Common Ground

Once again, His Choseness has called for conservatives to find "common ground" on the abortion issue. In his speech at the Catholic Non-Denominational University (NDU), Obama pointed out that we who dare to disagree and stand on moral principles would be less uptight about our positions if we only moved to the common ground offered by those more enlightened than ourselves. He begged that we refrain from caricaturizing him (I guess the big-eared likenesses hurt his feelings) just because we disagree with his positions. Civility, he pointed out, starts on the left and can only be attained when we hard-core, back-woods rebels cross over to the dark side and drink the Kool-Aid of secular socialism.

Obama demonstrated his firm stance on common ground by requiring doctors and other medical practitioners to kill babies on demand. This is the only way we can improve health care for all. I guess he figures that if the woman is too stupid to keep her legs closed, she is too stupid to figure out how to find another doctor when her family practitioner tries to provide prenatal care rather than a butcher knife. The woman can thus choose to abort, while the doctor cannot choose not to perform it. Rather to protect the woman from the natural consequences of her actions than the doctor from the moral, emotional, and mental anquish that would naturally come from performing such a horrendous act.

This is common ground?

Duh Rules

Leave it to a liberal to be unable to ascertain between proper and repugnant conduct.

(Click to read the article.)

Must a candidate for public office hide his/her family completely from the public eye? Can a parent who is proud of her family not also insist on protecting her family? Must children be deprived of participation in the most proud and historic moments of their parent's life because they are then no longer "off limits" to the politics of personal destruction?

I will be graduating soon with a degree in law. This will be a proud moment for me, one which I would love to share with my children. They have sacrificed much along with me and my wife to help me achieve this success and bring honor to our family. I do not think, however, that my fitness to practice law can be measured by who my children are or by the decisions they might make in life. I would hope that when I apply for the bar, they will not pry into my children's relationships with each other or their friends. I see no value in future employers or clients snooping into my children's lives, either. In the course of my career, I will be engaging in some very contentious debates. I am certain that tempers will flare between myself and other attorneys, and I am sure that I will see cases that may inflame public opinion. Thru it all, however, I see no connection between what kind of a lawyer I may become and what kind of children I have.

This does not mean, however, that I will not proudly display them at my graduation, or for future employers or clients. They are a very big part of me, and I want them to be a part of my life. Why can't a candidate for public office enjoy the same pleasures with her family, without exposing them to personal destruction? It's not that hard to see the difference, people!

So let me lay out the rule:

Unless the family member purposely enters the public arena with a political
statement, and is of the age of majority (that means at least
18 years old) - STAY AWAY!!!!

Is it really that difficult? Really?

I am living in a war zone!! As I look out my front door, I see neighbors at the top of the street shooting their neighbors across the street, who are shooting back. Behind them are the shadows of old cars, silhouetted by bright, smoke-producing, flashing sparks. Shots are heard all around me. The sky is filled with exploding, colorful cannon flash. This has been going on now for about 2 hours. Suddenly, directly overhead, a long-lasting barrage of flashing color booms, shattering flack all around the house. Not to be outdone, the neighbor two blocks over responds with even bigger booms and more color, and more flack. Then, the entire sky seems to ignite with rocket fire, flack, cannon fire, musket balls, roman candles and magnificent sparkling fountains. Someone sets off a package of 500 Black Cats, and another shoots about 20 screamers. Then all is quiet, except for the occasional screamer and various sundry m-60's. But this is only a momentary lull. The whole process starts all over again... and for the next two hours, the neighborhood is aglow in brilliant flashes and booms and cracks of varying intensity.

What is remarkable about all of this is that I live in a neighborhood dominated by hispanics and marshallese immigrants. Never have I seen such intense celebration on the 4th of July.

A little over a year ago, I was privileged to witness a citizenship ceremony. It was a beautiful experience, as one after another immigrant pledged their allegiance to the United States of America. These people worked hard to get to this point. Many cried tears of joy, expressing gratitude to the presiding judge and all those present.

This Fourth of July, as on most, the president of the United States addressed just such a ceremony. I imagine this group of candidates have worked just as hard as those I witnessed, and were just as excited. Only this group is privileged to be addressed by the leader of this new country of theirs.

Unfortunately, just as the President begins to address them, some boneheads in the back begin yelling. "Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush!" they yell. The President pauses while these folks are asked to be a little more respectful. They calm down... until the President begins speaking again. "Impeach Bush! Impeach Bush!" they yell again.

