What's with all these attacks on socialists on this board?

[Selatius]

What tripped this off? Hugo Chavez?

Look, I've hardly seen anyone here defend the atrocities committed under the likes of Stalin. While it is true my economic views are socialist in bent, the fact is I detest the horrendous crimes committed in the past regardless of ideology. I would never support people like Stalin. I would rather fight or die. I would rather stand behind Zapatero of Spain and Chavez of Venezuela than Stalin or Kim Jong-Il.

In my mind, there can be no socialism without democracy. Ultimately, I would add onto that that people must do it themselves together collectively, hand-in-hand. The views I hold would perhaps be coined by the term "voluntary socialism" or "laissez-faire socialism." People don't need the dictates of the state to, for instance, voluntarily make the promise to each other that they would look out and fend for each other in the face of danger and adversity in the name of humanity. People simply cannot rely on a small class of elected leaders in a centralized decision-making structure to make economic decisions for them because that leads down to the road of tyranny.

My views are reflected here in the words of Eugene Debs, an American socialist:

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I lead you in, some one else would lead you out. YOU MUST USE YOUR HEADS AS WELL AS YOUR HANDS, and get yourself out of your present condition.

You don't need to rely on either Fidel or Chavez or any leader to know that you, with your awesome gift of thought and reason, to make the obvious decisions that come everyday in this economy. You don't necessarily need to rely on someone else to make decisions for you. You can choose to do it, too, to ultimately become your own leader, but you must make the CHOICE to do so. If enough people did this, you would have a movement of leaders, all of you walking hand-in-hand united in a common cause, not a movement of followers being lead by a few leaders who may or may not have their best interests at heart.

[Lefty48197]

1. Sometimes socialists are...

... a little bit too right wing for me!

[CubsFan1982]

2. That's an excellent synopsis.

I just don't know that people remember the "democracy" in "social democracy".

[manic expression]

18. Nobody forgets it....you just ignore it.....n/t

[CubsFan1982]

19. One party rule is not democracy.

Sorry to prick your illusions.

[manic expression]

21. You're not pricking anything...

You're especially not even close to pricking the truth.

There is no one party rule in Cuba. On the contrary, political parties cannot nominate candidates for public office, not even the Communist Party.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ011.html

Sorry to shake your pitiful delusions.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[manic expression]

24. Oh, wow

Thanks for NOT addressing my arguments with logical points. Personal slime is a tactic of the highest degree of desperation. I can smell THAT pretty well.

No, I'm not being paid by Castro, and that "thugs" comment is laughable.

No propaganda here, just the truth. Can't handle it? I thought so.

[Rex]

23. He has something against Chavez

Called him a communist dictator! :rofl:

[Union Thug]

3. Socialist checking it. bring it on! ;-)

[raysr]

25. I'm with ya

[KingFlorez]

4. I consider myself a Social Democrat

I believe in our democratic system and making that system even more democratic. I align myself with the Socialists of Western Europe, because they represent what I believe. Stalin is a dictator just like Pinochet was. Dictatorship is the same and isn't part of ideology.

[The Magistrate]

5. Mr. Debs Was A Splendid fellow, Sir

We could use a dozen like him today....

[Maple]

6. Bored student & Saturday nite

And an excess of red flags to wave. :D

[LoZoccolo]

7. I object even to your voluntary socialism.

Ever do a group project in college? That's what'll happen to your voluntary socialism too!

[Selatius]

10. Yes, but in college, you do it for grades, not food on the table ;)

The latter has a more stimulating effect on the behavior of people, I've found. It's one thing to do it for grades, but quite another when it comes to procuring or maintaining your supply of food, water, and shelter from the elements.

[getmeouttahere]

12. Well, good luck with BushCo style capitalism...

because that's what we're gonna have. Conservatives think that public education, publicly-owned utilities, public ANYTHING, to be socialism. In fact, I dare say they brainwash the sheeple into thinking socialism and communism are one and the same.

[JohnnyBoots]

52. Isn't Capitalism why we are in Iraq anyway?, God forbid healthcare for

the poor, as long as the rich get richer.

