But It Might Work For Us: Part I
by: R.J. Moeller
If you have yet to see an episode of the funniest show ever made by humans, Arrested Development, I would highly suggest you go to where 
memorable scenes from the short-lived Fox sitcom is found in the first episode of the second season when two of the main characters, Dr. Tobias and Lindsay Fuenke, are discussing potential strategies to reinvigorate their tepid marriage. In the scene, Tobias, a former distinguished family psychiatrist who lost his medical license for giving CPR to an overweight tourist on vacation that was taking a nap, not having a heart attack, explains to his perpetually self-centered wife Lindsay one of the blatantly ridiculous and counter-productive tactics he used to suggest to couples in the very same situation.
Tobias says he would often advise struggling couples to consider an “open marriage” where the spouses remained, “emotionally committed to each other, but were free to pursue extra-marital encounters.” Lindsay naively then asks her husband if his advice ever actually helped the people who tried it. Tobias responds, “No, no…they would always delude themselves into thinking it would work, but it never did.” He then pauses for a second and in a complete and hysterical turnaround offers, “But it might work for us…”
The irony of a marriage therapist honestly recommending a course of action for his own marriage that he personally knew to be disastrous, let alone thinking it might actually work, is just the type of legitimately funny situational comedy that American viewers did not appreciate in Arrested Development. The show ended prematurely after 3 seasons and two Emmy’s for Best Comedy due to low ratings. Those low ratings were mostly attributable to the fact that there was no laugh track, which meant the millions of mindless minions in TV-land who seem to crave gratuitously unfunny television programming (don't see: CBS's How I Met Your Mother and/or Big Bang Theory) weren’t able to rely upon their Pavlovian-like training to tell them when something was humorous, ironic, or witty. But I digress.
The reason for my recounting of this scene is its direct applicability to the current state of American politics and our collective responses to recent specific problems like the economic collapses of lending giants and their subsequent bailouts. The short-term memory loss and well-meaning lack of good sense displayed so comically by Dr. Tobias Fuenke is the same brand of avoidable amnesia far too many otherwise balanced American voters appear to be perpetually suffering from.
How are the proselytizers of collectivism and Socialism still even taken seriously on the national stage? I mean, this certainly is a free country, with dissent welcomed and legally protected, and surely no political party is devoid of baffling failures, but would we really allow our doctors every 20 years or so to break out the bloodletting leeches they once thought cured the common flu just because they might get a diagnosis wrong from time to time? More to the point: how is it that so many Americans don’t even really know what a dangerous parasite Socialism is to whatever host country it burrows into?
Consider what the current polls tell us about who Americans apparently favor to be our next Chief Executive. Barack Obama has amassed the most liberal voting record in Congress and penned two memoirs that corroborate his proclivity for Socialistic writings, associations, and policies. The man has a non-existent portfolio of legislative accomp
lishments, and a self-professed ability to reach across the political aisle that is harder to produce examples of than OJ’s attempts to find the “real killers.” He’s a seemingly likeable guy who has not a single person from his past that is able to publicly vouch for him in order that we might be granted even a small window into what type of character the would-be Commander-in-Chief and potential future leader of the Free World possesses.
Barack Obama’s economic policy proposals are Marxist in all but name, and what has been made abundantly clear throughout his campaign is that the junior senator from Illinois does not believe in the most important foundational pillar in
The irresponsibility required for any non-committed Leftist to support Senator Barack Obama is staggering. The time for the gloves to come off has arrived, and I’m now speaking directly to any current Obama supporter who has ever voted Republican or Independent (at any electoral level) in the past.
But first, for those of you who think capitalism was the main or sole culprit in the recent economic collapse, you might want to stop reading. If in your world abortion is purely a debate about who loves choices more, and not about whether or not the “soon-to-be-born” have rights that supersede our convenience (precisely because they are endowed by our Creator and not a Supreme Court), then you’ve come to the wrong place. Likewise, the type of people who still believe that the blundering Bush connived and conned the entire world, Congress (including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton) and United Nations Security Council into war aren’t going to enjoy themselves either today. In fact, if I’ve accurately described your political views above, the chances that your angry face is currently redder than your politics are pretty good.
