My God, it seems we actually agree on something (was that a pig that just flew overhead??)....

That was not a pig, Jack. Check the author of that post.

So, you like Clark. Great.

Too bad he's a pompous idiot, but then, if he seriously enters the race, that will become (painfully) evident the more he opens his mouth.

Sort of like he did for Tim Russert when he asserted a line from the Communist Manifesto as being a founding principle of the United States...

Run Wesley, run!

Thanks for your comments, Wind Rider. Neil Boortz will be proud to know you've picked up his "Wesley Clark Is Either Stupid Or a Commie.." smear.

Unfortunately for your personal credibility, the Progressive Tax in America predates communism by about a hundred years. A simple internet search will provide more information although http://www.taxworld.org/History/TaxHistory.htm is a good place to start.

As far as your claim of Wesley Clark being a "pompous idiot", I don't know as I have never met him. I am, however, jealous that you have and frankly a little concerned that you didn't come away from your meeting with a more thoughtful opinion of him.

I read your reference dating the progressive tax and because of lack of adherence, etc the tax was discontinued. There wasn't a progressive tax under todays system until 1913. And you said it predated communism by a hundred years. I hope that you don't believe that Karl Marx was the first of the communist theoreticians. If you do I think your personal credibility might suffer. I think Plato had some thoughts on communism. See this google page

The context for my remarks was this line from Wind Rider:

"..like [Gen. Clark] did for Tim Russert when he asserted a line from the Communist Manifesto as being a founding principle of the United States.."

My point was simply that progressive taxation was around before the Communist Manifesto. I should have been less specific than "a hundred years before communism" and instead focused on the development of the progressive tax separate from the modern push towards communism. Even so, the URL I provided should have helped to enlightment those who think Karl Marx and Frederick Engels thunked up the progressive tax.

Thanks for your comments and I'll check out the URL.

...agreed with your assessment of Clark and would love to see him run. i've been waiting for someone to provide a principled and intelligent alternative to the current administration, and the current flock of Dem hopefuls have neither a spine nor a prayer of winning.

What makes Clark attractive to Democrats is that he can play down his liberalism while playing up his military record. As the author indirectly suggests, liberalism cannot win on its own merits. (Please don't bother to argue with this: it's true, or there would be no talk of "smearing" someone as a liberal. Either it's something to be proud of, hence it cannot be a smear, or it's something to be ashamed of, in which case it could be a smear -- if it is also untrue.) So, like always, liberals must run under the radar. And while every other Democratic contender (except Lieberman) has already ruined his credibility on matters of national security, running a former general ought to assuage any reflexive doubts about the Democrats' resolve on such issues.

Let me also point out that the writer is not opposed to smearing, per se, but only to smearing that is injurious to Democrats. Anyone who uses epithets such as "Bush's Evangelical Right stooges", "Clinton-hating Republicans", "Chicken-Hawk Right", and "the bigots of America" cannot credibly object to smearing in principle. Compared with any of those, calling someone a 'liberal' seems pretty mild.

I too agree with the writer. I suspect and passionately hope that General Wesley Clark will eventually run for President of the USA and replace Bush and his unelected gang of arrogant morons.
BTW, it seems to me that down and dirty discriptions are not always incorrect.
Charles Munn

See, there goes the Left again! They complain about "smears" when someone calls a liberal, say, a "liberal". But they think nothing of calling Republicans or conservatives an "unelected gang of arrogant morons." It's like Al Franken, who had the nerve to name his latest book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" -- after he lied to John Ashcroft about the purpose of an interview.

As for "unelected", do the country a favor, please, and actually read the U. S. Constitution. Please pay close attention to Article II, Section 1. The Constitution stipulates, not a popular vote, but a vote by state electors, who are selected in a manner determined by the state legislatures. Please note: state ***legislatures***, not state courts. In other words, when the Florida state legislature had already determined that the deadline for filing votes was by 5 PM, on the Tuesday following the election, they presumably did not mean nineteen days after the election, or "at some time to be determined on the fly by the Florida Supreme Court".

Liberals complain it was a state matter -- all of a sudden, out of the blue, liberals have discovered states rights -- and see it as a states' rights issue, not a matter for the U. S. Supreme Court. But the basis of states' rights is the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Please note: It is not a reserved power of the states to re-write Article II, Section 1. Therefore, the U. S. Supreme Court came into the scene and made Florida play nice.

Conclusion: Mr. Bush was elected. Mr. Gore was defeated. Get over it.

Lee:

I apologize for ignoring your first post. I erroneously felt if I just ignored you, you'd go away. But no, you are hanging around doing the brave job of whacking over the head anyone who may have a different opinion than you.

And this would be fine - if you had interpreted my original article on Wesley Clark correctly.

In my article, I put 'smear' in quotes referencing 'liberal' to indicate *I didn't feel it was a smear. Make sense? Imagine if I were saying the sentence out loud and when I got to the word 'smear', I gestured quotes with two fingers on each hand in the air. Suddenly, the sentence changes and the inference is I don't believe it but THEY do (THEY being those that would try to "smear" this way. (I'm a liberal after all - why would I think it's a smear?)

I understand this subtle nuance may be lost on you.

In closing, I'd like you to read my original article one more time, but this time, imagine I'm smiling and making "points" whimsically. Try to see the subtler shadings - to understand the reader from the writing. (Why is the writer angry with the Bush wing of the Religious Right? Ah. Because they took down his man McCain.) (Why does the writer have "Hey Rich!" in parenthesis? Not gonna give this one away!)

-Lope

> But no, you are hanging around doing the brave job of whacking over the head anyone who may have a different opinion than you.

It's all in the characterization. When I disagree with you, it's "whacking you over the head." Is it also "whacking me over the head" when you disagree with me? Probably not, but the distinction gets lost on me. Guess I'm not subtle or nuanced enough.

People misuse scare quotes all the time, but I will gladly accept your version of your use of them with the word 'smear', and apologize for that particular misunderstanding. Now it becomes clear that: 1. You don't consider calling someone a liberal to be a smear, and 2. You obviously have no objection, principled or otherwise, to using smears, since you did not encapsulate your use of the following terms in scare quotes: Chicken Hawk Right; Clinton-hating Republicans; bigots of America.

> I understand this subtle nuance may be lost on you.

How could I have missed all that subtle nuance? Your writing practically screams at the top of its lungs of subtle nuance. "Bigots of America" was definitely a nice, subtle, nuanced, yet humorous characterization of those you disagree with. But that's not "whacking anyone on the head," now, is it?

> In closing, I'd like you to read my original article one more time, but this time, imagine I'm smiling and making "points" whimsically.

That's what Al Franken and Michael Moore do. "Hey guys, it's just whimsy. It's just satire. When I say something that's untrue or cruel, why, that's just me having fun." And how can I argue with that? Some people think pulling wings off of flies is hilarious. So if you think, say, completely mischaracterizing the views of "some Fundamentalist types" and imputing bigotry to them is all in good fun, why, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised when "some Fundamentalist types" call you on it.

Okay, I'm over it. (clicking my new jackbooted heels, but secretly wishing Al Franken and Michael Moore will fly in on their magic carpets. and save us.) I arch my back , jab out my hand and scream,
Heil Dise!

Lee:

I'm not sure why you are looking for a fight. I wrote my version of a political analysis of Wesley Clark. If you have a different opinion, maybe you should write your own analysis instead of shitting all over me for mine.

If you feel like I'm characterizing you with my descriptive name-calling, well, as they say, "If the shoe fits.."

I'm starting to wonder if you went back and re-read like I asked.

"Bigots of America" doesn't refer to people I "don't agree with" (as you said). In my original article it specifically referred to folks who would have a problem with him being a Jew and/or a Catholic (or both is one life). Couldn't we fairly call these folks bigots?

Moving along, how do you know if I mischaracterized the views of "some Fundementalist types" if I'm no more specific than "some Fundementalist types". Can there be no "some Fundementalist types" that would be guilty of the behavior I described? I know plenty of folks like this having grown up in a Fundemental Baptist Church with the correlating Baptist School education for 12 years. I'm fascinated by your comments because I think it reveals much more than you intended. If YOU feel YOU are one of these "some Fundementalist types", I'd love to have a discussion about the current politicization of Fundementalist Christianity (and to some degree Evangelical Christianity) and how it fits in with the the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. I'm equally fascinated by how the mentality of "living in the last times" affects Religious Right politics. (Of course, being a Preterist, I know a few folks of the Religious Right for whom this is no compelling dynamic.)

"Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges" specifically targeted those who "savaged" McCain. I think you remember the facts but if not, here's a refresher: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/robertson.html
Scroll down to the story titled "One of Pat Robertson's Biggest Lies". I think, based on the definition of "stooge", this "name-calling" was quite appropriate.

I'll take responsibility for "Chicken Hawk Right" because I did not specifically mention to whom this applied. I thought until looking at it just now that it was a link to here: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
If you're too busy to check out their exhaustive lists, let me just quickly tell you how they define a Chicken Hawk: "public persons – generally male – who (1) tend to advocate military solutions to political problems, and who have personally (2) declined to take advantage of significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime."

As you can probably tell, their description puts the best possible face on a disgusting practice: folks who would sacrifice the lives of others for causes they themselves would not. My use of "Chicken Hawk Right" specifically referred to folks that will attack Clark's military record while remaining silent about Bush's own (or their own). I bet Charles Munn, retired USAF has much more to say about this.

"Clinton-hating Republicans" specifically (and circularly) refers to Republicans that hate Clinton. If there are none of these people (snicker) then no one is being called names.. eh?

Finally (and *gasp*), I've given a lot of consideration to the differences between LABELING and NAME-CALLING. While I'd like to honestly make the claim that they are different (former assigns a pre-defined set of attributes that may or may not apply to the product or person being labeled, latter is short-hand notation for what appear to be obvious attributes to the applier) I think they are probably interchangeable. I will say, however, that LABELING strikes me more as a TACTIC while name-calling seems to be a DEVICE. Hell, I dunno. If anyone has seen this subject dissected online, send me a link.

Again, I'm very open to a debate on the specifics of my article - as indicated above. I'd prefer not to quibble over semantics anymore. Thanks for the comparison with Michael Moore and Al Franken but I don't deserve it. I'm just a computer geek that occasionally wants to express himself. Maybe someday I'll take an English class or debate course and learn what an ad hominen is. Seriously. I might just do that.

(grin) Well, Lope it seems to me that you are an open guy who seriously wishes to debate the issues. I'm a registered independent who has voted Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. Hell, I even kinda' liked old grumpy Dole, ( grin ) still do, viagra peddling and all.

However I must admit, although I'm not nearly as anti Bush as many Republicans were/are anti Clinton, I truly don't like Bush. Frankly it gagged me when I saw that ex Texas Nat'l Guard pilot who went AWOL for one year, in a flight suit.

I find it hard to believe that any military person who is aware of his background would vote for him.

If I or one of my fellow Airman had gone Absent Without Leave for year, especially during a war, we'd still be in Jail! So it seems to me that George W. is the perfect description of a Chicken Hawk . Now Bush senior. is a very differrent story. Although I didn't agree with many of his policies, old daddy Bush has the right stuff. He seems to be an honorable man who did his duty.

Hell, I didn't even vote for Clinton the first time he ran, not because he was a draft dodger, but because he clearly was/is a liar. Hey man, there's just no other way to say it. Same thing applies to George W. That is, a guy gets caught telling enough lies, it's pretty certain that guy's a liar... Now like ol' Diagenes implied, maybe there is no such thing as a person who always tells the truth... But Jeeez, at least some of us make an effort!

I didn't agree with the Vietnam war either. But I was a lifer and I did my job to the best of my ability. My loyality is for the crew with whom I fly and the grunts we support, and not for some politician or political General such as Westmoreland who wraps himself in our flag. Clinton was clearly a draft dodger, but it seems to me that any reasonable person, ( grin ) other than we duty bound lifers, would have tried to avoid that stupid war. At least Clinton didn't pretend to be a warrior and then go AWOL for a year. I did vote for Clinton for his second term, simply because I hated what the Republicans tried to to to him and to our country. Also he was obviously extremely smart and I liked many of his policies and what was happening to the economy. I wonder if anyone can truthfully say that Geogre W. is even moderately smart, etc... Well, maybe so. Maybe I'm just missing it. Still.....

So regardless of what Lee Dice has to say, I'm not a leftist simply because I dislike Bush and his appointments of the old Reagan gang of advisers who now seem to pull his strings. I said that gang of unelected ( grin, and Dise they were not elected, they were appointed! ) men and one woman are morons simply because it seems moronic to me to believe the Iraqis were going to welcome us with open arms, as well as the utter stupidity of sending in so few troops. Now, in the face of this monumental blunder, our troops are still much too thin and the MORONS at the Pentagon have yet to reinforce them!
My heart goes out to our poor grunts who are now pulling duty in Iraq as well as the millions of innocent Iraqis who must also suffer through this disaster. Because of George, Rumy, and other arrogant losers who turned a secular state into a growing terrorist nightmare we have little option but to stay and clean up their mess. So much for our priorities of catching Ben Laden.

I sincerely believe that General Clark may be the one man who might do the job and get us out of Irag with honor as well as chase down the real terrorist.

I will also proudly say that I am a liberal if only because it seems to me that liberals are honest, open minded and willing to discuss any reasonable issue. It seems to me that you fit very nicely into that catagory.

BTW, I usually rarely say that I'm retired from the military because I try very hard to live in the moment. You know, that was then this is now kinda thing. Yet in this case it somehow seems to be the right thing to do.

Best wishes,
Charles Munn, MSGT, USAF, Retired

> I'm not sure why you are looking for a fight.

Does it matter?

> I wrote my version of a political analysis of Wesley Clark. If you have a different opinion, maybe you should write your own analysis instead of shitting all over me for mine.

I think we're seeing elements here, perhaps, of why liberals prefer the print and broadcast media, while conservatives prefer talk radio and the web. James Lileks once wrote, "Newspapers are a lecture; the web is a conversation." What we're doing here is having a conversation. If you don't want my feedback, why not take away the block down here at the bottom of your web page, labeled "Comments"? Better yet, write for the New York Times, where they print approximately one of two hundred letters received? If you want your audience just to sit out here and suck up anything you write, you are definitely employing the wrong medium.

> If you feel like I'm characterizing you with my descriptive name-calling, well, as they say, "If the shoe fits.."

And you ask me why I'm "shitting" on your analysis. Maybe the toilet seat fits. Or we could just bag all this crap and try a real argument. We're certainly never going to get to one, at this rate. C'mon. I'd love to see what you've got.

> "Bigots of America" doesn't refer to people I "don't agree with" (as you said). In my original article it specifically referred to folks who would have a problem with him being a Jew and/or a Catholic (or both is one life). Couldn't we fairly call these folks bigots?

You strongly implied that this characterization would fit someone who is a Southern or rural "fundamentalist type", and then went on to ridicule those who believe there will be an anti-Christ. You paint with a very broad brush, my friend, but don't get mad at me. I'm just noticing.

> Moving along, how do you know if I mischaracterized the views of "some Fundementalist types" if I'm no more specific than "some Fundementalist types".

Not specifying is a terrific way to smear. When pressed, as you are now, you can always deny that's what you meant to do, even though the message comes across loud and clear.

> Can there be no "some Fundementalist types" that would be guilty of the behavior I described?

If President Bush were to say, "Some Jews are greedy and conniving," he could always grin boyishly and ask, "Can there be no Jews that would be guilty of the behavior I described?" I still think it would rile the Anti-Defamation League, though.

> If YOU feel YOU are one of these "some Fundementalist types"...

Guilty as charged.

> I'd love to have a discussion about the current politicization of Fundementalist Christianity (and to some degree Evangelical Christianity) and how it fits in with the the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

I don't necessarily regard fundamentalist Christianity as "politicized", though you might have to specify what you mean further. If you mean that clergymen should not get involved in politics, I suppose that means Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell -- but it also means the Rev. Martin Luther King, William Sloane Coffin, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. (My experience with liberals is that when liberals say clergymen should not get involved in politics, they mean conservative clergymen.) It means that John Wilberforce, an evangelical Christian, should have never fought against and ultimately succeeded in getting slavery abolished in England. If you mean the churches themselves should not get involved in politics, I've been going to fundamentalist churches for about fifty years, and I've never been to a church that supported a political candidate. If you mean that fundamentalist Christians themselves should not get involved in politics, sorry but that's their constitutional right as American citizens.

But as for the theology itself, it is pretty much unchanged. I think what you are noticing is not the politicization of religion, but rather the more active involvement of fundamentalist Christians as private citizens in politics. You don't want them there, apparently.

> I'm equally fascinated by how the mentality of "living in the last times" affects Religious Right politics.

I take no position on whether these are the "end times". It's all the same to me, really, from a practical perspective. One who believes these are the end times believes that, any second now, he could find himself in God's presence. Whereas, one who doesn't believe these are necessarily the end times also believes that, any second now, he could die and find himself in God's presence. I don't really see a practical difference. He promised to come back, and I believe Him, but the timing is up to Him, not me, and my commission as a Christian remains the same regardless: to honor the Lord and his commandments and to love my neighbor as myself.

> Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges" specifically targeted those who "savaged" McCain. I think you remember the facts but if not, here's a refresher: http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/robertson.html

Pretty fevered stuff. Sorry, I'm no fan of Mr. McCain's. If you have specific complaints about things said against him, lay them out. I won't support anyone lying about McCain, nor about Robertson, for that matter.

> I'll take responsibility for "Chicken Hawk Right" because I did not specifically mention to whom this applied.

If the implication is that one needed to serve in the military in order to form an opinion about whether the military ought to be used, then I suppose Mr. Clinton -- who famously declined his opportunity to serve in ROTC -- shouldn't have bombed Kosovo, or that aspirin plant in the Sudan. But of course it doesn't work that way. FDR was unable to serve, but he was not unable to judge that the military was needed. Let's recognize question-begging epithets such as the "Chicken Hawk Right" for what they are: a red herring, and a poor substitute for thinking.

> As you can probably tell, their description puts the best possible face on a disgusting practice: folks who would sacrifice the lives of others for causes they themselves would not.

If that description doesn't fit Mr. Clinton, then it wouldn't fit anyone. But that's hardly a new thing in government, is it? Prescribing for others that which we would not prescribe for ourselves? It also applies to rich socialists like Warren Buffett who advocate that I pay higher taxes on my income (people like Buffett don't need even to earn an income). It applies to Section 8 housing bureaucrats who put tenement families next to other people's middle-class homes, but not their own. It is NPR speaking out as the voice of the poor and downtrodden, while objecting to the soup kitchen going in next door to their premises in northern Virginia.

> "Clinton-hating Republicans" specifically (and circularly) refers to Republicans that hate Clinton. If there are none of these people (snicker) then no one is being called names.. eh?

There are Clinton-hating Republicans, even as there (obviously) are Bush-hating Democrats. But for some reason, the news media sees mainly haters on the Right, not on the Left.

> I bet Charles Munn, retired USAF has much more to say about this.

Mr. Munn just likened me to Hitler. Should I care what else he may have to say?

