Seven Ideas for Seven Days:
Making Democrats Electable

Although the film is copyrighted to William A. Spriggs,
progressives everywhere are free to use any portion of the film. (Three ideas are original).

This project has not been about selling the film or being hired as a "consultant"; it's about getting our country back on the right track.
If it helps democrats to get organized, then it has been worth every penny.
God save our country.

William Anthony Spriggs,

May 1st, 2006

*********

Since there have been several inquries about getting more copies of the film, I have decided that since 90% of the film is one person speaking (either myself or the commentator, Michael Best), that I would just provide the script below. This would then eliminate the need for duplication fees, jewell cases, mailers, and postage -- spreading the information at no cost.

***********

OPENING

[opening scene: school yard with bully beating the crap out of A submissive male. Young female comes to the aid of the beaten boy:
Girl: Are you OK?
Beaten and depressed boy: What does it look like?
Girl: Are you sad because your hurt?
BDB: No, I'm sad because I didn't fight back.
[fade out]

*****
[fade in]
Hello, my name is William Anthony Spriggs

This short movie has been sent to progressive individuals and organizations in the hope that the ideas presented will be a spark for others to stand up and give us their ideas to reignite the Democratic Party.

I'm just a private citizen; a regular "Joe-Six-Pack" who's punched a time clock for 25 years and has been a union member for the same time.

I proudly call myself a Liberal and a Democrat.

The tale reminds me of the Democratic Party in 2006, as it is being bullied by the majority party.

There are no doubts that the Democrats are depressed at their current position in the political pecking order, but I also sense that they are sadder still that no unifying voice is being raised in opposition.

As for myself, I was tired of listening to conservative critics saying that the Democratic Party "has nothing new" to offer to the American Public and that the Democratic Party remains effective at making themselves unelectable.

As a direct challenge to that line of conservative thought, I have produced this short movie with seven ideas which I feel will help, not just get Democrats reelected, but also help put Democrats back into the majority.

We just can't run on just pointing out how badly Republicans are running the country.

As you will notice, I have placed these seven ideas within a seven day calendar week.

And why put them into the days of a calendar week?

To fight back another criticism of the Democratic Party - That they can't stay on message.

It's very easy - All Democrats have to remember is what day of the week it is, and that will be the only subject that Democrats should debate that day.

[fade out]
[fade in to Michael Best who will act as guide through the Seven Ideas for Seven Days]

[FADE OUT WILLIAM AND FADE IN TO MICHEAL BEST]

MONDAY'S IDEA:
LEAVE NO MOTHER AND CHILD BEHIND

In Hollywood movies, when a passenger ship is sinking, the call goes out for all women and children be put on life boats first.
Under republican rule, what we once knew as the American Dream for the middle-class is sinking faster than the Titanic as massive job cuts are announced, jobs are outsourced, jobs are outsourced, educational loans are cut, and rising health care costs are creating anxieties which are turning the dream into a nightmare.

As progressives, we know that the most vulnerable of Americans among us are mothers with children and whatever fears we may have, they are doubled for this group.

Children are the future - and if their mothers are desperate and alone, that means that the part of America's future is desperate and alone.
When originally sketched, our Monday topic was to be for health care for children, but pondering more deeply, we acknowledged that every child usually comes with a mother attached.

But it's not just the assault on the American middle-class that conservative desire, they also want to control a female's reproductive choice and culturally make the female submissive to male rule.

If we look closely at all the religious fundamentalists on the planet, what we find is that the masculine view of domination and control over women is a supporting beam among their belief system.

Wife-beatings, honor deaths, and rape are not considered abuses when sexual control is part of the culture and given religious approval in the local environments.

With the appointment of Mr. Alito to the Supreme Court, and his known membership in a Yale University club dedicated to the exclusion of minorities and women, America is inching closer and closer to this conservative ideal world of masculine control.

A closely related behavior in America is domestic abuse.