How selfish! How insensitively selfish is this! It's one thing to oppose the President, and I certainly have no problem with some bonehead proving his stupidity vocally, but have some !$%@* respect! Interrupt a fancy dinner, or campaign stump... but let these folks have their day. This is like interrupting an adoption hearing to stump for the judge's opponent. Or protesting at the burial of a fallen soldier. It is selfish, insensitive, moronic and idiotic. It does nothing to promote a cause, and only hurts those individuals who are trying to appreciate the solemnity of the occasion. Have some class!

It sounds like the war is winding down now. There is the occasional boom from the left, responded by a louder boom from the right. Now the left pauses for a second or two, then sets off another m-60. The army on the right lights off a couple of bottle rockets. From somewhere in the back comes a lone muffled shot. The guy on the left doesn't seem to want to let it end. He gets off a few more shots. After a few minutes, the team on the right replies with a single shot. Lefty quickly shoots back... I guess he made his point.

Now maybe I can get some sleep...

We the People v. We, the People

This article from the Wall Street Journal seems to nail the true decision we citizens face in today's political war. It is not so much a religious decision, as it is about whether to make a paradigmatic break from the ideals of our founding fathers. For much of this nation's history, our society has thrived on the notion that men must step up and provide for their own existence and that of their families. That is one reason families, even extended families, were so important. Together, they worked hard and lived or died off the fruits of their labors.

The Great Depression "woke us up", some would say, to the 'reality' that we can ill afford to care for ourselves without strong governmental coordination. That required, in part, the creation of government jobs and welfare programs. Eventually, this evolved into the mandate that government must protect a man from himself. However, despite all this, there still existed some semblance of the American Dream (Work hard in America and you can achieve whatever you truly desire).

Today, we stand at a new edge, where we must decide whether to drop the "work hard" portion of that American Dream. We must decide whether we, the people, individual and diverse citizens, should be permitted to control the destiny of our great country by our individual, private efforts, or whether We The People, mobocratic and of one conglomerate mind, ruled by the elite and controlled by the 'deservists', will control the destiny of our great country, carried on the backs of the ever-diminishing innovators and honest laborers.

You've Come a Long Way, Baby!

If gender stereotyping offends you, you have a new champion in Tyson Slocum, the Director of Public Citizen's Energy Program (why "Public" was even used in the name is beyond me... seems kind of unnecessary, doesn't it?). Anyway, he was on the O'Reilly Factor (Yes, we now have Fox News Channel...We discovered that we had been paying for Starz channels forever and didn't know it. Mrs. The Practicalist found that we could drop the Starz channel and upgrade to whatever package gives us the Fox News Channel, and actually save money!) where he was talking about how sucking 20 BILLION barrels of oil out of Alaska would do nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, during which discussion he said, and I quote (sort of): "blah blah why can't everyone just take the subway blah blah not going to knock us back into the cave-(slight careful pause)-'person' days blah blah blah".

Cave-PERSON?!! Are you kidding me?! Like, who is going to be offended by the term "CaveMAN"? That's like telling "stupid people" jokes. Who is going to come and ask you to please refrain? I'll give you that not only men deliver the mail, so some sensitive fe-uh-person (?), er, wo--person, girl might appreciate being called a mail person... but is she going to raise a fuss because you just made a generalization that only men were backward cave dwellers? What was so funny was that Mr. Tyler didn't even use the term naturally. He actually caught himself preparing to say "Man" and conscientiously selected the term "person".

Person, oh, person! (Note: After writing this post, I searched online and found that, perhaps, this guy might have something. For evidence, click here.)

AlGore the Magnificent

So, flipping thru the channels Sunday night (yes, I am a sinner who occasionally watches tv on Sunday, but in this case, it turned out to be appropriate) and hit on C-Span. When who to my wondering eyes should appear, but jolly Father AlGore and his faithful minions preaching the gosthpel of global dethstruction. So I watched. I have often wondered what it would be like to go mindless for a while. Not mindless as in sitting around watching reruns of Hawaii Five-o, but mindless as in lead me oh great and powerful Al, in the path of lefteousness, that I may put my environment and my job and my hemp-woven tie dye before my family and my God.

So, he drivels. And he dravels. And now and then, he drovels. Finally, he announces that here with him, to support him in this great mission to which the mothership has called him, are two great performers... ready?... Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood?!! HOLD ON, I say. Man, that sucks (that they have embraced the gosthpel of Father AlGore), but, hey... free concert... man.

Then, just as they enter the stage...


"We now will take you to the conference on the soft dissolution of Iraq study group, pre-recorded from Thursday. This will last approximately an hour and a half."

Gee, C-Span, its no wonder your ratings suck.

Oops. Gotta run... America's Got Talent (Deficit) is just finishing up and I want to see if it's going to be the gay Russian, or the cross-dressing curly haired lez who acts like a man acting like a girl.