As to defining the difference between "labeling" and "name-calling", allow me to have a stab at it. Everyone labels out of necessity. Let's stipulate that no one can know every fact in the world, or even every fact about one person. If you try to chase down every single fact, you will miss the big picture that the facts are painting. At some point, discernment needs to kick in, and you have to draw conclusions from the set of facts that are available. This is where the value of labels comes in. Labels are a convenient mental and communicational shorthand, a time-saver, that paints a picture in a general way. Their danger is if you confuse the label with the entire scope or breadth of a person, an issue, or the world itself. We would unhesitatingly call William Buckley a conservative, even though he strays from the orthodoxy on some issues, most notably the legalization of marijuana. We would also unhesitatingly label Hitler a monster, even though he was sweet to his secretaries and very sentimental about his dogs.

Name-calling is something different. When someone calls names, he is hoping to distract someone from the issue at hand in an attempt to discredit an idea by association. "Why, of course it's bad policy, the people who favor it are all a bunch of !" It is, in fact, one of the more famous fallacies in informal logic -- the 'argumentum ad hominem' you mentioned. What's important are the two elements of distraction and irrelevance: the name-calling may be, in fact, truthful. President Clinton was in fact a lying, perjuring scumbag, but that of course has no bearing on whether his policy of bombing Kosovo was the right thing to do. Even scumbags can be right once in a while, and even virtuous saints can make mistakes.

And some terms can be used both as a label and as name-calling. That's the way, for example, Rush Limbaugh uses the word "liberal". To him, it's not just a descriptive term, it's an epithet as well, at least to the choir to which he preaches. His argument would, of course, become a mere epithet if he were to stop there and not present any *relevant* arguments.

"Well, you know, I think that what candidate Clark, if there is such a candidate, would be for is he would be for doing the right thing for government. [...]

"...the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation." -- General Wesley Clark in an interview with Tim Russert.

Just what we need, a president who wants to do the right thing... for government, and who thinks this country was founded on progressive taxation.

For the record, the Supreme Court ruled the progressive taxation was unconstitutional. Hence the Constitutional Amendment (change) allowing for progressive taxation.

Well Dise, I'll admit after you blantantly called me a leftist I had a little fun at your expense when I implied that you are a Nazi, and I apologize for that. However I also hoped that we may lighten up a little. I gave you the perfect open. That is, you might have said something like, " Moore and Franken's carpets seem to be locked into a left turn. They now seem to be spiraling ever left up into the clouds. Now stand straight Sgt Munn, suck in that gut, no more leftist fairy tale dreams from you!"

Still it seemed to me that you labeled me a leftist because I have not atomatically fallen into step behind the ultra right , of which you seem to be a staunch member, who now seems to totally control the Republican party.

Regarding Clinton: Sure it's very apparent that the man is a liar and a draft dodger and I hated it when he went off half cocked and bombed that pharmaceutical factory and killed all of those innocent people. And yes, like some ultra right wingers, some liberals are also hippocrites. Like old Diagenes implied, maybe there's no such thing as an honest person. But come on, let's make a pledge to at least attempt to be honest and not just merely try to make points at the expense of killing a possible amusing and enlightening debate.

However it seems to me that you are unwilling to yeild a point on any occasion. That, as bright as you seem to be, it seems like you sneer rather than debate. Yet surely even you will give a point or two to Clinton's polocies toward business, after all he stole the ideas from the Republican party. At any rate, Clinton was obviously good for business and maybe gets a B on our ecology, whereas Geoge W. is obviously not good for business and maybe rates a D on ecology.

Sure, maybe it wasn't fair that the Clinton economy got a boost from President Bush senior who, fortunately for us, was clawing our way out of the economical morass left by Reagan and his spend thrift advisors. Also maybe it's true that the market was in a downward trend when George W. took office.

Oh yeah, you might also say that if Reagan hadn't been such a spend thrift then the USSR would not have collapsed and maybe that's even true. Yet it's really a mute point because it's simply conjecture. Maybe they fell because of Gorbachov's open policy. You know, let in a little honest light and the peasants saw all of the hidden skeletons. Maybe they fell because a rag tag Afgan Taliban army, created by the CIA and in a large part funded by the Saudi's, whipped their butts thus proving the Soviets were not a superpower and could not defend themselves because they were unwilling to take casualties.

Still, even if it were true that Reagan's spending drove the Soviets into bankruptcy that was then and this is now. George W's reinventions of Reagan's old spendthrift policy coupled with preventive wars seems to be a total disaster which seems to be getting worse by the second. Hopefully during the next election for President of the USA, George W. and his unelected/ appointed team will be held accountable for what seems to me to be their massive blunders.

At this point in time the nicest thing I can say about the current administration is it's obious to me at least, that their decisions have definitely not been good for busiiness.

At anyrate we're all in this together and I have to believe that we all have the best interest of our citizens and our country in our hearts.

Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> I'll admit after you blantantly called me a leftist I had a little fun at your expense when I implied that you are a Nazi, and I apologize for that.

Apology accepted, and I hope I didn't flash the "leftist" warning too soon, and apologize myself to you on that score. Let's start over...

> Still it seemed to me that you labeled me a leftist because I have not atomatically fallen into step behind the ultra right....

Whether you are a leftist or not, the phrase "unelected gang of arrogant morons", applied to the Bush administration, puts your commentary in that ballpark. You could refrain from throwing around epithets like that and still not be an ultra-rightist.

> ...the ultra right , of which you seem to be a staunch member, who now seems to totally control the Republican party.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I *wish* the "ultra-right", by which I presume you mean conservatives like me, had control over the party. Problem is, aside from his prosecution of the war, and the tax cut (which still was poorly designed), I can't think of any other victories conservatives have enjoyed under Bush. Example: The conservative position would be not to have new, expensive pharmacautical entitlements; however, Bush has signed onto them enthusiastically. Example: The conservative position would be to have free trade; however, Bush pushed through 30% increases in steel tariffs, resulting in massive layoffs in industries dependent on steel. Example: The conservative position would be to have criticized the Supreme Court for ignoring the 14th and 15th amendments and allowing racial quotas at state institutions; however, Bush praised their decision. Example: The conservative position would have been we already have a Dept. of Defense, no, we do not need an expensive new bureaucracy like the Dept. of Homeland Defense; however, Bush was again enthusiastic.

Bush spends money like a drunken sailor, and absolutely refuses to issue a veto of any Congressional bill, no more how pork-laden. He refuses to use the White House to pressure Senate Democrats to pass his judicial appointments. As best as I can tell, Bush Junior is simply a chip off the old blockhead. That is, Bush, like his daddy, is a liberal Republican -- a Rockefeller, not a Reagan. I think the only place he is showing any vision is in his foreign policy. That's not unimportant, but it hardly leaves this conservative fulfilled.

> However it seems to me that you are unwilling to yeild a point on any occasion.

For instance?

> That, as bright as you seem to be, it seems like you sneer rather than debate.

My perspective is that the debate was in sorry shape before I got here. Big on epithets, small on reason.

> Yet surely even you will give a point or two to Clinton's polocies toward business, after all he stole the ideas from the Republican party.

I give the sorry s.o.b. his due, which is not inconsiderable, and no more. I believe the country received tremendous economic benefit from having a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. In 1994, the Clinton adminstration was in big trouble. They started out by raising taxes, and then pulled one of the biggest attempted power-grabs of the century, namely the Hillary Health Care debacle. The country as a whole was not in favor of this new level of socialism, and surprised everyone by electing a Republican Congress. Some of Clinton's advisors warned him, do you want to move somewhat to the Right, or do you want to lose the next election? So, Clinton decided he'd rather sign some conservative bills than be an ex-president. He supported NAFTA; he signed a welfare reform bill; and otherwise kept his hands off the economy. That's faint praise, but it's more than most Republican presidents seem able or willing to accomplish. I have a deep-seated hostility and intense dislike of anything reeking of Clinton, but he made a few very good decisions that helped us a great deal economically. I don't have to like Mr. Clinton to like some of those decisions. That's as much as you get from me.

When the presidency and the Congress are of the same party, it usually bodes poorly for the country. Our system was designed to function best when the powers-that-be are disunited and competing with one another. When they are united, it is usually at the citizens' expense, especially the taxpayers'.

> ...clawing our way out of the economical morass left by Reagan

Ronald Reagan was very good for this nation and its economy. It's so easy to forget the 20% interest rates, the 13% inflation, and the 10% unemployment we enjoyed under Mr. Carter. It's also easy to forget the pitiful impotence of Carter's foreign policy. Mr. Reagan not only showed the world that communism could be defeated, he did it.

> Also maybe it's true that the market was in a downward trend when George W. took office.

We were probably in recession already before Mr. Clinton left office. The Commerce Department lied outright about our economic situation for the last quarter of the year 2000, overestimating certain key figures by as much as 30%. Someone should have been indicted in Commerce when Bush took over, but it's typical of Mr. Bush to avoid direct confrontation, or confrontation of any other type, with Democrats.

And I thank you for your candor and for giving me a possible brief glance into your prospective. Although I generally share the capatilistic views of David Hume, who is sometimes known as the small business man's philosopher, as well as in Adam Smith, who seemed to be highly influenced by Hume, it now seems to me that, through your eyes at least, I am indeed a leftist. It also now seems that you were perfectly justified in labeling me as such.

That is, I've always considered myself as a military lifer who, in that aspect, was A politcal. When given a mission or sent to war, sure, I had opinions and like most lifers, we bitched and moaned and laughed at the frigging politicians and political generals who wrap themselves in the flag, but we kept it among ourselves and did the best job we knew how to do. In that aspect I thought I was fairly far to the right.

But now, in trying my best to be honest, I realize that I, as well as most lifer politicians,
Republican or Democrat, are products of a strong socialistic medical system. We've never had to worry about paying doctor bills or buying drugs as it is supplied by the government and it seems to me that we are guaranteed to have those rights for the rest of our lives.

I also now realize that maybe because I've seen so many people killed by the stupidity of war I'm, as most leftist seem to be, extremely empathic to my fellow humans and other creatures. In fact I'm so empathic to them
that I'd like to see something like that system Hillary proposed put into place. However, I know that will never happen in one fell swoop but, it seems to me, it is happening inch by inch.

Jeeez Lee, thank you again. I'm truthful when I say that it's wonderfully freeing to come out of a leftist closet that I, until reading of your perspective, didn't even know I was in.

I'm a bloody leftist, and I'm reveling in it! Even
though if I were still in the active military I would do my duty for whomever is president, I don't for a minute believe that it's our God given right to engage in so called preventive wars. I don't for a minute believe that we have the right to determine the fate of other nations who pose little threat to our massive existence.

I know we have radically different views, but let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives. I mean, hell, we are simply standing in very different places perhaps caused by radically different experiences.

That said, I'd like to address something you said regarding Plato and communism. You seem to be very well read, so I'm sure that you are aware that Plato proposed a Republic which was run by a sect called "The Guardians." He said those Guardians were to be chosen at birth and then trained to run all facets of the government. They were to be public servants who were never allowed to own property, etc.

However, that didn't apply to the citizens of that Republic. Those citizens were free to own property, run businesses and trade at the local agora. Rather than to call that a communist state I'd say it was a totalitarian state. In that respect I do admit that it might have some vague resemblance to the old USSR, a country who claimed to be communist but, as we are both aware of, were nothing but a totalitarian state run by self styled elitist.

Now back to Plato who said something like,
I seem to remember in book IV of The Republic, that it was just an ideal, a model if you will, but that it probably would never work.

I first read The Republic when I was in my teens and it truly puzzeled me as to who would choose the Guardians. Then finally it dawned on me, why old Plato and his elitist aristocratic friends would of course chose the Guardians as well as over see them and, ( grin ) probaly write their proficiency reports.

Hell, I guess nothing much has changed after
all. The Guardians of today are still chosen by the aristocratic elite, you know, the Harvard, Yale, and other ivy league bunch. Unfortunately the modern Guardians can own property etc. which seems to cause them to be open to bribes, etc..
( grin ) Hmmmm, maybe only a leftist would even consider such a thing.

Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> ...products of a strong socialistic medical system. We've never had to worry about paying doctor bills or buying drugs as it is supplied by the government and it seems to me that we are guaranteed to have those rights for the rest of our lives.

One person's rights is another person's obligation. Medicine is not a free good, like the air we breathe. It is a scarce good, which is simply something which everyone cannot simply walk out their door and get as much of as they need. HMOs are often criticized because they deny care. However, socialized medicine also denies care, only they don't call it that, they call it a waiting line. If the wait for a heart operation is three years and you'll be dead in six months without the operation, then that's an effective denial.

> I also now realize that maybe because I've seen so many people killed by the stupidity of war I'm, as most leftist seem to be, extremely empathic to my fellow humans and other creatures.

I don't equate leftists with peaceniks. Leftists are not necessarily anti-war, if it happens to be a war of their own choice. Sen. Dean, for example, is all in favor of sending troops to Liberia. The only real difference between Liberia and Iraq is there is no vital U.S. interest in Liberia. Leftists only want war when there can be no possible gain for the U.S.

> I don't for a minute believe that it's our God given right to engage in so called preventive wars.

And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live.

There are numerous parallels, in my opinion, between the U.S. and the Roman Republic circa 200 B.C. Rome ran a wealthy alliance of city-states, and had extremely productive agriculture. Wealth attracts robbers, and over the course of a couple of hundred years they were attacked, and sometimes sacked, by the Gauls, the Etruscans, the Carthaginians, the Macedonians, and whomever else felt they had something to gain. Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over.

This is where the logic leads us. As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority. Well, we in the U.S. have been held responsible for everything in the world since 1945. If there is a famine in Ethiopia, we are somehow to blame. If there is war in the Mideast, we are somehow to blame. If an enormous Soviet army is bearing down on western Europe, it is incumbent on us to stop it. A hundred years ago, we could hide behind our oceans and be secure in our borders. This is no longer an option. If we are going to be saddled with the responsibility, we need to grab the authority. If we will not grab the authority, then we have no responsibility. For fifty-plus years, and even now to a large extent, we have been seeking some middle ground that allows us to be responsible, but does not grant us the political or moral authority to do what we need to do. That middle ground does not exist. We need to decide if we are going to be a giant Switzerland, content to sit here hoping they don't hit us again; or to take charge and make sure it doesn't happen again.

I know where the Democrats line up on this issue. It just isn't a serious option.

Lee: "One person's rights is another person's obligation."

True and I see your point of view. However, please bear with me for a moment as I attempt to explain my point of view. As I'm sure you know, Jamestown was our first colony and it failed miserably. It was of course our first experiment in commmunism in that everyone worked together and shared the harvest. Well, there were too many people who laid back and didn't work hard enough. It finally got back on track with the pragmatic philosophy of "No work, no food." So it seems to me that one can't always count on all of us doing the honorable thing. And I agree that those who refuse to be productive shouldn't be paid or get medicine, after all it's their choice. It's not cruel. It's simply nature's way. Hunt for, kill and/or domesticate and eat our fellow creatures, including both plant and/or animal, or die and visa versa.

But it seems there is ample evidence to strongly suggest that that even Neanderthal man cared for their weak and elderly, that they cared enough to share their hunt. Now I do agree with many of the hard edged intellectual views of Libertarians, however it seems to me that both Libertarians and Republicans beleive that all men are honorable and, unfortunately that seems to have been proven to be an incorrect stance. A Libertarian or a Republican might say. "I care enough to take care of the children of those who refuse to work, as well as the sick and elderly, but it's my choice to either do so or not. You don't have the right to do it for me through taxation."

Yet, like Jamestown and those who didn't work hard enough, that is, those who always leave it to others to get the job done, there are also many of us who won't reach out and help our nieghbors. Maybe they are the same people who wont pull their weight in a crunch. Maybe some are just unaware of the many people who, through no fault of their own, just need a little help.

Yet it seems that we've made sure that everyone, if they make the effort, can find a free food line, get free food stamps, find free used clothing. But, even with medicare, ( which is so riddled with mindless paperwork that many physicians now refuse to take it ) it seems that not everyone can get the care of a decent medical system. So I've adamantly concluded, as flawed as it may be, that socialized medicine is a necessity in any human, caring state.

Lee: "I don't equate leftists with peaceniks. Leftists are not necessarily anti-war, if it happens to be a war of their own choice. Sen. Dean, for example, is all in favor of sending troops to Liberia. The only real difference between Liberia and Iraq is there is no vital U.S. interest in Liberia. "

Perhaps true, at first glance. That is, it may seem it is in our interest to set up a puppet government in Iraq and control Iragi oil, not take the profits from their oil, but simply to control it via the puppet government and thereby become an active member of OPEC. Yet it seems doubtful if that will ever happen in fact I wonder if we have not just made the biggest political blunder in the history of the USA when we forgot the needed interdependance of our traditional allies, got extremely greedy at the thought of all of that oil, then convinced ourselves that, since Saddam is such a monster, the Iragis will welcome us with open arms.

I quote a Sunni Muslim cleric in Iraq, "There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrananical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

Lee: "Leftists only want war when there can be no possible gain for the U.S."

( grin ) Like Aristotle's sylogisms which fathered the impedus theory, which was, when applied outside of the confines of earth, falsified by Newton's trajectory theory, your statement is not always true. Leftists don't always agree just as Republicans, (grin) maybe only privately, don't always agree. That is, some only want war when our country is threatened. Some seem to think we have an obligation to police the world and some, like myself, reason that going to war for either cause can be valid.

Lee: "And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live."

That seems much more likely to happen now, after our rogue approach to Irag. It was the above kind of fear which stampeded us into Irag. It seems to me that decisions based upon fear are always irrational. Sure, fear is a necessary emotion. We need our fear in times of immediate survival. Yet we surely must provide a proper calm atmosphere within ourselves so that we can stay in touch with our innate sanity. That calm, hopefully somewhat amused, atmosphere allows our fear to awaken only in moments of shear terror. During those times, in my experience, a rested fear can be very useful. Time seems to slow down and enables one to function within that flowing moment. So it seems to me that the kind of fearful, running amok, seemingly anti thinking that has taken hold of the US is extremely self destructive.

Lee: "Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over. This is where the logic leads us."

Umm, possibly. But, it seems to me, that this is a very different world. Most intellectuals, even some religious ones, see the world in terms of modern physics, that is, the world/universe is non deterministic. That is, it is causitive by it parts and it parts are accountable for their actions. It took many centuries before Rome got its come uppance, but things now seem to progress blindingly fast. In that regard, it seems to me, unless some powerful intellectual gets us back on the road to recognizing the interdependance of all of humanity, we may soon pay a massive price for our unlaterism.

Lee: " As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority."

True, but one has nothing to do with the other. That is, our military will always do their jobs the best they know how. But I truly don't believe you really want a world where any nation can go to war with any other nation simply because they believe that nation may, in some future time, attack them?

Lee: "That middle ground does not exist"

Here we stand in radically different places. It seems to me that we have more choices than either becoming another Switzerland or becoming another nation such as Ceasar's Rome, Napolean's France or Hitler's Germany. It seems to me that we need not try to cram our notion of hegemony down the throats of the world. We can recognize the world as equal human partners with different ways of seeing the universe and still easily take care of our own needs. Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants. Surely you don't want the US to continue down that, what seems to me to be, fearful road to total insanity.

Thanks for the dialogue and
Best Wishes,
Charles Munn

> A Libertarian or a Republican might say. "I care enough to take care of the children of those who refuse to work, as well as the sick and elderly, but it's my choice to either do so or not. You don't have the right to do it for me through taxation."

You're right, I think libertarians have nothing against helping the poor. They are, however, against forcing someone to help the poor. Liberals talk a lot about being 'pro-choice', but outside of abortion, you can't really apply that to much that remains on their agenda.

> ...Maybe some are just unaware of the many people who, through no fault of their own, just need a little help.

