Back in the late 1980s, when the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse and people were more openly talking about the democratic process, one word seemed to pop up a lot more than any other: "pluralism". We were stuck in three generations of one-party rule, and we were getting very very sick of it. Same old slogans, same old bullshit, same old corruption. So, when people start getting hopeful about the imminent collapse of the Republican party and the imminent unification and supremacy of the Democratic party, I get a little scared. Do we really want that to happen? Is one-party rule what we want?

Look at what happened: in 2004 Bush was re-elected President, Congress pretty much belonged to the GOP and at least one conservative Justice was about to be installed in the Supreme Court. Dick Cheney was smugly talking about a takeover. For all intents and purposes, we've been as close to one-party rule as it gets, the so-called "win" of the Democrats in 2006 nonwithstanding. Do we want to merely invert this? If the Democrats are the ultimate ruling party from 2008 onwards, will things be better?

I'd argue no. Pluralism is a big boon of the liberal ideology: we love disagreeing with one another. That's the POINT. The very word "liberal" is derived from the word "liberty". Some perceive this as our weakness, we can never march in lockstep, and the much more "united" Republicans therefore successfully push through our agenda. But if we become like today's GOP in this respect, we risk becoming like them in other respects. It is a bad idea to march in lockstep, it leads to abuses of power that have characterized the beginning of the 21st century in this nation. This must not happen again.

I see hope in how the Democratic electorate is torn between Clinton and Obama, and I am especially hopeful that the indecision is not entirely about electability but is in great part based on the issues themselves. The fact that the GOP is having a hard time coalescing around McCain as its Supreme Leader, but is trying ever so hard to do it anyway is an indication of how counter-democratic they have become. The GOP has sold its soul to a form of dictatorship in order to regain power. Let's hope the Democratic Party will not succumb to the same temptation.

Okay, we had a couple of laughs. So, what does it tell us? That the stimulus package is based on a wrong idea? Perhaps. Let's try a slightly more scientific poll AFTER people actually receive the money. Ask them what they've spent it on then. Maybe the results might turn out a bit different.

Another point: paying off credit card debt is somewhat akin to consumer spending, except you're finally paying for an item that you've bought a while ago with the money you didn't have. Sort of like filling a gap, of sorts. Of course, credit card debt resembles less a gap than a gaping maw, and tossing money into it will likely not have a gigantic effect. Still, it will allow quite a few people to bust out those credit cards and get into debt again. Which will definitely grease the wheels of our economy, wouldn't it? I mean, c'mon, who pays for things with actual cash that they have, anyway. It's all about waving the plastic. And as soon as American consumers toss their $600-1200 into the yawning chasm of their credit card debt, they will feel justified to bust out with the plastic once again.

It'll work, you'll see.

Those who support Huckabee are most prone to faith-based decision-making, I bet. Which is probably why they're with him till the bitter end. McCain appeals to the moderates, some of whom are liable to disagree with him even if they like him, or dislike him even if they agree with him. So he won't command such a passionate following.

And of course, we all know how them God-fearin' folks in America like the underdog, especially a religious one.

Six Republican U.S. senators had even vowed to cut federal funding for several Berkeley programs, such as Alice Waters's Chez Panisse Foundation, which provides school lunches at Berkeley's public schools.

Ha! Well, who would've thunk? To paraphrase Kruschev's words about Berlin: money is Berkeley's testicles; if you want to make Berkeley squirm, you squeeze the money. So... what's the message here? "Never, but never question the Military or your we take food away from your kids?" Wow. Way to protect our freedom, ladies and gentlemen of the U.S. Senate!

Which makes me wonder: WHICH U.S. Senators did this? Was Dianne "I Do Everything Bush Asks" Feinstein one of them? I think that list should be widely published. Yes, I know, none of these people will be hugely affected, but I think I (as a citizen of Berkeley) ought to know which U.S. Senators see it fit to threaten to deprive schoolkids of FOOD so that the Marines could later recruit them and drag their arses off to Iraq. (And we all know what the military has to do nowadays to fill its ranks.)

Ugly, ugly business.