PeterDavid.net

Well, I agree that what is really a sign of intelligence and thought is often distorted as its opposite (and vice versa), and hearing Rush Limbaugh talk (or reading a transcript of his shows) presents another example (and I'm only mentioning Limbaugh because it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head of someone who's speech I've read unedited), but man if I wasn't suprised to see to see "PAD" instead of "Glenn" at the end of that entry, Peter, as it is possibly the most rhetorical and least reasoned comment I've ever seen you direct at your political opposites.

"Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences."

And yet amazingly says nothing substantive, meaningful, or even truthful. I'll take inarticulate words that I can at least trust Bush means, rather than the blather Kerry serves up.

that's how intelligent people talk

Sorry, but you're wrong on this PAD. Clinton is equally, if not more intelligent, and yet he does not talk in the pedantic manner that Kerry does. On the flipside, Reagan wasn't an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech. So you're drawing a correlation without basis.

You know, as a registered Republican, i am seriously considering my true party loyalty. Not because Bush is an idiot, but because every other Republican i know immediately falls in line to defend him. I know these people, I know they aren't stupid, but they continue to defend him.

Democrat, Republican, Whatever. Bush is just plain an idiot. With every passing day i am more embarassed and ashamed that he even got the GOP nomination four years ago over McCain.

Very interesting PAD. Not sure if its entirely true, but it is an interesting observation. I can say that I've met many intelligent people who couldn't speak to people in a random mannerism very similar to how Shrub2 speaks, but could write the socks off a reader. Speaking fluently and eloquently to an audience isn't necessarily a sign of intelligence, it seems to be more of a quality. Some people have it and some don't. Same with intelligence. Kerry has it. Shrub2 does not. And I'll bet your right about the next generations questionings. I'm questioning myself as to how it happened. There are so many more "liberals" than there are "conservatives" in this country. If only 2/3 of the liberals voted the conservatives would lose every major election. But sadly the liberal youth is so apathetic to the voting that it becomes a race. Hopefully things will change this election. Especially if we get rid of the Dibold machines...

As one famous president said, "Well there you go again." I remember many of the same things being said about Reagan 20 years ago, and he is still highly respected by a large number of people. In fact, for those willing to do so, read the book of his letters. These are not speeches written for him, these are personal letters showing the depth of his convictions and his great ability to communicate.

But I digress. I agree that of the two, Kerry is more articulate. But I also believe that of the two, Bush is saying what he really means. Kerry is measuring his words, but without the skill of Bill Clinton. Bush is not eloquent, but neither is he an idiot. Kerry is eloquent, but he is very uninspiring. There is a huge difference between being well spoken and being condescending. I find Kerry condescending.

As mentioned above by others, I am actually surprised by your post. Our political views are very far apart, but you normally do not demean people by saying those who support Bush are uneducated. I am amazed how someone's dislike (or even hatred) for a president can influence a debate. I saw it with how people treated Clinton. I disagreed with Clinton's policies but rejected the personal attacks on him (such as the allegations he had people murdered while governor of Arkansas). I see it now with Bush. I can understand your disagreeing with Bush's policy in Iraq. But your underestimating his ability to think is pointless. Bush has been very effective as president (tax cuts, education, the war on terror). You may not like what he did, but there is no question that he did not just talk about things -- he did them.

So I don't think you will be voting for Bush anytime soon. But if you really want to see him out of the White House, you might want to look below the "flailing" words and see that he does get his point across.

James in Iowa

"Sorry, but you're wrong on this PAD. Clinton is equally, if not more intelligent, and yet he does not talk in the pedantic manner that Kerry does. On the flipside, Reagan wasn't an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech. So you're drawing a correlation without basis."

Sorry, but you're wrong on this, Matt. Go watch Clinton in any of the debates. When asked a question, he pauses, thinks, considers the answer for a good long time before responding. In other words, he does what Kerry does. Nor do I agree that Kerry is pedantic. I watched him on "Meet the Press," a full hour, and he wasn't pedantic at all. A brief clip from a stump speech, which is how most people judge him, doesn't begin to compare to just watching him in relaxed conversation for sixty minutes. He's getting a bad rap from that gosh-darned liberal media. As for Reagan, of course he could sell a speech. Big deal. It was pre-scripted, he was an actor.

So, what you're saying is anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

And I think in 50 years people will be wondering why the hell we kept adhering to this silly two party system when both parties had been corrupted and stopped actually being anything more than self perpetuating money machines for very small minorities.

That you buy the Democrats lies is as sad to me as the fact that other people buy the Republicans lies.

Wake up. Neither party offers any real alternative. Why argue over which man's gonna bugger you? They're both gonna do it, you might as well just flip a coin, bend over and lube up.

Or you could actually think for yourself and stop being a follower of a party.

Peter, stick to writing comic books. I like your comic books.

"I agree that of the two, Kerry is more articulate. But I also believe that of the two, Bush is saying what he really means. Kerry is measuring his words, but without the skill of Bill Clinton. Bush is not eloquent, but neither is he an idiot. Kerry is eloquent, but he is very uninspiring. There is a huge difference between being well spoken and being condescending. I find Kerry condescending."

And having listened to Kerry for a sustained period of time, I don't. I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There's no automatic merit in that. That a man who has screwed up so consistently is so intellectually stunted that he cannot come up with a single mistake shows arrogance far and above any alleged condescension from Kerry. And yes, Bush is an idiot. The last thing he said that I ever agreed with him on is that the US shouldn't be in the business of nation building. That was back in 1999. Too bad that mistake didn't occur to him when asked.

"As mentioned above by others, I am actually surprised by your post. Our political views are very far apart, but you normally do not demean people by saying those who support Bush are uneducated."

Nor did I say that here. I said, and I quote, "What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he's inarticulate and it doesn't bother them, because many of them aren't much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don't read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they."

First, I said "many," not "all." Second, I never said "uneducated." Third, I wasn't limiting it to Bush supporters. Considering the staggering illiteracy rate in this country and the fact that many people *don't* read (80% of book sales in this country are made by 5% of the population), I'd say it's more a case of the country as a whole getting exactly the president it deserves.

PAD

"So, what you're saying is anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot."

No, although I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that anyone who reinterprets what I say and attacks the reinterpretation is an idiot, if that's of any help. And people who say "Stick to comics" also strike me as idiots, if for no other reason than I haven't been sticking only to comics in twenty years of writing. So if you don't want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic. Just a thought.

This country has a history of doing stupid things that are appalling to subsequent generations. Jailing people simply for speaking out against the government. Interring Japanese-American citizens. Destroying the careers and lives in anti-Communist witch hunts. And these stupid things are supported by learned men at the time, ranging from Supreme Court justices to presidents. Men whom no reasonable person could think of as idiots.

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I don't even think that anyone who supports Bush is stupid. I do think, however, that thirty years from now, they'll regret that they did, in the same way that they now might look with embarrassment at pictures of themselves in leisure suits from the 1970s and say, "What the hell was I thinking?"

PAD

Well, so much for that "no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric" resolution from a while back. :-)

Peter David: I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There's no automatic merit in that. That a man who has screwed up so consistently is so intellectually stunted that he cannot come up with a single mistake shows arrogance far and above any alleged condescension from Kerry.
Luigi Novi: Or, as one poster suggested on the blog thread devoted to that point some time back, that Bush simply didn't want to take the bait of a reporter who may have been looking for a sound bite.

(Btw, anyone know who asked Bush that question, and whether he or she had political leanings of record? That blog entry by Peter didn't mention the identity of the reporter.)

Dee:

Hmm, speaking of illiterate...

First off, what makes his medals phony?

Second off, is there anything in that rant even approaching coherent writing?

Third, Bush ain't exactly a po boy. Hell, he isn't even from Texas. I've never been east of Four Corners and I'm more authentically southern than him.

If you want to see a flipflopper, nothing beats Bush's record. All of Kerry's supposed "waffles" are from taking votes that occured 15 years apart out of context and comparing them to each other. "Oh no! He voted for a tax increase in 1984 and voted against one in the 1990s! Whatever shall we do?"

Also, off topic, I bought Negima volume 1 today and I just wanna congratulate Peter on a bangup job. You don't know how worried sick I was that it'd end up like one of TokyoPop's "translations".(For those unfamiliar, with Battle Royale they essentially erased the text from the bubbles and then completely made everything up off the top of their head.) Anyway, it was a pretty big shock to open the inside cover and see your name on the copyright page. Generally, my only problem is the shortening of "Library Expedition Club" to "Library Club" on the class roster. I don't know many normal library clubs that conduct their activities with headlamps and climbing gear...of course, since half of Volume 2 focuses on them, that'll probably be fixed.

The mess in Iraq is growing bigger day by day. The more I hear and see about it, the more disgusted I am.

Not only was Bush unable and unwilling to answer the question what is biggest mistake was, he was even unable and unwilling to apologize for the torture Iraqis suffered in the hands of US soldiers. Also today, there was a lot of talk going on in British news that the reputation of the USA is suffering more and more in the Arab world. Definitely - but not just there. It also happens in Western countries, including Britain.

(And, yes, I know and have seen some of the torture photos showing alleged torturing of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers, but there are serious doubts about their authenticity. First of all, you don`t see any faces on these photos and I find it very strange that they appeared just after the release of the US torture pictures).

Now I even heard about Iraqi prisoners being murdered by US soldiers. I also heard that it took a long time until US papers, and the media in general, reported what is going on. Here it was headline news immediately, also the alleged photos showing Iraqis tortured by British soldiers appeared quickly on the front pages. I am not living in the USA, therefore I am curious: Is there the same feeling of outrage in the population in the USA as it is here? I very much hope so!

