Conservative philosophy and positive social change

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Great post.

Wendy W.

+2

I wish I were better at putting my thoughts and intent into words.



Edited because I'm not good at putting my thoughts and intent into words.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Isn't "progressive" merely a response to "progress?" Can we not blame "progressives" for the ecological distaster that progressives claim we need to change? Had there been no "progress" then there would be no "progressives" to rail against the "progess" that they themselves has brought about.

"Progressives" brought about laws that prohibited working 10 year old kids to death in coal mines. Of course, it was a "progressive" idea to use coal, and even to find apt physical specimens to toil in those mines. That's progress, too.

That's why I find such subjective definition heelarious. They can be spun so many ways...

Personally I believe we need to progress.. Make way for a better future rather than keep us perpetually in the current state of decay we are seeing. Conservatism to me means stagnation.. or in the case of religious fundamentalists.. a roll back to a bad time in history when a few had the power over many. Sorry but I do not want my leaders dictating from Rome or local pulpits or mosques... you're milage may vary.

Right now.. ecological disaster means the status quo.. and conservatives seem to have no problem with destroying our air and water and usurping the finite resources of our planet for the benefit of a very few to get very rich.

I think getting kids out of the mines was a great goal...and take that a few steps further and make the mines safer for ALL of the people working there to extract what is needed.Making safety decisions based on the amount of tons per human life is not acceptable either.

Utilizing coal as a source of energy is thousands of years old... but back then the amount used had little effect on air or water quality. Today it does have an effect... a DRASTIC effect on our ecology. I tend to travel around the country and I am ALWAYS appalled when I go back east and the air.. even after all the laws and the requirements to clean up the coal plants.. and cars to put out less pollution... the air is visibly dirty... smells bad and is having health effects on those who live there. I guess some people here don’t have a problem with living in a polluted environment….I don’t know about you but so sorry if I don’t wish to join you conservatives in your local cesspools.


We as a country have the ability to be very progressivive in many areas. That is what I would like to see is a future better for all Americans.. not just a few as conservatives seem to support.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

>The Holocaust.

In general, removal of rights from a group of people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. has been characteristic of the conservative movement here in the US. This is not because conservatives oppose such rights, but rather because they favor a more conservative, traditional set of societal norms, and often these norms include things like historical prohibition of interracial or same-sex marriage, restrictions on the rights of minorities and restrictions on women's rights.

Rather than the Holocaust ... or perhaps as more recent example, I would suggest the rise of Taliban as an example of negative social change.

/Marg

I was going to suggest the rise of the Taliban (and Sharia Law). People forget that conservative and progressive are words that require context.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Can anyone provide any examples of positive social change based on conservative political philosophy?

Progressive political philosophy has brought about positive social change in the form of women’s suffrage, the end of the miscegenation laws, and the civil rights movement. These are all examples of positive social change that occurred, in SPITE of conservative opposition. None of these issues were popular, or had majority support from voters, at the time.

I can’t think of a single positive social change that came about by conservatism. Can you?

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive").




Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote.

Republicans also passed an act which guaranteed the right or equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations, whether or not controlled by government. (In 1883 the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional).

It was Aaron Sargent, Republican from California who introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn't become law of the land until 1920 when Republicans gained the majority in the US House and Senate.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933 a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. It should be noted that Democrats held the White House from 1933 to 1952.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (HR 7152) passed the House on Feb 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the Civil Rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34 or 80 percent. Democrats supported it 152 to 96 or 61 percent.

In the Senate the person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois. There were 52 days of filibusters by Southern Democrats before Dirksen got the Senate to vote 76 to 18 to adopt a bipartisan substitute he had worked out. On June 19, 1964 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Bill 73 to 27. Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor or 69 percent, while Republicans voted 27 to 6 or 82 percent in favor. Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee along with most Southern Democrats voted in opposition.

On the Voter Rights Act of 1965, House Democrats voted 217 to 54 or 80 percent in favor while Republicans voted 111 to 20 or 85 percent in favor. In the Senate Democrats voted 49 to 17 or 62 percent in favor while Republicans voted 30 to 1 or 97 percent in favor.

Since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Republicans have consistently voted in favor of renewal or enhancement of the Act.

Finally, President George W. Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high level positions within his administration than any other President in history. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as Secretaries of State, Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General along with the appointment of an openly gay man, Scott Evertz, as Director of Office of National AIDS Policy and Michael E. Guest, openly gay, to be Ambassador to Romania to name just a few.