As volumes of studies have shown us, domestic violence begins with one spouse dominating the other spouse by limiting that person's freedoms.
Yes, females have been known to abuse their male spouses, but statistics don't lie - the overwhelming majority of the cases are males abusing their female spouses.

First comes the abusive language, then the verbal threat of physical violence, it is sometimes accompanied by the withdrawal of funds in which to limit maneuvering opportunities of the other spouse. The dominating spouse attempts to limit the spouse's access to friends and is constantly on guard for any sexual behavior that would not be under their control.

Does the potential overturn of Roe vs. Wade, the lack of funding for no child left behind, the refusal to fund birth-control information to other countries, and the constant peeking into the bedrooms of America's sexual behavior sound very much like spousal abuse or religious fundamentalism?

You bet is is.

In today's topic, leave no mother and child behind, the overriding premise is for the democrats to declare that they understand this conservative political philosophy and its similarities to religious fundamentalism. Not just is this country, but is all countries.

Once framed, the democrats should then campaign on helping the mother and child from dependency on masculine assistance. We should declare our campaign platform by calling for free health care for all mothers with dependent children.

Once established, we should campaign on its continued expansion into dental care, housing, self-employment opportunities, and day care assistance.

We should first target feminist groups and explain our intentions and ask their help to channel their efforts and funds into making this a reality..

But I have a warning to all progressives! Take not that the current system of depending on males exists today because the majority - let me repeat that - the majority of American women have no alternatives to this lifestyle in our culture, and that is the unmentioned goal of religious fundamentalism - to limit opportunities.

There are many women in America today who think that having a male care, protect, and provide all things for them and their children is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Jimmy Carter, in his book,Our Endangered Values, has written:

"What is especially disappointing to me is the docile acceptance by so many strong Christian women of their subjugation and restricted role." P. 93.


What this campaign idea is about is the beginning to the end of mother and child dependency on males.

And why would that be important?

Because of the approximately 4000 mammal species on the planet, only two - humans and chimpanzees - form coalitions to attack their own species. And in both cases, it is the male gender that goes to war.

This aggressiveness of the male is solely because the female has accepted the aggressive male as the best possible route to assist her children. This behavior is evolutionary in its origin.

We strongly believe that this is a great long term objective, and because of its controversial nature.

TUESDAY'S IDEA:
MOVING ELECTIONS PERMANTENLY TO VETERAN'S DAY
NOVEMBER 11TH

[Ideal opening: two to three minute opening] Various clips of people being asked the question: Why are elections held on a Tuesday?]

Since today is Tuesday, our topic is about voting on Tuesdays.

Let's begin by asking the question: Do you know why elections are held on Tuesday?

I would say that most people can't answer the question correctly.

The most likely reason for that is because the federal law declaring Presidential elections to be held on the 1st Tuesday in November was passed in 1845.

In 1875, the law was extended to include National House Elections on the same date, and the law to vote for Federal Senate seats was passed in 1914 - Also to be held on the same 1st Tuesday in November.

In a recent speech, G.W. Bush mentioned that a law concerning wire tapping was passed back in 1978, and he dismissively told the American people, that "It's 2006, and that was back in 1978. We live in a different world today."

[snide, and smirky] Gee, I wonder what he would say about a law passed in 1845?

It truly was a different world then.

The reasoning to make Tuesday the big event was that America in 1845 was mostly rural farm land and this country's economy was based on agriculture. Voting was generally done at the county seat and that meant that rural farmers had to travel large distances to vote - and that meant spending one night in the county seat before voting the next day. So, since Sunday, was a national day of worship, the travel day was decided upon as Monday, with Tuesday as the voting day.

THE IDEA OF MAKING ELECTIONS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY, OR being held ON SUNDAY HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE, BUT WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS CAN MAKE REPUBLICANS DO THE TEXAS-TWO-STEP ON THIS ISSUE, The idea of making elections a national holiday, or being held on Sunday have been made before, but we strongly believe that democrats can make republicans do the "Texas-two-step" because we know that they do not want to make voting easy or popular with the American public.