If a non-partisan extraterrestrial alien who had been studying American political philosophies and 
elections since 1950 landed in my backyard tomorrow I can imagine that some of his first questions would be, “This guy Obama can’t be your real front-runner for Commander-in-Chief in a time of economic crisis, can he? Have you people really not learned your lesson yet with big-government liberalism? Ever heard of Jimmy Carter’s stagflation or LBJ’s “Great Society”? Your students must study the inherent flaws of collectivist, planned economies and be able to identify such intellectual rubbish, right?”
Sorry, Mr. Alien. Our students are busying learning how angry Mother Earth is at their mom’s SUV and how to put a condom on cucumber in grade school. With all the distorting and exaggerating of legitimate mistakes their country has made to complete in Junior High, and whitewashing of the Judeo-Christian value system and its inspirational role in the formation of our Constitutional and legal systems to be done in High School, by college the only room Left in their brains is reserved for relativism and the implied mantra “Republicans are not just wrong, they’re evil.”
Fact: Raising taxes and increasing spending are sure-fire ways to land in a recession, and in a time of economic crisis, textbook strategies to prolong one.
American electorate’s response: But maybe, because he reads a teleprompter better than President Bush and John McCain, Obama’s plan to raise taxes and increase spending will work for us…
Fact: The tax “cut” for 95% of Americans Obama is promising is actually a rebate, which means the government will be taking and then redistributing the income that the top 5% of earners in this country made. This is instead of everyone, following the actual definition of a tax cut, simply keeping the same amount or even more of their own money. That same hated top 5% already pays more than 60% of our total taxes, and includes nearly all of our employers and the corporations that produce things like the life-saving medicines, etc. Unemployment rates are guaranteed to rise. Stocks (and, for all those union members out there, pensions invested in those stocks) will undoubtedly continue to diminish in value. And most importantly, money that might have been spent on developing new technologies and hiring new employees will instead be spent on DVD’s and iPhones by people who typically give no thought to investment or saving and did nothing to earn the money they will come into.
American electorate’s response: But maybe having the government discourage economic growth, innovation, and investment will work for us…
Fact: Russia defiantly invades Georgia this summer and while Obama consults with his dozen or more “Theories of Foreign Policy: 101” experts from Ivy League faculties McCain displays his instant awareness of the entire context surrounding and leading up to the invasion by readily offering an unambiguous condemnation of Russian aggression and explanation for that condemnation. McCain knows the players, he knows the stakes, and the fact that he’s seen and correctly identified enough evil in his own time enables him to avoid wasting any of our’s on self-aggrandizing and hopelessly naive suggestions. Obama meanwhile believes that the only reason there are bad guys in the world is because we haven’t identified and spoken the right “love languages” of hateful and oppressive madmen like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.
American electorate’s response: But maybe, in one of the most dangerous times in human history, having a freshmen senator with a consistently inconsistent position on nearly every important foreign policy decision this nation has faced during his first few hundred days in Congress as our Commander-in-Chief will work for us…
Should I go on? (I plan on doing so….Monday, with “But it might work for us” Part II)
RJ's Social Network
Read RJ’s Columns/Blogs
What is “Mere Conservatism”?
Video of RJ
Rudy the Dog barks at "change"
Books You Need to Read
Wall Street Journal
Blogroll
- Acton Power Blog
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Black and Red
- Conservative Daily Blog
- Dad's blog
- Dennis Prager (The Master)
- Desiring God (John Piper)
- Doug Giles (Clash Radio)
- Education News
- Hugh Hewitt
- Jihad Watch
- Mere Orthodoxy
- Michael Medved
- Milton Friedman
- Mom's blog
- My LOST blog
- Only Good Movies
- Patriots Corner
- Remnant Culture
- Shot In The Dark
- Stiletto Blog
- Subscribe via RSS
- The Straight Hype
- Twitter Me
Columnists You Need to Read
- Ann Coulter
- Charles Krauthammer
- Christopher Hitchens
- George Will
- Jonah Goldberg
- Karl Rove
- Mark Steyn
- Marvin Olasky
- Thomas Sowell
- Tony Blankley
- Walter E. Williams
Music/Entertainment
News/Politics
- Drudge Report
- Fact Check
- Fox News
- Hot Air
- Jerusalem Post
- National Review
- Real Clear Politics
- Townhall
- Washington Times
- Weekly Standard
October 10th, 2008 - 05:19
In years past its been the people on the left that have stood out to me to be irrational, crazy, and just downright idiots with some of their comments. This year for some reason its the republicans that win that award. Well writen article Big Dog but its an article I would expect any person from an affluent area of the country would write. I watched Hannity and Combs? for the first time after the Presidentual debate the other day and all I can say about Hannity is he is a jerk. I understand its his show but he proved my obersvation correct again in my own eyes. Why should I believe the same people that were telling us how great Bush is during the last election (which I voted for him) and are now saying the same thing about McCain? I just don’t think anything will change/be any better than they are now if he is in office. Palin is a nice lady but I don’t think she is ready to be “one heartbeat away” from being President. But in Indiana I have the same problem as Republicans in Illinois. My vote wouldn’t count if I voted for Obama. Indiana always votes Republican. Obama will win Illinois its a forgone conclusion.