To me, Bush is simply not re-electable. Of course I am no US citizen, so that my opinion doesn`t make a difference here: I can`t vote either way. But I know, should Bush lose, it will help to regain some of the respect the USA lost.

"Looks like I'll have to stop coming here. If you think your anti war hero Kerry is going to beat Bush you really are in for a rude awakening. I can't wait to see Kerry's expression when he actually loses something. Take your rich anti war hero and shove him. Im from the samne state as he is and Im ashamed of it just like all the Anti's who were ashames of being from Texas."

Actually, I've said the exact opposite, repeatedly: That Kerry is likely going to lose.

But thanks for trying to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about when I say people don't read and there's a literacy problem in this country. Boy, you sure showed ME.
PAD

"Well, so much for that "no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric" resolution from a while back. :-)"

As I recall, I simply said we would endeavor to be civil to one another. I have been, despite the endeavors by others to try and recharacterize my comments into the most insulting form possible. I think saying, "If you don't want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic" was pretty civil.

As for the "sound bite" business, Luigi, I still maintain you're giving him way too much credit. His expression, his confusion, his complaining that he wished he'd had the question in advance, all cleary indicated that he was simply clueless. And I think just standing there looking dumb was a far more damaging sound bite than any other answer he could have said.

PAD

"Second off, is there anything in that rant even approaching coherent writing?"

Yeah, that was kind of the point I was endeavoring to make.

Glad you liked "Negima," by the way. Kath and I were pretty nervous as to how the final product would be received since we'd never done anything like this before.

PAD

"Reagan wasn't an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech." Matt Alder.
True. Then again Ronald Reagan was a trained, professional actor before he entered politics.
He was even a pitchman for Borax soap. Anyone remember "Death Valley Days"?
But a likeable public persona alone does not make a canidate.
Or at least it shouldn't.

"Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hell was going through your mind."

I for one doubt this very much. I think history will look back on Bush mostly favorably. Granted, he won't be viewed as the greatest president, but one of the better ones who tried to do something to better this nation. And in 30 year, people will be looking back and wondering how the liberal left became so bitter and petty with all of their senseless attacks. History will deem these miguided fools of the left as the "enemy within." I'm just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we'll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism.

I don't really see the point in calling Bush an idiot. If someone likes Bush they are just going to say your being mean and unfair. If they don't like Bush...so what they already don't like him. Maybe it gives you some satisfaction??? Whatever the reason for using the word (and correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to base your judgement on his manner of speaking. No doubt public speaking is very important for any leader and I admit he's not the best speaker we've had, but I really don't see how you can call him an idiot.

Peter David:" I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There's no automatic merit in that. "
For a politican I would have to say that quality has merit.

I think polls show that most people don't know much about Kerry and pretty much parrot the anti-Kerry ads the Bush folks have run and run. (That's the advantage of so much money--remember, as bad as it was, a lot of people tried the New Coke in the 80's, because everyone saw the ads!)
One hope is that Kerry will do many relaxed extended interviews and town hall meetings so voters can see him at length and get comfortable with him--and not let the Bush people define him as Gore part 2 (smarter than others, relies on polls too much, lies--wait, those last ones may be about the Bush people). The Bush people don't seem to trust the president with longer interviews--his appearance on MEET THE PRESS was the start of some bad poll down turns. I'm guessing whatever debate format will be chosen by Bush won't allow anything beyond prepared news bites.
One major observation in these partisan times--Bush voters don't like to be told how bad Bush is. It makes them defend him all the more. (His poll numbers bounced up the last few weeks during the downturn with the war.) Saying that Bush is a blight could make them feel stupid for voting for him--and no one wants to think they are stupid. Problem is--I don't know how one can dish on Bush without making his supporters feel stupid. And he has extremely fervent fans who, like Bush, can't conceive that mistakes have been made in the first place.
It's going to be a long summer--and possibly 4 years. (Think of Bush with no reason at all to moderate his views because he'll never have to worry about reelection!)

"I for one doubt this very much. I think history will look back on Bush mostly favorably. Granted, he won't be viewed as the greatest president, but one of the better ones who tried to do something to better this nation. And in 30 year, people will be looking back and wondering how the liberal left became so bitter and petty with all of their senseless attacks. History will deem these miguided fools of the left as the "enemy within." I'm just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we'll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism."

In 30 years, after the terrorism inspired fearmongering has subsided, I see Bush being labeled as one of the most corrupt presidencies in recent times. There are far too many unethical sutuations ( from the exposing of undercover CIA agents to the suspiciously cozy corporate connections to the outright lies that have been told to the US public to the disastrous war of choice in Iraq) that are glossed over at the moment because we are supposedly at war and most feel uncomfortable criticizing a President during war time even one such as this.
If not for the Iraq War I feel that Bush would be in the middle of impeachment hearings right now for his misappropriation of funds and for his outright lies and attempted cover up of the cost of his Medicare bill.

And if people will look back at this time and deem the Dems bitter and petty then I think they'd also lump the GOP in with them based on the eight years of hysterical hatred that was aimed at Bill Clinton ( and still seems to creep up on a daily basis despite the fact that Clinton isn't president anymore).
You'd think after so many years of throwing shit that the Republicans wouldn't be such whiny girls when the crap comes flying back at them.

It was mentioned above, but immediately buried in ad hominem attacks, that Bush has made at least one colossal error which he fails to admit.

Either he was wrong during his campaign against Gore, when he said the US had no business being part of any nation-building process, or he's wrong now, when he's engaged the US in an almost single-handed nation-building process. One or the other, folks - they can't both be true...

...and the Kerry "waffle" examples all seem to need at least a 15-year period to compare on! :)

Sorry, but no matter how Kerry says what he says it's the CONTENT that matters. For example--he is now claiming that a recent speach where he said that he would consider sending Jimmy Carter as a middle east envoy was actually put in there by overzealous speach writers. When it was pointed out that he specifically said in the speach that he had called Carter and spoken to him about this proposal he then claimed that he HAD indeed done so but only AFTER reading the speach and seeing that he was SUPPOSED to have already talked to him.

Think about it.

I mean, wow. Manchurian candidate, anyone? But with Kerry it's ALWAYS some underlings fault. If he wins it's going to be comedy gold for Saturday Night Live.

And 20, 30, 50, years from today I'll be proud to have my thoughts preserved, I suspect. Right or wrong, they were based on reason, not emotional needs to be right or better than anyone else.

Peter, it's not the silences, altho the comedians do have fun with the Shatneresque style (altho considering his great run currently on THE PRACTICE as "Denny Crane" I might change that to Kirkesque), it's what said.

Saying that he actually voted for the 87 million for the troops in Iraq before voting against it . . . Bush campaigners couldn't have made a better anti-Kerry quote.

And as badly as Bush did on MEET THE PRESS, Tim Russert tore Kerry a new one, by using audio from Russert's competition, FACE THE NATION, to play Kerry saying before voting against the 87 million that even if the tax breaks for the rich were left in that no politician would vote against the 87 million, against the troops.

It's not the silences, it's what said. Then again after several decades in the senate, it's somewhat understandable, except Joe Biden of Delaware, John McCain of Arizona, or Dick Durbin from Illinois, all long-time politicians and senators, yet can string together sentences that are reasonably clear.

True, Bush is a far less articulate off the cuff or off the script, but then if elections were about the better speaker, then Al Sharpton would have gotten the nomination, or at least John Edwards. Then again, Bush has beaten more articulate speakers: Ann Richards, Al Gore (despite a time of peace with a great economy and surpluses as far as the eye could see) and in a time of a losing war (or maybe a losing "peace"), an economy struggling to recover, is edging out John Kerry.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Yes, Bush did beat Gore in 2000, in Gore's home state of Tennessee, Clinton's home state of Arkansas and won the electoral vote in Florida. It's not like Gore didn't know about the electoral college. The major media have all mentioned as far back as 1980 someone could conceivably win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Eight years as Veep, and Gore did nothing to get rid of the electoral college

P.P.S. Contrary to popular myth, Florida was NOT the state with the most voting "irregularities" in the 2000 general presidential election. That "honor" belongs here, to Illinois, home of Chicago, where the motto "Vote early, vote often" has become cliche. Even in a state where only one Republican holds state-wide office, jack squat has been done toward eliminating or even simplifying the electoral college system, and little has been done about the balloting system. While some of the richer suburbs have gotten spiffy new ballot machines, punch ballots, akin, tho not identical, to Florida are still being used in Chicagoland area.

P.P.P.S. I'm neither pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. In a choice between two evils, I choose not. Or as George Carlin put it, "If you vote then you have no right to complain." Or as Norman Jewison wrote in the movie AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, which Al Pacino got to say, "I'm not out of order, the whole system's out of order!"

Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.

Which is ironic, since just the other day I asked my mom to explain President Ford.

"Which is ironic, since just the other day I asked my mom to explain President Ford. "

I once saw Ford described in a magazine as "a man who through sheer decency pulled a shattered country together." I think that's a fair description. At the time I was outraged that he pardoned Nixon, and there's no question in my mind that it cost him reelection. But in retrospect I think he was right: Enough was enough.

" I'm just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we'll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism."

Ahhh, so now liberals aren't just unpatriotic, but "subversive." Perhaps not everyone believes that McCarthyism was a bad idea...

PAD

" I'm just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we'll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism."

PAD:
>>Ahhh, so now liberals aren't just unpatriotic, but "subversive." Perhaps not everyone believes that McCarthyism was a bad idea...

Huh, for a moment I thought that "subversive" was being used to describe our president.