So our Tuesday idea is:

Moving Election Day permanently to Veteran's day which is always November 11th.

Veteran's day, of course, is already a national holiday, but more than that, the campaign to move Election Day to Veteran's Day carries a special message.

That message is that, without the sacrifice paid for by our armed forces, we would not be able to express our democracy. Period.
Democracy is not free.
The men and women in uniform who made it all possible should be given the highest honor possible. And anyone who objects to moving Election Day to Veteran's Day is showing the greatest disrespect for that sacrifice.

There is nothing more to say..

Tuesday's idea stands by itself.

Let's see who's the more patriotic.

WEDNESDAY'S IDEA:
FREEDOM FROM FOREIGN OIL WELFARE

Today's idea is really an old one, but one that can easily win votes for Democrats if we hammer away at the subject every Wednesday. This is a great frame because the price of gasoline at the pump is a daily reminder of Republicans screwing the American public on a daily basis.

It's all about oil folks, and the wonderful Oil Barons who brought Americans to the dance, wooed them with cheap oil, then stuck it too them in the back seat of their SUVs. After a quickie, they ceremoniously kicked them out of the car and left them by the side of the road as they rode off and counted their profits.

[Commentator holds up left or right hand]
[back of hand facing camera, and all five fingers visible to the camera]
The hand, which has a rubber glove covering 80% OF the hand, is then "snapped" into the hand the rest of the way].

If my hand represents the invisible hand of the market place, I hope that you can read between the lines the message that the oil executives gave to Congress and the American people when questioned about excessive oil profits in just the fourth quarter of 2005. [Hand goes down, out of sight]

Republicans are very quick to mention that the invisible hand of the market place will always give the consumers the lowest possible price because of the competitive nature of the market place.

[With angry expression and close up of face] Are you paying more for gas under republican rule then when democrats were in control? (Important that the word RULE be emphasized, [subliminal frame]

Are you better off now then you were four years ago? [A subliminal reversal play on Ronald Reagan's Presidential debate ploy in 1980]

In the State of the Union message, on Jan 31st 2006, George Bush told the American people that they were "Addicted to foreign oil."

Haven't we heard similar words about this subject from G. W. and other presidents?

YES, WE HAVE.
RICHARD NIXON PROMISED IN 1971 TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES SELF-SUFFICIENT IN ENERGY BY 1980. PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER PROMISED IN 1979 THAT THE NATION WOULD "NEVER AGAIN USE MORE FOREIGN OIL THAN WE DID IN 1977." ["Call to Cut Foreign Oil Is a Refrain 35 Years Old," The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2006, by Matthew L. Wald & Edmund L. Andrews]

Since the republicans like to brag so much that they are the party that has controlled the White House the most years since Richard Nixon first mentioned our country's oil addiction, then it is fair to say that they are the party most responsible for this mess.

And it's amazing that the party that tells individuals on welfare that they need to become self-sufficient can't seem to make the country self-sufficient when it comes to foreign oil. In fact, the U. S. dependence on oil is at a record level. [ibid, NYT above]

And to give Mr. Bush all the credit he deserves, he has done everything in his power to make the extraction of oil from God's soil more available to the American people and more profitable for his oil cronies.

[Pause and shift positions] Democrats need to frame the issue like this:

[Rapidly, with anger]Republicans constantly warn us that people on welfare are stupid and lazy and become addicted to the handouts given to them from government.

[Rapidly, with anger]If that is true, then America's dependency on foreign oil makes us stupid and lazy in finding ways to end our welfare dependency on oil. We need to raise fees for access to gasoline at the pump, like Republicans have raised fees for Medicare and Medicaid recipients in their latest budget to show that they are fiscally responsible.