Coulter... Controversial?! Say it isn't so!

OK. Personally, I don't much care for Ann Coulter. I understand what she is saying, and why she is saying it. Sometimes, I appreciate that she says some of the things she does. I have no problem with her speaking impassionately. For the most part, I think she is politically correct (although not necessarily in the contemporary context of that term). I guess I should rather say I think she is correct, politically. But sometimes, I wish she would just shutup. I would say that about several of the conservative commentators, as well. I know what it is like to try to make a point on the fly. You begin talking before your thoughts are complete and in order. Consequently, the way you word those thoughts can sound very immature or reactionary. I am afraid that Coulter suffers from many such unfortunate moments. But I appreciate what one writer said... something to the effect that she shocks us into dialogue over some important, but often taboo, subjects.

Unfortunately, she is also victim of editorial privilege. He who writes the news gets to shape it in whatever way he wishes. Without going directly to the source of her comments, particularly this last one about wishing John Edwards was killed by a terrorist assassination plot, many editors are allowing the comment to be understood as a personal wish of hers.

One in particular specifically states that she wished he was killed by assassins. Talk about fodder, Edward's campaign jumped all over it and raised millions of dollars. But what she really said was basically that if Bill Maher could publicly state his personal and sincere opinion that the world would be a better place if terrorists had killed our Vice President while he was in Afghanistan, to which there was very little public discussion, then maybe she can get away with saying that she hopes Edwards is killed in an assassination plot. This cannot seriously be taken as any sincere desire of hers, but only as an illustration of the hypocrisy of the left and those who determine what is to be public discourse. The current outrage certainly illustrates her point much better even than she did. Liberal Maher announces that he would have appreciated terrorists killing our VP, and nothing is said, while Conservative Coulter says what do you think would happen if I said I wish a presidential nobody candidate was assassinated, and the sh** hits the fan (as my mother used to say). I'd like someone to please justify this one to me.

Yeah, right.

Sheryl Crow Makes Sense

Sheryl Crow is urging the use of only one sheet of toilet paper per visit. Personally, I think this is a grand and practical idea. In addition to saving our planet from global warming by overheated used toilet paper (the friction caused by the wipe generates a significant amount of heat that gets trapped in the fibers), we would also be promoting a healthier and more sanitary environment, as we would be forced to wash our hands and clothes more frequently. We would also avoid social and public congregations, for obvious reasons, further alleviating the environment of the cumulative build up of hot air.

Crow further proposes the removable sleeve, for wiping your mouth during dinner, or your nose during a cold, or your eye after a melee in the mosh pit at a Crow concert. This will alleviate the overuse of throw-away napkins and kleenex. The preservation of germs and viruses will keep people home more often, resulting in decreased productivity, resulting in fewer vehicle and factory emissions, and more time watching indoctrinational daytime talk-shows. (I just wonder what we will use to dab our eyes during the soaps.)

There is an economic advantage behind this innovative toilet paper idea. In a house full of girls, 32.6% of our annual budget goes toward the purchase of this household necessity. No longer would I be interrupted in the middle of Lost by the all-too-familiar phrase "Can someone bring me some toilet paper?!!!"

Speaking of Chris Matthews...

I think I have found why Libs will always be Libs, and why they will never understand this war. They have no substance. For evidence, check out this blog. Particularly striking is Chris Matthews comment about why people were so supportive of Bush when he delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

As Matthews saw it, people jumped on the war wagon because they liked the idea of having a hero for president, because we like having a "guy" as our president. Thus, we supported the war, not because there were two very tall buildings no longer in the New York skyline,
or a big hole in the Pentagon, or a scar on a field in Pennsylvania. Not because Saddam had given us every reason to believe he was supporting the guys who dunnit. Not because Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and threatening to use them to destroy us. Not because this was an important stage in the war against terror. Not because we saw this as a strategic element in the big picture.
No, Chris gives supporters of this war no credit for having any substantial reason for supporting this war, and the commander-in-chief. We supported this war because Bush is a "guy".

"Sam," you say, "this seems to be evidence that conservatives have no substance." If you believe that, then you have just demonstrated your own lack of substance. Chris has no substance because he cannot accept that there may be valid reasons that people supported this war. He has no substance because he actually believes that supporters of the war have no substance, and that a person can only support the war because they are nothing but sheep. He has no substance because he looks at the person of the President rather than the substance of the President's arguments. He has no substance because he refuses to support the war only because he refuses to support a Republican president. And that is why he will always be a Lib. It's just too easy.

Resolved. Senators are Morons.