I don't know if Kerry can think fast enough on his fee and has weel-enough designs planned laid out for if he does win, but he can score a HUGE victory in the public eye and help his chances if he goes out and does a lot of unscripted, "don't-know-the-Q's-in-advance" interviews and town hall meeting-type events.

Bush and his crew have done everything in their power to obscure what's going on in the White House and to keep Americans as in the dark as they can.

If Kerry can show the people that he can think on his feet, and try to answer questions without GWB's stammering and total non-answers, that'll give him a tremendous boost as a man who at least can speak...

You guys don't understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.

Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds--and considering the multiple debacles already in progress--a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won't be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.

Second term of Bush: Bring it on.

PAD

I love it when people are on the wrong side of history. Just as people supported slavery (which party), and wanted the US to stay out of WW2 (which party?), and felt that communism was no threat (which party?) I agree that in 30 years people will look back and think "what were they thinking?". Of course the question is, "which party?".

I love it peter! Cut off your nose to spite your face! Not saying I disagree but its just a crazy thing to do to the country (letting him get re-elected), nyah , nyah told ya so. But, hey if the followers of this man believe in him so much let's see how far they are willing to follow him so blindly. How many freedoms will deteriorate, how many more battles we will become engaged in, how far the environment will deteriorate, how far the economy will slide. I fear this man but, like you said Peter lets see this man crumble, fall and burst into flames. Well, not waht you said but just what I am hoping for. ;)

Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner....

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Yep, Just Like Clinton

With each passing day, I think more and more about moving to Costa Rica. Saddly, there are no comic shops there. Ah well.

I am frankly getting tired of political debate. Bush sucks. That's a given. His is an administration that is full of industry insiders and ideological fanatics. I don't want him to be president anymore. Gore, oops, I mean Kerry, also sucks. He has no political acumen. He has a war record and political record that are incredible assets, and he gets bogged down on the difference between a medal and a ribbon. And he has yet to really define his vision for America. I don't think I want him as President either.

Conservatives suck. They are so smug and so rigedly committed to their point of view that they cannot even conceed when they are wrong. Liberals suck. They are so smug and rigidly committed to their point of view that they cannot even conceed when they are wrong.

BTW, Democrats were the party of states rights in the Civil War, but Republicans were actually the party that underestimated Communism and Hitler. Truman and Kennedy were far more hawkish on Communism, and more prone to use the CIA for "mischeif" than Eisenhower, or even Nixon, were. The problem with being on the wrong side of history is that you won't known you are on the wrong side for twenty or thirty years. So everyone, you liberals and you conservatives, when you open your mouths. And for God's sake, have a sense of humor. Somebody throw a pie!

Ben Hunt

Funny what pushes someone's buttons. I'm used to the unfounded Bush-bashing, but comparing Carol to Kerry is horrifying (admittedly, I only spoke with Carol a few times on the phone and don't know her - or love her - anywhere near as much as Peter, but I had (have) a high opinion of her).

I suspect thirty years from now we'll look back with knowledge of the full scope of terrorism and ask "how is it so many of us are still alive? Oh, yeah, GWB."

What would destroy the country is Hillary in Presidential office for any amount of time. There's a terrifying thought.

"lot of people seem to find Kerry's manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing. After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but...that's how intelligent people talk."

Plenty of intelligent people talk like neither Shatner or Kerry and plenty of unintelligent people talk like they do.

Peter, thanks for bringing up something that's been bothering me for a long time, which is this: when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this. I suppose when you've got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; 'I'll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn't matter about the world left behind.'

"What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he's inarticulate and it doesn't bother them, because many of them aren't much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don't read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they."

Can anyone tell me how that is NOT just a long winded roundabout way of calling Bush supporters idiots?

Let's see, Bush supporters don't read much, have only a vague grasp of the English language, and get annnoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than them. That's an idiot where I come from.

If you're gonna say somehting, have the balls to defend it and not pretend it's NOT what you said. That's what you said, even an idiot can understand that's a highly rhetorical slam against people who support Bush.

It's exactly the same as Bush supporters who claim Kerry supporters are cowardly terrorist appeasers.

The rhetoric on both sides is disgusting and the people caught up in all of it will one day regret it. This doesn't help anyone. This strict adherence to party lines and refusal to think outside the box is what got us in trouble in the first place.

I'm done with this. Go on fight your insipid rhetorical war of words while the country goes down the drain because BOTH parties are corrupt and you're too stubborn to admit it.

Peter has a right to say whatever he wants, whether we agree with him or not. This is America, and I - for one - respect his right to be so outspoken in so public a fashion. I may not always agree with you, PAD, but I'll defend your right to say what you want with my dying breath. Whether I like what you've said or not.

Bud

Joe:

>Peter, thanks for bringing up something that's been bothering me for a long time, which is this: when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this. I suppose when you've got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; 'I'll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn't matter about the world left behind.'

Joe, I've actually had the opposite impression. Bush appears to have become more non-forthcoming, resistant, and steadfast as more people have inquired about situations or brought up concerns. A year ago he simply dismissed criticisms. Recently, he appears aggravated, condescending, and critical of anyone who doesn't agree with his tactics.

The Iraqi WMDs are in Syria!

The UN is a scandel filled horrer!

Bin Laden is dead!

The terrorists are REAL and they are losing!!!!!!!

Your economy is doing great!

I'm black, PAD. In thirty years I'll probably dead. Even if I'm not, I'm not likely to care or remember what happen thirty years before.

If I do, I 'll be lying on my Bahamas beach hideaway, wondering how they could have gotten that Global Warming thing so wrong, and thinking, "I'll bet Peter David feels like a fool right about now."

"Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen."

I kind of look at this sense of revulsion as starting with Clinton, continuing with Bush but in different symptons of revulsion, and cannot but anticipate continued illness with either a Kerry or Bush victory.

PAD wrote: "Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hell was going through your mind."

No, historians 30 years hence will marvel how the two largest political parties in the United States could not find a candidate who was appealling to a majority of Americans for both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

I'm still waiting for Kerry to give me SOME reason to think about voting for him. Does he have any specific PLANS about ANYTHING? Does he have ANY vision that is more than just the same old rehashed rhetoric?

"I'm for more jobs, better education for our children, and better health care for all Americans," Kerry says. Well, duh. What serious political contender in the past 200 years HASN'T said he or she is for these things? If Kerry would tell me specifically HOW he plans to get these and other campaign promises accomplished, he'd get my attention. So far, however, the "ABB" reason is all I hear Democrats bandy about (Anyone But Bush). That just doesn't cut it with THIS independent voter.

Go watch Clinton in any of the debates. When asked a question, he pauses, thinks, considers the answer for a good long time before responding. In other words, he does what Kerry does.

It's one thing to pause BEFORE answering a question. It's another thing to pause after every few words. Kerry has these long run-on sentences, full of qualifiers, where he never gets to the point and thereby loses people on his message. I'm not just going by soundbites. I watch the Kerry events, hoping to get a sense that this guy can seize hold of the American psyche, give it a good shaking, and say "Wake up!" But he's just putting everyone on snooze. I'm really starting to think Dean would have been the better candidate. He could get people's attention. He could communicate a position clearly and boldly.

I watched him on "Meet the Press," a full hour, and he wasn't pedantic at all.

I'd agree he is stronger in that one on one format, but he still has trouble getting to the point. I think it stems from his career in the Senate, where being long-winded is an asset. In any event, he might do better in his speeches if could imagine himself talking to just one person, rather than making a speech on the Senate floor.

As for Reagan, of course he could sell a speech. Big deal. It was pre-scripted, he was an actor.

90% of these campaigns are pre-scripted. Heck, they go into the interviews with talking points, and are instructed by their staff not to veer away from them. Kerry's got learn some of those acting skills if he wants to win.

"Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner....

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Yep, Just Like Clinton."

"It's not really 'torture' - it's 'abuse'!"

Sounds like Rumsfeld to me (and Rummy never did say why he seemed to think that "abuse" was OK)...

For some supposedly so intelligent....I find it amazing he could support every piece of major legislation proposed by a supposed idiot.

PAD: "Second term of Bush: Bring it on."

Peter,

As a fellow liberal, I have had this thought as well. Unfortunately, a few minutes of thought will reveal that the price is too high.

If Bush is given another four years in office, that's a long time to pack the Federal benches and (god forbid) the Supreme Court with anti-choice and anti-privacy advocates. That's a price that we will pay for years and decades to come.

As both of us are fathers with daughters, the possibility of back alley abortions scares the hell out of me. As both of us are writers with a liberal bent, how long will we last in an environnent where Ashcroft is given a mandate from the people? As both of us are free thinkers who have gotten quite comfortable with the freedom to speak our minds, how long will it be until we are both up against the wall enjoying that last cigarette?

It's too high a price to pay for satisfaction.

Spreading liberalism? Shyeah. Liberalism has been contracting since before I was born (1970). Compared to that near-mythical Back Then, the most left-leaning politicians in the Democratic party are almost conservatives. The Democratic governor of Kansas sounded like a moderate Republican when on the campaign trail.

You know, some of my friends think I hate Bush. I don't hate Bush. I don't think he's out to destroy civilization as we know it. I tend not to agree with him.

But you know what irks me? What really irks me? Republicans had a fantastic alternative in the 2000 nominating process, and somehow, that fantastic alternative got passed over for Bush.