[Rapidly, with anger] Democrats should tell Republicans that they need to tell the American public that if there no longer is any oil under our soil, then they need to go out and look for alternatives, just as Republicans like to tell America's workers that since their job has been sent overseas, they need to go out and look for alternatives.

It is time for Democrats to convince all Americans that we are all in this boat together and that the ship is sinking because all the wealth and money is at the front of the boat and its bow is about ready to go under the waterline

Now, that is just half of the frame.

The other half of the frame goes after Republicans like this: You can't be the biggest swinging dick in the forest and build an empire if your citizens are dependent on foreign oil.

You can't push and bully your way through the world if you are dependent on someone for resources that you require, now can you?

Can a poor person on welfare dictate terms to city, state, and federal officials that they need more assistance?

Can a sick person with no money on Medicaid tell the doctor what medicines would be best for them?

And in the country that you depend upon for oil - can't they suppress democracy, brutalize their women, enslave foreign workers, jail their own journalist, and …well, tell you to go "Frack yourself" if you don't like it?

On February 8th, 2006, Iran's spasmic and on February 8th, 2006, Iran's villainous new resident Mahmoud Ahmoudinejad was quoted in the guardian of London as saying: "OUR ENEMIES CANNOT DO A DAMN THING. WE DO NOT NEED YOU AT ALL. BUT YOU ARE IN NEED OF THE IRANIAN NATION." [Quote from The New York Times, February 10th, 2006, by Thomas L. Friedman, "Driving Toward Middle East Nukes in Our S.U.V.'s."

So, do you see the "masculine image," "Tough Guy" myth that republicans are trying to perpetuate to the world and why is it doomed to failure as long as this oil addiction afflicts America?

How can you dictate to the world what to do when your still sucking on your welfare mama's foreign oil teat?

It's time for democrats to call on the American people to "Throw the Republican Bums Out" and restore sensible energy policies to America that will end our foreign oil dependency..

THURSDAY'S IDEA:
DEMOCRATIC JOBS FOR ENERGY --
TRUST ONLY MOVEMENT

[Black screen - voice over with WS speaking --- words appear to coincide with voice over]
MY FATHER ONCE TOLD ME TO TRUST ONLY WHAT A PERSON DOES, NOT WHAT THEY SAY AS A TRUE INDICATION OF WHAT THAT PERSON REALLY THINKS] , "TRUST ONLY MOVEMENT," he used to say.]

One again, the Republican propaganda machine is in full swing by having their spokesperson, Mr. Bush, present in the State of the Union Speech, his pronouncement that America was Addicted to Oil

That was a surprise from an old oil baron, but as no surprise; the Administration also offered their grand verbiage on how to solve the problem.

And right on cue, what has become the "normal" operating procedure for the Republicans, when the national audience has gone, they released the details of their true intentions in the budget plan a week later.

What the Devil in the Details revealed, is that the very programs that Mr. Bush said would help us to get to Energy independence were being cut in the budget.

And so this opens the fourth idea which Democrats should focus upon: The Democratic Party's plan for job creation to make America oil dependent free.

We strongly suggest that we label today's campaign theme, Democratic Jobs for Energy. If any conservatives rebuff the wording, then the counter-argument is to show the details of the budget as the republican's true intentions.

Of course the frame "Democratic Jobs" is a non-reality, because any jobs that Democrats would create, would be American Jobs. [pause and new fade in]

It's time for democrats to put Americans back to work..
It's time for democrats to tell the American middle-class that the best way to end their anxiety over their jobs and their children's future is to vote for democrats who what to put America back to work focusing on making America energy independent. This isn't just about jobs - it's also about National Security.

It's time for massive work projects similar to FDR's solutions to the Great Depression.
Only this time, instead on building damns, roads, libraries, and Post Office buildings, we should be campaigning to the American public the idea of three main building projects:

>Massive wind and solar farm projects
>Placing solar panels on every American Home that wants them,
>Massive tidal turbine farms to harness the power of the Moon and the tides.