Giving other people's money is not an act of generosity.

> So I've adamantly concluded, as flawed as it may be, that socialized medicine is a necessity in any human, caring state.

The Left is expert at indicting the status quo, but they do it in a tricky way. Their trick is to compare capitalism as it functions in the real world with socialism as it functions in their idealized imaginations... their dream world, if you will. In a perfect world, everyone could have the most, the best, the latest health care imaginable, so that's how liberals present socialized medicine. Look at today's flawed system, they say. Look at all the poor, needy, deserving people who are going without, they say. Let's fix this, they say. Then they imply that socialist reality will closely resemble their dream construct.

Yet a more realistic approach would be to compare capitalistic medicine as it functions in the U.S., with socialized medicine as it functions elsewhere -- in other words, two real-world comparisons. The result would be more favorable to capitalism than people think. There has to be some reason why Canadians flock to the border states for their medical care, even though in their homeland they get it, ostensibly, for free.

> ...we forgot the needed interdependance of our traditional allies...

"Allies" who won't support us in our hour of need aren't worthy of the label. We have always been there for them, but they decided to take a shit when we needed them. Truth is, the Europeans had been making bazillions of dollars selling arms to Saddam, and didn't want us to ruin their market. Tough. Frankly, it is liberating to know where he stand with that bunch of ingrates. We needn't concern ourselves about them in the future.

> I quote a Sunni Muslim cleric in Iraq, "There are only two powers now in the world. One is America, which is tyrananical and oppressive. The other is a warrior who has not yet been awakened from his slumber and that warrior is Islam."

I don't need to listen to lectures in morality from a society that beats and oppresses its women and cuts off hands for petty larceny.

> That seems much more likely to happen now, after our rogue approach to Irag.

I don't think the evidence suggests that doing nothing is the right approach. After the Lebanese bombing in the early 1980s, we did nothing. After Somalia, we did nothing. After the first Trade Tower bombing, we did nothing. After the U.S. Embassy was bombed, we did nothing. After the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, we did nothing. Then they bombed the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. The evidence suggests that doing nothing only encourages them.

> It was the above kind of fear which stampeded us into Irag. It seems to me that decisions based upon fear are always irrational.

If you run from a wild animal instead of standing and fighting, you may be operating out of fear, but it may save your life nevertheless. We have good reason to fear, so we don't necessarily have the luxury of solving these problems in cool academic deliberation. The path to survival is usually to make your enemy fear you more than his desire to kill you.

> ...unless some powerful intellectual gets us back on the road to recognizing the interdependance of all of humanity, we may soon pay a massive price for our unlaterism.

That's always a possibility, but life has risks. And again, we were not unilateral by choice. We didn't desert our so-called allies, they deserted us.

>> Lee: " As a military man, you know that there is no responsibility without authority."
> True, but one has nothing to do with the other.

I see them as intertwined.

> But I truly don't believe you really want a world where any nation can go to war with any other nation simply because they believe that nation may, in some future time, attack them?

That's exactly the world we already live in, even before 9/11. During this century, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, Finland, and the rest of Eastern Europe. Germany attacked France twice and Russia once. Japan invaded China. The Indians and the Pakistanis fight regularly. Idi Amin attacked neighboring Tanzania. Italy attacked Greece and Ethiopia. The Turks annihilated the Armenians, and still square off with Greece once in a while over Cyprus. The Brits and the Argentines have duked it out over a frozen piece of dirt in the South Atlantic. France couldn't subdue Vietnam, and neither could we. The Arabs have fallen on their faces four times against the Israelis. Other nations can and do go to war for any reason, or no reason, whenever they feel like it, and always have. Let's just stick to the reasons for the U.S. going to war.

Interestingly, if you look back in history, you'll see we have already done what you suggest many time: attacked other nations out of fear of being attacked. Why did we declare war on Germany in 1941? They didn't attack us. While it is true that Hitler declared was on us first, he was certainly in no position to prosecute it, and in fact had gone well out of his way to avoid provoking us. In World War I, we fought the Kaiser even though we were not directly attacked. (The pretext was that the Germans had sunk a British ship with a lot of Americans on board. Germany had run ads in newspapers urging Americans not to be on that ship prior to its last fateful journey.)

Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed, and also when he attempted to assassinate the first President Bush (after he was already out of office). But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations.

Liberals tend to see the world outside the U.S. as simply a more exotic U.S., complete with human rights, human dignity, and justice for all. They're wrong: it's a jungle out there. John Locke disappears at the borders, and Thomas Hobbes takes a bow. I am in favor of taking any action that helps secure the lives and freedom of American citizens.

> We can recognize the world as equal human partners with different ways of seeing the universe and still easily take care of our own needs.

If other nations want us to see them as our equals, then they need to start acting like it. That means, in Liberia, they ought to stop eating people, at the very least. That means, in Western Europe (Britain aside), they can start assuming some of the responsibility for peacekeeping, and quit being a national-defense welfare case.

> Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants.

I don't believe that would be a fair characterization of what we did. What we did was shut down an extremely nasty dictatorship with a minimum of resources, and give the Iraqis a chance to better themselves. If other European nations disagree, let them. Next time they need us to come free them from another one of their own homegrown nasty dictatorships, screw them.

Hmmm, nice come back. ( grin ) However....

Lee: " In a perfect world, everyone could have the most, the best, the latest health care imaginable, so that's how liberals present socialized medicine. Look at today's flawed system, they say. Look at all the poor, needy, deserving people who are going without, they say. Let's fix this, they say. Then they imply that socialist reality will closely resemble their dream construct. Yet a more realistic approach would be to compare capitalistic medicine as it functions in the U.S., with socialized medicine as it functions elsewhere -- in other words, two real-world comparisons. The result would be more favorable to capitalism than people think. There has to be some reason why Canadians flock to the border states for their medical care, even though in their homeland they get it, ostensibly, for free."

Even though many richer Canadians do come to the US for our admittedly richer and therefore more upscale medicine. and that is surely a product of capitalism, I would wager that most Canadians much perfer their system to our system. I've also lived in France, England, and Germany and, unlike most US citizens, it seems to me that most Europeans are very aware of our system which is based on massive riches compared to theirs and, in comparison, they are extremely happy with their own admittedly poorer and perhaps less upscale, socialistic system. However poor old bankrupt Cuba, in the face of that dummy Fidel as well as all of our intense restrictions, seems to have a terrific health care system which has made some great inroads concerning health care.

Yet I will admit that our form of extremely rich capitalism has produced an abundance of fine medical doctors, and it has also caused a brain drain of wonderful doctors from India, Pakistan and other countrys. Surely there must be a way for reasonable people (grin) such as ourselves to sit down and make an effort to come together and solve this problem.

Lee: "Interestingly, if you look back in history, you'll see we have already done what you suggest many time: attacked other nations out of fear of being attacked. Why did we declare war on Germany in 1941? They didn't attack us. While it is true that Hitler declared was on us first, he was certainly in no position to prosecute it, and in fact had gone well out of his way to avoid provoking us. In World War I, we fought the Kaiser even though we were not directly attacked. (The pretext was that the Germans had sunk a British ship with a lot of Americans on board. Germany had run ads in newspapers urging Americans not to be on that ship prior to its last fateful journey.)"

It's true, Germany practiced so called preventive war when it trumped up reasons to invade Poland and then, because of existing treaties France and England were forced to declare war on Germany. When Germany made the deal with Japan to declare war after Pearl Harbor and Nutty old Hitler declared war on the US, the US, a sleeping giant, was sucked totally into the war with Germany and we awaken and prosecuted that war with intense vigor. It's also true that many nations go to war for a varity of silly fearful reasons, but they are usually teritorial and not so called, preventive. Or, as Johnson did in the gulf of Tonkin, outright lies in order to fullful some innane political goals revolving around the domino theory, and not because that nation was any threat to the USA.

Anyway, do we really want to model the US after Hitler's truly mindless policies of world domination?

Lee:"Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed."

I'm an avid reader and I have absolutely found no evidence of that. Regarding Saddam's attempt of George senior's life, it's nothing that the CIA hasn't done in numerous countries. I see no reason to take our nation into war because Saddam tried to kill George Bush senior, even though I admittedly admire many aspects of Dubya's daddy.

Lee: "But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations."

Oh jeez Lee, the job was getting done. Surely we had other priorities in Afghanistan. We had plenty of time to mobilize so called Old Europe and get them in our boat. It would have only taken a bit of diplomacy such as George senior exhibited in the Gulf War. (grin) ( Which I was also against, thinking the Kuwaitis to be not much better than Saddam or the Saudis. At the very least the Iragis were at least secular. Women were taking ph'd.s, etc.) But no, Dubya listened to his staff of old Reagan Hawks... we disregard any hint of deplomacy and here we are in a now seemingly terrorist Irag that our unilateral, and therefore illegitiment, policies seems to be recruiting thousands of new terrorist by the week.

Seriously, Lee, if George W managages to hang on in the next election I ferventluy pray to our deeper intelligence that he will instill a democracy in Irag and that it will be a shinning example to the whole Arab world. Yet knowing the history of the Christians and Muslams I rather doubt that all of those isms can be overcome. Yet still I pray.

Lee: "I don't think the evidence suggests that doing nothing is the right approach"

I agree. Find the culprits and hold them accountable and do it with our old allies. Sure, there is a faction in France who fervently believes a United Europe and the US are now so different that we must take different courses. But there is also that steady hand in France who knows that they need us as much as we need them. All we need to do in order to
activate those sages are to sit down and be reasonalble. That is, fully recognize the magnificence of the possibilities of a United Europe who is in Equal partnership with the US.

But there is not one shred of evidence which concretely links Saddam to the terrorists who attacked us in those situations. The heads of those terrorist are still living in Afghanistan and we need to first finished that job by actually locating and prosecuting Bin Laden , then turning Afghanistan into a shinning democratic state.

Lee: "I don't believe that would be a fair characterization of what we did."

Come on Lee, I didn't pull that out of thin air . Referring to the US and so called preventive wars, I said, >Surely you must see how self destructive it is to allow one of your neighbors ( in this case the US ) to run fearfully amok in your neighborhood, his id in total control, taking what he wants.

That was in responce to you when you stated,

"Rome dealt with their need for security by taking over. This is where the logic leads us."

Anyway, we took at look at each other, exchanged a few notions and, (grin) at least in my case, got a feeling of what we lefties are up against come 2004. I will admit that you are a bright and formadable foe.
( grin ) I respect your right to express your views and look forward to going into full political combat against you. ( grin ) I only hope we lefties can persuade General Wesley Clark to lead us into battle.
But hell, if I have to I'll follow old Dean and do my damndest to rid ourselves of this present administration.

Thanks again for the terrific dialogue,
Best personal wishes ( honestly! )
Charlie

> Even though many richer Canadians do come to the US for our admittedly richer and therefore more upscale medicine...

Are you speculating, or do you have figures that show that Canadians getting health care in the U.S. are the wealthy, and how wealthy would that be? I think the people who are coming across the border are those people who need health care, like, now, and cannot afford to wait to be treated. Of course, that's speculation as well. But we can both speculate.

> ...and that is surely a product of capitalism, I would wager that most Canadians much perfer their system to our system.

Well, you go ahead and wager that. Meanwhile, Canadians pour across the border for health care they cannot get in Canada. If they really preferred their system to ours, it would be easy for them to stay put and get it for free... if they could get it, that is.

> I've also lived in France, England, and Germany and, unlike most US citizens, it seems to me that most Europeans are very aware of our system which is based on massive riches compared to theirs and, in comparison, they are extremely happy with their own admittedly poorer and perhaps less upscale, socialistic system.
Europe is economically not doing very well, either, relative to the U.S. One of the big problems with socialism is simply it is not efficient relative to capitalism. Too bad "economic efficiency" isn't a great catch phrase to be used in a political stumpwinder. It just doesn't play very well, rhetorically. Like I said, too bad -- because economic efficiency is the only hope of raising people out of poverty. If, during the Twentieth Century, the U.S. had enjoyed just an average annual economic growth rate that was 1% smaller -- just 1% -- today, Mexico would have a higher standard of living than the U.S. Economic growth is very important, and so therefore is economic efficiency.

There are various reasons why socialism is less efficient. You worked for the military for years, so you have seen some of it first hand. The biggest issue, actually, is not what economic activities are allowed to succeed, but which ones are allowed to fail. In the government, and in large bureacracies elsewhere, revenue is not a function of performance. When some effort fails in government, perversely, that effort tends to get not less, but more resources. It doesn't work that way in a healthy capitalistic environment. Poorly performing businesses lose revenue, and if they don't find out what the problem is and fix it, they go backrupt. Bankruptcy court and eventually a sheriff guarantee that the poorly performing economic enterprise will come to a halt. Poorly performing companies forfeit their very existence, and those resources are conficated by creditors and auctioneers, and put to better use.

> Yet I will admit that our form of extremely rich capitalism has produced an abundance of fine medical doctors, and it has also caused a brain drain of wonderful doctors from India, Pakistan and other countrys. Surely there must be a way for reasonable people (grin) such as ourselves to sit down and make an effort to come together and solve this problem.

What problem?
> When Germany made the deal with Japan to declare war after Pearl Harbor and Nutty old Hitler declared war on the US, the US, a sleeping giant, was sucked totally into the war with Germany and we awaken and prosecuted that war with intense vigor.
But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway.
> Or, as Johnson did in the gulf of Tonkin, outright lies in order to fullful some innane political goals revolving around the domino theory, and not because that nation was any threat to the USA.
LBJ? As I recall, he was one of your boys. This old right-winger takes no credit for him. Had I been of age, Goldwater would have gotten my vote.
> Anyway, do we really want to model the US after Hitler's truly mindless policies of world domination?
No, but like I said, Roosevelt attacked Germany without having been attacked first. Can we model Roosevelt's presumably mindful policies?
>> Lee:"Technically, Saddam did attack us, back during the first WTC bombing, which he financed."
> I'm an avid reader and I have absolutely found no evidence of that.
See Laurie Mylroie, The Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America .
> Regarding Saddam's attempt of George senior's life, it's nothing that the CIA hasn't done in numerous countries. I see no reason to take our nation into war because Saddam tried to kill George Bush senior, even though I admittedly admire many aspects of Dubya's daddy.
Trying to bump off a head of state is an act of war, or ought to be considered one.
>> Lee: "But also, more importantly, all we really did was enforce earlier UN resolutions that had already been signed by member nations."
> Oh jeez Lee, the job was getting done. Surely we had other priorities in Afghanistan....
But now, at least, you're not arguing that he did the wrong thing, but that he did the right thing wrongly. I call that progress.
> Seriously, Lee, if George W managages to hang on in the next election I ferventluy pray to our deeper intelligence that he will instill a democracy in Irag and that it will be a shinning example to the whole Arab world. Yet knowing the history of the Christians and Muslams I rather doubt that all of those isms can be overcome. Yet still I pray.
I doubt that it can be done myself, but I think it needs to be tried. I think democratic government and all its blessings are due largely to the political and intellectual infrastructure of Western civilization, particularly in England and the U.S. Things like the Magna Carta, the separation of powers between the Crown and Parliament, John Locke, the Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution, and so forth. It remains to be seen if this form of government can be transplanted into a non-Western society such as Iraq. But this I know: people need something to live for. If outlaw Islamic nations can improve their political backwardness and economic performance, maybe they'll have better things to do than cheer in the streets when Americans die.
> But there is also that steady hand in France who knows that they need us as much as we need them.
Chirac? That's a joke, right?
> All we need to do in order to activate those sages are to sit down and be reasonalble. That is, fully recognize the magnificence of the possibilities of a United Europe who is in Equal partnership with the US.
Not until they ratify the Bill of Rights.
> I only hope we lefties can persuade General Wesley Clark to lead us into battle.
But hell, if I have to I'll follow old Dean and do my damndest to rid ourselves of this present administration.
One advantage of having a Democratic president is that he'll be able to do what needs doing without cavilling from either the Democratic or Republican party. Fighting a war never seems to be so horrific to lefties when one of their own guys is doing it. The only question is my mind is, will a Democratic president have the guts to do what needs doing?

I won't respond to all of your comments because, it seems to me, that we have both had our say on those subjects. ( grin ) You know, beating the dead horse, etc.

However ....

Lee: "Well, you go ahead and wager that. Meanwhile, Canadians pour across the border for health care they cannot get in Canada."

My wife is an ARNP and we live in Washington
state, about a 3 hour drive to Vancouver. I've been a regular visitor to Canada since 1970 and have known many Canadians who think our system is downright barbaric.
My wife is in private practice as well as working in community health. She also has full prescriptive authority, which is legal in this state. She is also a speaker for a few pharmaceutical companys and attends nearly all medical practitioners conventions, etc. I just now asked her if she is aware or has she heard anything from her coleagues regarding Canadians coming here for health care.. Her answer was," Never, I've not heard anyone
speak of it, but I imagine a few wealthy Canadians may occasionally come over. "

At anyrate we all know, because the news is full of it, that US citizens do flock to Canada to get their prescriptions filled. I also know that you get a very different picture from Canadians than you do US citizens. ( grin ) Also my wife doesn't want socialized medicine because it would drastically reduce her income.

Lee: "What problem?"

Heh, heh, Cute!

Lee: "But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway."

(grin) You aint getting away with that!
The friggin' Nazi's friggin' declare war on us! What were we supposed to do, wait until it was convient for that mad man? Wait until he took over that great aircraft carrier lying off France? ( grin ) You know, Great Britian.

Jeeez Lee, give me a friggin' break!

Lee: "But now, at least, you're not arguing that he did the wrong thing, but that he did the right thing wrongly. I call that progress."

Hey, I still think Saddam was the Iragi people's problem. However what really bothers me is the arrogant way the Bush group threw
deplomacy to the winds and didn't line up his allies. It could have been done. We could have gone in under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming massive force. With a tiny bit of deplomacy we could have swayed the Turks and also come in with our force from the north. Had we bothered to line up our ducks, rather than deliberately pissing off our friends we could have gone in under the mantle of the UN.
That legitimazation may have saved Iraq
from the seemingly pending civil war.

Regarding Chirac, there are many wise and powerful people in France who deeply regret Chirac's veto....
People who think he just went too far with that innane proposal.
People who would love to mend fences, but they have to be met half way, to be respected even when they don't always agree with us.

By the way, I'm truly not a Democrat
nor a Republican. I despised Johnson as well as JFK. ( I'm an old dude, nearly twenty years older than my wife. That's why she's still locked in her career. )

but I digress.
Rather than vote for JFK I voted for Nixon. Nixon was very flawed in terrible ways..... but he was very smart. Hell, many powerful Republicans hated it when Nixon opened up China ! Give the devil his due, what foresight!
Had we followed with Nixon's ideas we would have soon had open trade with Cuba. Old Fidel wouldn't have lasted long had the people a steady taste of affluence.

And even though Kissinger gave away the friggin' store, Nixon got us out of that awful mess in Vietnam!

On the other hand JFK okayed the bay of pigs fiasco, then wouldn't back it up. That weakness put us on the edge of Nuclear war. Then, to cover up his weakness, he set troops into Vietnam. What a dork! Then dummy Johnson ---- aw, you know the rest.
The only reason I'm voting Democratic this next time is because I don't like the Bush
administration. Ummm, more than that. I think they really and truly dropped the ball.

If I thought General Wesley Clark could win as an Independent, then I'd be delighted! But we both know it's a two party shut out simply because of the electoral vote... aw, you know the rest.