[bread_and_roses]

13. I'm an adult who's done many "group projects" that work fine

i'm way too tired to go into some lengthly treatise, and there are others here who no doubt can do it...but human beings are quite as capable of cooperative efforts as they are of killing.

[Union Thug]

60. Agreed. Geez, I'm expected to perform as part of a group every day..

Whether it be the rules under which I conduct my behavior in the public arena or the work that I perform in unison and close collaboration with other groups (program managers, sme's, vendors, and peers), we are working in a perpetual group process.

These extreme-individualist twits who bandy about their nonsense don't seem to realize that cooperative behavior among humans is burned into the DNA. Cooperative behavior among sapiens is one of the primary reasons why we became the dominate species on this planet.

[evilqueen]

26. Yes, and it worked out splendidly...

The group I was in got an A+ for a project exploring Road Funding and doable alternatives. The project was submitted to the local county Road Commission for their consideration, too. And this wasn't at a liberal arts university/college, it was at Michigan Tech (one of the most difficult technological universities in the country, imho).

[LoZoccolo]

27. If you think that it went well, then you were one of the leechers.

You made someone else do more work than you!

[evilqueen]

28. Post #1000 :: And you know this HOW?

Fact is, you're dead wrong. I put in a LOT of hours on this project and we didn't have any "leechers" in my group, which probably explains why it worked out splendidly.

I don't know what your problem is with me, but obviously you don't know me at all or you would have never said that.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I'm just kidding, dang!

The whole thing was a joke, even the first post. I thought the comparison was silly enough that people would see that.

[evilqueen]

34. Maybe I'm just oversensitive tonight. Sorry.

I get attacked a lot online by various people... some freepers, some not, many sockpuppets.

That's the shitty part about being an educated, somewhat intelligent woman who's also a Liberal. I like to sandbag the fact that I'm also a disabled vet... that usually shuts a lot of them up. My friends over at Radio News America told me I should be the one that confronts them all, since I have such a way with turning things around in a debate. (I do find it very amusing to lead debate around in a circle until my opponent is stating the opposite of his/her initial position. hehe)

[annabanana]

40. ...just kidding..

(the excuse of the abuser)

[LoZoccolo]

54. Oh you did not just say that.

Maybe for someone else.

[rman]

37. Inability to cooperate is not a virtue.

Many of the good works of people are the result of cooperation - just imagine that all we could do is work individually; the world would be a very different place.

[bvar22]

8. Any TRUE Democracy....

...would lean toward Socilaism!

Its simple. There are more Workers than Owners.
On a level playing field (one man/woman=one vote), the Workers would have a much louder voice than the Owners.
Government would have to step in to keep the workers from killing the goose.

It would be the exact opposite of what we have in the US today, except that in the last 15 years,
the government hasn't stepped in to keep the Owners from killing LABOR.




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[getmeouttahere]

9. I won't bash socialism...

but the closest the US would ever get to it is what I call welfare-state capitalism, which is what I think Canadians have. This is, however, exactly what BushCo and the like are trying to avoid...or is it destroy?

[Maple]

14. It's called the Third Way

Capitalism when it works best, socialism when it works best or a combination of both...or neither.

Just practical solutions to problems...no ideology

[getmeouttahere]

15. Absolutely!

For a good read on finding the right combination of the two, check out "The Efficient Society - Why Canada is As Close to Utopia as it Gets" by Joseph Heath. Don't be fooled by the title - there is a lot of fodder for US progressives in there.

[Mairead]

46. Capitalism's trick is in keeping parts of its ideology off the table and

out of sight, never to be discussed.

The principal such part is the claim that the wealthy few have the right to take decisions that blight the lives of the non-wealthy many.That's a bedrock, sine-qua-non principle of private-profit capitalism.

Nobody would, these days, claim that a member of the owning class has the right to physically wound even one employee no matter how trivial the wound or what the reason behind it. But plenty people believe in the owner's right to deprive thousands of people of their livelihood just for the sake of another quarter penny in the dollar, even though doing so causes much more serious, lasting harm than a trivial physical wounding ever could.

[eallen]

11. Speaking as a capitalist, I sympathize.

From a broad economic perspective, it seems to me that there are two small groups and one large group in the Democratic Party. The first of the small groups is the socialists. Truth be told, this splinters into myriad varieties that have evolved since Fourier wrote, while Marx still was in knee-pants.