That alternative was John McCain. I'm a registered Democrat, but I actually strongly contemplated breaking ranks with my party and voting for McCain if he were to get the nomination. Don't get me wrong...Sen. McCain and I disagree on several key issues. But what strikes me about Senator McCain is that he has substance. Admittedly, I've never been in the same room with him. I've never chatted it up with him. My perceptions may be off-base. But he struck me as principled, decent, deliberative, compassionate, genuinely interested in serving his country instead of serving himself, and substantial. To this day, I wish I'd had the opportunity to vote for him.

I'm reminded of a flashback episode of "The West Wing," where Bartlet is trailing as a dark horse candidate. Leo and Bartlet are standing in the street talking about Bartlet's decision to run, and Leo says, "I'm sick and tired of settling...of choosing the lesser of who cares." That sums up my impressions perfectly.

Yes, Kerry is perhaps more articulate, deliberative, and intelligent than Bush. I've tried getting behind Kerry. I've listened to him, I've seen the debates, I've been an almost daily visitor to his website, trying to find some substantive hook upon which I can lay my loyalty. I ordered Kerry bumper-stickers, but I've no desire to put them on my car yet, because Kerry has yet to truly define himself as anything other than a Vietnam veteran who is not Bush.

But I don't want Bush to get a second term. Well, to restate that, I can see PAD's point. Bush and Kerry are both thoroughly unexciting. If Bush wins, then maybe after four more years, the country will be worn out enough to vote for real change. But I dread that happening, for what could happen in that four year interim? But Kerry's not a strong candidate that I can get behind either, so having four years of politics-as-usual under Kerry is not an exciting prospect either.

As to the suggestion that there's this creeping menace of liberalism, I'd have to counter by saying there's likewise a creeping menace of conservative thought pervading the country at the moment. Political ideology in general can be subversive and counter-productive, and to suggest that trading one ideology for another is somehow "safer" seems a little naive to me.

I've become so politically cynical, and that's saying something, because I was a double major in Political Science and English in college. Maybe it's not that I'm politically cynical. Maybe it's that I'm just too damned idealistic, in that I want President Bartlet instead of Bush/Kerry. I want a President of substance. I don't think I'll get that any time soon, because the political party machine on both sides of the aisle is too busy chugging out candidates who serve special interests instead of the best interests of the country.

That's all just my opinion, though. I respect those who disagree with me, and certainly, I mean no offense.

What bothers me almost as much as Bush's mistakes is his refusal to asknowledge them. Over 500 U.S. soldiers killed after he declared an end to major hostilities? He wasn't wrong, he just meant going after Hussein himself. Tax cuts benefit the rich but outsourcing still rampant? It's working, we just have to stay the course. Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He's abhorred -- but no apologies.

Intelligent people make mistakes, acknowlegde them, and learn from them. Bush seems either so deeply in denial in his failures or so committed to saying he was right that he can't acknowledge ANY errors.

Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He's abhorred -- but no apologies.

I find this fascination with getting Bush to apologize for something... ANYTHING to be , well, fascinating.

Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it's occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!

Setting aside the Bush V. Kerry debate as a separate matter, I have to agree with PAD that many people don't seem to have a grasp of the English language, and probably don't read much, or at least not as much as they used to. I often see examples of poor language skills online, including sentences without proper (or any) punctuation, confusion about the use of "your" vs. "you're", "it's" vs. "its" and, in personal attacks, confusing "looser" with "loser."

And there's "words" like "proactive", bandied about in print, online and in speech. Someone apparently decided that we needed a word that would be the opposite of "reactive" and came up with "proactive", apparently forgetting that the word "active" was already being used.

And then there's the incorrect "alright" for the proper "all right."

Unfortunately, I think we, as a society are dumbing ourselves down. Take, as a case in point, the fact that since the senior George Bush has been president, newspapers identify the president by his full name: "President George Bush," "President Bill Clinton", "President George W. Bush." Prior to that, it was just "President LAST NAME." Pick up a newspaper article from the Reagan years or earlier and except on rare occasion, you'll see something like, "President Reagan met today with Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss arms reductions" or "President Kennedy will give his state of the union address tonight" or somesuch.

Those aren't actual lead sentences, by the way, just hypothetical examples. But back then, it was assumed people were intelligent enough to know the president's first name. Or if they didn't know it, they knew how to use an encyclopedia, or at the very least a telephone, to call the paper and/or the reference desk at the local library to find out what it was.

Today, however, it seems that the news media have decided that people won't be able to figure out the president's first name. I write for a newspaper, and while we are generally pretty good at just giving the president's last name, we do the same first name and last name identifier with the mayor and the governor. As with identifying the president, I don't think that's necessary (and have argued the case, repeatedly). I'd like to think people know the mayor's first name and the governor's, or know how to find out if they don't.

I'm reminded of a "Non Sequitur" cartoon I've clipped out and put up on the filing cabinet near my desk. A newspaper editor is admonishing a reporter that he should tone down his writing from the college level to the 8th grade level. The reporter points out the amount of leadership they've lost since catering to that level of literacy. The editor considers for a moment, and then says, "By golly, you're right. Make it fourth grade level." In response, the reporter thinks to himself, "I've GOT to stop depending on logic."

One of the really depressing things is getting material from politicians or people who want to hold political office, and finding basic grammatical errors. You'd think they'd at least have their staff proofread their material-- especially those running for office who are trying to make a good impression.

Speaking of grammatical errors, I once reviewed a mystery novel published by a small press company. The story is good, but there were several grammatical and spelling errors (including "alright"), starting on the very first page. Not only did the writer not spot them, neither did his editor or anyone else responsible for publishing the book. Did they not KNOW there were errors, or did they just not bother to do any proofreading? Who knows?

But it isn't just the written word that people have trouble with. I have, unfortunately, also witnessed examples of people who can't seem to string two coherent sentences together to form a reasoned argument about whatever they're attempting to argue about.

It's not a pretty sight, and I only hope that at some point the trend will reverse itself and people will become more literate and more articulate in the years to come.

Rick

I know this is wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y off topic but I think it bears noting:
I know that for years, PAD has gotten grief from "Buffy" and "Angel" fans who think Peter has stolen from Joss Whedon and ME when it's really been coincidence at best. The funny thing is, the parallels continue. Both PAD and ME have series that are ending. Both of those cancellations have created a fan response calculated to save the series. And in both cases, the creators are saying, "Let it go. Move on. I have."

**-- Ken from Chicago

P.P.P.S. I'm neither pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. In a choice between two evils, I choose not. Or as George Carlin put it, "If you vote then you have no right to complain." Or as Norman Jewison wrote in the movie AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, which Al Pacino got to say, "I'm not out of order, the whole system's out of order!"**

Y'know, for the most part, I wanted to stay out of this (Although why people come here and act surprised to find anti-Bush sentiment is beyond me...) but this noise is just downright ignorant.
I can not, for the life of me, understand why people are so proud to be lazy. "Don't blame me. I took a good look at the situation, didn't like it and did *absolutely nothing* about it. Didn't make it better. Didn't make it worse. Didn't try. Much easier to just sit back, do nothing and snipe."
The reason that Bush and his fellow criminals have been able to perpetrate so many crimes against the American people is because Cheney is a very bad but very shrewd man. You can see that he's figured out, "These cattle will take anything we dish out to them. They're way too fat, stupid, lazy and ignorant to do anything about it and those who don't like it still won't bother to get their fat asses off the couch or their too smug about being above it all."
There is *no such thing* as not making a choice. Politicians are absolutely reliant on your lack of participation and giving them that is nothing to be proud of.
I make this loaded analogy: This is no different than anyone who allowed the Nazis to come into power. They claim they did nothing to help it but they did nothing to stop it too and that's as good as helping.

Wow - a liberal mind being petty about something so stupid. I never thought to ever see such a thing! *End Sarcasm*

My word! Besides Bush, the number of people you just insulting is huge. You basicly just said the American People don't like smart people, becuase we're all just as stupid as Bush. If anybody is stupid, in certinly sounds like it's you. This is a petty argument, with no basis on Bush's skills as a leader. It's insulting and arogant, to assume a person with speech difficulties are dumb.

Some people simply have difficulty talking. I didn't speak right away, as a kid, becuase of medical problems. I had to go to a speech therapist for years. Even today, when I'd say I'm fairly artiuclate - I still have difficulties grasping onto certin words.

I'm not making an comparisons in status - but other leaders in history have had speach difficulties. Moses, for example, had a severe studdering problem - yet overcame it to lead his people out of Egypt.

Now, I can assume your gonna shoot back that he doesn't have a speech problem, - that he just talks badly. Yes - that's probably true. And all the more irrelivent.

When you talk like this, wether you support Bush or Kerry (either one's fine) - you make yourself appear shallow and ignorant of the real issues. Basing your opinions on somebody, based on their speah abilties, is like saying you merely want a pretty package; and not caring wether that package has any substance to it.

"Thirty years from now..."

