We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
In answer to Andrew's question--"That auto restructuring last year was a disaster, wasn't it?"--well, yes, it was. The Congressional Budget Office believes that it will ultimately cost the taxpayers $50 billion--as much or more than the rest of TARP put together. For that, we saved less than 400,000 jobs at GM and Chrysler. We could have given each of the autoworkers $100,000 to go start over somewhere else, and still saved money on the deal.
Hey, Bird Dog: Always thought being a conservative meant valuing the land. Hence, remonstrations about that bad boy Progressive Teddy Roosevelt don't necessarily resonate with me. How one preserves natural heritage is a complex question, with lots of different sides to it.
Regarding race-based affirmative action (as in Prager's comment): if the preferences went to genuinely disadvantaged individuals based on potential and achievement, you'd get a race-based result, at least in part, because Hispanics and blacks are over-represented amont disadvantaged people. So a color-blind system that paid attention to who was likely to overcome barriers would produce the desired result more justly than a color-based system.