This last one about harnessing the power of the moon has been around for many years, but as a power source has been slow out of the gate. But the intriguing thought behind this one is that the tidal turbines are out of sight and sound, and, even more importantly: the tides are so predicable that we know when they will occur 1,000 years from now.

And we haven't even begun to talk about the jobs that could be created by upgrading and improving our electrical grid systems. And how many Americans could we put to work building light rail systems for all cities over 100,000?

In the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, put Americans to work building the Interstate Highway Project. In 2006, I don't hear any complaints from conservatives about the tremendous contribution that building this highway system has had toward producing the great American economic miracle.

The Republicans of 2006 want the American people to buy into the propaganda myth that only the decisions made in the boardrooms of the industrial complex will work economic miracles.

The Republicans also expect you to shallow the belief that the invisible hand of the market place will somehow make us less dependent on foreign.

No it won't
It will be the sweat on the brow of the American Worker that will get that done.

The Republicans have wasted too much time hunting quail.

FRIDAY'S IDEA:
PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS
"Friday's 'idea' comes from the web site www.publicampaign.org

The idea is just too good not to mention as an overall strategy!

Now within this frame, every Democrat running for political office - from school boards, city councils, individual State House Districts, up to President of the United States can personalize this frame with their own personal experience on the difficulty about raising money for campaigns.

The common thread that rises up from the depths in conservations with local politicians is pretty much universal: Almost all of them, except those deeply blessed with seniority, relate how difficult it is for them to raise money to run their campaigns. The biggest complaint is the amount of time that must be devoted to this activity.

Since politicians are so busy trying to raise money that means that he or she has less and less time to spend with their base constituents If the politician spends all of his or her time with just those people who have money, then the only thing the politician hears would be the needs and concerns of people with money. DUH.

And as F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "They very rich are different from you and me"…They're rich. Their concerns are not those of the common person -- And we might add in 2006-- those of America as well.

And the real campaign frame here for Democrats should be what goes on in the upper reaches of our political system, because the higher the office, the higher the cost of financing political campaign's. Once again, we find ourselves at the front door of the gap between the wealthy and the poor and the concerns of the two. In the middle, the erosion of the middle class continues to fall further behind.

Conservatives confuse Democracy with the marketplace and believe that it's OK to pay politicians to direct their Congressional votes in their direction favorable to their constituent's industries. With this administration, we have seen this open bribery come alive with LOBBY checks being handed out on the very floor of Congress.

We have seen money invested from the Banking, Securities and Insurance Industries to allow banks to become mega-banks that can speculate in stocks and then have very little, if any oversight. In some cases, this eliminated oversight has seen the increase use of private medical and credit information to the detriment of the consumer.

We have seen pharmaceutical companies enjoy some of the highest rates of return in any industry because congress has allowed them to extend legal protections on their patents. We've seen these companies make these exorbitant profits due mostly from research that the American people have paid for with their tax dollars. And let's not forget the drug companies' steadfast refusal to allow the import of their own manufactured drugs from foreign companies at lower prices.

We have seen the oil and gas companies remove the tops of mountains; stall toxic clean ups, and be given freedom from paying royalties on windfall profits. Congress has allowed the extraction industries to spoil the air and water ALL WHILE benefiting stockholders and not the American people.

THE GOP - the GreedOverPeople - PARTY has found that millions of dollars deposited into politician's pockets pays off handsomely - sometimes in the billions -- as a return on their "INVESTMENT."

At present, the reform for public financing of campaigns is the law in varying degrees in six stages. Currently, the most recent legislative action in the 108th Congress on this very subject is House Bill, HR 3641.

The interest is there.
The need is there.
America's voice is being silenced under piles of money given to politicians for their campaigns.
This idea is one that is long overdue.

LET'S GO DEMOCRATS!
[fade out]

SUNDAY'S IDEA:
OPERATION ROMEO AND JULIET

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God"

[fade in to host]

We end SEVEN IDEAS FOR SEVEN DAYS with the most important subject last: NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY.