I think it's rather more likely we'll look back on all the 'Five Minutes of Hate' against President Bush the way the literate among us have started to look at Communist spies in the fifties: after decades of liberals shrieking and shrieking about McCarthyism, decoded Soviet transmissions prove that that Sen. McCarthy was absolutely right, that Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, McCarthur et al were bought and paid for by the blood enemies of the US. The NY Times, after hysterically denying it for almost fifty years, quietly buried the Soviet documents (known as the Venona Project) hoping everyone would forget about, the way the USA Today Freedom of Information Act recount of the Florida votes was buried (Al Gore Jr. lost, by the way. Funny how everyone said count the votes count the votes, until they did, and then you all got suspicously quiet about vote counting). After they finish giving a proper burial Iraqis Saddam murdered over thirty years (300,000 in mass graves, according to the Red Cross) after another few Al Quai'da plots like the one the Jordan that would have slaughtered 80,000 (and was, by the by, orchestrated by Baghdad based bin Laden aide Zarqawi- nope, no Iraq terrorist connect here!), after the WMD stockpiles which Saddam admitted he had and used against the Iranians and his own people are uncovered in Syria (among other places), after the Oil-for-Food scandel publicises the French/Russian/UN conspiracy to keep Saddam in power to the tune of billions (with a b) in illegal oil bribes, after the war crimes trial of Saddam where the inhuman atrocities he committed to maintain his stranglehold on power are brought to light, both in his own country and in the ruthless attempts to take over Kuwait and Iran...
Well, I think there are a few "Bush is the worst world leader of all time ever in history and oh by the way he's a stupidhead" agit-prop liberals that will have some explaining to do.
Or are any Democrats (besides Joe Liberman) honest enough for that? Given enough time, I suspect the Civil War will be rewritten so that the brave Democrats fought the evil Republican Lincoln to free the slaves.
It's just sad, really.

By the way, that "taking the disengaged thing to a zen level" rebuttal (the praise for Mr. David's work is genuine), wasn't that the same season where Bartlett 'accidentally' made a childish, sarcastic while the camera was still on? Why does that sound familiar? And why is it that the height if scintillating debate with Democrats is you all calling Republicans 'stupid'? What is this, elementary school? Oh, Reagan was stupid, oh Ford was stupid, oh Nixon was supid (and mean), oh Bush is stupid. Do you not hear how pathetic that starts to sound after a few decades? Do any of you have a MBA from Harvard? Do you see how infantile that is?
Sorry for the long post. I was just wondering.

Actually, George Carlin didn't say that. There's a big speech circulating around the Net, alternately attributed to either Carlin or Robin Williams; however, anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the work of either man will readily recognize this as being the product of neither. I guess somebody thought it'd sound more impressive if they claimed a celebrity said it.

Second, as Pack has pointed out, in a situation like a national election, there's no such thing as not deciding. Or, as Geddy Lee put it (slightly altering Neil Peart's original words),

"If you decide not to decide,
You still have made a choice!"

I find this fascination with getting Bush to apologize for something... ANYTHING to be , well, fascinating.

Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it's occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!

EClark posts a substance-free rant? Kerry should apologize! :-)

As for a more substantive response ... has anyone suggested Bush should apologize for any of the above? Not that I've seen, though I'd be interested to see the quotes if someone has. Bush is not responsible for Madrid. Or the toe-stubbing. Or the dance. Or the ... well, if the ice caps melt I actually think he probably SHOULD apologize for his unwavering insistence that global warming is a myth.

Abu Ghraib, however, is an event that has occurred on his watch, and he created the environment in which it could occur.

He's the one who got us into Iraq.

He's the one who made Saddam out to be Satan incarnate, so that it's a small leap to assume anyone who worked for him deserves whatever torture they get.

He's the one who casts everything in two-sided "with us or against us" terms, making it extraordinarily difficult for soldiers in tight spots to notice shades of gray.

He's the one who insists POW rules don't apply at Guantanamo, which makes it an easy leap to say "they don't apply here either, motherf****r -- now strip and get on the floor."

I'm not after Bush to apologize for everything up to and including the common cold. I would, however, like to see some indication that he recognizes he's not perfect and that his policies can occasionally lead to problems. I am still waiting.

TWL

I doubt we'll have to wait thirty years for the negatives on Bush to come out. In a few weeks he'll be done to the 40% of the voters who will never desert him unless he gets outed. Although I agree with PAD that karma would dictate that Bush should get elected just to have to clean up his own messes.

"Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen."

Actually, I rather doubt that. For one, most children never asked their parents or grandparents about the American take-over of Hawaii and various other islands in the first half of the twentieth century. It could end up on the History Channel to remind people on occasion, but otherwise, it just sort of slips out of our consciousness. Bush will likely just be remembered as a rather dopey, inarticulate president.

Surges, ordinarily I don't pick apart posts like this. However, if you're going to pose as an intellectual, it might behoove you to take a moment and ensure your post says what you want it to say - about the topic, and about you.

"This is a petty argument, with no basis on Bush's skills as a leader." This is an interesting sentence, with little basis in (not on) proper grammar.

Now, on to spelling issues:

basically
it (not "in", in that context)
arrogant
is (a person [B]is[/B], people [B]are[/B])
articulate
certain
speech
stuttering
you're
irrelevant
whether

(Great, stupid job interrupted - now I have to hope I'm not the seventeenth person to point out the cognitive dissonance here...)

Let's be honest - the errors noted above are so basic, they give the impression that you either don't know the difference, or don't care - neither of which reflects well on you or your post.

Well, so much for that "no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric" resolution from a while back. :-)

We are. If George W. Bush comes here and posts, we'll be perfectly civil to him to start, and will reply to him as he replies to us.

On the other hand, if he continues in his "Who cares what you think?" mode to us, we'll respond in kind.

eClark wrote: "Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it's occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!"

As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don't want Bush to apologize for those things. Now the tax cuts that haven't helped, the war that put our soldiers into the line of fire, the prisoner abuses, these happened under him. (For that matter, 9/11 happened on his watch. So he blamed Clinton's administration.)

How about apologizing for the WMD claims? For months before going into Iraq, all we heard from the administration was Weapons of Mass Destriction: Saddam could launch a missile attack against Britain in 40 minutes, he could have chemical weapons, he's been trying to get nukes, British intelligence says he has them, we must act NOW or face another 9/11. And when they don't turn up? When we've been in control of Iraq for over a year? Does Bush say he was mistaken? No, they might still be there. He used them before. And Hussein was a bad man. Oh, and if he used faulty British intelligence in a State of the Union, nothing to be sorry about there. Why apologize about misleading the American people?

eClark wrote: "Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it's occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!"

As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don't want Bush to apologize for those things. Now the tax cuts that haven't helped, the war that put our soldiers into the line of fire, the prisoner abuses, these happened under him. (For that matter, 9/11 happened on his watch. So he blamed Clinton's administration.)

How about apologizing for the WMD claims? For months before going into Iraq, all we heard from the administration was Weapons of Mass Destriction: Saddam could launch a missile attack against Britain in 40 minutes, he could have chemical weapons, he's been trying to get nukes, British intelligence says he has them, we must act NOW or face another 9/11. And when they don't turn up? When we've been in control of Iraq for over a year? Does Bush say he was mistaken? No, they might still be there. He used them before. And Hussein was a bad man. Oh, and if he used faulty British intelligence in a State of the Union, nothing to be sorry about there. Why apologize about misleading the American people?

Could someone explain to me why liberalism is a disease?

This isn't a smart-aleck question. Nor do I want to know why you're a conservative instead of a liberal. What I want to know is why does the word "liberal" make some people reach for the Lysol.

I'm a liberal as *I* define it. That means I accept society will change, and using old methods to greet the change make not be the best method in dealing with change. A larger number of openly gay people in society? Deal with it by trying to overcome homophobia, allowing for long-term relationships and the legal and social devices available to heteros. 9/11? Track down those responsible while trying to reach out and making less enemies, not more. Economy off the wheels? Use tax dollars to develop new technologies that the private sector can turn into growth, new jobs, and new tax revenues. And so on, so forth...

In other words, why am I a disease? Please explain it to me. Refrain from insults and profanities, if possible. I'm just curious.

"What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he's inarticulate and it doesn't bother them, because many of them aren't much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don't read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they."

"Can anyone tell me how that is NOT just a long winded roundabout way of calling Bush supporters idiots?"

Well, first by the absence of the word "idiot." And second, because I don't think it's limited to Bush supporters.

I think the nation as a whole lacks vision. If for no other reason, I base this on the staggering percentage of people who have zero clue what freedom of expression--the most fundamental right this country should have--actually means. And this is a sentiment that not only cuts across party lines, but is probably even more aggressively embraced by politically correct liberals than it is conservatives.

I think Americans are so eager for a man of vision that they'll embrace someone who possesses it even if that vision is fatally flawed, just because he has one. The main job now of the Bush campaign is to ratchet up the signal to noise ratio so thoroughly that, if Kerry *does* have a vision, it gets buried in a haze of non-issue diarrhea over what he did with his medals thirty years ago. Thus far it's succeeding.

Now if you want to boil all that down to saying that Bush supporters are idiots, go ahead. But it's not an accurate summary of my feelings on the matter. For starters, it lacks vision.

PAD

"Peter has a right to say whatever he wants, whether we agree with him or not. This is America, and I - for one - respect his right to be so outspoken in so public a fashion. I may not always agree with you, PAD, but I'll defend your right to say what you want with my dying breath. Whether I like what you've said or not."

Has anyone noticed that all people named "Bud" are just automatically likable...?

PAD

Has anyone noticed that all people named "Bud" are just automatically likable...?"

That's because Bud's wiser. He's got a good head.

Or maybe that post was just good for what ales you.

I'd better go - that last was beerly acceptable, even by my bockwards standards...

Ray:

>Could someone explain to me why liberalism is a disease?

Near as I can tell it comes down to people feeling that liberal thought threatens the status quo and black & white thought. Change has always met with resistance.

"My word! Besides Bush, the number of people you just insulting is huge. You basicly just said the American People don't like smart people, becuase we're all just as stupid as Bush"

No, I'm saying that many Americans don't like smart people because...well, I don't know why, really. Maybe it goes back to being irritated with the smart kids in the class because their grades blew the bell curve. But there is an anti-intellectualism that pervades almost every facet of this country, and it shows in everything from the level of our entertainment to the level of our presidency. The spiralling level of this country's education isn't exactly news: Johnny hasn't been reading since the 1960s, and since I counted three grammatical mistakes or wrong words in your comment above, well...