The second of the small groups are those who are explicitly capitalist. I doubt there are any free market fundamentalists here. Those folks align themselves differently. But there are quite a few Democrats (Andrew Tobias, George Soros, Paul Krugman) who (a) believe that a capitalist economy is required as a basis for economic and technological advance, (b) see some commonality between economic and civil liberty, yet (c) support government as a check on business activity, realize that the corporate structure is entirely the creation of government and should serve the common good, and recognizing that people are not economic cogs, favor a variety of social programs that capitalist wealth makes possible, or at least, easier.

I think the majority just sort of watches the arguments between the first two groups. Depending on the day of the week, the state of the news cycle, and the number of active tropical storms in the Atlantic, either of the first two groups can feel "under attack" here. If it's your turn in the barrel, don't worry too much. It will be my turn next week.

:hippie:

[dweller]

16. An excellent mind

expresses his own view.

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

thanks to the DU'er that reminded us of this 1949 article from the premier Monthly Review a few months back. (Sorry if i've now forgotten your handle)

a bit lengthy, but well worth the read.
dp

[Selatius]

17. It was a good article, thanks :)

[JanMichael]

55. You're welcome.

Ok, maybe you didn't read MY thread about Einstein and his views, but I have posted a couple of threads on them.

Yes it's worth the read.

[Mich Otter]

20. Democracy will lead to Socialism, Capitalism will lead to a Monarchy.

How many Americans are willing to give up on such Socialist programs as; unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, or public roads and parks?
Would you want all of these turned into "for-profit" enterprises?
Our country has clearly shown that even with over two centuries of time, capitalism will not provide any plan that covers everyone with health care. We need to be more democratic and elect politicians who are proud to be socialist in their beliefs.
Being socialist doesn't mean that the government takes over running businesses like General Motors. Government take over is what the communists do.
Socialism allows capitalism to work and then taxes the profits to provide for the needs of the people.

[eallen]

38. Our terminology differs.

You're describing what I would call social programs added to an essentially capitalist economy. Following Marx, it seems to me odd to think that the means of production is not the key ingredient in an economy. I use "socialism" precisely to describe either the nationalism of business -- as many of the socialists here have recommended -- or some other form of government control on how businesses are organized.

Socialism has to do with practice. Communism has to do with theory. Communists have a philosophy of dialectical materialism that they believe predicts the course of history. They also believe that once socialism is established by a revolutionary state, the state then will wither away, leading to a post-socialist society, i.e., communism. Ironically, this prediction partly came about. But in the old Soviet Union, the state didn't so much wither away as it did starve to death. And while it's not clear what the result of that will be, it isn't looking much like communism.

[Mich Otter]

51. "social programs added to an essentially capitalist economy"

Is this not a degree of Socialism?
I don't think any Socialist country is totally Socialist. Does any country control every farmer's market and the children's lemonade stands? There is always a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. The question is: what are you, meaning the government, going to require of the profit makers? Are they going to be taxed at all? If so, how much and for what purposes?

Communists certainly have a social agenda in their hearts. They see the need to own and manage all businesses as the basis for providing for all citizens.
Capitalists have to believe the "Tinkle-On" economic theory works best for the people. By enriching a few, the rest all benefit.
Socialist believe there has to be taxation and government management to provide for the people.

[Walt Starr]

30. As far as I'm concerned, it's a failed philosophy. It does not work

and insanity is attempting to do the same things over and over again while expecting different results.

[rman]

31. Socialism works quite well in Europe,

where it's mixed with capitalism, which is pretty much everywhere in Europe.

[Walt Starr]

32. Then it's not socialism

nor is it capitalism.

Sounds more like common sense to me.

Go figure.

:shrug:

[rman]

36. So we agree that certain socialist principals are good?

Principals such as strong environmental protection, protection of worker's rights, collective health care, public funded education...

[eallen]

41. So you're saying a good socialist also can favor principles such as....

Relatively free markets, including labor markets, dynamic company creation and destruction purely on the basis of market success, fluid equity, debenture, and capital markets, and all the other characteristics of a modern capitalist economy, including the large, international corporations it produces?