Maybe you should do a little research.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Can anyone provide any examples of positive social change based on conservative political philosophy?



I can’t think of a single positive social change that came about by conservatism. Can you?

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive").

Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote.

By invoking the foundation of the Republican party you actually further his point w/r/t conservative philosophy and social change, perhaps ironically. And you also further your point on the value of doing "a little research."

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can anyone provide any examples of positive social change based on conservative political philosophy?



I can’t think of a single positive social change that came about by conservatism. Can you?

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive").

Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote.

By invoking the foundation of the Republican party you actually further his point w/r/t conservative philosophy and social change, perhaps ironically. And you also further your point on the value of doing "a little research."

Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party.

The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves).

When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.)

When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.)

Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists).

Things change, eh?

/Marg

Yes, things change, but by the time of civil rights movement, it was clearly the republicans that were on the conservative side and the dems that were libs. Repeatedly (in the modern era), the dems (libs) take claim to being civil rights supporters, yet it is the republicans (conservatives) that actually vote that way.

I choose to watch how politicians vote, not how they speak. It's a much more accurate measure of their true intentions

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Yes, things change, but by the time of civil rights movement, it was clearly the republicans that were on the conservative side and the dems that were libs. Repeatedly (in the modern era), the dems (libs) take claim to being civil rights supporters, yet it is the republicans (conservatives) that actually vote that way.

No. If you assert enacting civil rights legislation (putting aside historical issues and idiosyncracies for a moment) as indication of progressive social change, that *is* an example of Republicans not behaving in a conservative fashion (i.e., supporting something other than the status quo or slow prudent change). This is an example of where party labels (Dem, GOP, Whigs) don't fit today's partisan bickering.



/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

In the Senate the person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois. There were 52 days of filibusters by Southern Democrats before Dirksen got the Senate to vote 76 to 18 to adopt a bipartisan substitute he had worked out. On June 19, 1964 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Bill 73 to 27. Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor or 69 percent, while Republicans voted 27 to 6 or 82 percent in favor. Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee along with most Southern Democrats voted in opposition.

On the Voter Rights Act of 1965, House Democrats voted 217 to 54 or 80 percent in favor while Republicans voted 111 to 20 or 85 percent in favor. In the Senate Democrats voted 49 to 17 or 62 percent in favor while Republicans voted 30 to 1 or 97 percent in favor.

You seem to forget something.. THAT Democratic Party is long gone.. and most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans since they left the Democratic Party in DROVES after President Johnson(D-Texas) butt hurt them so badly in the 60's.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

In the Senate the person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, a Republican from Illinois. There were 52 days of filibusters by Southern Democrats before Dirksen got the Senate to vote 76 to 18 to adopt a bipartisan substitute he had worked out. On June 19, 1964 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Bill 73 to 27. Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 in favor or 69 percent, while Republicans voted 27 to 6 or 82 percent in favor. Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee along with most Southern Democrats voted in opposition.

On the Voter Rights Act of 1965, House Democrats voted 217 to 54 or 80 percent in favor while Republicans voted 111 to 20 or 85 percent in favor. In the Senate Democrats voted 49 to 17 or 62 percent in favor while Republicans voted 30 to 1 or 97 percent in favor.

You seem to forget something.. THAT Democratic Party is long gone.. and most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans since they left the Democratic Party in DROVES after President Johnson(D-Texas) butt hurt them so badly in the 60's.

Not exactly. The "southern bigots" you refer to come in all political persuasions. I ran a DZ on a city-owned airport in Wharton, Texas (a rural southern city of 15 or 20,000 people), and met most all of the city officials from the board, the fire dept, police, etc, as well as many people from the community. I can tell you that there was no pattern to who was a bigot and what party they were associated with.

You are also wrong about "bible thumpers". In my experience, the more religious the person (at least here in Texas) the less prejudiced and more tolerant they are.

Once again, we see the left attempt to win the argument with crap that simply isn't true.

Bigots come in all stripes, my friend.

And I love your statement most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans?

Funny how the bigots never see it in themselves.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Amazon 7]

Well pardon me all to hell when I have learned over a lifetime of exposure to bigots.. if I am intolerant of them.

[Channman 2]

Funny how the bigots never see it in themselves.

OOCH,, you did that rebuke so nicely.

[Amazon 7]

ITs good to know at LEAST that the BIGOTS do know what they are though.