PAD

Funny thing is that I was typing out a letter telling Peter David why I wasn't going to get Captain Marvel or any of his comics again, (nor browse this web site again, etc.) when I remembered that part of what our founding fathers died trying to do: give freedom to all so that all may choose for themselves.

Bush or Kerry, it will be our nation's decision - for better or for worse. We, as Americans will have to live with that decision as much as our leaders have to live with their decisions they make on a daily basis.

On this National Day of Prayer, we as Americans we can hope and pray for the best, no matter what the outcome.

http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/

God bless you Peter, it's been fun.

Here's an interesting link for you Bush bashers I just came upon. Kinda nice to see a nice story.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/loc_moment06.html

Jonathan (the other one):

Those beer puns made me so furious, I'm foaming at the mouth.

I guess the question at that point is, is Bush really doing anything to Foster this strange belief that his administration might reinstitute a Genuine Draft? Surely that's just being spread to tap into the nation's fears.

Oh, and one other question: if a beer is brave and cuts down trees, is it a stout-hearted lager?

Apologies to all.

Eric

Paul:

>>On this National Day of Prayer, we as Americans we can hope and pray for the best, no matter what the outcome.

Although this was said only with the best of intentions, the thought process is one of the main reasons why we get ourselves in trouble. People with value systems are not considered, taen into account or recognized as being tolerated for their own way of thought, governence, etc.

National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well... who don't pray.

>>National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well... who don't pray.

Not exactly. We have your "value systems" covered, too. During an Orthodox Christian service we bless and pray for "all the people and everything." We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. ;)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040506/D82D86T80.html

I think you're missing the point, Mike. Saying "I'll pray for atheists in case they're wrong" is the equivalent of telling a Christian "I'll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn't the right one." Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive.

It's not offensive in an in-your-face kind of way, but it just reeks of, if you'll pardon the term, a holier-than-thou attitude.

As Fred said, I don't think you're doing this with anything other than the best of intentions, but this particular atheist would just as soon you don't include me in said prayers. I'll take my own chances.

TWL

What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he's inarticulate and it doesn't bother them, because many of them aren't much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don't read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.

If you can't see that what you have written is arrogant and insulting, than you are either a liar, or you are one of the people that you are alluding to in your "vague grasp of the English language" remark.

"We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. ;)"

But what about the polytheists and the pantheists?

Minds me of the time I told my ex-wife (a neo-pagan) that the people in our neighborhood at the time, in Omaha, NE, considered her a godless heathen. She indignantly retorted, "I beg your pardon - I have SEVERAL gods!"

>>National Day of Prayer and only being able to hope and pray leaves out all of those who, well... who don't pray.

Mike:

>Not exactly. We have your "value systems" covered, too. During an Orthodox Christian service we bless and pray for "all the people and everything." We got all the atheists covered just in case all of you are wrong. ;)

I'd rather have a dollar.

Tim:

>I think you're missing the point, Mike. Saying "I'll pray for atheists in case they're wrong" is the equivalent of telling a Christian "I'll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn't the right one." Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive.

>It's not offensive in an in-your-face kind of way, but it just reeks of, if you'll pardon the term, a holier-than-thou attitude.

>As Fred said, I don't think you're doing this with anything other than the best of intentions, but this particular atheist would just as soon you don't include me in said prayers. I'll take my own chances.

Actually, the prayer and well wishes don't offend me. This in and of itself doesn't cause harm to others. When a group, church or nation acts out in a way that directly and negatively effects another group with different values under the predisposition that it is "the right thing to do" is when I believe that serious consideration and reflection must first take place.

"after decades of liberals shrieking and shrieking about McCarthyism, decoded Soviet transmissions prove that that Sen. McCarthy was absolutely right, that Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, McCarthur et al were bought and paid for by the blood enemies of the US."

Yeah, thank God that Commie bastard Ring Lardner was nailed to the wall. God bless Joe McCarthy.

Geez.

PAD

“Could someone explain to me why liberalism is a disease?”

Because it infects people with the wrong ideas. Liberals tend not to think logically, they “feel” a certain way about issues and that dictates their behavior. For example, why should I pay most of my earnings in endless taxes? Income tax, state tax, property tax, car tax (here in KY), it’s ridiculous. But what is the liberal’s first way to raise money? Raise taxes! Conservatives are for lowering taxes and cutting spending (well, they used to be anyway, and the good ones still are). I know it “feels” good to take money from people who have earned it and give it to people who have not earned it, it’s just not right. And I’m hardly rich, by the way.

Logically, what group in the United States has more money than any other group? People over 65! So why do we need to take my money and give it to seniors in the form of free prescriptions and medical? In addition, Social Security is a socialist, unconstitutional idea. Why does it exist? Why is it not voluntary?

Welfare was meant to help the poor. It has grown into a government monster, yet there are still just as many poor people as there ever were, if not more. This is a typical “feel-good” program, created by socialist liberals. It doesn’t work, but do they suggest trying something different? No. We’re just not throwing enough money at it.

Finally, education. Why are liberals against choice? Liberals will not only insist I send my children to a bad school, they legislate that if I can’t afford private school, I HAVE to! Why? Some liberals say that if there were school choice, the public schools would collapse. What does that say about public schools? Personally, I don’t think that would be true though—it would force schools to be more competitive to attract students. And competition is good. Anti-liberal (cause competition doesn’t make us “feel good”), but good.

I could mention a thousand other ways liberal ideas harm the average American’s lifestyle. Conservatives aren’t perfect, but we certainly are more logical. Liberalism is a disease, yes, but that doesn’t mean all liberals are “diseased.” Some truly believe that high taxes, a welfare state, and throwing money at education are the ways to handle problems, even though these things fail, time and time again. I try to change my liberal friends through logic, not pity or anger.

And respectfully Peter, you are on the wrong side of history. I hope you can admit that in 30 years, when your grandchildren are living safer lives because of George W. Bush.

"What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he's inarticulate and it doesn't bother them, because many of them aren't much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don't read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they."

"If you can't see that what you have written is arrogant and insulting, than you are either a liar, or you are one of the people that you are alluding to in your "vague grasp of the English language" remark."

I don't think the remark was especially arrogant. Arrogant means "filled with one's own self-importance." Perhaps "insensitive" would be more accurate. You probably felt I didn't care whether people would feel insulted. To which my response would be..well, yeah. That's true. Then again, I haven't encountered all that many Neocons who worry about delicate liberal sensibilities, so...

PAD

"I don't really see the point in calling Bush an idiot."

Truth in advertising?

"Peter David:" I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There's no automatic merit in that. "
For a politican I would have to say that quality has merit."

So would I. Not quite seeing the relevance, though...

PAD

"I think you're missing the point, Mike. Saying "I'll pray for atheists in case they're wrong" is the equivalent of telling a Christian "I'll perform a ritual sacrifice in your name just in case the belief system you use isn't the right one." Nice intent, but dancing close to the border of being offensive."

I dunno. I still remember when my brother (I think it was) was about seven and was in the hospital for an operation. He was lying in his hospital room, having just been knocked out in preparation, and my mother was sitting there waiting for them to take him to the OR. And the hospital priest walked in, smiled at my mother, smiled down at my brother, and then made the sign of the cross over him and murmured a few words.

And my mother was about to say that we were Jewish, but then rather pragmatically kind of mentally shrugged and thought, "Eh. Couldn't hurt."

PAD

"I hope you can admit that in 30 years, when your grandchildren are living safer lives because of George W. Bush."

Yeah, when all the jobs are gone and morons like bush and his buddies discover that no one in america can afford to buy anything these companies make because they've shipped all teh jobs overseas to maximize their profits, leaving only low-playing service jobs for Americans, who can't even afford to buy gas anymore, much less a car or other luxuries...

When your safe because big brother is monitoring you 24/7 in your homes and on the street in the name of "Protecting" America and Americans.

Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too...

I knew the definition of arrogant, and intentional or not, the implication of your remark is that you are one of the "people who are smarter than they." and by that token, smarter than most Bush supporters. I would call that arrogant.

"Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too..."

So is this one of those forums that shuts down the thread when Hitler is mentioned? It's always a sign that the bag of legitimate debate tricks is empty ...

Jerry Smith, if you are a true conservative then you should be more angry at the current administration than any democrat in this country because Bush and Co. are undermining and distorting true conservative ideals into some scary, big spending,socially intrusive,individual rights crushing, special interest loving, frighteningly religious monster.
I'm not saying you should vote for John Kerry but there is no way a true conservative would be pleased with the current president.

Finally, education. Why are liberals against choice? Liberals will not only insist I send my children to a bad school, they legislate that if I can’t afford private school, I HAVE to! Why? Some liberals say that if there were school choice, the public schools would collapse. What does that say about public schools? Personally, I don’t think that would be true though—it would force schools to be more competitive to attract students. And competition is good. Anti-liberal (cause competition doesn’t make us “feel good”), but good.

But there are times and places for competition, and education, in many ways, isn't one of them. There are two main reasons that choice/competition is dangerous for our nation:

First, religion-based schools should never be funded with public money. "Establishment of religion" and all that. To do so would weaken any boundary between church and state, and I believe that separation of the two is essential to liberty.

Second, any kind of "voucher" system would cause an "upper-class-SES flight" from the schools, and that weakens public education by removing any interest the upper-SES folks might have in it. "Separate but equal" anyone? Strong public education is essential to combating ignorance. Even though our society is full of ignorance (isn't every society?), think of how much worse it might be if people didn't even have a middle-school level education?