Sign me up. :evilgrin:

[Mairead]

48. Yes, with one feature you didn't mention: fully-distributed ownership

That's the essence of socialism: full distribution of ownership, with nobody having more than one share or one vote.

[eallen]

50. That's what doesn't work. Capitalism requires equity & capital markets.

The problem with mandating a specific capital structure for all businesses is (a) that it eliminates equity and capital markets, and even some varieties of debenture, (b) that it therefore eliminates a broad array of funding mechanisms for new businesses, and (c) that it therefore throws a monkey wrench into business and technical evolution. Well, that will generate a long argument.

But let me point out three things less arguable. First, the notion of socialism you just provided is very different from and independent of any notion of social program. It's a very traditional notion, and one that I think is more in keeping with the traditional meaning of the term than what has elsewhere been proposed in this thread. Second, in this sense, no western democracy is socialist. From the US to Sweden, all depend on a capitalist economy. Third, there is nothing (except competition) that prevents socialist capital structures in businesses today. Cooperatives and businesses with similar capital structures frequently are created, and some even have managed to survive for long periods of time. I've been a member for decades in one cooperative grocery. The essence of a socialist economy is not that such capital structures are allowed, but that other capital structures are somehow forbidden. Socialists need to think about what mechanism they favor for doing that.

:hippie:

[Mairead]

56. No, *PRIVATE-PROFIT* capitalism requires it, not socialised capitalism

Please consider that the range of possibility is greater than you've been taught. 'Capital' is simply wealth in excess of current need, that can be used to fund growth. There's no requirement at all that it be in private hands, nor need it be swaddled in any of the other trappings of predation.

(edit)Socialised capitalism works very well for over 700M (a/o 1995) people in the world.

[eallen]

58. I think productivity requires it.

I agree with you completely that nothing in capitalism prohibits any kind of cap structure. Where cooperatives and similar arrangements work and are able to compete, let's have them. The question is: How well will we do economically if the government mandates only such businesses, and prohibits any other capital structures?

From everything I understand of economics and business, the answer is that business and technical innovation, growth, and dynamism would grind to a halt.

You obviously disagree. It would be nice if you could point to a nation that mandated only socialist capital structures, that wasn't also impoverished. Kerala doesn't do that. Venezuela doesn't do that. Pointing out how many people world-wide work in socialistically structured businesses isn't very convincing. In the broader capitalist economy, such businesses survive where they are able to do well, while other economic niches are filled by business that have different cap structure. Suggesting that means we can have a thriving economy with only such businesses is much like saying that there's no problem in maintaining a herd of sheep with only rams, since rams account for such a large fraction of the current herd and they're doing so well. The argument between capitalists and socialists is between those who favor any kind of cap structure that works, and those who would mandate a certain kind of cap structure. You need to point out not how many people work in businesses with a certain kind of cap structure, where any kind is allowed, but how well things go when certain kinds of cap structure are forbidden.

(BTW, I have no idea what your "700M" number actually means. Do you have a cite for it? I also have no idea what "works very well" means. What's the mean or median income for those 700M?)

[Mairead]

61. History says that's not so.

PP capitalism is a recent phenomenon. Yet people were productive for tens of thousands of years before it appeared on the scene. In fact, all the really basic advances (the lever, the wheel, understanding of natural forces, etc.) came before pp capitalism and are being refined outside the pp capitalist model today (e.g., the open-source software movement). Curiosity and the desire for social acclaim--the real drivers for progress--appear to be fundamental characteristics of humans, since they exist across all cultures and appear throughout recorded history.


It would be nice if you could point to a nation that mandated only socialist capital structures, that wasn't also impoverished

I suspect we would differ on what 'impoverished' means. The socialist model says that everyone should have enough, not that a few should have too much, which is the goal of pp capitalism.

Since nations are both a recent phenomenon--few are more than 200 years old--and an exploitative one, you have to look at pre-national or extra-national groups to find socialism. When you do, you find that what such groups lack in televisions, advertising, and prison industries they tend to make up for in security, leisure time, and a sense of belonging.



(BTW, I have no idea what your "700M" number actually means. Do you have a cite for it? I also have no idea what "works very well" means. What's the mean or median income for those 700M?)