October 10th, 2008 - 05:30
Fact: Taxes were higher under the Clinton administration than they are at their current levels.
Fact: The Clinton administration oversaw the greatest period of economic expansion in American history.
October 10th, 2008 - 08:45
Fact: Reagan’s policies are the reason for Clinton’s ecomonic expansion.
Fact: Clinton’s policies (including the minority housing policy) is part of the reason we have fallen into this recession in the first place.
October 10th, 2008 - 10:19
ha reagans policies were the reason for the expansion? I didnt realize that was a fact now. Also why did the first Bush have a recession if reagans policies were creating expansions after him?
October 10th, 2008 - 10:29
I suggest you read this
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp
October 10th, 2008 - 10:29
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=77539
Yep, Stales….there are jerky Republicans so you should definitely vote for Obama??? Come on. Everything I am driving at in the piece is that Obama is WRONG, not that liberals are MEAN. Please do me a favor and watch an hour of Hardball with Chris Matthews and an hour of Keith Olbermann’s show on MSNBC. I dont care what your politics are, but those two blowhards are about the most condescending jerks on the planet. Their own network said they can no longer cover things like presidential debates because of how biased and mean they were. Plus, why are we even talking about Hannity? Don’t listen to Hannity then. Don’t listen to anyone. The facts speak for themselves.
Obama is the least qualified, farthest Left, most anti-capitalistic, indecisive, candidate we’ve ever had in this country. Raising taxes and spending dont work, certainly not in a time of economic crisis. No matter who does that, its a bad idea…McCain voted for the bailout plan and you might legitimately have beef with him there in terms of spending….but Obama’s ENTIRE PLAN is to raise taxes on people who hire everyone else (including your employer) which means less jobs and less productivity which means crappier markets. This isnt rocket science. Your argument is that you dont like Bush and Republicans are sounding mean to you. Boo hoo. I love you man, but come on. This is serious stuff and a time in our nation’s history when sober and sound judgment from its citizens is required (Even if our politicians arent always interested in practicing it). Over-spending and increasing taxation alone should be why you vote for McCain. You dont seem to get that every vote matters, even in losing states. Politicians watch every change in demographic voting, ESPECIALLY in states and districts and age groups that are traditionally one way or the other. If people under 30 actually woke up and saw that just because it sounds cooler and better and more compassionate to vote for someone like Obama doesnt make it so…we would send shockwaves through the entire political establishment. If politicians saw that our age group was serious about traditional American values and principles, both parties would change. If they saw we specifically we not interested in reckless spending and voted for the candidate who always promised fiscal responsibility in govt, lower taxes, less spending, strong national security, hand up instead of a hand out, etc even the Democrats would have to come back from their far-Left policy positions. You might not believe that, but its true and you only have to look back at the people Democrats have nominated since JFK and how exponentially they’ve moved to the Left (with the more moderate exception of the pragmatist Clinton).