Charlie

> I won't respond to all of your comments because, it seems to me, that we have both had our say on those subjects. ( grin ) You know, beating the dead horse, etc.

Continue the dialog as long as you like, and then move on.

> I just now asked her if she is aware or has she heard anything from her coleagues regarding Canadians coming here for health care.. Her answer was," Never, I've not heard anyone speak of it, but I imagine a few wealthy Canadians may occasionally come over.

A simple web search reveals that not only does this phenomenon exist, it has been written about in the media, and it happens apparently for the reasons I suggest. There are other links, here's one: http://www.pressherald.com/business/pulse/030722pulse.shtm

> At anyrate we all know, because the news is full of it, that US citizens do flock to Canada to get their prescriptions filled.

I don't have any problem at all with Canadians paying higher taxes to subsidize American pharmaceutical consumers. If they want to do so, let them.

> > Lee: "But like I said, Hitler's Germany never attacked us. We attacked them anyway."
> (grin) You aint getting away with that!The friggin' Nazi's friggin' declare war on us! What were we supposed to do, wait until it was convient for that mad man? Wait until he took over that great aircraft carrier lying off France? ( grin ) You know, Great Britian.

A declaration of war is simply words. Why not wait until he attacked us? Otherwise, until he actually attacked us, why, you don't advocate that we should have fought a preventive war, do you?

> Hey, I still think Saddam was the Iragi people's problem. However what really bothers me is the arrogant way the Bush group threw deplomacy to the winds and didn't line up his allies.

It takes two to tango. Why is it Bush's failure, instead of Chirac's?

> It could have been done. We could have gone in under the Powell doctrine of overwhelming massive force.

That's right. Why do it on the cheap when we can spend a whole lot more money?

> With a tiny bit of deplomacy we could have swayed the Turks and also come in with our force from the north.

Just what we need, the Turks shooting up Kurds and us getting the blame.

> Had we bothered to line up our ducks, rather than deliberately pissing off our friends we could have gone in under the mantle of the UN.

The UN is worse than worthless. Revering an organization where the committee on human rights is headed by Libya is not even funny, but it's certainly a joke.

> People who would love to mend fences, but they have to be met half way, to be respected even when they don't always agree with us.

Sorry. It's hard to respect the French, who, in the words of P. J. P'Rourke, belong to "The Dog Ate My Homework" school of diplomacy.

Lee:"A simple web search reveals that not only does this phenomenon exist, it has been written about in the media"

That link is no longer active.
And yes, even though the Canadian system is half the cost to operate than US medicare and medicaid, because of US insurance and its massive beauracracy, the Canadian system is flawed in that they don't allow practioners to have private practices. You know, if you've got the money you can jump ahead of the line by going to a private practioner. I have no problem with that, but the Canadian system doesn't allow that to happen. In that regard it may drive those who want better care to go outside of the country. The same thing happens here with medicare and medicaid. That is, those who want more personal care can pay the price and step outside of the system. The difference is in the US we have our choice of medicare, medicaid or private practice. I think it's everyone's right to spend their money as they see fit, that is, to have that choice.

Regarding pharmaceuticals: The price of Canadian drugs are not cheaper because they are subsidized by the Canadian government. The price of all drugs throughout the world are nearly half the price, and sometimes even lower than half the US price. Yet the drug companys still make a good profit throughout the world and without subsidies. However, in the US the drug companys have laws that allows them to stick it to US consumers. That's not something I made up, that is, it's not someones else's opinion... It's simply a result of a massive US drug lobby.

What I'm advocating is to use the less beauracratic Canadian system in place of medicare and medicaid, eliminate all of blue cross, blue shield, etc. paper work, yet still encourage private practice. Many practitioners in private practice, at the very least, don't take medicaid, and if we moved to the Canadian model they could still refuse to accept it. It would not only save us money, but it would make medicine truly available to everyone, rich and not so rich and very poor. Those who have the money can pay for more upscale care, more personal care, ( grin ) such as I used to get from the Flight Surgeon in the USAF.
Also it would be very helpful to those on fixed incomes if the price of pharmaceuticals were not artificially propped up because of rich lobbyist.
And for those great hard edged pragmatist such as ( grin ) ourselves, it would save us a hell of a lot of money in future taxes. Like going from spending 32 cents of each dollar toward paperwork as we now do in the US with medicare and medicaid, to 16 cents of each dollar, as they do in Canada, for their simplified paper work billing.

Lee: "Why not wait until he attacked us? Otherwise, until he actually attacked us, why, you don't advocate that we should have fought a preventive war, do you?

Jeeez Lee, you're talking apples and oranges. Hitler conspired with the Japanese to attack us in the Pacific. He promised the Japanese that he'd declare war on us when and if they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you refuse to admit that heinous act meant that Germany was deadly serious when Hitler declared war on the US then it's pointless to further discuss this.
It would have been foolish to allow him to consolodate the whole of Europe, grow even stronger, while we only concentrated on Japan. Sure had we only fought the Japanese we may have defeated them sooner, but I doubt it. The Japanese were an amazing fighting force. A very formidable and worthy foe. We might have still needed that awful A bomb to finish the job and that would probably have been completed around the same time in 1944.

Meanwhile Hitler would have grown stronger and nuttier each day. We didn't fight Hitler because we wanted to prevent a war.
We fought him because he started a war with us. We knew we were in a deadly serious all out live or die war when we sent our forces into Great Britian, Africa and Italy.

( Maybe the Germans would have caved in the face of that terrible weapon, but we couldn't be sure. They might beat us to it. Had we timidly held back, ( grin ) I might indeed be heiling Dise. )

Lee: "Just what we need, the Turks shooting up Kurds and us getting the blame."

Apples and oranges again. The Turks are some of the most ferrocious fighters in the world, but compared to our huge military they are a flea on an elephant. They're not stupid. They don't want to take us on in a military way. That's why, even without a massive US presence in Turkey as we planned to have when attacking Iraq from the North, the Turks left the Kurds alone. They left them alone because we told them to leave them alone. Period. Regardless of whatever scenerio played out, the Turks absolutely in no uncertain terms knew that it could have been a total economic, military, and certainly political diaster for them to gone against us against the Kurds.

Lee: "The UN is worse than worthless. Revering an organization where the committee on human rights is headed by Libya is not even funny, but it's certainly a joke."

Like humanity, the UN is ponderous and flawed, but it enables dialogue. So it seems that here we have such radically different view points that I rather doubt we can even come close to seeing eye to eye. . But it was fun trying.

Lee: "Sorry. It's hard to respect the French, who, in the words of P. J. P'Rourke, belong to "The Dog Ate My Homework" school of diplomacy."

Again, we have totally different view points. As I said, I lived in France for a year, literally butchered their language, ( zillions of times worse than I do in English! ) but I found the French to be a warm and hospitible people, no real difference than the folks of Texas where I grew up. I still take a variety of news publications, including Le Monde Diplomatic, which I certainly don't always agree with, but I enjoy the different points of views.

The German language is closer to the English language and a little easier to get by in. Yet, regarding the people, I had nearly the same experience in Germany and indeed the whole of Europe, and middle east, including Turkey, Libya, Iran, and Pakistan. They are all not much different than we. Indeed, in most aspects they are we.

Libby and I visited France, Italy and Spain a bit before 9/11 and Paris is still my favorite city in the whole world. We stumbled through their language and still only found a most helpful and caring people.
We hope to return soon. Perhaps next year... Paris/April/romance. ( grin ) Still an old romantic fool.
charlie

Regarding the book written about Saddam and the WTC, apparently US intelligence couldn't make the connection, the leap if you will, that Mylorie made in her book. Her theories were jumped at, like a drowning man after a straw, by many ultra conservatives.
(grin. So she has a theory and plotted a book around it. Hell, anybody can write a book. I've even got a couple in print. )
If you wish to read the article which refers to the above go to:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33705

Back to General Wesley CLark. Do you dislike the idea of him a President of the US or do you merely enjoy exchanging views?

In support of the proposition that Canadians are fleeing their perfect nirvana of a medical system and flocking to the benighted American one, here are some links:

http://www.medrants.com/archives/001672.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030506.shtml

http://www.cahionline.org/cahi_contents/resources/SRn102Myths.pdf

The essential problem underscoring any government subsidization of medical care is that government can and will always take an essentially good thing and carry it past the point of positive returns, into the area of zero or diminishing returns. Government can't help it; it's the way their incentives structures work. Government bureaucrats have an incentive to keep the budgets coming in, and elected officials have an incentive to sell that which sounds good. If what they're selling means ruination at some point in the future, so long as it is a distant time-horizon in the future and not soon enough to affect today's political career, then they don't care,

In the insurance world, it is a well-known fact that catastrophes can easily be planned for and paid out, while insuring someone for every little thing that goes wrong is quite expensive. Look at your auto insurance, for example. Complete coverage is many times more expensive than, say, $1,000 deductible. As a rule, when buying insurance, it is important to buy it only when it is needed. This sounds common-sense, but most people want to feel the sense of security that comes with the words, "complete coverage". But an insurance company can far more cheaply cover you if you have a large deductible -- that you can afford to pay yourself -- than if they have to pay for everything.

More later.

[con't from previous post]

The point is that Americans do not need universal health care coverage of every hangnail or head cold, nor could we afford it if it were being offered. We can afford our own hangnails and colds, and can buy our own aspirin and sudafed. What we really need is insurance from catastrophic illness or injury. You only need insurance to guard you from unforeseen calamities for which you cannot afford to assume the risk. Economically, I am better off than most, but far from rich. I can afford to pay for those doctor's visits when she tells takes my blood and tells me I need to lose weight. What I can't afford on my own is things like my wife's recent bout with cancer -- the surgery, the chemo, the radiation, the repeated visits to specialists. It is for things like this that we need insurance, and I am still financially solvent only because I did indeed have her covered under my policy at work.

When health care costs skyrocket, it has to be one of two things: either demand is going up, or supply is going down. There are no other possibilities. One way to keep control of the demand side is not to subsidize every single visit to the doctor, but only for the insurance to kick in when a certain financial threshhold is reached. One way to keep control of the supply side is to graduate more doctors from the medical schools and to lower the costs of practicing medicine, which would mean taking on the tort lawyers and the great gravy train of malpractice suits.

Points taken. We also have large auto deductables. My wife has insurance through her work at community health which covers incidental doctor visits as well as dental work. She elected not to take it because she is protected under my governent ( socialist ) plan. Still, you and yours have an available doctor. Even though your plan doesn't cover those visits, as you say, you have the money to pay for them on the odd occassion. I suspect because of that availability your wife's doctor caught her cancer in the early stages. But Lee, not everyone, often through no fault of their own, has enough money to live as you do. You may now even have a portfolio that gives you at least a modicum of independence from the work place. But I suspect most of those 3.5 million who are now out of work, and millions of others who have slipped through the cracks, are not as blessed and are now without medical insurance.

And yes, governments are wasteful. However the Canadian system gets their billing done at half the cost of our billing. All I'm advocating is to use their billing model for welfare (medicaid) and medicare, and therefore stretch our dollar, and use those enormous savings to provide medicine to those who are unable to pay for insurance.

Anyway, no fear Lee. Mine is a mute point. It will never happen and I can only regard this part of our conversation as an intellectual exercise. ( Maybe the whole thing, including General Wesley Clark for president, falls under that catagory as he has yet to even name his party. ) The AMA, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies lobbies are just too strong. And even though my wife is a caring person, it seems she feels much the same as you regarding socialised medicine. I suspect that the majority of US citizens fall into your camp and after all, this is a democracy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Still, like Lope, I hope General Wesley Clark will declare and become the democratic candidate. Surely even you must see the intellectual depth and warrior strength of this great potential US leader?

> Still, like Lope, I hope General Wesley Clark will declare and become the democratic candidate. Surely even you must see the intellectual depth and warrior strength of this great potential US leader?

It isn't a hopeful sign that he thinks graduated tax rates -- that is, so-called "progressive taxation" -- are one of the principles our nation was founded on. In fact, I think a very good argument can be made that taxing those who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In other words, Clark may not be merely wrong, he may in fact have the situation precisely backwards.

As a general (no pun intended) rule, I'm not terribly impressed with the intellectual prowess of military officers, especially the senior-level ones. I'm sure it could probably be shown empirically that most officers have higher IQs than most enlisted, but if we had to sift through officers and enlisted to find the first person with an IQ higher than, say, 160, I would like the odds better of finding one by sifting through the enlisted corps. I admit, that's a prejudice, but it is a prejudice born of experience. I did some time myself -- in the military, that is -- and worked for close to twenty years as a defense contractor. I grant that if there were an IQ scale for self-promotional aptitude, military officers would be off the charts.

One of my favorite lines in any movie is from a terrific Australian WWI movie called "The Light Horseman". In one scene, a British intelligence officer needs to plant bogus intelligence to fool the Turks, and asks the Australian commander of a light horseman brigade: "I need one of your enlisted men to accompany me on a scouting expedition. Do you have someone who is capable, brave, smart, a very good shot, is absolutely convinced that all officers are idiots, and can be positively counted on to gossip about it?"

The Australian commander dryly replied, "I think we can accomodate you." :-)

Okay, I'll admit I'm a bit star eyed regarding Clark.
I'll even admit that I've had other lower ranking Sgts working under me who were extremely bright. Many had BA's, some had Master's and a couple had Ph.d's. I was honored to work with them. Some also had that inner strength that is always apparent in a warrior, be s/he a civilian or in uniform. You know, that crisp inner wisdom that denotes a life lived without fear.
Dole seems to have it. As much as I dislike the Kennedy's, it, minus an intellectual bent, does seem to be a family trait. Even though I didn't agree with his politics, Barry Goldwater had it, and on and on.

Yet I've also served with many fine commisioned officers who were undoubtedly in firm touch with their deeper intelligence. You know, that intelligence that Einstein called, "My line to the Old One." That Huxley called, "Ultimate Reality." and the religious sometime refer to as, "the Christ withn, or the Buddha within." The same thing that I refer to as my Knower.

You know what I'm talking about. A lot of people call it their gut instinct. Socrates, via Plato, referred to it in, I seem to remember, his dialogues ... when he, somewhat tongue in cheek, proved that even Menlo, who was none too bright, was born with the sum total of all of the knowledge of the universe... Implying that he only had to educate himself so that he could understand it.

LOL, And for what it's worth, which probably aint much in your book, even before I knew of Clark's fantastic resume and his opposition to the Iraqi war, the first time I saw him on CNN I called my wife over and said, "Look at that guy honey, that's the next president of the USA."

> And for what it's worth, which probably aint much in your book, even before I knew of Clark's fantastic resume and his opposition to the Iraqi war, the first time I saw him on CNN I called my wife over and said, "Look at that guy honey, that's the next president of the USA."

From what I've seen of Clark, he may have what it takes to defeat Bush, but I doubt it will happen next year. I think the problem Clark faces is inside the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. The Democrats are in an ugly mood this year, and Mr. Dean is a reflection of that mood. Running anti-war and moving left in response to an unpopular war still couldn't elevate McGovern; running anti-war and moving left in response to a popular war doesn't look like much of an improvement at this point. But polarizing candidates are the ones who tend to win nominations in highly-charged partisan times, and Mr. Dean is such a polarizing candidate. Gen. Clark may in fact simply be way too moderate to win the nomination, even though he'd probably fare better in the general election.

If I were you, I would look for Gen. Clark to run as a VP with Dean or Lieberman (if the Democrats come to their senses in time), lose, and then get a better run at the trophy in 2008, assuming he can beat Hillary. Clark's greatest contribution to the Democratic Party, as I see it, is that he is the only Democrats who can say, "I favor a strong national defense," and not automatically get laughed out of town.

By the way, my comments about military officers and their general intelligence were uncalled for, to say the least. That's just me, spouting off. If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? :-)

And you might hate this one, but Hillary definitely has it. Regardless of what you think of her politics, she is fearless.

I'd also like to amend the Kennedy statement. It seems to me that JFK lost it when first elected, reconnected during the nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Cuba, then lost it again.

LOL, and please forgive, but you'll really hate this one, George W. found it right after 9/11.... and it seems to me that he lost it soon after Afghanistan, maybe corrupted by the intense power of his office.

> And you might hate this one, but Hillary definitely has it. Regardless of what you think of her politics, she is fearless.

I'm not speaking to Hillary until she apologizes for that "right-wing conspiracy" remark. (She finally quit making the accusation when they did a spot check on Monica's dress, as I recall.)

Hillary is either a very astute politician, or she's getting some excellent coaching. At the moment, she thinks the Democrats are going to lose next year. She is not saying this directly, of course. She is saying it by saying she isn't in the running this year. I think she knows the nomination is hers for the asking, and I think if she thought she could win, she'd ask.

You may be right in your political assessment of Clark's chances. If he runs as a veep with anyone other than Kerry or Dean, then I'll simply abstain in 2004. But I'll be surprised if Clark runs as a veep, period. I suspect that is not who he is.
In fact he has essentially been saying the same thing as Dean, but with much more authority. Like Dean, he was adamantly against the Iraqi war. Unlike Dean, he discovered himself to be a good business man. He has a firm grasp of future trends underscored by a masters in Economics from Oxford. He's been out there doing business and making bucks since Clinton fired him a Supreme NATO Commander in 2000.

LOL, Take a deep breath and then take a good look at this guy. I'm as positive as I can be that Clark will, at the very least, vastly improve our portfolios.

Hilliary is an extremely astute politician born of a Republican family; a born again Democrat by her intense feelings for Bill. Hilliary was/is Bill's strength. LOL, Maybe she is his line to the old one.
Bill is dead without Hillary. He knew it when he saw her at Oxford. He LOL, ostensibly dropped the many females who it seems have always lusted after him, and married cute little, extremely bright, fearless and intellectual Hilliary.

Feeling all of that I would of course vote for her, but Hilliary will probably never become the president of the USA. Hilliary knows the odds better than anyone. She knows at this point she could never be elected to any office utside of New York and a few left leaning tiny eastern states. She also knows that middle America intensely dislikes Her. She's too strong, too bright, not feminine enough for most of the South. LOL, All of the things I love about her.

OOPS! Sorry, I meant Harvard.

Lee:" By the way, my comments about military officers and their general intelligence were uncalled for, to say the least. That's just me, spouting off. If I'm so smart, how come I'm not rich? :-)"

Since I've only ever been a crusty old NCO I didn't find your comments insulting. Indeed, they have a certain logic in that there are vastly more enlisted than commission. So it seems to me, given the fact that many enlisted also have advanced degrees, that the odds are in favor of your speculation.

LOL, and I expect if a commissioned officer read it, s/he would just giggle and say something like, "What do you expect from an enlisted pig?"

My wife spent four years as a commissioned officer. I met her after she got out after her first four year hitch. It was about the same time that I retired after twenty four years. LOL So the enlisted pigs thing is one of our standing jokes. I suspect few military people, Officers or NCO's take themselves that seriously. The military is just something some of us loved to do.

It would be more truthful to say, "The adventure afforded by the military is just something some of us love to do." LOL, I can't speak for other lifers, but I wasn't that crazy about the "hump twos" and and snapping to shit.
But that's really superficial stuff.

I know this guy Clark because I've worked for officers who were aspects of him. Work for a guy like Clark, and sure he expects the displine reflected in a reasonalble, personable appearance. But as long as you remain intensely personally honest, that is, never lie, no matter your imagined personal cost, and do your job to the utmost of your ability, even a dummy like me will be respected by Clark.
And that's what Clark will deliver to the citizens of the USA, that is, honesty, no matter the personal cost, as well as a super intellect and a warrior's peace of mind which is found only in fearless inner strength.