It means that over 700,000,000 people are owner-members of socialist businesses around the world. See http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/staff/hoyt/princart.html and especially "Since its creation in 1895, the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) has been accepted by cooperators throughout the world as the final authority for defining cooperatives and for determining the underlying principles which give motivation to cooperative enterprise. Over 200 ICA members from more than 70 countries represent more than 700 million individual members of agriculture, banking, credit and saving, energy, industry, insurance, fisheries, tourism, housing and consumer cooperatives."

As to median income, remember that the goal of socialist business is not mindless growth, but that everyone have enough. Which means that the purpose of a job in a socialist business is to support the person who has it, not to exploit that person for the benefit of someone else

If you want to look at some numbers, take a look at Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa, in the Basque region of Spain ( www.mcc.es ). Founded in 1956 when the local socialist priest, Fr. José María Arizmendiarrietta, encouraged 5 young engineers to start up a paraffin stove factory, today it's an umbrella over banks, universities, hospitals, and more than 100 companies that do everything from basic research to food retailing. MCC does over 10G euros worth of business p.a. and supports over 70K owner-workers.

(edit)Oh, and when you say
pointing out how many people world-wide work in socialistically structured businesses isn't very convincing. In the broader capitalist economy, such businesses survive where they are able to do well, while other economic niches are filled by business that have different cap structure. Suggesting that means we can have a thriving economy with only such businesses is much like saying that there's no problem in maintaining a herd of sheep with only rams, since rams account for such a large fraction of the current herd and they're doing so well.
it seems to me that you're not only creating a false analogy (a herd of rams is, ipso facto, not self-sustaining...but that proves nothing about any other sort of group) but you're also making a claim without motivating it, namely that there are 'economic niches' in which only a pp capitalist business can do well. Since the truth of such a claim is by no means self-evident, don't you think you should identify at least one such 'niche' and put forward an argument as to why pp capitalism is the only form that could succeed? Otherwise, it's all handwaving.

[eallen]

62. Many of us view the last 400 years as a beneficial exception to history.

"Capitalism is a recent phenomenon. Yet people were productive for tens of thousands of years before it appeared on the scene."

Each of your claims above is true, in a very literal sense. Yet. Yet. Stated that way they miss something that most economists and historians would view as perhaps the singular important fact about the past. The modern world has seen an economic explosion -- and concommittant technical explosion -- that is qualitatively beyond anything that could have been expected on the basis of all the millenia of history that preceded it.

Importantly, this has nothing to do with individual productive capacity. People have not become innately smarter or more productive. What has changed is how we organize ourselves economically. As you point out, capitalism is a relatively recent thing.

"The socialist model says that everyone should have enough, not that a few should have too much."

Do you have a static model of what "enough" is? Or do you expect it to advance over time? Does "enough" include a cell phone? Would it have included a cell phone two hundred years ago? And if we had adopted a socialist model two hundred years past, is there any reason for me to think that today we would have cheap cell phones? Or telephones at all?

The kind of socialism you recommend trades economic advance for equality. You likely don't agree. But it's telling that the nations who have practiced it end up relying on the capitalist nations as a primary source of technical advance. (And yes, I realize Cuba does some medical research not done elsewhere. Such exceptions don't refute the rule.)

Let me also accede to some other claims related to this area. First, I agree that most technical advances that have economic importance in capitalism are unimportant. Or worse. There are far more things like the CD changer in the trunk, than like the anti-lock brake system on the wheels. Second, I agree there is a need for social programs that provide a safety net, relative to the economy in which people live. A poor American's expectations of medical care should be relative to this century's standards, not the previous century's.

All that said, I'm happy to live in a capitalist economy that provides the rapid change we experience, that makes, for example, 21st century medical care qualitatively better than 20th century medical care. My goal isn't a revolution that makes me and Bill Gates equals, from now on, in an economy that doesn't much advance. Rather, I hope the economy advances tremendously, so that by 2050 most people -- including me, far less wealthy that Bill Gates -- enjoy advances in communications, medical care, and other areas that cause them to look back in astonishment, that they could not even have guessed them now in the year 2005.

[Walt Starr]

44. Absolutely!

Pure Socialism, however, is not a good idea.

