It is gratifying to know that people are outraged and can see this rube for what he is. But I would prefer that you get the underlying difference between the haves and the havenots, hence those in power in the Republican Party. To illustrate, let me share a story that actually happened:

I was lobbying on behalf of my International Union in Washington, DC. I had a number of rank and file union members with me. We were visiting with a Congressman from Michigan, and the leader of his caucus. The issue we were lobbying on had to do with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (known in the States as "OSHA"). It seems that the Repubs wanted to leave the law intact but take out the enforcement powers rendering it useless. When they saw this group of constituents being led by a dumb union organizer, they made a play. They waxed eloquent and persuasively about how the law was restrictive, how it cost jobs, and how we had to be flexible in order to compete in todays environment. I waited patiently as they made the pitch to try and take my members from me. When they were done (and you should have seen the smug expressions on their faces), they looked at me as if expecting a response, and absolutely confidant that I would appear foolish in it. I asked the following. "Congressmen, since the inception of enforcement powers back in the 60's, in a very short order the mortality/morbidity rates in the workplace went down immediately. There is a corresponding drop/increase every time one modifies these enforcement power. There is no doubt, it is undeniable, that if you take the enforcement out of OSHA, there will be a rise in workplace deaths and injuries. And these are the folks who will hold the heads together, or attempt to staunch the bleeding, or pack the severed limb in ice .... these are the folks who will try and comfort the relatives. So I have a question for you good Congressmen. If we know with a certainty that taking the enforcement powers out of OSHA will increase the death rates, how can you support anything that will hurt or kill even one worker? Isn't the goal to reduce the numbers of injured? Or is there an acceptable number of deaths to justify increased profits?"

These two (one whose name you would know very well) were very upset. The rather famous one said I was a "cocky sonofb..." and he resented my suggesting that he would be responsible for dead workers. I pointed out to him that was the practical meaning of his actions. One of my proudest moments.

The real relevance to the current topic is that those driven by the bottom line don't see the faces. When they make decisions, they don't think in terms of human life and suffering. It is why Bush is so dumbfounded when he visits and this woman doesn't fawn, she doesn't talk nice, she just wants clothes. He wants to talk in philosophical terms and be disconnected from the reality, and she wants to stay warm and stay alive. He can't relate, because he has never been anywhere close to this.

This is a condition of all politicians to some degree, but the rich conservatives are most guilty. They think in terms of net gains to their own interests, and never see the human suffering. When a few folks die so they can pursue their agenda, that is acceptable loss. They need to take their asses down to Louisiana and explain that to the families that are suffering.

Mick