Lee,
Lee: "And then, when there is a huge smoking radioactive hole where downtown New York used to be, the giant public finger starts pointing in the direction of people who could have done something to nip it in the bud, but chose not to do anything. If we don't start hitting these people where they live, they will continue to hit us where we live."

Umm... people up top HAD the opportunity to stop it. Four days before the WTC went down, Jeb Bush signed EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261. Remember, an executive order is not made by the legislative branch. Its an order created and signed by the executive branch of government. Im CURIOUS why he signed in 9/7/01. It reaks of scandal. REAKS

Okay, I'll bite. What's the conspiracy theory du jour?

And if we're going to blame 9/11 on Bush, can some of the additional credit be allowed to splash on Clinton, who had an opportunity to extradite Bin Laden from the Sudanese?

Paul, can you give us some links regarding Jeb Bush signed EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261? Also I don't get it. What does the governor of Fla have to do with Federal decisions?

And yes Lee, Clinton did have a small window to extract Bin Laden from the Sudan. He didn't act upon it because, at that time, the FBI and CIA just didn't have anything to charge him with. In fact it seems that members of the CIA considered Ben Laden a friend until 9/11. As you are probably aware, even then, as the US was still funding Afghanistan and theirby paying the wages of the Taliban even while we bombed them, it seems the CIA, like US funding to the Taliban, was still coming to grips with their dilemma.

So all of this stuff is pretty muddy and, like you, I'm not so quick to jump on something just because I dislike the guy.

And Paul, even though the Bush aministration won't let anyone get a look into his adminstrations activities in the first few weeks prior to 9/11, that doesn't necessarily mean they conspired to let it happen. I mean, it seems I am a true left liberal and even I must see the evidence before i will even begin to consider that a possibilty.

However I do believe it's in the best interest of the USA, as well as the Bush administration, for all US citizens to continue to press for a full investigation regarding the prior events of 9/11
and the actions taken, or not taken, by
the CIA, FBI as well as the Bush administration.

That is, surely it must be evident that someone really dropped the ball. The only way we can correct any mistakes that may have happened is to put them under an intense honest light.

Paul, I just looked up the executive order signed by Jeb Bush. You can find it at:
http://www.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

As far as I can tell, it's about funding, training and intergrating the state of Florida's law inforcement with that of the National Guard. Am I wrong? Did I err? If so will you elaborate?

The following is a portion of EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261

"The Florida National Guard may order selected members on to state active duty for service to the State of Florida pursuant to Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes, to assist FDLE in performing port security training and inspections. Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes. "

I think I may see a glimmer of what you are refering to. But since it's been SOP for many years to train for such events, and even though the date may be coincidental, I find it hard to tie such an order to what occurred on 9/11. Please educate me.

Paul, if you can actually prove what you said please be extremely careful. In fact, I'd suggest you get outta Dodge because it would mean the people now running things have truly gone off the deep end. If so, they would have no trouble at all making you disappear.

Whoa, Paul! I now see what you meant. It seems that many are aware of the following insinuations. At the very least, the "Hot " stuff at the link below surely must press congress, minus the executive branch, to investigate activities of government following 9/11.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-23-02_Molson.pdf

Corrections, I meant investigate government's actions before 9/11. If the Bush team wants to clear up these insinuations then they will encourage an independent investigation and keep their hands off.

But It won't happen unless we the people keep the notion of that needed investigation alive.

Charles, two things:

1. Looks like Paul was replying privately to you so none of his comments show up in the thread of the main message (about Wesley Clark). Perhaps you could copy and paste them all together in one message and post it to the main thread.

2. What, exactly, is being asserted in the PDF linked? To me (admittedly, I read quickly) it looked like a bunch of unrelated nonsense. If the assertion is that 9/11 was the precursor for some big business deals by the Bushes, I can buy that. The Bushes have a special way of turning a lot of bad things (tragedy, war, despotism, dictatorship, land grabbing) into good revenue. (a cursory internet search will reveal much of this - Joe Conason's new book also mentions plenty.)

( - and Republicans were fixated on a land development deal gone sour years and years earlier that involved Clinton - the hypocrisy here is mind-boggling - )

Otherwise, the PDF looks like run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory.

LOL, I'm sorry, I can see how misleading it looks. Check the my posted times and you can see that it's just me thinking aloud, so to speak. LOL, I feel a little silly about it, but that's what happened. Paul made only the one statement here on this thread. I then looked up the executive order and quickly scanned it and posted my next addendum. Then went back read that one chapter and posted it, etc. Then I went back and found http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-23-02_Molson.pdf
Which seems to me to reflect an incomptance on the part of the FBI as well as a lot of unproven insinuations.

Still, left liberals such as myself who dislike Bush are more likely to think the worse when we read something like that. LOL, much like you may be likely to think the worse when you read something about Clinton, etc. But even to me it seems farfetched to believe they knew it was going to happen and didn't stop it. Hell, the things could have crashed into the whitehouse.
Anyway, I still think the events prior to 9/11 should be independantly investigated because as I first said, someone really dropped the ball.
And why won't Bush open those records?

Oh yes, it seems to me what was being strongly insinuated is that a large number of people, including Jeb Bush, knew before hand that those Arabs were going to hijack Air craft, etc. That some retired member of the CIA made money in the stock market with that prior knowledge, it seems, by placing large sums of money on puts, you know, betting on certain stocks to rise, or maybe it was the other way around. Anyway, jaded as I am I just can't buy it. I'd have to see some really hard, hard, hard evidence and not just time line conjecture.

But that may not have been what Paul meant... LOL, I mean I really haven't given the poor guy a chance to respond... LOL, I guess I was just sort of shocked by the whole thing, and when I found that last link, it kinda stunned me for a bit.

> - and Republicans were fixated on a land development deal gone sour years and years earlier that involved Clinton - the hypocrisy here is mind-boggling

To a liberal, hypocrisy is the worst sin of all. Problem is, they can only see it when Republicans or conservatives do it. Land deals? Get a grip, please. How about lying, perjuring, putting sexual pressure on female subordinates, and "the appearance of impropriety"? That last one, that's a phrase you used to hear a lot -- when Reagan was president. Hillary makes $100,000 out of a $1,000 investment, her commodities broker is sort of well-known as a fast-and-loose kind of guy, and... nope, nothing wrong here. No hypocrisy. Nuh-uh.

The Clinton's personal life was put under a microscope and all sort of rumors abounded. But in the end after spending millions of our tax dollars, all that could be proven was that Monica sucked his dick in the Whitehouse. Okay, he should have been stronger and remained true to Hilliary, but we don't know what their private commitments are and it's frankly none of our business. Okay, then at the least he should have not gotten involved with a young woman who is a blabber mouth and publicly stated her oral intentions even before landing that job at the Whitehouse. He should have, by perhaps our morality, remained true to his wife. But that's private stuff between Hilliary and Bill.
When that nonsense came up he simply should have said, It's none of your business." And yes, he did split hairs regarding oral sex, which incidentally most people regard as foreplay and not intercouse. I personally have known young women, even in high school, who would engage in oral sex but not go all the way because they wanted to be a "virgin" when they married. Thus, regardless of what you believe, it seems many others believe that oral sex is nothing more than heavy petting. Further, if it is one sided , as it was on Monica's part, then many believe it isn't even sex at all.
The problem with right wingers is they have a need to LOL, shove their own morals down the throats of everyone else... and as you know that way of thinking created a backlash that re elected Clinton.
But all of that myopic self rightiousness is downright silly and their personal lives should have been left alone by the lap dog media which seems to now be based in little more than tabloid driven fluff.

But okay, if you want to play that old game of insinuation, and gossip, even without the help of the fear and gossip driven media, George W. and his entire staff may be tarnished not by any silly private piccadillos, but for lying to USA and the world and drum beating us into an unesscessary war, thereby causing massive instability in the middle east, and the dollar to go into free fall: Now we mush spend billions on Iragi reconstruction while while the very rich are rewarded with trillions of tax dollars which, coupled with spending more of our borrowed treasure, in Irag caused the dollar to fall even more.

Because of our now extremely low fed rate foreign investment in treasury is falling rapidly.
You may pooh pooh that, but realistically we are the largest debtor nation on earth. If we were a business we would have gone bankrupt with the innane spending of George W.
If foriegn investment continues to fall and they continue to pull out of our treasury bonds, etc, our monumental debt will soon lag behind the power curve. If that happens we dive into a world recession. It may be against foriegn investors best interest to do that, but if we continue to piss them off with our notions of our grand hegemony, we may fall and take decades to once again recover. Brother we are right this moment on the very brink of financial disaster.

Our hegemony is very different from the Brits one time empire. The Brits merchantile theory caused them to be the bankers of the world. You wanted money , you go to Great Britain. The Brits Empire fell because they were only investing 3% of their GNP when they went to war in 1914 the were not prepared to defend their empire. We bailed them out and when they went to war again in 1939 they still had not learned their lessons.

On the other hand, our hegemony requires the good will of foriegn investment and the big stick of our powerful military to defend our hegemony, which no matter what the intellectuals say, is very different than the Brit's Empire.

We invest about 9% into our military, a good investment indeed but it is only afforded by the massive investment by foriegners into our treasury bills. Our little stick is the higher our treasury bonds, the higher foriegn investments in our treasury. So, as much as we hate inflation, at least during Jimmy Carter's watch our treasury was loaded with foriegn investment. But foriegn investors are a savy lot. Thay know that our trading parners need our extremely well trained consumers to continue to buy their goods and we can't continue to buy foriegn goods without being propped up by foriegn investment. So maybe in the end we might have to rely on the Governments of Old Europe, China, and Japan, etc. to keep us afloat by investing a part of their treasure into our treasury bills.

That is, even if we hate to admit it, we are interdependent on the very allies that George and his team recently shit on. Now George W's team find themselves in the position of having to crawl on their knees to the UN via France, Germany and so-called Old Europe ,begging them to bail us out in Irag.

At the very least, this puts a big dent in our hegemony asperations. At the very least, no matter even if the UN, France and Old Europe succeeds in establishing a democracy in Irag, the US, because George W and his team went off half cocked, will be percieved as having failed in that area.

It seems to me that sort of mindless political behavior is infinitely more germaine than someone's private sex life, but if it makes you happy to continue along old sex probing kind of things rather than dealing with what is happening now, then I will laughingly abstain.

In the words of Fred Bergsten, of the Institute for International Economics, “to finance both the current account deficit and our own sizable capital exports, the United States must import about $1 trillion of foreign capital every year, or more than $4 billion every working day. The situation is clearly unsustainable.”

That's a nice explanation/excuse for the Clintons. So nice, it deserves its own prime time TV show. But I think the name "Fantasy Island" has already been taken.

> The problem with right wingers is they have a need to LOL, shove their own morals down the throats of everyone else... and as you know that way of thinking created a backlash that re elected Clinton.

I really hate to be the first person to have to introduce you to this concept -- someone should have done this long ago -- but government is all about morality. Shoving morality down people's thoats? That's what government does. That's all government does. That's it's stock in trade. It has no other reason for being here. It doesn't politely request any of it.

When Abe Lincoln sent an army into the South, defeated the Confederate Army, and freed the slaves, it's because the moral thing to do as Lincoln saw it was to preserve the Union. When we beat the Nazis, it's because that was the moral thing to do. When I have to pay higher taxes in order to buy a home for an indigent family, it's because a bunch of congressmen got together and decided it was the moral thing to do. Even when I have to stop at a traffic light, it's because there is a moral value placed on my having to share the road with other people who helped pay for it.

The question, therefore, is not whether morality gets shoved down people's throats. That issue has long been settled: it is and always will be. The only question is, whose set of morals? Conservatives like morality that supports traditional institutions like the family. Liberals prefer morality that undermines traditional institutions, especially the family. Conservatives want laws designed to preserve familial authority; liberals want laws that allow the government to intrude on family decisions. Conservatives want a free market system that allows fathers to be contributing heads of households; liberals want a welfare nanny state that pays single mothers to raise fatherless children, all the better to sew up another generation of liberal votes. And so forth. And so on. Someone's set of moral imperatives is going to win. And the morals that win are going to get shoved down someone's throats. Liberals think that gay marriage is great; I think I'm going to get that one shoved down *my* throat -- figuratively speaking, that is.

My attitude is that, as long as someone is shoveling morality, I might as well get a say-so about what comprises it. It breaks my heart that liberals don't like the fact that people like me get a say-so.

Now, about those right-winger, you can characterize it any way you like, I don't really care anymore. Go ahead and believe, if you like, that Clinton's behavior was all about his personal behavior. That's fine with me. Only do this: Support the repeal of all sexual harassment law, particularly the one signed into law by Mr. Clinton himself. If it weren't for that law, Paula Jones would have had no grounds to sue Mr. Clinton, and presumably he could have stayed out of court, and none of this would have happened.

While you're at it, please support the repeal of perjury laws. I mean, sometimes personal questions are asked in depositions and in grand jury investigations. When Mr. Clinton was asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones' attorneys were trying to establish a pattern of behavior. Was it anyone else's business, or was that just his own private business? Without that sexual harassment law that Mr. Clinton signed, why, maybe it would have been his own private business. But the question was asked, and the judge allowed the question, ruling it pertinent. Hell of a note. If you don't believe courts have the right to compel truthful answers to in sworn testimony, then just say so, and let's abolish perjury laws, and not just the ones that apply to Mr. Clinton.

> You may pooh pooh that, but realistically we are the largest debtor nation on earth.

We are also the richest nation in the world. We can carry the debt. The problem is not the size of the debt, it's the size of the government.

Lee: "Now, about those right-winger, you can characterize it any way you like, I don't really care anymore. Go ahead and believe, if you like, that Clinton's behavior was all about his personal behavior. That's fine with me. Only do this: Support the repeal of all sexual harassment law, particularly the one signed into law by Mr. Clinton himself. If it weren't for that law, Paula Jones would have had no grounds to sue Mr. Clinton, and presumably he could have stayed out of court, and none of this would have happened."

You lost. Clinton won. As you so succinctly put it, earlier, LOL, GET OVER IT.

> You lost. Clinton won. As you so succinctly put it, earlier, LOL, GET OVER IT.

Yes, Clinton won. He managed to get the Senate and the American people to ignore the fact that a sitting U.S. president was caught breaking the laws he was sworn to uphold and defend.

I'll get over it, though, when you and people like you quit smearing "right-wingers" like me, saying we were persecuting him for his private acts. Sorry. Perjury is not a private act. Suborning perjury is not a private act. Obstruction of justice is not a private act. We're not arguing over what Clinton got away with, but with what it was he got away with.

And face up to the fact that it was okay with you and every liberal in the country that we had a president who committed felonies, so long as he was a Democrat, that is. As I recall, liberals were a lot less forgiving of Richard Nixon's felonies, but of course, that was Nixon's fault for being a Republican.

Jeeez Lee. Don't you know that a constant anger such as yours is extremely harmful to your body, that dwelling on past defeats is unhealthy? After all, Clinton is no longer in power. That phase of your life is over, let it go.

For your own sake, forgive the past, so that you can move on. I know it can be hard, because I too had a little trouble with the events of the Gore, Bush elections, etc. LOL, It stills pops up occasionally. When that happens I think of all the many loving things I have to be grateful for and I get back into the moment.
Best wishes,
charlie

Oh, by the way. Regarding Nixon. At the time I suspected it was possible that he was set up. It seems a lot of powerful people hated the notion of doing business with China.... and it even seems that Nixon flirted with the idea of having medicine available to all.

Still, even though it seemed that he was also a terribly flawed man, my heart went out to him and to Pat and to his entire family. It was a tragic moment in our history for all of us.

One of the reasons I said that Nixon flirted with medicine for all is that managed care and HMOs were inventions of politicians and academicians acting as central planners working under the auspices of Republican President Richard Nixon and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy in the early 1970s. Under President Nixon's policy of wage and price control, the Revised Health Manpower Act of 1971, essentially adopted HMOs as state policy and favored by tax laws.

> Don't you know that a constant anger such as yours is extremely harmful to your body, that dwelling on past defeats is unhealthy? After all, Clinton is no longer in power. That phase of your life is over, let it go.

Is anger the same as outrage? I don't think my health is the subject, here. Clinton is culpable, whether it angers me or not.

Lee: "Clinton is culpable, whether it angers me or not."

Okay Lee, whatever pulls your chain. So he's culpable. It's over, and like those poor souls who continually fight the Civil War, it's tiresome to continually rehash every little detail of Clinton's sex life and who did what to whom, over and over and over, ad infinum.

We need a little humor here. I don't remember who, when responding CNN's story about the astroid which has a 1 in a million chance of hitting earth in 2014, said something like, "Hey, I was hit by an astroid once and it's no fun at all."
Now that is funny!
Anyway I hope that bright person reads some of our nonsense and succinctly puts us back into some sort of prospective with his or her sharp wit.

> Okay Lee, whatever pulls your chain. So he's culpable. It's over, and like those poor souls who continually fight the Civil War, it's tiresome to continually rehash every little detail of Clinton's sex life and who did what to whom, over and over and over, ad infinum.

Y'see, there you go again. Whether it's what you intend to do or not, by saying it's about Clinton's sex life, you're belittling the real problem, which is the perjury, the suborning of perjury, and the obstruction of justice.

The reason this issue angers me so much, I think, is that it makes me believe liberals do not have good intentions. I really don't want to believe that. What I want to believe is that liberals are led to where they are by convictions, conscience, and a desire for what's best for our country, and simply differ from people like me in their world view. But every time they defend Clinton, or belittle the perjury, the obstruction of justice, and the suborning of perjury, or belittle his opponents for wanting justice, they move away from the truth, and into a dark little netherworld that whispers, "Nothing else matters, you just have to win." It's the worship of power.

When there is no common ground, there is no reason to work together within a political system. It would be like working together with a bear that's trying to eat you. There is no compromise, no give or take, that could work. If the differences are ever great enough, there is only duking it out to the death. The hungry bear, after all, wants you dead. You can't compromise with that, you can only win or lose.

In my view, the Democrats made a very wicked choice when they decided to stand by their man. It is the "right-wingers" who are often accused of hate, but in this case, in fact, I believe Democrats allowed their hatred of Clinton's enemies to blind them. Yes, Clinton is (for all practical purposes) gone, but the Democrats who enabled him, who aided and abetted his lies, his wickedness, and his felonies, are very much with us. Even now, I could forgive and forget if the Democrats would only come out and say, "You were right; we were wrong. We allowed our partisanship to get in the way of our belief in the rule of law." But pride won't let them, not even the ones who see clearly they made a wicked choice. The ignominy of having to admit that a bunch of ignorant, Bible-thumping "right-wingers" were right all along is just too big a hurdle for their pride.

It's gotten so, I actually believe that the Right and the Left have completely different perceptions of right and wrong. The Right often believes those on the Left are stupid, while those on the Left believe that those on the Right are evil. It is not uncommon for a conservative to say of a liberal, "He's a good guy, but boy are his politics screwed up." That is, a conservative can distinguish between a person's politics and his general morality. I don't believe this is true of a liberal. To a liberal, being a liberal is part of being a good person. If you are not a liberal, you cannot be a good person, by definition. If you are a liberal, you are a good person, by definition.