You made a crack about where I am from and how much money people make in my area….That’s fine, its the kind of post on a blog I’d expect from someone who is from a poorer area and likes to feel as if you are one of those humble folks. My family’s never made much money, my dad is a pastor and committed his life to serving others. He nor my family want any pity, and we’re not special. This is the life HE CHOSE. He is the one that instilled these values in me. He’s lived in the inner city of Minneapolis working with the poorest of the poor, and he’s worked in Winnetka, IL the richest suburb in the Midwest. His personal values didnt change based on who he was slumming or Escalading with. What’s right is right. What pulls people out of poverty are programs like the ones I saw and wrote about for World magazine last summer in places like the inner city of Dallas and Tulsa where PRIVATELY funded Christian organizations were teaching single poor moms job skills while giving them a place to live. These places were the most successful of their kind and had lapped any and all govt-run organizations. That is change I can believe in and it all came from private donors, some non-Christian. This is what works. People helping people and being willing to personally get involved either with their time (CEO’s would volunteer to come in and teach business skills) or their money.
Stales, do me (and most importantly yourself) a favor and listen to Dennis Prager for one week. One week, thats all. He is free on iTunes or click this link here(http://dennisprager.townhall.com/). I would say he is the most reasonable commentator out there. He is conservative (for disclosure’s sake). I know you travel a lot, so put him on your ipod and give this stuff an hour of your time over a few days and not jut a few minutes here and there. I know you are smart and care and are understandably frustrated with Republicans…but dont throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
October 10th, 2008 - 10:41
To the Anonymous who is obviously a liberal (sometimes synonymous with “misinformed”)…..
MARKETS GO IN CYCLES. EVERYTHING GOES IN CYCLES. The biggest liberal lie is that they claim to be able to avoid any downturn in the economy. Things go up, things go down. So the first Bush (we call him Bush-41) saw a recession. If you want to have the nuts-and-bolts economic debate send me an email (with your name on it preferably) and I can further explain what that recession was all about. And I’m not even saying Republicans are blameless when things go south economically. The point is that the 90’s saw growth because of TECHNOLOGY. Where does technology come from? Does Barney Frank, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi have a little workshop where they scare up new inventions and benevolently share them with the rest of us? Corporations invent things. They need capital to invent things. Many of the things they try and invent dont work and they lose money. They need economic inventive to keep plugging away at it so when they invent something incredible it will have made it economically worthwhile. Reagan put in place the biggest tax cuts in our nation’s history at that point. The 80’s are when things like IBM and people like Bill Gates started inventing computers and the likes. That technology fueled the modern industrial revolution we saw in the 90’s. It’s not Reagan’s doing any more than that he cut taxes and wanted companies and people to have their own money to do these things, not Uncle Sam to give handouts so people could buy more LL Cool J tapes. Clinton did some good things. (Like cutting back on the welfare programs I just mentioned). He also had a Republican Congress that actually was accomplishing things like balancing the budget for the first time in decades. I give him all the credit in the world that. He also did start to raise taxes and (as markets do) things went sour for some of the infamous Dot.com’s and Bush (our Bush) was handed a recession. Then 9/11. He cut taxes back and we had 26 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Those are the facts. He also over-spent. He also didnt sound the warning bells loud enough about places like Fannie and Freddie. That is something a president needs to do from his “bully pulpit”. (Although since 2007 he and Senate Republicans tried 17 times to get reform on Freddie and Fannie when it became critically clear that they could potentially collapse and Democrats said things were fine and we were racists for attacking institutions that gave cheap houses to poorer people….).
I say this not with disrespect meant…but only someone who doesnt understand macro-economics could think in such small pieces about something so big and complicated as the american free market capitalistic system. Just the facts, m’am (or sir).
October 10th, 2008 - 11:10
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/
This is our future Commander-in-Chief? Would he want someone going behind his back when he’s in charge, or would Democrats and the media charge a Republican Senator who goes to Iraq and undermines President Barack’s authority with racism and treason?
October 10th, 2008 - 12:44
Moeller,
You obviously missed my point. Its not about who is a jerk and who is not. Its just funny to me that Republicans are doing a lot of finger pointing right now. Everything that is good in the world came from a Republican idea and everything that is bad is because of those darn Democrats. And of course the Republicans saw this subprime melt down comming 2 years ago because they are so smart. Yet nothing happend and they didn’t fix it 2 years ago. We all know everyone is an expert now and says they know how to fix this and we should have done that but the real kicker is no one really knows what to do to go forward. If someone knew how to get us out of this we would use their idea and get out. Yet there is no perfect solution there are only theory’s and ideas that “could” work. And about Obama being wrong and raising taxes on people who hire me and what not. I don’t understand how you can say that Obama is wrong. Other than the fact that you are a Republican and everything Democrats do you think is wrong. All you are doing is reading some articles that have information that has been spun to make Republicans look good and then repacking the material so it makes Obama look bad and writing an article. People want change, this election is all about the economy now and we all know this. We are not going to get that with someone who voted with George Bush 90% of the time. I know you are going to write back that I am ill informed and I should listen to this guy and that but the fact remains until I see a glimer of hope from McCain I can’t vote for him and put us through this again. The old way isn’t working and we need a new one.