Neither is pure capitalism.

Neither system in its purest form ever works.

[manic expression]

42. Ignorance is not seeing the truth, over and over again

Look at Cuba. Look at Venezuela. Look at Kerala (a state in India).

Look at El Salvador. Tell the peasants that the reason they can work on their OWN land (not as serfs), the reason they no longer need to fear military vigilantes, the reason they can vote for whomever they please, the reason there is a semblance of fairness, the reason they are treated with a semblance of respect, the reason they can get things such as health care and better education; is because of a "failed ideology".

Right....

:eyes:

[Mich Otter]

43. What doesn't work?

Does Social Security not work?
Does Medicare not work?
Does unemployment insurance not work?
While these, and all other, programs are never going to be considered perfect, what is perfect? All programs, whether government run or privately run, are subject to debate about their effectiveness.
How is it going to be better when schools are run on a strict "for-profit" basis? Kids who cannot pay their bills will be dumped by the schools. The school administration will be engaged in a permanent war against the staff to reduce their pay and benefits.
I would really like to know how you look at these kinds of social programs and determine that they a "failed philosophy".

[eallen]

45. It strikes me as odd to see the US held up as examplar socialist nation.

The only two groups I know who do that are (a) freepers, when complaining about the social programs you list, and (b) socialists, when explaining that such social programs are the sum and total of socialism. Well, if that is all that socialism is, then we are all socialists now. That reminds me of a joke about a cowboy and a lesbian...

:evilgrin:

[Mich Otter]

49. I would not say America is a Socialist nation...

but, we do have some Socialist programs.
America is certainly not purely Capitalist. If we were, there would be no regulations restricting monopolies, and no environmental or labor regulations. We have a system that has degrees of capitalism mixed with degrees of socialism.
I see it as something that could be described in percentages. Just off the top of my head lets say we are at 75% of pure capitalism.
We have government regulations, government ownership, and government management of about 25% of what gets done in this country. (I'm just making these numbers up, so don't jump me for them). Through the government we; run schools, plow snow, manage forests, run VA hospitals, set safety standards on automobiles and aircraft, set safety standards on life preservers, inspect foods, subsidize farmers, etc... A lot of our work is done by government branches or the work is regulated by the government.
I'd like to see universal health care, child care, protected pensions, education for everyone as far as they can go with their knowledge and interests, and more inspections of foods and infrastructure to increase our level of safety. I'd also like to see the government actively working on the side of workers who want to exercise their right to Unionize.
This is not an area where all is either black or it is white. There are all degrees of gray areas in between.

[rman]

63. You keep trotting up either/or.

The point is that it doesn't have to be either socialism or capitalism, but rather that elements of both can coexist. As is/has been the case even in the US, since forever. Of course the RW is succeeding in reducing socialist elements of the system (ie privatization of health care, and threats of privatization of social security). This is the case in both Europe and the US, just more so in the US.

[Mairead]

47. Walt, you should do some research. You can make a start by looking

at http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/ Cooperatively-owned businesses are the very essence of socialism: ownership of wealth-producing enterprises is fully distributed across all the people involved, with one person = one share = one vote.

As of 1995 there were over 700,000,000+ people worldwide voluntarily and successfully practicing socialism. And that's in the face of relentless discouragement by the statist forces backing private-profit Capitalism.

[wli]

33. the left has been demonized to the point even DU hates it n/t

[Judi Lynn]

35. More likely the ones you may be thinking of are passing through.

They get bored among their own kind.

[deutsey]

39. Like the Right, many Democrats have no clue what socialism is

I recommend reading The Long Detour by James Weinstein as a good introduction to socialism in America durng the early 20th century and how it has been derailed by a number of factors.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/the_long_detour/

[Raiden]

53. I'm a Social-Democat, a la Western Europe

Those economies are a model of how a socialist economy can benefit all

[JanMichael]

57. Even DUers aren't totally immune to the decades of propaganda.

It ok though because eventually (Unsustainable petro-Economy will break and...) there won't be much in the way of "choice" in the matter except maybe Mad Max-like insanity.

EDIT: I've really got to figure out how to spell mor beter.

[Mich Otter]

59. "figure out how to spell mor beter"

Wy?