This would explain why liberals stand by Clinton. If a Republican president were to fondle subordinates and have sex in the Oval Office, and perjure himself about it, liberals would be howling for his head. Why, we know he isn't a good person -- see, he's a conservative! -- but, really, this sexual behavior just underscores it. But Clinton is a Democrat. Different take on the same subject: Liberals know that "basically", Clinton is a very good man. Why, he's a liberal, isn't he? Yes, he does have a problem with this "sex" thing, but hey, no one's perfect, but look at how much this man *cares* about social justice!

It makes for some of the more hypocritical stances in modern times -- Lope, please take notes here. Justice Thomas was unfit to be a Supreme Court justice. Why? Because he said dirty words around a female subordinate, or so she says, and Women Don't Lie About Such Things. Fast forward to 1998: Juanita Broadrick must have lied about Clinton raping her. Why? Because Clinton is a liberal, therefore a good man, and good men don't rape women. One of the very small ironies of the Clinton Impeachment Debacle is, boy, do liberals owe Clarence Thomas an apology. I won't hold my breath waiting for it, though.

Lee: "One of the very small ironies of the Clinton Impeachment Debacle is, boy, do liberals owe Clarence Thomas an apology. I won't hold my breath waiting for it, though."

I may be wrong, but I think it was you who responded to Lope, "You paint with a very broad brush my friend."

This is one left liberal who does not owe Clarence Thomas an apology because to me and many others like me, those attacks on Thomas seemed to be staged, that is, conjecture and no real proof. Regardless of what that gang of democratic politicians might have tried to pin on Thomas , they obviously had no real proof and so they failed.

Because of that lacking of proof the whole process pissed me off as well as many other US citizens, both left and right. I suspect that's one reason the democrats finally voted him in, that is, they knew they were losing the hearts and minds of the majority.

Sure then, and now looking back, the whole exercise seemed, without the necessary proof, to be little more than a nasty waste of time. Yet I don't dwell on what I percieved to be an injustice by a gang of power hungry, self righteous politicians, and I suspect neither does Thomas or his family.

People in Thomas's position have long ago learned to live nearly totally in the present.
Thomas is where he wants to be because the nation saw through, what was at best, an example of why he said she said shouldn't work and doesn't work. And even though Thomas and I have extremely different views, in that instance I'm very glad he prevailed.

Glad to hear of your views about Thomas, even if you don't like his jurisprudence, which to me is about as strict constructionist as it gets these days -- even more so than Scalia.

Lee:

I don't think "The Left" views the right as "stupid" but you are sure making a case for them doing so.

Your arguments are based on your assumptions about my political loyalties and your own incoherent ideas about what is a liberal or a Democrat or a leftist.

Its easy to label folks and engage in demogaugery if you have a Radio Show, Lee. No one can argue back. But when you try to do that with real live human beings, you run into what I call "nasty realities".

Here are some for ya:

I voted for Reagan in 1984 and Bush in 1988.

I supported Justice Thomas' ascension to the Supreme Court because the facts at the time did not support the sexual harrassment that was being alleged.

I never voted for Clinton and had no stake in his survival as President. I did begin to pity him near the end of his term as it turned out there were nothing to the charges that started the whole thing - nothing but raw Republican partisanship, the kind of stuff you seem to be made of.

Despite this, I turned my website into a tribute to John McCain and his efforts to garner the Republican nomination in 2000. While I'm miffed he didn't go Independent and run anyway, I respected his decision to work "within" the system and stay with the devil he knows.

I have enough guns to fortify every window in my compound. (.. and hey! Janet Reno never came after me so I can stand down, I reckon..)
Ooops. New house, more windows. But it has inside closing wood shutters, so.. maybe I can make it work.

I think Gov't-sponsored Universal Healthcare is a bad idea even though a majority of Americans support it (and Charles' version does have its appeal.)

I abhor abortion and for this reason, my wife and I have chosen not to engage in this horrific practice. I equally abhor Republicans who use an anti-abortion stance to collect the votes of folks like you (and my own dear mother) with no intention of doing anything to stop it. (what, after all, has been done since Republicans gained control of the Presidency, House and Senate in 2000? What is the 5-4 conservative-majority court doing to overturn Roe v. Wade? Nothing.

I call myself a liberal for three reasons:

1. Because of the dictionary definition of "liberal". (Look it up if you have a dictionary.)

2. To take back the word "liberal" from demagogues who use it to label opponents with every kind of anti-American anti-Christ sentiment possible.

Most of your time has been spent trying to blanket indict liberals, Democrats, and "leftists" with no regard that there are liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans. And moderates on both sides. (Democrats call moderates "centrists". Conservatives like you call them "liberals".)

Add to this LIBERAL liberals who thought Clinton/Gore et. al. were too conservative and formed the Green Party. And REAL conservatives like Pat Buchanan who remain consistent to their principles instead of going with the current neo-con movement.

From the VERY BEGINNING you have misconstrued, misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I have written. My attempts to correct you are answered with hyperbole - or worse, ignored.

Most heinous are your attempts to portray yourself as the victim of persecution. You don't know what persecution is, Lee. And even if you were being persecuted it would have nothing to do with Christ - because your writings do not represent Christ. They simply represent an ill-informed right-right-wing political agenda more intent on political assasination than finding real solutions to real problems.

> Its easy to label folks and engage in demogaugery if you have a Radio Show, Lee.

Flame on. And this lecture about labeling and demagoguery, from the man who wrote "bigots of America?"

> I supported Justice Thomas' ascension to the Supreme Court because the facts at the time did not support the sexual harrassment that was being alleged.

The point I was making is not whether you supported Thomas, but whether the liberals were being hypocritical when they held him to high standards of behavior to which they did not hold Mr. Clinton. You brought the subject of hypocrisy up, after all.

> ...nothing but raw Republican partisanship, the kind of stuff you seem to be made of.

Earlier in this thread, I referred to George W. Bush as "a chip off the old blockhead," and opined that he spends money like a drunken sailor. Does that really sound like a Republican partisan to you?

> Most heinous are your attempts to portray yourself as the victim of persecution. You don't know what persecution is, Lee. And even if you were being persecuted it would have nothing to do with Christ - because your writings do not represent Christ. They simply represent an ill-informed right-right-wing political agenda more intent on political assasination than finding real solutions to real problems.

> From the VERY BEGINNING you have misconstrued, misinterpreted and mischaracterized what I have written. My attempts to correct you are answered with hyperbole - or worse, ignored.

So far, your attempts to "correct" me seem heavily laden with personal attacks. Well, I'll grant that you are quick on the trigger and eager to offer offense. I'm not sure why you say I portray myself as a "victim of persecution", maybe if you'd specify -- for a change -- I could figure it why.

If we're getting personal -- and you seem to be determined to do so -- you're absolutely correct, I am not being persecuted, and can't even fathom how you read that from what I stated previously. (Actually, it is my opinion that if Christ could not expect decent treatment, then no one can.) Nor am I claiming to represent Christ, other than to proclaim His salvation that He offers freely. When we meet, I hope He says, "Well done, good and faithful servant," but I'm not counting on it. I'm going to have to rely on His grace, because I certainly haven't earned salvation.

> Because of the dictionary definition of "liberal". (Look it up if you have a dictionary.)

Well, of course I don't have a dictionary. Why would I have a dictionary? Ah'm a raht-waing reelijus nut, and ah cain't evin reed! But you might want to look back at my posts, Lope, and do something you haven't done yet. Do you notice that when I respond to an argument, I quote a passage and then proceed to *specify* my objections to the passage?

Why not try it some time?

Lee: "It's gotten so, I actually believe that the Right and the Left have completely different perceptions of right and wrong."

I suspect that is the nub of our rub. We do have completely different perceptions of right and wrong. No matter how hard we each try to fit into the other's space, it rarely seems to work for either of us. So it seems to me that rather than continually trying to kill each other we just accept each as we are.

It seems that it is in that aspect that you and I so radically difer. That is, I do accept you for who you are and it doesn't bother me that you are locked into a different sytem of beliefs. That's life. On some things we will never agree.

Yet it's up to us, the left and the right to continue to find areas that we can agree in. We can't do that until both of us elect to try as best we can to find and develop an intense sharp edged honesty, no matter the personal cost.

That said, I can see your angst regarding Clinton. At the same time I can also see that if most of us were put under the intense microscope that Clinton and Hilliary were under, than many of us, both left and right, might still be in jail.

That's behind us now. Bear with me for a moment. It seems that we are all standing in different places and viewing the same scene. Each views the scene from different angles and sees it in very different ways. As time goes by and because we have a finite storage capacity, our brains naturally continually edit the memories of past scenes. In time all of us, left and right, through consensus, agree that our versions are the correct ones and the other's versions are downright lies. Still, there is that bit of natural editing by the brain to consider.

The point is that although each of us are absolutely certain that we remember every detail and that those details are forever etched into our brains, we have to understand that it may not be true.

If we can reach that place which allows us to remain open, to suspend isms, and then continue to apply our sharped edged personal honesty coupled with a modicum of so called logic, we realize that maybe we all do indeed remember all scenes somewhat differently.

If you can find some truth in that statement, then maybe you can see some truth in the next one: Since each person's memories are at least a little diferent from the other's, then memory surely can only be thought of as illusions. One of the philosophers, ummm, `forget how to spell his name, but it was LOL, difinitely Nietzche, said that memories are lies. I don't find much in Nietzche or his student Heidegger that I can agree with, and his statement regarding memory is a bit harsh for me, but surely we can agree that memories are largely illusions. In any event if we think of them as illusions then it seems to me that it helps us to remain open to all possibilties.

From my perspective these dialogues with you have been helpful. I hope that you may someday say the same. If so let us both pledge to try our best to remain open to all future possibilities as we consider the future to be an enchanting dream and this very moment where we can truly only live.

> It seems that it is in that aspect that you and I so radically difer. That is, I do accept you for who you are and it doesn't bother me that you are locked into a different sytem of beliefs.

That might be true of you. I don't know, though, that caring about what others believe is right or wrong makes me all that darn unusual. It isn't even a phenomenon unique to the Right. Obviously, there are many who wish to institute gay marriage who care very much what attitudes we have about it. When a liberal college professor chastizes a student for saying something un-P.C. on his term paper, it is nothing if not an attempt to instruct someone else on the "proper attitudes". Affirmative Action hiring policies are nothing if not an attempt to get people to behave within a strict moral framework. Spending tax dollars on food and housing subsidies is an attempt to get taxpayers to give to the poor, which is also an issue of morality. "Trying to impose their morality on the rest of America" is an accusation often leveled at the religious Right, but for the life of me, I don't see how that distinguishes them. They have lots of company, on both sides of the political fence. No one asked me if I wanted my tax dollars to buy food stamps; I'd call it an imposition of morality. But like I said, imposing morality is what government does.

> That said, I can see your angst regarding Clinton. At the same time I can also see that if most of us were put under the intense microscope that Clinton and Hilliary were under, than many of us, both left and right, might still be in jail.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a sitting president refrain from committing felonies.

Lope, regarding Ravenwood. What does it matter what his opinions are regarding Clark?
That is, it seems to me that he is splitting hairs in an effort to put Clark down. ( But you've gotta admit, the pig joke was kinda funny. )

Yet since Clark takes a somewhat Libertarian view regarding war, particularly this Iragi mess, I wonder why Ravenwood isn't behind him?
After all, even though I do vote Libertarian nearly each time I see a local candidate... simply because they are usually a more honest
choice than our so-called two party system, it's a very good bet that we won't see a Libertarian
President anytime within the next decade.

Still, it is Ravenwoods url and since it seems, to some degree, he enjoys trying to hammer
opposing views into his own image, maybe a rebuttal from you regarding Clark's position on taxes may be some sort of web site protocol.

BTW, I would have responded via the other lead in, but I can't find it.

When did I put down Wesley Clark? I've written a grand total of two comments on this post. In the first, I informed Jack that I wasn't the author. In the second, I quoted Clark, and pretty much let the quotes stand alone. I did offer up a "just what we need..." comment, but that is hardly putting him down. You should see what I say about Daschle, Feinstein or Lautenburg.

BTW, Ravenwood: Thanks for allowing me to post comments on your board. I got carried away with it, as you can see.

Charles: I re-read some of my earlier posts to you. Sheesh. Sorry for any of the harsh language I splashed on you. You have proven yourself to be an affable contestant. So far, I still stand by my points, however. (I didn't realize myself what a hot button Clinton is for me.)

Hmmm, my mistake. I was under the impression that you attacked Clark on some, perhaps, mis-quote he made regarding a progressive tax. `Not my forte, but as I scanned the arguements I thought, so what? even a super intellect like Clark can err.
Anyway, as I said, I know very little about the history of our tax structure and it's not important enough for me to look it up.

Much like that debate you had about the school vouchers. You folks dug into it and I really had to concentrate to follow the various lines of logic. Yet in the end I wondered if it even mattered much regarding fixed cost and who/what they pertained to. Still, thought I, if nothing else it was a needed brain exercise

It seems to me that the whole issue is about accountability and that the vouchers can be a form of competition which just might, at the risk of extinction, force public schools to tighten up as is done in private schools. To swing the administrators back to square one and back teachers rather than the students: To make it a place of accountability from the top down.

If the kid isn't making it, then let s/he stay in that grade until s/he "gets" it. If the kid breaks too many rules, boot `em out. It seems to me that it might be tough at first, but after awhile accountability might become the norm. But then I wonder if those vouchers come with the usual government strings... Still, the parents also have other options such as home schooling, etc....

And Jeeeez, talk about innane pandering. I retired in 1977 so the following is completely alien to me... I was floored when just minutes ago I learned that in boot camp Army grunts are LOL, issued stress cards! If they feel the Techical Instructors, ( realy tough dudes ) are putting too much pressure on them they, LOL, hold up their friggin' stress cards and the T.I's have to back off!

No wonder I saw that young grunt on camera in Iraq talking about how he cried when his buddy was killed and now he is so scared he sleeps with the light on.... Jeeeez, what kind of middle management ( NCO's ) allows front line troops to do that. It seems to me you gotta' stay on top of your troops and what's happening with them. That kinda' cry baby stuff may be contagious and at best it's demoralizing. Beside, it can only encourage more terrorists recruitment into Iraq. What the hell is going on over there? If one of the troops has broken down to that level, ship him the hell out of there. It's just not worth keeping hin in theater.

So it seems the above behavior of ( hopefully ) only a few of our troops ties in with early training in public schools, and it seems to have affected all ranks, which goes back to a lack of acountability.

Yet there does seem to be a dicotomy regarding their truly great to behold blitzkreiging operations, which in many ways seems to be akin to computer games...
Ooops, I do tend to digress...
LOL, Maybe the General needs to give us all a swift kick in the butt.

Lee: "You have proven yourself to be an affable contestant. "

(grin) Maybe that affable part is kinda woooshy... Still, I feel vindicated because right from the beginning my Knower urged, "Stay calm, this is a very intelligent, decent and sharply honest guy. You might even learn something."

No problem Lee. Comment away.

Lee:

Your quoting of me has been out of order, out of context and heavy on cherry-picking. If this is an example of how I should write, No Thanks!

In regards to your persecution complex, you alleged I was ridiculing your faith (when I don't even know your faith) and in this thread alluded to those who would stop you from speaking out or deny you political cause.

A cursory internet search reveals that you have two over-riding themes (no matter the topic or site): painting "liberals" with the "big brush" and complaining about Bill Clinton.

You are now making common cause with Mr. Munn in what appears to be an effort to soften your hateful tone and extract yourself from an ever-spiralling partisan mess that no amount of liberal-labelling or Clinton-bashing will overcome.

I think you and I can make the same headway. God has seen fit to place us in residence in the same city only a few miles separated. I propose we meet so that we can hash out our differences. This will give me the chance to find out how I pegged you so precisely with a few sentences about bigots and Christian futurists and it will give you the chance to meet a real live liberal bogeyman with many ideas consistent with your own.

Most importantly, it will give us a chance to specifically address your concerns about my original writing without having to wade through pages and pages of liberal-baiting, Clinton-bashing and the like.

A wise man once said ".. too heavy a personal investment in any idea is inherently self destructive. Because when we believe in an idea rather than believing in the possibility of that idea, we close our analytical brains and cease to think."

I'd like to think the two of us together can come up with a better line than that.

> You are now making common cause with Mr. Munn in what appears to be an effort to soften your hateful tone

My hateful tone?

Lope: "I'm still pissed about Bush's Evangelical Right Stooges savaging of McCain and it will be a long time before I worship THEIR Jesus, as a result. "

Lope: "Jesus can't be too happy that they are more interested in making Political Enemies than carrying out The Great Commission but that's between he and them."

[Apparently, I am not allowed to "speak for Jesus" because that job belongs to you. -- L.D.]

Lope: "Expect to see scurrilous attacks on Clark's military record from the Chicken Hawk Right."

Lope: "Also expect to see some Fundementalist types (rural and South) make much of his being born a Jew.... In the churches I grew up in, he'll be a shoo-in for Revelations' AntiChrist Role and hell awaits the Good Fundemental Christian that votes for the AntiChrist "

[This is what I meant when I said you ridiculed fundamentalist. You're playing on stereotypes.]

Lope: The "First-A-Jew-Now-A-Catholic" thing may also cost him a few votes with the bigots of America."

Lope: "I understand this subtle nuance may be lost on you." [By the way, this was the first personal attack to occur the two of us. The first of several.]

Lope: "I don't think "The Left" views the right as "stupid" but you are sure making a case for them doing so."

Lope: "Its easy to label folks and engage in demogaugery if you have a Radio Show, Lee."

Lope: "Most heinous are your attempts to portray yourself as the victim of persecution. You don't know what persecution is, Lee. And even if you were being persecuted it would have nothing to do with Christ - because your writings do not represent Christ."

[This last one may be the worst of the bunch.]

> You are now making common cause with Mr. Munn...

Mr. Munn and I definitely got off on the wrong foot. I'm not nuts about being likened to Nazis, and his attempt at humor fell flat with me. Since then, he has been able to respond with a good sense of humor and, frankly, with a lot more civility than I showed him. "Making common cause"? I'm just calling it as I see it.

> it will give you the chance to meet a real live liberal bogeyman with many ideas consistent with your own.

:-) If we can't hash it out here on the board, then I doubt that getting together would be very productive.

Yes, guilty as charged, on occasion, I do paint with a very broad brush. That's part of the danger of trying to make sense of the world; one is forced to generalize, but generalization has its place, and its limits. But it comes from an attempt to see patterns and achieve a broader understanding.

As limited a technique as it is, however, it's a lot better than getting personal. Personal attacks can add piquance to a debate, but it should never be the substance of it. Now allow me to get personal: Something about me, personally, distracts the hell out of you, and you seem to lose any sense of purpose in your argument that's higher than trying self-consciously to make me look like an idiot, or worse. Name-calling is considered a logical fallacy not because anything said about one's opponent is false, but because it is a diversion from the issues. I will grant that many of the nasty things you say about me are true, to a great extent. Even more to the point: It's worse than you think.

So let's just stipulate that everything bad thing you said about me is true.

Now: that debate is over. Do you care, at all, to discuss some of the other issues that were raised?