October 10th, 2008 - 12:47
hey calm down robby… you have to be sore from riding your high horse all the time. all i said was that Clinton oversaw the largest economic espansion in American history and taxes were higher then. If obama returns taxes to pre bush 43 levels it certainly isnt a death knell for economic expansion as proved by the growth that happened under those tax levels.
October 10th, 2008 - 13:04
Stales-
It sounds like you have a very real disdain for reading, learning, and anyone who claims to know more than you in any area. I realize you are a hard-working American who has real bills to pay, a family, etc. I respect the heck out of you for that. I am in Grad School and its easier for me to comment on things like a mortgage that I dont know about yet. I realize you are frustrated with the system. I realize you, someone who is admittedly only slightly informed and involved with politics, looks at the partisan fighting and just hears Dem’s are all wrong and Republicans are all right.
But you go out of your way to criticize and blame and disparage McCain and Republicans…and then say all Republicans do is the same to Democrats. For someone who claims he doenst vote, you seem to be well-versed in how the back-and-forth of politics goes.
Forget political parties here. Look at what is right, what works. Bush and Republicans are in office and the media says everything is their fault. Democrats take over and oversee $4.50 gas and this economic collapse and its also Bush and the Republicans fault. How about we agree that it is largely Washington’s fault? But then I say that in my previous blog, that the problem is big govt (regardless of party…but that Dem’s are proud of the fact that they are the ones who want bigger govt) and you say no the problem is the banks who exploited people.
It just feels like you actually hate Republicans more than I hate Democrats, but then you cloak it in “Oh, I dont know anything about politics really, and I just want some hope and change, and I have no horse in the race.” We do have to make stands and choices in life, and politics is one of those imperfect areas where we apply our values and principles in selecting the candidate who more closely aligns with those values/principles. If you are more in line with Obama’s ideas and policies, than God bless you and enjoy Socialism. That’s what will happen. If your boss is punished with higher taxes, you will be affected. If you really are just the simple guy concerned about your business and mortgage like you say you are, and the social isssues and racial issues dont matter (although I think they do to you and you’re just not admitting it), then a vote for Obama (assuming you do end up voting, which I pray you will either way) is MADNESS.
You can turn your blue-collar nose down to learning and reading and listening to different voices than the crazy websites you send me links to (which really are insane, dude), but that is, whether you ever realize it or not, the problem. No one cares to learn about how economies (not just your business), but everyone’s an expert in what taxes will and wont do to our overall economy. No one cares about current events around the world in dangerous countries (let along the history behind them), but we’re all experts in how foreign policy should be conducted. Say what you want about me, but what I’m after is truth and the better and best ways to do things. I dont care about rich people on Wall Street. I dont care about George Bush. I dont even care if you ever listen to Dennis Prager (although you really should and then give your opinion as much as doing things the other way might save you time). I simply want to know what works. What works better than other ways of doing things. Cutting taxes/spending works to stimulate an economy. The govt running more and more does not work. On that basis alone I would HAVE to vote against Obama.
You know I love you big guy. PLEASE keep engaging these ideas and read and watch and listen more and more. Politicians and govt is the problem, not the solution. We need informed, interested, and vigilant Americans like you to know their stuff and vote.
October 10th, 2008 - 13:34
Anonymous-
Killer “high horse” comment, brosef. Well played.
Sadly, your understanding of economics isnt as advanced as your quick wit (posted namelessly on blogs).