The Senate is getting all worked up over a non-binding resolution to remind us that they don't like Bush, therefore, they don't like his troop build-up plan. McCain called the plan 'intellectually dishonest.' I'm gonna have to agree with McCain on this one. I guess the Democrats ran out of things to legislate after graciously providing a pay raise for the five Americans who have been working at the same minimum wage job for the last 12 years and never got a raise. So now they have nothing to do but run around pecking the ground and pushing through meaningless resolutions that will have no affect short of sorting the morons from the imbeciles. So, once all the vital negotiations are completed, our overpaid and under worked senators will be able to overwhelm the media with little sound bites about how they support our troops but have no faith in their abilities to succeed. (Huh?)

Wow, can you imagine when they make the movies about this one. "Men!" says Mel Gibson, "We need to take this sector. Our illustrious Senate has so graciously allowed us to pay you, and they send their support, but they just want me to remind you that they have no faith in you. Well not you, really. They have no faith in us, your commanders. Especially your commander-in-chief. They want you to know that we are incompetent, but at least they support you. So go forth into battle, boys. Raise your voices high! This is obviously a failed mission, so if you don't succeed, don't worry about it." And then the music crescendos... well, sort of. Wow! What a blockbuster.

It's a great day for us libs!

I got an email from a good friend of mine, wondering what happened this week. The best I can say is... I sure am glad I am now a liberal. We won. We completely ignored the facts, analyzed our emotions, pled our emotional causes, and have now received validation.

We were very successful in convincing people to vote on emotion in complete ignorance of the facts. For example, the largest deciding factor for most of us was the war in Iraq. We don't like the way it is going. So we voted for a Democrat who also doesn't like the way it is going. Interestingly enough, George Snuffalufagus said, on ABC this morning, that there is admittedly very little that Congress can do to affect the way the war is going. That is the president's job.

Ignore the facts, vote on emotion.

You should try it.

It is very liberating.

Speaking of the President (I mean "Mr. Bush"), it sure was kind of him to wait until after the election to change out Rummy. Heaven only knows how many of these elections would have gone to the evile Republicans if he had only made the switch last month! Thanks, George! We owe you one.

Stirring up the Ark

Well, my letter got printed in the Arkansas Traveler, and the response has been wonderful. One insightful writer, a former journalist, went off on me because she is being stripped of her rights and doesn't know it (or I don't know it, or somebody in Iraq doesn't know it?)? Yeah, figure that one. Another assumed that because I don't like media bias, I don't know much about the war in Iraq, and neither does anyone who else who watches Fox News. (I just wish I could get Fox News.) And then there was Mr. Sturtevant, an Education graduate, who finally got to me. His wisdom and insight left me to ponder things about myself, and I realized that I just think too much. I learned that I have led a sheltered and insulated life. So, after much reflection, and lots of Cutsie Curic, I decided I needed to publicly recognize Mr. Sturtevant's contributions to my life.

Liberal letter enlightens (How do you like that headline?)

Please thank Mr. Sturtevant for bringing to light my unfortunate disposition toward being easily misled. Having reflected upon this personal fault, I am now a changed man. There is no bias in the media. Rove's comments were properly sandwiched between arguments against the administration, and under a headline, which clearly and properly colored his visit and comments in shrouds of protest. I can ignore that such treatment was not given to any of the many stories reporting on activities promoting the illustrious left (e.g., Judge Griffen's story, or the Oct. 9 story regarding the former CIA agent promoting Bush lied to us.)

I can accept that Bush lied to us, even though this greatly distorts the definition of "lie." I can ignore the actual fact that my president acted on faulty intelligence, and patterns of behavior and threats made by Hussein.

Judge Griffen correctly stated that no one invited us to depose Saddam. I can simply ignore the fact that thousands of dissidents had been begging us for years to do just that.

People of faith have no business expressing their moral opinions. Pointing out to another where one thinks that person has gone astray from moral virtue, standing up to protect society from what one considers to be deviant behavior, and defending what one perceives to be morally right is intolerance, and should not be tolerated in our society!

The loss of 2,809 soldiers in a three and a half year war to defend me from terrorists, and the world from madmen who killed hundreds of thousands of people and threatened to use weapons of mass destruction to destroy me and my way of life is too high a price; and not contrasting it to the number of soldiers killed in previous wars does not misguide or mislead people. This number should be placed in front of me at all times so that I might feel the guilt.

Finally, I am convinced that when my school paper speaks to issues outside of campus, it should be to reform those misled conservatives. Leave fair and balanced to Fox News. I should have been more supportive of my fees going to support liberal campaign material.

