I really liked it when you pointed out that McCain's ideas don't represent safety at all, that policies he's advocating have led us to where we are now.

Also, even though Obama is in fact about making changes, he's not a loony radical at all, but a principled and cautious man with an economically sound long-term plan.

We're so far away away from any kind of sane civilized system at the moment that even a return to a moderate place will be a change, but not at all an unwelcome one.

In other words, being concerned about workers, citizens, not poisoning people with industrial waste, not compromising our system of representative democracy by selling it to the highest bidder, and (importantly!) thinking about the future of the country and the economy does not equal "crazy Maoist" as the Fox/Neocon propagandists would have us believe.

It's kind of funny that the Right—which has so long unfairly tarred the Left as exemplifying the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it"—has essentially that economic philosophy (esp. under Bush/McCain).

The get-rich-quick no matter the ethicality/legality/consequences quarterly thinking that has come to dominate corporate America is also an important part of the NeoCon agenda.

But it has nothing to do with socially conservative concepts like hard work paying off, like behaving morally and accepting responsibility for one's actions, like valuing a little forward-thinking caution.

And to clarify, I'm not arguing that risk can or should be removed from the market, but, again, that there's a sane middle ground that all sorts of people can agree on.

(I'll take this opportunity to remind religious socially conservative folk that Jesus chased the money changers from the temple and said that a rich man has as much chance of getting into heaven as a camel has getting through the eye of a needle. We'll all interpret these statements in their context and in our own ways, of course...)

And this housing bubble, for instance—or the idea that live-saving health care should be an expensive privilege—do nothing to make for a strong, healthy society; instead it destroys families and hurts the economy as a whole, taking money out of the pockets of hard-working responsible Americans looking at their savings in horror as interest rates climb and the dollar drops.

Perhaps this is why so many people from across the spectrum are fed up with these impractical and immoral canardly arguments.

Good questions, and to be honest I don't have a budget(nor dor McCain's site) or specific dollar answers to them.

I will stand by my assertion, though, that Obama's plan is smart and responsible.

"Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure" and investing in green technologies is an important idea, given our trade deficit.

And it's just not true that we industrious Americans cannot produce quality items without exploiting workers or cutting corners in the legal/moral/human health and safety department.

Again, there's a lot of ground for reasonable people between a) Absolute Protectionism and b) selling out American interests to amoral multinationals with no loyalty to any nation (and then funneling tons of U.S. tax money to them).

Also, lots of tax money money that the Bush administration is funneling to wealthy cronies (Ha! Talk about "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH"!)could obviously be put be better use. Just for one.

Investing in green technologies will allow us to

-not be "addicted" to foreign oil, and make foreign policy decisions with more

-put Americans to work

-put Americans to work making things and maybe even selling them to other countries

-work to slow greenhouse emissions

All of these things will make us safer and more secure, will help the pocket books of the vast majority of Americans.

Yes, I'm aware that biofuels have many problems (such as bumping up food prices, etc.) and don't look at the "Green Revolution" or Barack Obama with an uncritical eye, but he's damn sure the best thing going.

What did you think of the larger point that McCain's economic policy (couple with and connected to his "American Oil Interests" foreign policy) is terrible for American citizens at large?

I see, you're coming from the "even social liberals can be Imperialists" school of thought.

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=471

I've read Chomsky too, and can understand why someone like Nader would argue that both parties are Establishments corrupted by money, and colluding to prevent any third/fouth/fifth parties from getting any voice.

That said, while Obama may be too moderate for ya ;), I tend to think his brand of governenance—grass roots, with tranparency and accountability—will move us all toward a society where we have a greater say about what is done in our names.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml

Or the Frontline episode "Growing Up Online?"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

Neither focuses squarely on the culture clash between generations, but both touch on it. (Morely Safer perhaps more than he intended to lol).