I am almost always categorically against raising taxes (few specific exceptions), but certainly am always against over-spending and governmental expnasion in areas outside the scope of the Constitution’a perscriptions for the respective branches. These are my views of those two things in time of normal or growing economic activity (see: the 90’s). Bush-41 raised taxes foolishly and got voted out of office because Republicans were made at him and Ross Perot took more than 15% of the vote (most of that made up by frustrated Republicans). It was a mandate on Republicans making poor choices. People still liked the ideas of Reagan (Who won 45 and 49 out of 50 states in ‘80 and ‘84), but they werent seeing them from Bush-41 (who honestly didnt ever “get” the economic policies of Reagan). Clinton came at the right time and ran as a moderate, God-fearing southern Governor who “felt our pain” and connected with just enough voters (only 43%) to win. He won, and I take nothing away from him. He wasnt a great leader (see: doing nothing about Osama bin Laden even though there were 6 separate terrorist attacks on American soil, at embassies, USS Cole, etc) but he also did some pragmatic things like the Welfare Reform I mentioned before. He ran like a centrist in many areas, although obviously he was still a liberal in the social arena. He did raise taxes but did oversee great economic growth. So did Bush, and in a time of fighting two wars after 9/11 and a recession he inherited from Clinton. Those both are true, but dont cancel each other out and mean that both president’s ideas and policies were equally bad or equally good.
The difference here is this: 9/11 and the recession in 2001 were combated with cutting taxes alone and we saw 26 quarters of continued growth. That is incredible. The sad thing was we spent, and spent alot. Republicans are guilty of it. But their crime was a crime that the Left triumphs and promotes. Imagine what we would have been able to do with turning our markets around and possibly avoiding this catastrophe if we had cut spending, reduced the deficit and our foreign debt??? Think if we had heeded the calls from people (who, whether it sounds partisan or not, included McCain who brought legislation in 2006 to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie because Republicans believe in limited regulation, the kind of regulation where people take care of the things they oversee themselves and the govt was overseeing Freddie and Fannie) about the coming crisis. I’m not blaming it all on Democrats. But their penchant is for more govt always, no matter what.
You are righ to say that the level of taxation under Clinton didnt necessarily hurt things…but policies take more than a few years to take hold and show their affects (Democrats seem to understand that concept of delayed results when it comes to drilling right now domestically). The reality is that a recession ensured under Clinton and Bush had to pick it up. The reason Clinton’s higher taxes didnt impact the economy as much is because the economy had been strong and growing thanks to technology which was developed and encouraged by companies who had been given incentives before Clinton got there. This is just a reality of how economics and business and the markets work. I dont know how clearer I can state that. To just say “Well under Clinton it was fine” is true…if all you were interested in was a snap-shot of 1996 or something. How did things get good in 1996? Your logic is implying that the higher taxes actually brought about the good economic growth we saw. That is naive beyond description, and I assume you dont really mean that. I assume your point is that Democrats have been in office when times were good too, not just Republicans. No one is arguing that and it is a silly point to make that is intended to cover up any and all legitimate discussion about what policies and incentives work.
Taxes are rarely, if ever, good. Over-spending is never good. The absolute WORST times for them, and this isnt my opinion, its reality, are when the economy is ALREADY tanking (see: now). That is the one time EVERYONE ought to agree spending and taxes will make things worse. This is why fiscal conservatives were generally upset with the bailout. So your point that Clinton was president when things were pretty good and that those rates didnt seem to hurt us then might sound good, but offers no insight or context or usefulness today. A good comparison would be how in 1976 the economy was tanking, inflation was up, consumer confidence was at all-time lows and Carter kept taxes high and spending increasing….and we got out of it by the next president (I wont say his name because you’ll accuse me of making this a “Republicans good, Democrats, bad” thing and dismiss my argument without ever pointing our specifically where you disagree with facts of your own other than generalized talking points from The Daily Show) cutting taxes, specifically for corporations. People doubted that president the first few years of his presidency because it took a while for the changes to take affect and he had years of rubbish fiscal policies ahead of him (from both Republicans and Democrats) to correct. By the time he left the economy had doubled in size. How is that possible with lower tax rates for those rich jerks than they had previously paid?
My point is this: even if you want to debate me on the merits of raising taxes and spending during a time of stability, you cannot seriously be insinuating that higher taxes is fine now (in turmoil) because it “worked in the 90’s”, can you?
I know its hard for me to see the computer screen from a-top my taller-than-average steed, but you surely arent suggesting such a thing, right?