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]