vent some sort of frustration: either way, it's not looking therapeutic or useful. 4th: In general, it seems that the current political argument (not a debate-- more an exercise in individual self-validation) is being spearheaded by two overlapping camps. In one camp, the voices speak of political agendas. In the other camp, the slogan is one of conspiracy. Like I say these camps overlap and include members of all parties and nationalities. I hope this polarity is a passing fad, and not an indication that Americans are no longer capable of reasonable discussion and compromise. Michael T | 8.3.09 @ 7:27AM mmm....while what Stein writes is a correct analysis (congrats)...all this was known prior to the election...why wasn't this written in the NY Times in the fall, before the election, when it might have had some impact...let me suggest why...Stein is a statist....for proof, see his articles in the NYT though the financial crisis when he advocated various government interventions into the market place via interest rates, Fanny Mae, and other "plans". Stein likely thought at the time that Obama was a sensible statist who would intervene intelligently -- it's the flaw that all statists have -- they think individual rights can be violated intelligently and they trust the violator without regard to future violations (i.e. future government interventions). So, Ben Stein, I applaud your article...wish it would have been written when it could have been written, written with regard to the protection of individual rights principles, to help America