Choice in schools favors those people with the ability and flexibility to transport kids across town to school, and it hurts those students whose family cannot provide that transportation. It favors those parents who would shop around for the "best" school, and it hurts those students whose parents cannot or will not shop around--those students are "left behind".

I am not completely opposed to such choice, but I think calling liberalism a "disease" because it restricts some in the upper-SES while providing tremendous benefit to ALL of the lower-SES is going a bit far.

Eric

>

Actually I think that, given trends, people tend to be less and less informed about politics. I think in 30 years people won't be looking back and seeing the stupidity, because things maybe that much worse.

People tend to vote more on the 'sound bite' and looks. Now note to those who can't read, I said tend.

With former wrestlers and actors whose vision seems to be 'vote for me, I'm famous', thirty years from now you'll have president Brittany Spears running for her second term.

Bush might not look quite so bad in hindsight..... isn't that a scary thought.

PAD wrote:

Considering the staggering illiteracy rate in this country and the fact that many people *don't* read (80% of book sales in this country are made by 5% of the population), I'd say it's more a case of the country as a whole getting exactly the president it deserves.

So readers of newspapers and periodicals don't count as readers because they don't purchase books? What a strange definition you have of the word "reader". I guess if I check out a book from the library and read it, that means I haven't actually read it, because I didn't pay for it.

Talk about trailing off into confusion...

-Dave O'Connell

"Yeah, thank God that Commie bastard Ring Lardner was nailed to the wall. God bless Joe McCarthy."

Don't let the facts (that declassified Soviet messages have indeed proved that McCarthy was right about Soviet infiltration into the highest levels of government) get in the way of your sincerely held opinion. However, I've never been able to understand one thing -

How does the HOUSE (of Representatives) Committee on UnAmerican Activities (which I trust you are referring to when you bring up Ring Lardner) have to do with SENATOR Joe McCarthy?

Kind of two different houses of Congress, ya know?

PAD wrote:

Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.

The only thing I can be sure of thirty years from now is that the Democrats will still be blaming Ralph Nader for Bush's rise to power instead of their own ineptitude.

-Dave O'Connell

I can't stand Bush. That moron has done more harm then good to this country then any of the presidents before him. He lies, can't speak English, has pissed off almost every allies we ever had, enraged the Arabs, tossed away BILLIONS in surplus to replace it with BILLIONS in debt, invade a poorly defended nation, ignored a hostile North Korea, gave tax cuts to the rich and lets special interest run his national policy.

The man (cough cough) should be tried for crimes against humanity, and jail for the rest of his life. He makes me ashamed to be an American.

As long as we're all making over-the-top blowhard predictions about what'll be happening 30 years hence, here's mine:

By 2034, the period from 1861-1865 will be referred to as the First American Civil War, regardless of who wins this November.

And I hope to hell I'm wrong.

TWL
who had also hoped all this "on the wrong side of history" posturing went out with Khruschev's shoe-banging

To Jerry Smith.

You wrote:

"And respectfully Peter, you are on the wrong side of history. I hope you can admit that in 30 years, when your grandchildren are living safer lives because of George W. Bush"

How does Bush invading Iraq and blinding supporting Israelis plan on keeping illegal land (which goes against EVERY other president since the 40) make us Safer?

Bush has swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations since his "War on Terror" Began. There are more people now willing to die to kill an American then ever before. I guess Bush would just say "bring them on". I don't see his loved ones on the front line. I don't see his children getting shot at, stuck in 100+ Degree heat over a cause they don't support. Ripped from their family for a pointless mission.

The only good job Bush has done is get us in trouble with the rest of the world. Great, thanks Bush.

Bush vs. Kerry. Now there's a tough one.

Personall, I don't think either man deserves to win...but what can you do? Throw your vote away?

Bush doesn't deserve to win for obvious reason: He's been a mediocre president and left the country worse off than it was before he took office..and, no, it's not all the fault of Clinton or the "terrorists." Most of it is Bush's fault, I'm sorry to say. He's not the being of pure evil most liberals seem to claim, but he's certainly not any good.

Kerry, on the other hand, doesn't deserve to win simply because he's a mediocre choice as well. What has he ever done to deserve the position of the most powerful office in the world? If Kerry wins, it'll only be because he's yet to prove that he'll be as mediocre as Bush...and that's just sad. If we actually elect Kerry, what kind of message will that send to the Democrats? That we're actually content to let them nominate such crappy, boring, uninspiring candidates? How will that help our country?

Personally, I'm tempted to vote for Bush simply to send a message to the Democrats that they need to grow some backbone and finally nominate sombody who's actually got a chance of being a good president. But then again, I'm not actually going to do that since there's no chance the Democratic party will actually grow some backbone.

It'll never happen.

So...neither of these jokers deserve to win...but I guess I'll go with Kerry simply because he deserves to lose a little bit less. How sad is that?

“Jerry Smith, if you are a true conservative then you should be more angry at the current administration than any democrat in this country because Bush and Co. are undermining and distorting true conservative ideals into some scary, big spending,socially intrusive,individual rights crushing, special interest loving, frighteningly religious monster.”

To show you I’m hardly a Republican robot … there is some truth in what you say. Bush spends excessively too much money (one would think Democrats would love him for that). I am totally against all of the unnecessary new entitlements Bush has created. And I am really pissed at him for not vetoing that unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform legislation. That bill was totally against free speech and free expression. I can only hope it is overturned in the courts.

But, Bush has been a good war president. I’m sorry, but I am a person who thinks the War on Terror is necessary. We have to strike hard and sometimes before a threat is imminent (but not strike FIRST. The terrorists have already done that. Unfortunately, we’re just reacting). And I don’t whine when it’s not over in five minutes. It’s going to be a long, bloody fight to rid the world of terrorists, and we’ll all be safer when it’s over.

Can you tell me how Bush being religious has established a state religion?

Overall, I’d give Bush a B- on his performance. Even if he got an F, I could never vote for the tax and spend, military-hating elitist John Kerry. He’s everything wrong with politics and career politicians in America.

"You guys don't understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.

Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds--and considering the multiple debacles already in progress--a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won't be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.

Second term of Bush: Bring it on.

PAD"

Peter, you're a great guy and all but isn't it about time to take a step back and rethink just how consumi8ng this Bush Bashing is becoming? A part of you hopes Bush gets reelected so that he can scfrew things up so badly that everyone will have to admit that you were right about him all along???

Why is that imporatnt to you?

If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself? You're settting up a no-win proposition--Bush wins and things are terrible (I know you love your kids so that CAN'T be a good scenario) or Bush wins and you have to pretend that things are worse than they are. Misery either way.

Or Kerry wins and you have to hope he is a better president than presidential candidate.

“How does Bush invading Iraq and blinding supporting Israelis plan on keeping illegal land (which goes against EVERY other president since the 40) make us Safer?”

Others can make the case for invading Iraq much better than I. Either you support it or you don’t. I do. As for Israel, America hardly supports them “blindly.” We’ve had daily disagreements in the last month or so. And “illegal” land? Are you a Palestinian (not a value judgment, just a question)?

“Bush has swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations since his "War on Terror" Began. There are more people now willing to die to kill an American then ever before.”

I don’t think there’s been a shortage in the last 50 years. So how would you have handled retaliation for 9/11?

“I don't see his loved ones on the front line. I don't see his children getting shot at, stuck in 100+ Degree heat over a cause they don't support. Ripped from their family for a pointless mission.”

The United States military is a voluntary force (with currently all branches being well ahead of recruiting goals), and soldiers are hardly “ripped from their families” without warning. If one volunteers, it should not be a surprise that one may eventually have to fight. Bush’s daughters are not fighting because they did not volunteer. Do you have a point here?

“The only good job Bush has done is get us in trouble with the rest of the world.”

If France disapproves of the United States defending herself and killing terrorists, I’ll live with the shame.

Let me state up front that I haven't read any of the other posts because I didn't feel like wading through 102 of them, but I just had to respond to what Peter said.

I voted for Bush in 2000. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time..." Well, I was fooled. It won't happen again. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Now, as to what Peter said, I think people will not be looking at what was said now with a jaundiced eye. I think people will look at George Bush's statements and says, "So what?" I think communication, especially thoughtful communication, is going the way of the dodo. Thirty years from now and even more into the future, communication, in general, will degrade to the point where everyone will be communicating like George Bush. As a matter of fact, I was in the English department of a school (I'm a subsitute teacher) where a similar subject came up. We were bemoaning some of the grammar errors kids still make in high school, and one of the teachers made the point that she thinks that the apostrophe will have died off in a hundred years. Noone will use it anymore. Language changes. The degradation is happening now. I've read student papers where they've used "u" for you and b/c for because. With the Internet and instantaneous communication, people don't put as much thought into their communication anymore. So, in 30 years, everyone will be communicating like W. Hopefully, I'll be deaf or in an asylum by then and I won't have to experience it.

By the way, I watched that press conference he did a few weeks back, and I wanted to see it turn into an episode of MASH. When a reported asked a good question, W. never really answered it. He would ramble and stammer and never really say anything. It was like the MASH where Hawkeye and Trapper try to get an incubator for the 4077. They go to a press conference staged by a general, and Hawkeye asks him about the incubators. He gives a BS answer and asks Trapper if he has a question. Trapper says, "Yes, why don't you answer his question?" I wanted to see a reporter do that at the press conference so badly! Oh, well.

It’s going to be a long, bloody fight to rid the world of terrorists, and we’ll all be safer when it’s over.

Stop and think for a moment.

We cannot possibly "rid the world of terrorists." It's an impossible, unachievable goal.