Again, thank you, Mr. Sturtevant. You have changed my life. By simply ignoring the facts, I shall no longer be misled.

Sam Eastman
Graduate Student
Law

Oprah, or Harpo?

Oprah looked a lot like Harpo the other day, pulling things out of her pocket that have no bearing to relevancy. After interviewing the loveable Michael J. Fox (who I admittedly enjoyed as an actor, and admire for his efforts in pursuing a cure for Parkinson's), Oprah stood in the Holocaust Museum and declared how unfortunate it is that Fox is getting headline coverage, instead of the number of soldiers dying in Iraq.

Grabbing her own spotlight, Cutsie Couric pops up on CBS News to introduce Fox as the unfortunate victim of a political controversy, simply because he wanted to promote a Democrat candidate whom he has probably never met in a state he has probably never seen. Poor guy. (Interesting that he was able to sit relatively still for Cutsie's interview.)

But back to Oprah's comment. Fox is getting headline news because he insterted himself into a political campaign of national importance. He is getting headline news because media folks like Oprah and Cutsie wanted to exploit what some talk-show guy they don't even listen to had to say about a Parkinson's sufferer who put himself smack-dab in the center of a political debate (with very few facts, I might add). And then, after shamelessly exploiting this American icon, they decry the very fact that they even had to bring this issue to our attention, when there is other, far more important matters of propaganda which should be our focus.

Oprah, look at your freakin' newspaper. Tell me, without opening the paper, how many soldiers died in Iraq today. Exactly. It's right there. Don't whine about the body count not being in the spotlight. It will not go away. Trust me. So long as it scores political points, it will not go away. And Cutsie will smile in her sad little way every time she gets to report a larger number.

Please Write Responsibly

Thought you might enjoy this letter to the editor of the Arkansas Traveler. I doubt it will be printed (it turns out it exceeded the wordcount). Enjoy.

Dear Editor,

Shame on you and your staff. You have taken what should be a quality student paper and turned it into nothing more than a shameless rag of propaganda. It is unfortunate that as a student I have no choice but to fund such a machine.

Let me direct your attention first to the visit of Carl Rove, the president's political advisor. One would think that the visit of a man of his position to Fayetteville, Arkansas would be the news story, whether you like him or not. Instead, how are we told of his visit? The front page screamed that he was met with protestors, accompanied by a large picture of two old people carrying three large signs. The article mentioned very little of the substance of his appearance, but seemed to relish in the notion that a few people were unhappy that he chose to come here to campaign for candidates that agree with his ideas.

Contrast that with Monday, October 23. Judge Wendell Griffen of the Arkansas Court of Appeals appears in a church on Sunday, to lecture about how evil Bush is, how much he loves his country, and how bothered he is that people of morals actually wish to promote those morals. It is, of course, his right to promote his morals (although people of morals shouldn't promote their morals politically?), but it would sure help if he would have incorporated a few actual truths into his ramblings (he must have forgotten that a large number of Iraqi dissidents and Kurds had been begging for the US to help get rid of Saddam Hussein for years). But in this instance, the substance of his irresponsible sermon is hailed on the front page of our school paper as a priceless lesson on the need for our nation to be more neighborly (the Good Samaritan was not in the process of battling terrorists who had just blown his right arm off). Interestingly, this appeared directly over an article about the rights of journalists and biases in the media. I wonder where these biases are born.

And then the Opinion page, of course, contains nothing more than further anti-war, Bush hating (or very strongly misliking) bluther, with more misguided references to the number of soldiers killed contrasted against the highly speculative high numbers of Iraqi casualties and more "just tell us the truth, Bush" commentaries. (Maybe you just can't handle the truth?) Interesting, what with the elections so close.

Freedom of speech is great. But please try to be a little more responsible with my fees.

How now brown cow

I do not want to get into the habit of snatching up one of those pass-along funny e-mails and posting it on my blog, but this one really got me. If you haven't seen it already, I think you will enjoy it, and will forgive me this one time. I promise it will seldom happen again. (I edited a little bit, and added my own at the end.) Also, I wish I could give credit to whoever originated this, but I do not know. I hope he/she won't mind my publishing it.


POLITICAL SCIENCE 101 - - 2006**
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.They make real California cheese.Only five speak English.Most are illegal.Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

LIBERAL
You have two cows.
Unfortunately, your cows are burping and farting and melting the polar ice caps.
However, you can't slaughter the cows, because that would be cruel.
But you can sign them up for Medicare.
They are then treated for gastrointestinal problems and collect disability checks because they can no longer work.
They sue you for illegal imprisonment, and you are forced to join the peace corps and install freezers in Antarctica