I love the modern world where good ole boys try to feel all butt hurt over having it pointed out to them.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Well pardon me all to hell when I have learned over a lifetime of exposure to bigots.. if I am intolerant of them.

No need to get testy with me. I just pointed out your intolerance and bigotry - I didn't cause it.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Amazon 7]

I know WHY I am intolerant of bigots... how about you??? What is the source of your bigotry??

[Channman 2]

I'm sure his intent wasn't to cause you harm but only to help point out an issue that you seem to be struggling with. Kind of like an intervention.

[Amazon 7]

I wonder if those of you on the fringes of right wing thought have ever heard of Orwellian NEW SPEAK

You certainly seem to be steeped in its usage.

[jerryzflies 0]

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964. Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against the Democratic Party.

Johnson's analysis is more accurate than yours. In fact the southern bigots went GOP for 2 generations.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Channman 2]

There you go, throwing big words at me. (Orwellian)

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

I know WHY I am intolerant of bigots... how about you??? What is the source of your bigotry??

If you'd like to point out where you see bigotry in me, I'll gladly discuss it with you. In my life, I prefer to see goodness in all people until and unless they show me why I shouldn't. I was taught as a child and still believe today that there is no room in my heart for hatred.

Don't get me wrong - I do call 'em as I see 'em. I just don't see 'em negatively until they show me.

I sleep better that way.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I just don't see 'em negatively until they show me.

I have been shown..... up close and personal. I also call it as I see it.... and I am still seeing it.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

I just don't see 'em negatively until they show me.

I have been shown..... up close and personal. I also call it as I see it.... and I am still seeing it.

What if someone has seen and experience things that makes them a biggot. Does that make it ok?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

and most of those Southern Bigots are now staunch Ultra Right Wing Bible Thumping Republicans since they left the Democratic Party in DROVES after President Johnson(D-Texas) butt hurt them so badly in the 60's.

But plenty of them stuck around. Cats like Robert Byrd - a grand wizard or something like that for the KKK. What else did he do? He voted against Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the SCOTUS. He filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And not only is he a Democrat, he is also President pro tempore of the Senate.

Richard Russell didn't bolt from the Dem Party. He died in 1971 - a Democratic senator from Georgia.

There is one thing that I don't htink you recognize, JEanne - the Southern Democrats remained in power until the 1980's. You also fail to look at facts:

The 1968 Civil Rights Act -
Senate: Dems 42-17; GOP 29-3
House: Dems 150-88; GOP 100-84.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act =
Senate: Dems - 47-17; GOP 30-2
House: Dems 221-61; GOP 112-24

This doesn't seem to be the exodus of which you spoke?

It'd be convenient to claim that the exodus of southern folk to the GOP was on the basis of racism, but the Southern Conservative didn't come around until Reagan. And myopinion differs - I don't think it was racism or even religion but was more in line with economic and political policy. Otherwise, the exodus would have happened much more quickly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In fact the southern bigots went GOP for 2 generations.

Yep. About a generation later.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Personally I believe we need to progress..

I disagree. I think that you believe that we need to progress in the direction you want it to go. Anything else is not "progress." It's a human emotion.

Personally, I think that I need to progress to where I want to be. Note - I didn't say "we" need to progress. If you want to progress, great! If want to progress, then fine! I won't tell you where you "need" to go. I will tell nobody else where they "need" to go. And in exchange, I merely ask that nobody tell me where to go. Unless it's go to hell or something - a place I know well.

Quote

Make way for a better future

What is better to you is not necessarily better for me. Me? I want to be left alone. That might not work for you - you may desire government to guide you every step. Neither is objectively better or worse.

Quote

rather than keep us perpetually in the current state of decay we are seeing.

Decay? This is where we disagree. We've got a president of African descent. Most of us would see that as progress rather than "decay." Then again, there are plenty of southern redneck bigots who will agree with you. But that's just your opinion. And it's your right.

Quote

Conservatism to me means stagnation.. or in the case of religious fundamentalists.. a roll back to a bad time in history when a few had the power over many.

And my definition disagrees. My personal opinion is that it is the "progressive" political philosophy that led to the massive usurpation and centralization of power in Washington D.C. because, well, the states just may be a bit backwards.

Quote

Sorry but I do not want my leaders dictating from Rome or local pulpits or mosques... you're milage may vary.

I'd rather not have my leaders dictating. That's actually kind of a conservative thought - leave me the hell alone and don't tell me what to do. If anyone is going to have any control, I'd want that person to be a local, since I don't think that the Sedona environmentalist fully comprehends that her daily orange juice will be more difficult to get if the delta smelt gets more water from the Sacramento Delta.

