You know, it won't do any good to argue whether Arnold S. is a liberal
or conservative for two reasons -- the most important being that if
his mind is to be changed then ferret folks of all stripes must band
together.
 
The other reason is that there are almost no politicians who are true
liberals or true conservatives IN THEIR VOTING CHOICES, or in the classic
meaning of the terms.  As a result it is also always wise to recall that
the people who go beyond the pale on each side are NOT liberals and NOT
conservatives.  On the hyper-conservative side they are reactionaries
(folks like binLaden and others who would just as soon live in the past
but look at the form of the past rather than the actual functions within
temporal context, or folks like Hitler who wanted his own type of
totalitarianism).  On the hyper-liberal side they are radicals (as with
Stalin).  The reality is that in practice when they are in power the
living conditions of the general populous under the control of EITHER a
reactionary or radical leadership suffer badly -- the conditions have
their own flavors but for degree of suffering, degree of freedoms lost,
and degree of persecution and genocide they may as well be the same
thing -- all political stances when seen next to each most closely
related one in results form a circle in their results, with a moderate
average being simultaneously the most free and most safe combination
within one's own country (because conservative is a bit more safe and
liberal a bit more free).
 
Since the advent of "let the debt mount up" (which began in the so-called
"leveraged debt" 80s) and some other aspects (like the religious "Take
over the holy lands" thrust of many neocons) of neoconservativism there
are barely any true conservatives left in office despite what they call
themselves.  Meanwhile, with mounting social pressure to reduce programs
which would help those in need get the tools to advance themselves, and
with some others forgetting that this is the core thrust of liberalism
historically there are almost no liberals, again despite what they call
themselves.  Personally, I like a mix of TRUE liberal-moderate for social
programs (aid to schools, job training in prisons, Headstart, money to
advance scientific and engineering research so that we always have new
products to sell to build our economy, preserving wild lands which we
need for air quality, water quality, and so much more, etc.) combined
with TRUE fiscal conservative-moderate ( reducing debt, taking costs into
consideration before spending, studying possible money drains to find out
if they really are and responding according to what is learned after real
study, not placing our burdens on the shoulders of those who are younger
than we are, etc.).  There used to be a lot of East Coast Republicans and
some Democrats in our region who fit that profile.  Gee, I wonder why
those decades were the most unified, and most profitable times for our
nation?  ;-)
 
Anyway, that is moving into being off-topic, so getting back on track:
anyone can look at selected votes of pretty well any politician and
apply multiple terms to the person depending on which sets of votes are
looked at, esp.  if the majority of votes is ignored, so the terms often
mean zilch these days; they are to a huge extent just terms which are
misused to divide us all, esp.  by too many talk media people to help
economically profit too many of the announcers and their producers.
 
AGAIN, I repeat: it won't do any good to argue whether Arnold S. is a
liberal or conservative for two reasons -- the most important being that
*IF* his mind is to be changed then ferret folks of all stripes must
band together.  The "if" is in there because if may be that you can make
it or break it depending on IF you unite, or it may be that he needs to
be replaced.
 
He was a 5 time Mr. Universe if I recall the number right so like Lenda
Murray and Cory Everson and others in such a rarified group what he
will appreciate is your sweat and your determination.  If you divide
yourselves you can't lift that weight.  Together you can.
 
November is coming; it's a time when you can vote against what he wants,
or even just not vote for what he supports.  If the ferret people do not
argue among themselves about things that don't matter like labels, but
instead band together in CA he can be made to realize that he has to
please you.  If ferret people elsewhere don't buy DVDs and tapes of films
he was in from now until he changes his mind that can help, too -- and I
say that as an adventure film freak.  Think of it as pinching someone to
say, "I'm here and you forgot that; now LISTEN." because if you all band
together and do this it only will be a pinch due to the number involved,
but it's amazing how much attention a pinch can get.
 
(It may even be that you can use the same trick the duck and goose
people used and time the amnesty or even a legalization bill for going
into effect on a future date when he expects to be out of office; yes,
it stinks to wait but better to wait for what you want than for more of
the same.)
 
STICK TOGETHER.
 
Remember, there actually IS a decent bit of scientific data indicating
that there is not a risk so an amnesty would not have been a terrible
thing to support while more study was done before allowing wider
legalization; A.S.  CHOOSE what and who he listened to, so stick together
and don't let him put his "girlie men" label on ferret people.  GIVE HIM
A PINCH SO HE WILL START TO LISTEN.  You can't vote him out in November
but you CAN decrease or threaten his political power base by reducing the
votes for who and what he supports, so it is in your favor that November
is so soon if you can only avoid fighting among yourselves.  Do not
become your own worst enemies!  Work together.  To heck with labels!
[Posted in FML issue 4654]