I'm very pleased to say that General Clark has met with the leaders of DraftWesleyClark.com. which are a Republican attorney (who took a leave of absence without pay to organize the movement ) and, I seem to remember, his brother-in-law. General Clark told them that he would make a decision at the end of next week. I would guess that will be on the 19th, and like Lope, I would opine that he will declare himself a candidate for the democratic nomination. After a suitable period, I also suspect the other candidates will pull out and their organizations will consolodate behind Clark. >grining

For more info go to http://www.DraftWesleyClark.com
These interesting times may indeed be the result of that old Chinese curse... But man, they sure are fun!

Walter Cronkite virtually indorsed Clark tonight, 9/10/03, on the Larry King Show. Maybe the snowball is now halfway down the hill.

> Walter Cronkite virtually indorsed Clark tonight, 9/10/03, on the Larry King Show. Maybe the snowball is now halfway down the hill.

Walter Crankshaft? That's lose Clark the conservative votes, for sure.

Good to hear from you Lee. "Walter Crankshaft? That's lose Clark the conservative votes, for sure."
LOL, maybe. I think Walter is a fine old gentleman. You and I see the world so differently that it's really truly funny. Yet, for some unknown reason I find you likable.

I even read some of your old stuff on the net... LOL, your hatred of Clinton was still there, but you were almost gentle in your rebutals. All of the stuff was good, but one thoughful piece, I forget who wrote it, regarding why Lefties dislike George W. and Righties hate Clinton, seemed downright insightful to me.
Hang in there pal,
charlie

BTW Lee, I've been a full time painter since 1977. Portraits, landscapes, you know, representational stuff. Anyway I have a web page where I intended to show some of my prints, but I put that on hold and today dedicated the site to General Clark.

LOL, I'm not good at html, and it looks more like a letter with links than a slick page like Ravenwoods. If you do go there I hope it doesn't steam you up too badly, you know, I've got some of those lefty links up that you so dislike as well as an overview of the premise to one of my books, "Becoming The Thinker."
The link for that one is, "A few thoughts to chew on." I left the overview there because I thinks it ties in with how I see General Clark.

If you do have a look, I'm sure you'll have a few pithy remarks and, LOL, I look forward to hearing from you.
charlie

Sure, Charles, I'll take a look... what's the URL?

Cronkite is one of those institutional figures who was the premier anchorman for a broadcast network when all they did was read articles out of the New York Times.

Journalists always claim to be objective, unbiased, impartial, and completely fair. They also vote as a bloc 80% Democrat. They claim a lot of things. For example, how people like myself can be unconsciously, incipiently prejudiced out of conditioning and habit. But not them.

I LOVE LEE DISE!!!

>Journalists always claim to be objective, unbiased, impartial, and completely fair. They also vote as a bloc 80% Democrat. They claim a lot of things. For example, how people like myself can be unconsciously, incipiently prejudiced out of conditioning and habit. But not them.

LOL, probably. Maybe that's why I like him.
Regarding the url. My domain name is out of order. I won't go into the details, but I switched domain providers. After a lot of searching around I discovered that my new providers have yet to hook up to the primary and secondary dns which is available, through my old domain provider, for them to hook into.

Anyway, in the meantime if you are in the U.S. my web page is available through tripod. I've temporarily entered that url here, so all you need do is click on my name at the bottom of this note.

BTW, I owe you an apology. I went back on the web and once again reviewed your Aug rebuttals that I previously alluded to. Actually, it seems that you were very fair to Clinton. Also, in early dialogue with you I stated that the U.S. invested 6% of it GNP into the military and of course we both know that is wrong. It's more like 3.8%.

Oh, if you do get there the link to my premise for "Becoming The Thinker is: "find our innate deeper wisdom." After you've gone to that page it may be best to first read the link, "Who Really Runs the World" I'm not religious, but for those who are, it seems to be a good spiritual explaination. I got permission from the author to use because It seems to nicely set up the next bit, "A Practical Way to Bypass Ego" which is essentially the theory behind, "Becoming The Thinker." I've also plotted my novel, "Paradise Now" based upon that premise.
The main character of PN is Milton Palmer. LOL, the Milton bit may be a little heavy handed, but ( grin ) I just couldn't resist it!

It does appear that the Wesley Clark parade is getting a lot of help from the Clinton Corner, these days. At least that's the Wall Street Journal's take. I think the reason is simple: Clark adds a soupcon of credibility to the notion that, no, Democrats do not want to surrender to the terrorists, and, yes, Democrats have almost a genuine interest in national security.

Anti-war, anti-Bush, Chomskyan national self-loathing -- these all play very well with Democratic activists. If only there were enough Democratic activists to win a national election, they'd be all set. Ooops. It seems that whatever puts a smile on Democratic activist faces also puts a "Who Farted?" look on middle America's face. Politically, it plays about as well as the foaming Right accusing Clinton of murdering Vince Foster ten years ago.

I think Clark (and perhaps Clinton) are trying to save the Democratic Party from itself. Clark and Clinton probably both feel the same way about the issues as the party loyalists, but may know how to express it in terms that won't alienate the voters.

It's an encouraging sign for Clark that he's being courted by the Dean campaign as a possible VP, a blatantly pre-emptive move.

>It seems that whatever puts a smile on Democratic activist faces also puts a "Who Farted?" look on middle America's face

Maybe. But maybe that's just hopeful thinking. It seems some of the undecided are beginning to like the smell.

Some politcal analyst recently said, "The Republicans have a good solid 40% base and the Democrats have a good solid 40% base. It's that 20% which are made up of both left and right as well as Independents, etc. that both Republicans and Democrats are going for, because swaying the majority of that 20% will win the election.

>I think Clark (and perhaps Clinton) are trying to save the Democratic Party from itself. Clark and Clinton probably both feel the same way about the issues as the party loyalists, but may know how to express it in terms that won't alienate the voters.

I can see how it might look that way. However, maybe I'm just projecting, but I suspect Clark would fit very nicely as a Republican moderate or somewhat as a Democratic centralist. It seems to me, in many aspects, Clark is more like a Powell Republican ( much like Clinton evolved into ) than a Democrat.

That said, other than running on the Demo ticket, I rather doubt that Clark has all that much invested in the Democratic party. I suspect that he sees the ideologies of both parties as a hinderance to his deeper intelligence. But who knows? Hell, I can't get into his head. He may come out next week and say, sorry folks, me and my family are having too much fun in private life... and who would blame him if he did? We both know that if he does run it will probably get extremely dirty. So, even though I suspect the odds are in favor of his running and wining the demo ticket, it's still a toss up.

>It's an encouraging sign for Clark that he's being courted by the Dean campaign as a possible VP, a blatantly pre-emptive move.

That may have occurred. On the other hand. Since Dean stands somewhere around a13 points
( I think the highest is 14 points ) and Clark, even without declaring, stands at 10 points, well maybe Dean is offering to pull out if Clark enters the race.

But your scenario has more flavor. That is, it would be an enormous advantage to Dean to have Clark as a running mate but, it seems to me, it would be to no advantage to Clark to have Dean as a VP. It seems to me that Clark's ideal running mate may be a well known, disenchanted Republican. Since that's improbable, maybe the next best bet would be Senator Biden.

> Since that's improbable, maybe the next best bet would be Senator Biden.

Perhaps, if he can keep from plagiarizing anyone between now and election day.

I don't believe, by the way, that the path to a deeper intelligence is ever going to be free of ideology, that is, until you find someone on this planet who has a complete mastery of every fact there is and knows how they integrate with each other. As I've said before, generalization is a tool. Ideology is a generalization. Ideology attempts to explain the world based on the few facts we can grasp.

Good ideology, however, is not so self-contained that it is impervious to facts, which is what happens when people grow fond of their generalizations and they become an end in themselves. At that point, they quit becoming tools and instead become art forms, attractive to a few but less than useful.

Liberalism (the modern American variety, that is) is an ideology based on several precepts, among them the perfectibility of man and the failings of established institutions to achieve the desired perfection. Conservatism is less coherent as an ideology, comprising as it does several ideologies floating in more or less a grudging coalition whose primary impetus is that they are not liberal.

>Liberalism (the modern American variety, that is) is an ideology based on several precepts, among them the perfectibility of man and the failings of established institutions to achieve the desired perfection. Conservatism is less coherent as an ideology, comprising as it does several ideologies floating in more or less a grudging coalition whose primary impetus is that they are not liberal.

Well, of course I see it somewhat differently. It seems to me that all, left, right and middle, etc. ideology is rigid and judgmental. That's why many of us often end in screaming matches, That is, rather than remaining open to all possibilities, our egos are vigorously defending our dogma's.

It doesn't seem to matter what that dogma is, from so-called Christians, Muslams, Hindus, Buddhist, Toaist, to hard nosed Atheist. But then if you've read the link on my page, "our innate deeper intelligence" you know my view.

And hey, I'm not even locked in to that. That is, if something came along which is not rigid or judgmental and would seem to enable me to make a better connection to our Knower, or as I sometimes think of it, our intuitive free will, then I'd certainly attempt to examine it with an open mind.

>I don't believe, by the way, that the path to a deeper intelligence is ever going to be free of ideology, that is, until you find someone on this planet who has a complete mastery of every fact there is and knows how they integrate with each other

While it seems to me that being well read is very helpful in reconnecting to our innate deeper intelligence, it's not necessary to be well read or to have a higher I.Q. It seems to me that, no matter how smart or how average our brains are, we can all tap into our deeper intelligence/intuitive freewill. If ego does not get in the way, intuitive freewill always shows us the way through validation or non validation.

That is, by my definition intelligence is measured in the storage capacity of the brain and the speed that info can be attained. So sure, we want our leaders to be very intelligent. We also want them to be wise. In my theory we are all able to access our wisdom. But even the most intelligent of us are often blocked by their egos. Our leaders, unable to validate their decisions, instead of walking out of Plato's cave of strange light, we are often lead deeper into the darkness.

Our leaders, unable to validate their decisions, instead of walking out of Plato's cave of strange light, we are often lead deeper into the darkness.
Amended to read, "Our leaders, unable to validate their decisions, rather than moving out of Plato's cave of strange light, often lead us deeper into the cave of darkness."

> Maybe. But maybe that's just hopeful thinking. It seems some of the undecided are beginning to like the smell.

You can start to believe that when Hillary announces her candidacy. Until then, it's just wishful thinking on your part, with all due respect.

> Well, of course I see it somewhat differently. It seems to me that all, left, right and middle, etc. ideology is rigid and judgmental.

Is that a judgmental statement? And how rigid are you about it? Everyone needs judgment. Yet it is usually one's opponents that get judged as "judgmental". That's a clue right there: Someone has to judge someone as judgmental. Usually I find that accusing someone of being judgmental is just a way to shut down debate. "You're being judgmental" means, "You over there! Be quiet while I make judgments."

> That is, rather than remaining open to all possibilities, our egos are vigorously defending our dogma's.

I'm not sure we can ever be "open to all possibilities", nor that it would be a good thing. Aryan might, midnight lynchings, and the gulag were all realities once upon a time. They are still possibilities. They also happen to be possibilities that I don't think ought ever to be open again. And not only that, but I'm pretty rigid and judgmental in that belief.

> But even the most intelligent of us are often blocked by their egos.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, is how a Christian would phrase it.

> So sure, we want our leaders to be very intelligent. We also want them to be wise.

I'm not even sure I want a "leader". "Leaders" are for people who need to be led. What I want is someone who governs wisely, within the constitutional framework. And intelligence, sad to say, is a value-free trait. Lots of evil men throughout history have been very intelligent, and they have used that intelligence to wreak havok. Vlad of Romania was smart enough to figure out how to impale someone in a manner that they would live hanging on a pike for days. That's intelligence that the world, and in particular his thousands of victims, could have lived without. Better that Vlad had been a village idiot.

Lee: "Is that a judgmental statement? And how rigid are you about it? Everyone needs judgment. Yet it is usually one's opponents that get judged as "judgmental". That's a clue right there: Someone has to judge someone as judgmental. Usually I find that accusing someone of being judgmental is just a way to shut down debate. "You're being judgmental" means, "You over there! Be quiet while I make judgments."

Hmm, what's happening here? Did I step on your toes when I said It seems to me that all, left, right and middle, etc. ideology is rigid and judgmental? Surely there is nothing in that sentence that says only Lee Dise is judgmental. As an admitted left liberal, I included myself as well as all of humankind in that statement.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'll try again. It seems that we all, me included, have to try to not rely on beliefs, but in possibilities. And when one of us states his belief as a fact then the other, without rankor, attempts to point out the possible falacys in that belief.

This is not a way to shut down a debate, it's the way to keep it flowing. What you earlier described as our "conversation" has been flowing because we are each attempting to honestly take a look at ourselves, rather than trying to hook the other's ego.

Lee:"I'm not sure we can ever be "open to all possibilities", nor that it would be a good thing. Aryan might, midnight lynchings, and the gulag were all realities once upon a time. They are still possibilities. They also happen to be possibilities that I don't think ought ever to be open again. And not only that, but I'm pretty rigid and judgmental in that belief."

Nor am I. But consider how that sort of thing you described came about. Were they not locked into rigid systems of beliefs? Did they not subvert Heidegger to twist Neitzeche's Man and Superman to suit their beliefs? And isn't that sort of behavior based upon a rigid, judgmental platform?

Lee: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, is how a Christian would phrase it."

Well yes, that makes sense to me. The teachings of Christ are a wonderful thing. Although I'm an agnostic, I try to live my life by those teachings as well as some Eastern philosophies.

But I'm very aware that I'm no where near good enough to live by the teachings of Christ. Turning the other cheek is to live totally without ego.

I don't know if I can ever get to that place because I'm too locked into my admiration of the warrior stance. ( used to love to box, still love the fights, etc. ) Also I'm an old military man. I have no trouble killing when I have to. I don't like it. Killing any creature, man or beast, is a shitty job. But sometimes it just has to be done. It's natures way and therefore it seems to be humankind's way.

Meaning that it seems very likely that Descartes and Spinoza were wrong. That is, man and nature are not separate. Man is intrinsically a part of nature.

Hume faulted both men, then Einstein inadvertantly faulted Newton's clock work universe, as well as Descartes and Spinosa with his General Relativity and Special Relativity. Yet it seems Einstein believed in Spinosa's pre determined universe. ( pre determined essentially meaning without free will )

That belief might have cut his line to what he called the "old one," because his leaps into previous unknown areas shut down completely. Einstein was then left in the dust of a fantasy clockwork universe.

The advent of quantum mechanics coupled with Einsteins' own Realitivity and the randomly violent universe that now seems so readily apparent ( Quantum mechanics may be faulted in some future date. I look forward to that because it is through creating a new paradigm which faults the old paradigm, that we learn more about the universe. ) seemed unendurable for him because it seems it didn't fit into his system of beliefs, i.e., his ego. So much for being rigid and locked into beliefs as opposed to being open to all possibilities.

Lee: "I'm not even sure I want a "leader". "Leaders" are for people who need to be led. What I want is someone who governs wisely, within the constitutional framework.

Hey, I can settle for that, LOL, provided we are not too rigid in our interpretation of that framework. However, I think you know what I meant when I said "Leaders." Leadership is touted constantly in the Media. George W's daddy did an interview with Paula Zahn on CNN and touted the Leadership of his son, essentially saying that Dubya is leading us into the light.

Lee: "Vlad of Romania was smart enough to figure out how to impale someone in a manner that they would live hanging on a pike for days. That's intelligence that the world, and in particular his thousands of victims, could have lived without. Better that Vlad had been a village idiot.

I can only assume you didn't read my statement. I clearly said that wisdom is open to everyone. It does not matter how high or low their I.Q. But as Socrates implied, the more we prepare our brains the more we can understand our innate deeper intelligence, or Knower, or intuitive free will, or Christ within, etc.

I strongly suspect that General Clark has worked hard to prepare his brain as well as hone his sharp edged personal honesty in order to bypass ego. In doing so I strongly suspect he taps into that wisdom at will. And yes, even though he considers himself a Christian, I suspect he is still a warrior. And it still seems to me that a warrior stance is very different from a true Christian's stance.

>And it still seems to me that a warrior stance is very different from a true Christian's stance.

Amend that to read, "And since it seems both Christian and Warrior are based in fearlessness, it seems that since a warrior stance is the opposite of turning the other cheek, it's then very different from a true Christian's stance

Lope, I'd really like to peruse your Web Site. Is that possible?
charlie

Also, Lee, I'd like to listen in to your talk show, the one Lope alluded to.
charlie

Also Lee, earlier Lope suggested we look up the definition of conservative and liberal. I just did and the following is precise and from:
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary.

Conservative:
!. Inclined to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to change. 2. The principles of people so devoted.

Liberal
1. Characterized by or inclining toward opinions or policies favoring progress or reform, as in politics or religion. 2. Not intolerant or prejudiced: broad minded. 3. Characterized by generosity lavishness in giving. 4. Given or yielded freely or in large quantity: ample. 5. Not literal or strict: a liberal interpretation of the law. 6. Suitable for persons of broad cultural interest: liberal arts. ----n. One having liberal opinions or convictions, esp. inn politics or religion.

If that is at all accurate, then it's no wonder we have different opinions regarding right and wrong. Still, it seems to me that we have been doing relatively well in our diologues.

I wasn't taking the bit about being judgmental personally, Charles, I was only showing that being judgmental is essential. You have to be judgmental just to denounce someone else as being judgmental. If there were no place for being judgmental, there would have been no Nuremberg trials.

As for 'rigid', some rigidity is also needed. That's the courage, as in 'the courage of your convictions'.

By the way, I don't have a radio show. I don't even know where that came from.

> Conservative: 1. Inclined to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to change. 2. The principles of people so devoted.

> Liberal: 1. Characterized by or inclining toward opinions or policies favoring progress or reform, as in politics or religion.

Well... to me, all this is like describing a gourmet pastry as a carbohydrate. There is much more that is in there.

A conservative is "inclined to preserve the existing order of things"? Well, then why are conservatives trying, say, to end thirty years of racial preferences? Liberals favor "progress or reform"? Then why are they standing in the way of school vouchers?

Bear in mind that the meanings have evolved over time and place. In the early 19th century, being a liberal in England meant being a free-marketeer, and being a conservative meant being opposed to the free market.

I would say conservatism means taking a cautious attitude toward change. Being a conservative means realizing that there is a great deal that is already worthwhile in American society, and that such progress that has been made already needs to be conserved and defended. It is the realization that all change is not progress.

Words like 'progress' and 'reform' are mere characterizations, which is how I can tell that particular dictionary definition was written by a liberal. 'Progress' along what lines? 'Reform' of what institutions? It wasn't enough to say that conservatives tend to oppose change, and liberals tend to foster change; they hadda go and offer tendentious and misleading characterizations along with their definitions. :-)

That way, they can cast conservatives as those who oppose reform and progress. That's just not a fair characterization, in my view.

And, again, what constitutes progress? With a liberal, you're never really sure. In the 1950s and 1960s, progress meant legal colorblindness; who could have guessed, then, that today, it would mean favoring women and racial minorities over white males?

I think Thomas Sowell has probably come the closest to defining the differences we have come to know as liberal vs. conservative. He says, fundamentally, there are two competing visions (ideologies, if you will) of the world: the Unconstrained Vision, and the Constrained Vision.

Those having the Unconstrained Vision tend to see infinite possibilities for human beings; we are basically good, and need only be shown what is good to respond favorably; we can know enough, and love enough, to reform society in an image that is wise, just, tolerant, and better in every respect than the world we have inherited.

Those having the Constrained Vision, on the other hand, are pessimistic about human nature and human capabilities; we can never know enough, or love enough, to be trusted with power; our best bet is to do our best to slog through life, this vale of tears, as best as we can.