It's the most important subject because this is the main supporting beam that props up the Republican Party and has given them their advantage in past elections. Once Democrats have the courage to kick this support beam out from under the Republican Party and use their own strengths against them, the job of returning Congress and the White House back to sensibility would be a mere mop-up action.

Republicans are the party of our masculine, alpha-male, primate evolutionary past. The Republican's use of domination and control, as the alpha male from our past did, is still very much part of their cultural makeup. They really believe that domination through physical force is the best method for getting their way.

Like the spouse abuser, before physical force is used, the use of bullying, controlling budgets, verbal derogation, snooping on one's sexual beliefs and orientations, and restricting freedoms of the person being dominated becomes visible.

We currently are at that verbal bullying stage with the Republicans.

If Democrats do not learn how to push back, soon the Republicans will tell us to shut up and where to sit down in the cattle car on our way to liberal concentration camps.

The patterns are very similar to studies of other regimes in our history that have similar philosophies, giving tremendous strength to our arguments that the Republican behavior is biological and evolutionary in nature - they really are knuckle-crawlers.

This domination and control culture has now extended into foreign policy. The view now taken is that you take command, go forward and attack anything that you see as a potential threat. And that includes your political enemies at home as well. In order to maintain a veneer of strength they must never admit to making a mistake in action or philosophy.

The Republican's now use the frame of "War on Terror" as an endless excuse to perpetuate the view that they are the alpha protectors of America and that they are the only political party in America that will keep us safe. They frame the Republican Party as determined enough, morally strong, and brave enough, to protect the American public from the evil that lurks beyond.

Conservatives constantly push the frame that Democrats are wishy-washy, latte-drinking, weak cowards not fit to lead and, thus, can not command respect.

Let's be perfectly blunt here: THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AT WAR
[Video image] (Copyright, Jimmy Carter, Our Endangered Values, p. 157, Simon & Schuster, 2005)

War has not been declared by Congress, and progressives need to quickly re-frame the debate on national security and defense by challenging the republicans on this point.

We strongly suggest that any progressive who agrees that we are in a "war on terror" is being used by the Republican Party as their dupes. They have fallen for the frame - hook, line and sinker.

How about calling the Iraq conflict a "Police action against terror?" - After all, that's what they used in the Korean "conflict" in the 1950s.

[slight pause]
The second challenge would be to frame the Republicans as the true cowards because they fear peace more than war.

Their de-evolved "kick your enemy's butt" mentality which they attempt to pawn off as "moral fiber" only tells the world that the United States thinks it's easier to "whack" someone into submission than to listen to alternatives.

After all, isn't that what spousal abusers do to make their spouses behave and do their bidding?

{slight pause}

It is here with great pride that we introduce OPERATION ROMEO AND JULIET as a solid national security plan and a long range foreign policy objective.

But, before we do, let's dig our feet into some solid foundational frames.

First, YES, Liberals know that there are evil people out there that want to do America harm. >

>SECOND, Not one penny, repeat, not one penny should be taken from the Defense Dept. In fact, we strongly recommend keeping the military strong by exceeding the yearly inflation rate by 1% so that it remains the strongest on the planet.

>But kicking ass and pounding our chests like the knuckle-crawling, neo-con, Neanderthal, conservatives do after every victory is not a viable long-term solution.

Violent attacks merely invite retaliation and call for more attacks - and the perpetual cycle of death and destruction continues at considerable cost. Violence Begets Violence.

Look close into my eyes when I tell you this:
[extreme close up of commentator's eyes-either male of female would be fine]

Progressives will never disarm America until the enemy does so first. But Democrats are brave enough to try and seek peace

Democrats are not weak like republicans who have to tell misleading statements about evil potentials while pounding war drums in order to win elections.
[Slight pause to shift emotion

But how do you convince an enemy to put down their weapons? Easy. By giving them something that is more powerful then the hatred of one's enemy.

