry and homeless, Brooks’ data shows that conservative households give 30% more to charity. A Google poll puts these numbers even higher—at nearly 50% more. Conservatives even beat out liberals when it comes to nonfinancial contributions. People in the conservative states in the center of the country are more likely to volunteer and to give blood."

Actually neither TNT nor Mr. Brooks should have been surprised; if you Google "red state blue state charitable giving" you'll find research showing these results going back ten years- much of the research done by the charitable organizations on the receiving end of the giving. But TNT doesn't explore why. Conservatives believe it's because liberals are hypocrites; liberals find it inexplicable, because they know they genuinely care more about others than conservatives. I believe that the explanation- both of the giving, and of the views liberals and conservatives hold about each other- lies in the different types of giving described in "The politics of Altruism" being viewed through different ideological lenses.

Liberals believe much more in what Michael calls "the second method" than conservatives do. This is philanthropy by proxy, spending your time and/or money on organizations and programs that will do the charitable work, rather than doing it personally. And of course the ultimate in programs is the government; liberals believe in government programs and push them heavily. Since conservatives generally oppose these programs, liberals believe they don't care.

Conservatives tend to believe in the first method- direct, personal giving and doing. Secular conservatives believe in this method because they don't trust the government to do a good job, and fear political strings on their charity. Religious conservatives give directly because all facets of spiritual work are their personal responsibility, not a collective one- souls are saved retail, not wholesale. So no matter how many government charities a politician may set up, if he doesn't give personally he's not really giving- he must be a hypocrite.

The truth is that both care, and neither are hypocrites. And there are lessons both can take away- conservatives need to learn that there are some government programs worthy of supporting, and Joe Biden might consider giving more than seven-tenths of one percent of his income in charity (to use the example from TNT). But the most important thing for both of them to learn is to look a little deeper into their opponent's arguments, learn why they do the things they do, and stop demonizing one another.