Both sides agree that human society is far from being perfect. However, because they disagree about human nature, they have different diagnoses and cures for this current state of imperfection. Those of the Unconstrained Vision see the imperfection of humans not as a failure of human nature, but as a result of suffering under flawed, failed institutions. Those of the Constrained Vision, however, see the imperfections as a reflection of our inherent nature, and thus view established institutions as helpful, and the reason we have come as far as we have.

Sowell does a much better job than I do of articulating all this (see his book, _Conflict_of_Visions_). You can probably recognize the Unconstrained Vision as closer to modern liberalism, and the Constrained Vision as closer to modern day conservatism. Though Sowell is a rampaging conservative -- an "angry black male", I think, one liberal critic called him -- I think he lays out his case in a reasonable manner. He is careful to point out that not everyone fits into his nice little categories. Karl Marx, for example, is an interesting blend of attitudes that cannot easily be pigeon-holed into either category. He uses Adam Smith as the best spokesman for the Constrained Vision, and the late, respected John Rawls as the spokesman for the Unconstrained Vision.

I think liberalism has had tremendous, important victories, notably the abolition of slavery and the demolition of Jim Crow. This was a clear case where the federal government stepped in and did a good thing, but they did it simply by applying the principles of a Constitution whose words and intentions were being ignored by the states. So was this a liberal victory? I think so, in a very significant sense. However, it was an established institution -- the U.S. Constitution -- that made it possible, so to some degree it was a victory for conservatism as well.

Lee: >Words like 'progress' and 'reform' are mere characterizations, which is how I can tell that particular dictionary definition was written by a liberal.

LOL, I knew you'd say that because it also occurred to me.

Still, as Lope pointed out earlier, there are mixtures of conservatives on the left and mixtures of liberals on the right. No one can define you, only you can define you. And, once again, it can only come through each individuals attempt at sharp edged personal honesty.

We both began this dialogue by somewhat trying to define each other. It seems in the course of this exchange we both may have learned that it's not up to me or up to you to label anyone. All we can do is to suspend our natural tendancy to judge, and take each other at face value.

Looks like the General is tossing his hat in. I think he likes the look of the field, which is to say, not terribly impressive.

In the meantime, I hope he learns something about economics -- in other words, that "progressive taxation" is neither good nor intended by the Founding Fathers.

Wow, did he declare? What's the skinny? Also you said, :"I hope he learns something about economics -- in other words, that "progressive taxation" is neither good nor intended by the Founding Fathers."

Well I sure as hell know very little about economics. When I was in England I took an extention course offered from the University of Maryland. It was taught by a Cambridge professor. LOL, It sounded like voodo to me, so I just feed him what he feed us and made an ok grade. LOL, But I didn't learn shit!

On the other hand Clark was a Rhodes Scholar with a master's in Economics from Oxford. Hell, I'll even give you your point regarding taxation, I mean what the hell do I know about it. However I suspect were you to ask Clark he'd give a fair response regarding that remark.

You may not agree with it, but I suspect he would attempt to be honest. If it is true what you said regarding the intentions of the founding fathers, and I have no reason to doubt you, then I suspect Clark would admit his error.
I mean this dude is big on accountability. Further, I suspect that you would accept his admission that he mispoke and move on.

Thanks for the info Lee.

`Just now updated my web site regarding Clark and the Demo ticket. I'm even, ( Shudder ) strongly considering doing as Lope suggested and ( Oh Jeeeeez! ) registering as a, ummmmm, dare I say it? a , a , a, Sheeeez, Democrat in order to vote in the Democratic primarys.....

Also I finally sorted out my domain snaffu and my web site is now accessable to the world wide web.

As I see it, so-called "progressive" taxation is a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. How can you be applying the law equally, when you are requiring one group of people to give a much higher percentage of your income than another group?

Of course, I think the income tax itself should be unconstitutional -- and they used to be, only they passed a constitutional amendment to take care of that. We should rescind it. If we're a free country, why is it any of the government's business how I earn my money? What happened to the liberals' championing of the "Right to Privacy?" (Which is not in the Constitution, by the way, at least not explicitly. But maybe it should be.)

Again, liberals will argue in favor of the "progressive" income tax not because of constitutional considerations, but because social engineering and redistribution of wealth so suits their ideological inclinations. First thing they do is present a false dichotomy: Why, a progressive tax is better than a regressive tax, which hurts the poor disproportionately. But a tax doesn't have to be progressive or regressive: it can be flat.

The second thing they'll do is say that "the poor" shouldn't pay any taxes. My response is, fine, define 'poor'. Is 'poor' less than $20,000/yr? $25,000? $30,000? Define the boundary, and then exempt all below it from paying taxes. Then, tax those making more than that a flat percentage rate with zero deductions.

Also, it behooves the discussion to mention that liberals, really, have no trouble at all with regressive taxation, or else they wouldn't support FICA -- the social security tax -- which is not only regressive, but pays out proportionately more money to those who pay proportionately less.

In short: morally, it is none of the government's business how I earn my money. As long as they make it their business, we are a lot less free than we would be otherwise.

Well Lee, all of your comments may be true or at least somewhat true. But we supposedly live in a democracy and if what you say is true, then it's also true that the majority rules. If that is the case, then the laws you hate regarding taxes are strongly influenced by the majority, however unfair you deem them to be.

Still, since you absolutely believe those laws are unfair, it seems you are doing the only thing you can do at this moment. That is, you're venting your outrage onto all who will listen. In my own small way, I'm doing the same, but with a view which is 180 degrees out of phase with yours.

We both know that we will not change the other's views, yet it seems to me we are each patriots who are celebrating our right of free speach. At the moment your side is gaining via the new tax laws, the invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, the antics of Powell's son in the FCC, etc.

While my side is ever hopeful that we will remove Dubya's group come 2004 and get those laws recinded so that we don't keep digging our descendants ever deeper into debt. That after we elect Clark in 2004 he will somehow calm things down in Iraq and Afganistan: That the citizens of those countries will for the first time truly live under their own democratic government and not a puppet government such as we once owned in Iran.

Also, it seems fair to say in the area of foriegn affairs you are in favor of the U.S. taking by force whatever it is we want. While I'm again 180 degrees out of phase with you.

We've both heard all of the arguements both pro and con, over and over... and we are both still firm in our very separate perspectives.

So I guess we'll both kept talking it up in the hopes that we get those who represent our views elected to the highest office in the land as we remain ever hopeful that ours is truly a democracy and not just some rotting stump of a thing.

You think your views will win while I strongly suspect it will be my views that will eventually triumph.

I suspect we'll both know if the winds of change will blow in a different direction come the end of the 2004 elections.

Charles,

The U.S. is not a democracy. In fact the word democracy is not even mentioned in the Constitution. We are a representative republic because the founding fathers understood the dangers of "majority rule."

Majority rule, or mob rule, is extremely dangerous. First of all, it removes the rights of individuals to make individual decisions. For instance, how would you like it if where you live, how you earn your living, or whom you marry was dictated by majority rule? What if we were to raise our hands and use a majority vote to tell you what kind of car to drive, or whether or not you can wear blue pants or black ones? Those are probably all decisions you'd like to make individually and personally.

Second, majority rule lends credibility to otherwise immoral acts. People begin to think that "it must be ok, because the majority thinks it's ok". I think that anti-war protestors would agree that even though they are in the minority, they still believe their side is correct on the war. (Which side is correct doesn't matter, but being in the minority shouldn't stop them from standing up for what they believe in.) I doubt they care that they are in the minority, and would not stop protesting if we held a big vote and it didn't go their way.

Of course it really should never be about majority opinion, which is why I shy away from polling data. It is interesting to look at, but it shouldn't be used to set policy. After all, there was a point in time when the majority of Americans agreed with slavery, segregation, and rounding up the Japanese-Americans for internment. That doesn't make any one of those events morally right, just because more than 50% of the people thought it was ok to oppress the minority. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any of it either.

I agree with Ravenwood on everything he just said, and add only this half-pence: the Bill of Rights is undemocratic. These happen to be rights that the Founding Fathers thought were so important, they made it so the government could not legitimately take them away. Not even when driven by a democratic majority. They were quite aware of a phenomenon known as the "tyranny of the majority", and sought to nip such things in the bud.

The rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, bearing arms -- none of these can legitimately be voted away. It would take a constitutional amendment, legitimately -- although, practically, all it takes is for a federal judge to decree it and for everyone else to look the other way.

> While my side is ever hopeful that we will remove Dubya's group come 2004 and get those laws recinded so that we don't keep digging our descendants ever deeper into debt.

George W. Bush is what Fred Barnes fondly termed a "big government conservative." Along with Ramesh Ponneru, I question whether there is such a thing. Bush is, by my judgment at this point in time, a good, conservative president in his foreign policy and in his desire for tax cuts. And that's about where it stops. In every other regard I can think of, the man is simply an establishment-Republican reduction of a liberal. Bush is Rockefeller, not Goldwater -- Bush, Sr, not Reagan. Gotta keep your eye on the ball, and in politics that's policy, not personality. It doesn't matter how "conservative" Bush is personally, if he enthusiastically promotes liberal policy.

Debt is not the problem. The problem is the size and scope of the federal government. If we were to shrink the government back down to a reasonable size, there wouldn't be a problem with debt. But liberals seek always to expand government, and then complain that the debt is too large. Either they believe Americans are better off paying higher taxes -- when we already have to work from January to May just to pay the tax bill -- or they want the reduction in personal freedom that comes with having less money to spend. Debt is a compromise. It keeps the leviathan government from completely crushing the productive sector of the economy. So far.

> Also, it seems fair to say in the area of foriegn affairs you are in favor of the U.S. taking by force whatever it is we want.

I favor nothing of the sort. I believe one of the few things government is legitimately empowered to do is to protect us from those who would do violence to us, both foreign and domestic. Regimes that sponsor terrorist activities or commit atrocities are our enemies, and if our security demands they be taken down, we need to take them down. When we make such decisions, I hope we always make them correctly and justly. But when we come to the conclusion that someone needs taking out, no, I do not favor running the decision past Annan and Chirac and begging their exquisite pardons. France liked American force just fine when American force saved French asses from German jackboots.

The world expects a lot out of us. They expect us to be there when they stumble, to assist when we can, to fight injustice when it threatens them -- all on our nickel. But when our security is threatened, they want us to play paddyfingers with the Security Council, while the head of the Human Rights Delegation -- from Libya, no less -- lectures us about sacred human rights. Qaddafy wouldn't know a human right if it were to jump out of his falafel and bite his beret.

> You think your views will win while I strongly suspect it will be my views that will eventually triumph.

Not sure what gave you that idea. You have to fight some fights even if you think you'll lose.

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary091603.asp

Sure, although the U.S. government is touted as a democracy by the media and, it seems, as well as by most of our citizens, it is not a democracry. That's why I've always refered to it as a representational republic or as a "so-called" democracy. Technically it may be termed as a democratic representational republic.

Hell, that's basic stuff which has been addressed time and again in past responses. As far as a needed elitest group to keep the masses in line, I guess that's okay if you are one of the elitest, etc.

The fact remains that our representatives are elected directly by the people and it is those representatives who make the laws by which we live. When they feel the heat from those who put them in office, many respond. A case in point is the 12 Republicans and one Independent who just yesterday voted with 42 Democrats to repeal the latest FCC ruling spearheaded by M. K. Powell. Also 2 democrats voted with the majority of Republicans against that repeal. ( Hey, I also realize it ain't over `til the fat lady sings. By the time it gets through the house, if it does, the so-called repeal might be singing a very different tune. )

Lee:>But liberals seek always to expand government, and then complain that the debt is too large.

There you go again, speaking for all liberals. It amazes me when you attack liberals for expanding government when in recent years the largest expansions of government has been created by Republican administrations. Yet I guess in all fairness to you, I must admit it seems, in that regard, they are not always your kind of Republicans.

In either case this lefty liberal is not for expanding government simply because a group of politicians want to look good. It seems to me that HomeLand Security falls into that bracket. So far the Bush administration has spent 36 billion on so-called Homeland Security yet they haven't backed them by providing inforceable codes. In effect Bush has created a 36 billion dollar toothless toy poodle which they tout as being a ferrorcious pit bull.

Since we've covered the remaining of your statements in previous responses I see no profit in repeating them with you.

Lee:>Not sure what gave you that idea. You have to fight some fights even if you think you'll lose.

LOL, Well I got that idea because your party is in power. Because of that hard fact it seems that you have the better hand. Since I'm an Independent left liberal who also has little respect for most Democrats, I will feel only marginally better to have someone like Dean in office.

I've also finally decided that if Kerry wins the Demo primary, I won't vote for either party. I just can't abide someone like Kerry who refuses to be accountable for his actions, particularly in reference to important things like voting for going to war then, when it suits him, defending his actions with innane denials, etc.

So as it now stands, other than Dean, who I don't see as having a snow balls chance in hell of being elected, it seems if Clark doesn't win the demo primarys, I'll probably throw my vote away by placing it as a protest vote on some obscure fringe candidate. On the other hand, I will feel wildly better if Clark pulls it off and ousts your party.

And I do agree with you that we need to fight some fights even if we suspect we may lose.

Republicans are "not my party". Republicans are the ones who say they agree with conservative principles. Usually, any choice by the time it is offered to me is between the guy who really, truly believes in expanding the size and scope of the federal government, and the one who pretends he doesn't. I am a conservative first and a Republican a distant second. As I have pointed out, and you have caught on, Bush is by my measure a very liberal president except in matters of national security. That is, if policy is important.

Bush has indeed presided over the largest expansion of government at least since LBJ. This is not a conservative agenda, and any reading of the conservative journals (National Review, American Spectator, etc.) would reveal that conservatives are unhappy with at least that part of the Bush agenda. Sometimes, good political strategy is bad national strategy, and sometimes, an administration cannot tell the difference. I think it is very bad national strategy to move left on economic issues, but history tells us this is good political strategy for a Republican administration, if the Democrats have gone off the left edge, as have the Democrats. The Dimmies would be much better off agreeing with Bush on the war and foreign relations, maybe even hitting him from the right, and then hitting him from the left on the other issues. Bush is using what political scientists call the "Strategy of convergence." Democrats should recognize it, Clinton certainly gave them a masterful lesson in it from 1994 to 2000. But some people are slow learners, and that includes the leaders of both parties.

I'll say this just once more: It is not a conservative position to expand the power and scope of the federal government. There is nothing wrong with making it do the job it is supposed to do, i.e., fight for national security, but there is everything wrong, from the conservative perspective, with preferential policies, welfare, housing projects, social security, minimum wage laws, medicare, medicaid, free this, free that, for everyone. Government programs tend to have the opposite effect from the expressed intentions that put them in place. If you want good cheap housing, for example, let the government install wage and price controls, and watch the price of housing jump through the roof. And so on, and so forth. To the extent Mr. Bush sign onto all this, he is not a conservative president. He is conservative only to the extent that he favors strong national defense, free market economics and otherwise smaller government. This doesn't mean I despise Mr. Bush, only that he is going to do all the wrong things, and conservatism is going to get the blame when the bill comes due. With Republicans, this is an old pattern.

Seems that Gen. Clark has been telling fibs. The latest one is about how he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.asp

If Clark has indeed been telling lies, that might explain Clinton's enthusiasm for him.

I don't want to make this about me but I've got a confession:

I've lied before. I don't remember any specific instances, but I know I've done it. Usually, I guess, its something I try to put behind me quickly and move on.

Folks that don't ever lie certainly have every right to expect a candidate to meet their own standard of excellence.

For me, I try not to expect more from someone else than I would myself. I had legal troubles with driving and alcohol in my youthful days so I never mentioned Bush's own problems in this area.

Does this make me a better person? Maybe. Probably. It certainly makes me feel more mature. Ya know.. "walk a mile in my footsteps, blah blah.."

Now, I understand "paint the candidate as a liar" is a tactic but since we all lie, why don't we all just agree its a sleazy bullshit way to score political points?

Why don't you re-run Romans 3:23 again Lee and tell us how YOU have fallen short of the Glory of God. Cite specific examples of when you've lusted after your neighbor or fudged on your taxes.

When you're done, proceed with this in mind: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I dunno, Lope, none of that seemed to matter when Richard Nixon was the liar. His lying tended to outrage people, especially my good friends on the Left. Harry Truman once said about Nixon, long before Watergate: "Nixon would lie about anything. And if he ever did find himself telling the truth, he'd lie about that, just to keep his hat in."

Even now, the Angry Left seems pretty darn angry about whether Bush lied to get us into Iraq. So I think lying is a pretty potent political charge. And if lying is a political issue, I think we ought to spread opprobrium where is applies and not necessarily on one side.

It is generally conceded, even by Democrats, that Mr. Clinton was not just a liar, but exulted in lying. Former Sen. Bob Kerry, a Democrat, said of Clinton that he's "an extraordinarily good liar," and then repeated for effect: "Extraordinarily good." So pardon me, if you will, for noticing that Kerry was rght.

Someone who lies regularly as a general strategy and smiles smugly when caught is not to be confused with a poor sinner who struggles against the wickedness within himself and abjectly and humbly repents of his ways.

And yes, I've lied. The Bible says if a man tells you he never lies, the truth is not in him. However, I have not ever had the opportunity to perjure myself under oath, and will gladly stipulate now that if I were ever to do so, I would be unfit to serve as president on that basis alone. Mr. Clinton has had such an opportunity, failed his test, and then gone on not only to lie about that, but to enlist others to help him lie.

Now unless you want to dispute the factual content of anything I just wrote, do you have any other issues to argue about aside from my personal shortcomings, which -- again -- seem to fixate you?

Since when did all lies become equal? I mean, telling your wife she doesn't look fat in that dress is certainly not as big of a deal as say... violating your oath of office.

Great point Steve. Its silly to compare Wesley Clark's disputed anecdotal story with Bill Clinton's misdeeds. Thanks for weighing in on this.

I'm so used to you taking the lazy right-wing cheap shot that I'm practically speechless from your latest post. Well, the part about you calling my wife fat sorta took my breath away too.

I won't tell her.

The Left's entire attitude about lying is very instructive, or seems so to me. Al Franken, who is very well respected on the Left, has a new book out: "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Obviously, when he wrote that, Mr. Franken wasn't thinking, "Gee, you know, I've lied too, so who am I to cast the first stone?" But apparently he believes the issue of lying is important enough to complain about in one's political enemies.

But something interesting happened along the way to writing that book. Mr. Franken called John Ashcroft for an interview, and told Mr. Ashcroft he was writing a book about cases where teaching sexual abstinence had successful results. Lo, upon publication, Mr. Ashcroft discovered that the interview was published not for the expressed purpose, but rather to provide Mr. Franken with grist for his sarcastic humor. So Mr. Franken got his interview based on false pretenses: In other words, he lied.

So not only does someone who stood by Clinton during his perjuries have the guts to write a book, no less, about the lying of conservatives, but he has the gall to do so having lied about the content of his book.

Franken apologized for his lies, but did not apologize to Ashcroft, who is the injured party. He apologized to the money guys at the university on whose behalf his "research" was being conducted (it was Harvard or Yale, I get them mixed up).

At times like this, I honestly don't know what to think about my good friends on the Left. What's the philosophy here? That lying is very bad, but only when conservatives do it? That's what it seems like.

Clinton: Sex scandal
BushII: DUI

tit for tat

> tit for tat

Bush's DUI was a felony?