I know, I know. What do a bunch of imported Okies in the Central Valley know about what's good for em?

Quote

Right now.. ecological disaster means the status quo

PRAISE THE LORD! MAY I GET AN AMEN BROTHERS AND SISTER! AND NOW YOU CAN RENT MY NEW VIDEO, "HOW CRACKA REAGAN AND HIS HIS HOOKNOSE CABINET HONKIES MELTED GLACIERS ON KILIMANJARO," ON DVD AND BLUE RAY, AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW,...
FOR ONLY 22.99...
at your LOCAL!
WALMART!
SHOP!

Quote

and conservatives seem to have no problem with destroying our air and water and usurping the finite resources of our planet for the benefit of a very few to get very rich.

Have no problem? As I indicated above, it would be swell if we could grow food without water, but it's proven to be difficult. What few people are getting very rich off of ecological disaster? Well, Al Gore, for one.

Quote

I think getting kids out of the mines was a great goal...and take that a few steps further and make the mines safer for ALL of the people working there to extract what is needed.

We've actually doen a fairly good job of that. Compare China - people die there literally every day, digging dirty coal that isn't scrubbed. Progress.

Quote

Making safety decisions based on the amount of tons per human life is not acceptable either.

I concur wholeheartedly. Too bad progressives stopped progress in the 70's with the China Syndrome. Jane Fonda has a long history of being a religious right wing zealot.

Quote

Utilizing coal as a source of energy is thousands of years old... but back then the amount used had little effect on air or water quality. Today it does have an effect... a DRASTIC effect on our ecology.

Yeah. And it seems we're using more now that ever - especially west of the Rockies because it's cheap and plentiful. And we've "progressed" past that. I refer you to 1952, London, where a bitterly cold fog descended. I can relate to you from recent experience that "fog" usually means "calm." So the Londoners burned coal to do things like stay alive and warm in the cold. But the pollution with the fog killed 4k.

We don't see that much anymore. Government regulation has much to do with that - admittedly. And th regulations made centralized energy distribution (cleaner) a policy, which made people very wealthy.

There is a bit for everyone. PRogress? It used to be progress that people could start a fire to stay warm. Now it's progress that people don't start fires to stay warm. How about that?

Quote

I tend to travel around the country and I am ALWAYS appalled when I go back east and the air.. even after all the laws and the requirements to clean up the coal plants

See, the problem is, those coal plants were built when there was a need for energy to do things like keep people alive. I tend to view "progress" as mortality rates and ages. In the US, Western Eaurope, Japan, etc., you'll find people living much longer. I think that's progress.

But that's just me. And, aside, the air in the US, by many measures, is better now than it was before Reagan. And my guess is that worldwide pollution is gonna plummet this year due to that worldwide recession thingy. Progress can be measured by moving backwards in other places.

Quote

and cars to put out less pollution... the air is visibly dirty... smells bad and is having health effects on those who live there.

Indeed. It may be hazardous to the elderly. Oh, yeah, 100 years ago, elderly was considered anyone over the age of 55.

Quote

I guess some people here don’t have a problem with living in a polluted environment

That's because many of us have a bigger problem feeding our families. A wood burning ban in effect? Fuck that. That temperature drops below 59 in the winter, and I'm lighting the fireplace. It would be nice to be able to afford that natural gas central heater like you do. I'm not the guy who is gonna say, "Fuck the poor" and let them freeze. But, again, those are just my personal values.

Quote

don’t know about you but so sorry if I don’t wish to join you conservatives in your local cesspools.

So are you gonna go join Randy Weaver?

Quote

We as a country have the ability to be very progressivive in many areas.

And for some, "progress" means "moving towards a religious republic." It means different things to everyone and is based on individual and subjective values. Progress to me would be comfortable airline seating designed for someone 6'1" tall. Others may disagree.

Quote

That is what I would like to see is a future better for all Americans.

Not all of your beliefs on progress would even provide a better future for me! I'm sure that my ideal society would be a real bummer for segments of the population. That's why I don't work for a better future for "all Americans." There is no such thing.

You tell me what's better for you. You speak for nobody else.

I'll tell you what's better for me. I speak for nobody else.

I think that recognition of this last point by everybody would be "progress." Then again, that's just me. I'm sure those who are self-anointed and holier than thou would not find such a recognition to be a better thing for them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

we're not paying by the word (or hour), man!