And that is the love that a parent has for their children and their future offspring. More specifically, we're talking about our biological connection to our children and the protective bond that is created.

In the science of evolutionary biology, this is called inclusive fitness.

Inclusive fitness teaches us that the more closely related we are to our offspring, the stronger and more protective the bond.

In the world of genetics, that means our sons and daughters share 50% of our genes; our grandchildren have 25%, and our great grandchildren are related by 12.5%, and so forth. Similar mathematical ratio applies to brothers, sisters, cousins, and nephews - the closer the genetic tie, the closer the bond and protectiveness.

And, in the opposite direction, the farther away one's genes have been passed on to the next generation, the least concern and "investment" one has for that offspring. AND USUALLY, it is at this point, where this non-concern for other, non-related humans breaks down into disrespect, discrimination, conflicts, and even war. Just think of those two conflicting families in Romeo and Juliet - The Capulet's and the Montague's.

SO, here's OPERATION ROMEO AND JULIET in a nutshell:

We negotiate to get two conflicting groups to agree to bring forth young people of mating age eager for marriage and place them in a neutral location - Under the watchful eye of both sides via video surveillance cameras. This neutral location should be in a territory very close to the two groups, but one that separates the two groups

Let's take the Palatistinian party of Hamas and state of Israel as a perfect example Here we have two conflicting groups that have been at each other throats for generations.

We propose setting up a huge resort-like setting for young males and females - all
volunteers - from each of the conflicting groups who understand that peace is preferable to terror and war. They all know that they are there to meet with the distinct purpose of wooing, flirting, committing, and seeking partners with the expressed purpose of marriage.

After the commitment of marriage, the next step would be the establishment of permanent settlements in the territories that separate the two conflicting neighbors. Both conflicting groups would be asked to contribute equal amounts of funds to be distributed among the young applicant volunteers so that they have a running start in their new lifestyles.
If one group could not raise the same amount, a call to the UN would be made. …[snicker smile]….or, perhaps we could talk BONO and U2 into giving a fundraiser concert.

The next object, of course, is to produce offspring from each conflicting group. A sort of, biological - tri-an-gu-li-za-tion -- BI0-TRI-AN-GU-LI-ZA-TION

What makes this proposal draw interest from the common person and the rest of the developed world would be that we would encourage that the whole world "chip-in" with a, sort of, central wedding-gifts-via-the-internet-website. In fact, we also propose, a FOR-profit "channel" be created via the internet and subscriptions be sold to those interested in "peeking-in" on the various couples in their various stages of meeting, flirting, wooing, and well….you get it… watch them….err……huh….well, …eat dinner…OK? And of course, at least 50%, or most of the funds would go to the newlyweds.

In Romeo and Juliet, we understood the reason that the two young lovers could never reveal their love for each other. It was because of the powerful destructive climate created between the two feuding families. Here, despite the destructive climate that would exist, the two conflicting groups would also acknowledge that the pairing of their children into a stable and supportive atmosphere would be advantageous to both their sides. If the rest of the world chips-in - well -- that would be gravy.

With fore knowledge about the understanding of the evolutionary forces at work, and knowing, based on scientific knowledge, that once the offspring is produced, the two feuding groups will have less reason to hate each other. If your children and grandchildren are between you and your "enemy," then you would also understand that the only way to destroy your enemy would be to run over your own children and grandchildren to get to them.

Does the whole thing sound goofy and exactly the kind of idea that conservatives would make fun of because it's all soft and cuddly?

[cut to extreme close up of commentator's eyes]

You bet it is.
In fact, we expect it
Bring it on.

We really believe that this idea would have its greatest impact on college campuses. We strongly feel that Democratic candidates need to reach out to America's future, and we feel that is where Democrats should spend their Sunday afternoon campaigning.

[end with roll of credits and citations]

Copyright, Evolution's Voyage, 1995 - 2011