Remonstrances could, of course - and probably would, of course - be filed against some of the referendums that were to be put to a popular vote on January 20. In a democratic process, such protest is to be expected. O.U.T.R.A.G.E. analysts, however, expected such pleas to be minimal, based on the overwhleming positive endorsement given to the organization that planned, implemented and executed the 'Rebellion of '08'. Those political experts who were forming the language for all the new legislation were also involved in the creation of a new blend of socialism and capitalism for the U.S.A. - a philosphy that would embrace both models of socioeconomic advantage. Why was it always so impossible to accept compromise in such thought?
Conservatives and liberals could never come together and recognize that both political persuasions had flaws as well as beneifts.
Creationists and scientists could never come together and recognize that their diametrically-opposed theories were, in fact, comfortable in combination. The "big bang" theory, the concept of 'intelligent design', or the belief in a 'creation' by some supreme ruler of the universe didn't have to be in complete opposition of one another. Why couldn't the simpleton-like brains of these great 'thinkers' accept that perhaps all three theories had some justification?
Socialists and capitalists could never come together and recognize that their social, political and economic perspectives might actually work well in concert with each other. As Oscar Wilde once pontificated: "Under Socialism.....there wilbe no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger-pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings......Each member of the society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society, and if a frost comes no one will practically be anything the worse..."
Capitlalists, of course, argued that such a socialistic science would destroy man's natural motivation toward free enterprise if they had to "share" their wealth with the dregs of society. The ability to complie as much wealth as one could seemed as American as the flag and apple pie. Socialism, it was professed, destroyed initiative, tarnished ambition, and rewarded those less worthy of reward. Free enterprise, it was argued, nurtured man's personal dreams, honored hard work, and provided dividend for dilligence. Socialists, naturally, failed to recognize the many deadbeats and freeloaders who might mooch off the industry of the ambitious. Capitalists, naturally, failed to recognize the people they enslaved (literally, in the early centuries of the U.S.A.; more figuratively in the most recent 150 years) whose sweated brows and broken backs provided the labor that generated the capitalists' wealth.
O.U.T.R.A.G.E. economic, social and political schoalrs were working to meld these two philosophies into one. Was it fair to force an enterprising entrepreneur to give away the proceeds of his industrious efforts so that those with less could hve more? Was it fair for a chief executive officer to pay his employees a 'decent wage' of $18 an hour while his Board of Directors lavished him with a $36 million compensation 'package' that pegged his hourly rate at $18,000?? One of the resolutions that was submitted last January was the increase in the minimum wage and the establishment of a maximum wage. Would this work? Might it destroy America's traditional free spirit of enterprise and entreprenuership? Was it fair?
Two days after Christmas, these issues continued to be the 'hot topics' in the hot tropics of the West Indies. As the ocean breezes gently wafted over St. Kitts, O.U.T.R.A.G.E. volunteers debated the pros and cons of a new social-political-economic structure for the United States of America. It was a daunting task.....it was a