As such, saying "we'll all be safer when it's over" is misleading, because by your stated goals it will never BE over.

And given that we've just given pretty much every single Arab male from ages 10-40 an extra gazillion reasons to want the American military toothless and very, very dead, I'm finding it excruciatingly difficult to believe that the invasion of Iraq has done anything to "the terrorists" other than give them recruits and propaganda ammunition.

Can you tell me how Bush being religious has established a state religion?

Well, let's see: during one of the Democratic debates the press asked point-blank, "Is God on America's side?" and insisted all candidates answer.

We can also mention Gen. William Boykin, who has explicitly fed into the notion that this little foray into the Middle East is in fact doing the Crusades all over again, but doing 'em right.

We can talk about Bush explicitly citing his faith as a reason to make decisions about scientific issues like stem cells.

We can mention the several states in the last 2-3 years that have faced serious challenges to suppress the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools.

That should do for starters. Have at it.

TWL

So how would you have handled retaliation for 9/11?

Um ... NOT by invading a country that had jack to do with it while claiming otherwise.

Do let's remember that Osama hated Saddam, and that not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi or connected to Saddam.

Your question is a good one. I'd request that you answer it yourself before using it to challenge others.

TWL

If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself?

I'm not Peter, but I'll answer this.

The only way in which that scenario would make me feel badly about myself is that I'd wonder how I could have misjudged Bush's presidency so badly. I wouldn't regret the improvement in the nation's fortunes.

Based on the evidence to date, however, I think that scenario is vastly unlikely, and expect the allegedly liberal media to claim otherwise. Bush could bomb San Francisco in an anti-gay marriage initiative, leave the city a crater, and the White House press release would be titled "Bush Unveils Bold New Initiative To Reduce Bay Area Population Density". 75% of the newspapers would print it verbatim, maybe including one quote from a disgruntled survivor of the explosion countered by someone saying he/she was just angry and didn't get the big picture.

If Bush is reelected, there's at least a 50-50 chance that we're leaving the country and not coming back. I really and truly do not want my daughter to grow up in Bush's America, and am prepared to take substantial steps to avoid it. That includes voting, donating as much money as a teacher in a high cost-of-living area can afford to various causes, and looking into alternatives should he manage to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

You asked.

TWL

So, Tim, one out of your four answers had anything to do with Bush and that had him stating his reason for making a decision that was supposed to be based on the morality of the research citing where is morals come from.

And in no case is him stating something that has been stated by prior presidents can this be seen as establishing a national religion.

If you can view it as such, than your bias is dictating your rational.

where is morals come from

Should be:

where his morals come from.

>Saying that Bush is a blight could make them feel stupid for voting for him--and no one wants to think they are stupid. Problem is--I don't know how one can dish on Bush without making his supporters feel stupid. (Gordon)

If that's what it takes, maybe it can work, but only if they can learn from their mistakes. A friend admitted he had proudly voted for a former Prime Minister years back. However, media and opposition working hard to show that Prime Minister as an arrogant crook eventually caused my friend to re-examine his position, as well as the politician's record, and made him realize he'd made a mistake and changed his voting pattern accordingly.

>"when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this." (Joe)

You work on the assumption that they CARE one way of another. But, by then, their friends will have made their fortunes (Haliburton, anyone?) and rewarded them when the curtains comes down on their political careers. Mulroney may be the most despised politician in Canada's history, but he could care less what with all the big salaries he's being paid while sitting on the boards of American companies he helped through the free trade 'deal' he rammed through while he was Canada's P.M.

>So far, however, the "ABB" reason is all I hear Democrats bandy about (Anyone But Bush). That just doesn't cut it with THIS independent voter. (Russ)

Sadly, you have a point. I'm scared of the Opposition (having seen the damages their earlier incarnation wrought to the country while they were in power from '84 to '93) and won't vote for them, but I despise the current administration and it will take more than their fear-mongering vis the Opposition to get me to vote for the incumbents, either. So where does this leave me if there is no Independent candidate in my riding come the next election?

>I only hope that at some point the trend will reverse itself and people will become more literate and more articulate in the years to come. (Rick)

Dream on. I spend some time as one of the 'operators' in an Internet chat channel on Japan. What I see there in terms of people trying to express their thoughts, or just having light-hearted conversations simply depresses me. Fair enough those for whom the English language is not their native tongue but how to explain that, frequently, they use it more effectively, not to mention correctly, than those for whom it is?

>You basicly just said the American People don't like smart people (Surges)

And how is that inaccurate, exactly?

It is to cry when I consider such spectacularly well-written [and thus scarce] programs as MURDER ONE which wind up a hollow shell of their former selves because the suits insist on changes which dumb down the program to suit the American audiece. Or the difficulty in getting such excellent, well thought out programs as BABYLON 5 on the air because, goodness gracious me! People might actually have to PAY ATTENTION and THINK about what they're seeing. Or, even worse, such garbage as PAYNE, a third-rate American copy of the terrific British FAWLTY TOWERS. When TOWERS creator Cleese saw a script for PAYNE, he tore it to shreds, pointing out how it ignored all the elements which had made his series so good. Hollywood's response? "He doesn't understand. We don't have the luxury of working under the same tv system he did when he made FAWLTY. We simply can't do it the same way." It never seemed to occur to these idiots that they then shouldn't bother trying. Predictably (to anyone with a functional brain), PAYNE died after a few episodes, in spite of the efforts of talented John Laroquette's starring role. Even he couldn't salvage the dumbed-down, insipid American version.

And don't hold your breath for North American TV to come out with anything nearly as hilariously clever as Britain's YES, MINISTER any time soon. Not when the audiences here crave the pre-digested pap of FRIENDS and other such crap.

>I think the nation as a whole lacks vision. (PAD)

Bingo. This is what you get when, using Canada as an example, one has businessmen and lawyers running (ruining?) the country, instead of statesmen and other people of vision.

Ken,

What exactly is your "stating something that has been stated by prior presidents" phrase referring to?

And I disagree that only one of four has to do with Bush.

1) Bush is Boykin's boss, and said general wasn't disciplined or demoted despite the diplomatic and constitutional damage inherent in his speeches.

2) Bush has the biggest bully pulpit on the planet given his office. If he felt it was inappropriate for the US media to be raising that question (essentially a religious litmus test for candidates), he could certainly say so. He has not.

3) Bush has explicitly said that he feels "the jury is still out on evolution" and has supported the creationists' challenges to school boards.

That's not establishing a national religion, no, but it's sure as hell letting religious bias dictate policy -- which, last time I checked, is exactly what the pesky Constitution he goes on about was trying to prevent.

And if you want another reason, here it is. This is an excerpt from an article in Haaretz last summer:

Minutes from private meetings President Bush held last week in the Middle East quote Bush as saying, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Bush states quite explicitly here that the reason America is at war is because God told him to do it . Care to explain that?

TWL

James wrote:

"I can't stand Bush. That moron has done more harm then good to this country then any of the presidents before him. He lies, can't speak English, has pissed off almost every allies we ever had, enraged the Arabs, tossed away BILLIONS in surplus to replace it with BILLIONS in debt, invade a poorly defended nation, ignored a hostile North Korea, gave tax cuts to the rich and lets special interest run his national policy."

"The man (cough cough) should be tried for crimes against humanity, and jail for the rest of his life. He makes me ashamed to be an American."

So Bush is horrible because he "can't speak English?" Well, James, let's review:

"...more harm 'then' good to this country 'then' any of the..." -- that's "than", not "then";

"...pissed off every "allies'.." -- that's "ally", singular, if you use the word every;

In one sentence ("He lies...") you used at least three verb tenses, one of which was plural rather than the appropriate singular;

"...should be ... 'jail' for the rest of his life" -- that's "jailed"

James, I'm not trying to pick on you for your incorrect grammar. Instead, I'm using you as an example to make two points: (1.) people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones about other people's grammar, and (2.) it is a fallacy to attacking someone's ideas on the basis of that person not having effective public speaking or grammar skills.

James, your ideas are no less valid because you could have phrased them better (in fact, I agree with a couple of them, despite the fact that I generally support the President in this election). The same, however, applies to President Bush. To suggest that he and/or people who support him are less intelligent than Kerry and his supporters, based solely on Bush's grammatical skills, is faulty logic and, in my opinion, has no place in a serious debate about such serious issues.

"If France disapproves of the United States defending herself and killing terrorists, I’ll live with the shame."

I'm amazed how easely you use the word "kill".
The "American way of war" is making hundreds of innocent people actually die.
Bush has not made a better world. Tell to the hundreds of people in Madrid. Tell to the people who will suffer in a short period of time.
Terrorists are crap and all that, but Bush is a fanatic of his own ideas.
I believe in democracy, I WANT to believe, but when I see people like Bush and the ex-president Aznar (Spain, you know) I find out that this people are true dictators under a "democracy-is-cool" costume. Liars.

First off, I am a Christian and am currently reading book nine of THE LEFT BEHIND SERIES. I find the series to be very interesting and compelling to read even though I am not exactly a big supporter of the Book of Revelations.

Anyway, from reading THE LEFT BEHIND SERIES, I see a strong comparison between the Antichrist and Bush. It is scary.

D'you know how we could settle this once and for all? This Bush vs Kerry thing?
Celebrity... no! PRESIDENTIAL DEATHMATCH!

Get that show back on the air MTV!

:)

Perfect!

I had just received a HUMOR column written by Doug Robarchek of the Charlotte Observer in the mail and I was wondering how/where I could post this on Peter's blog (hoping EVERYONE would get a kick out of it).

I think this is a great spot:

"The Repulicans said what would happen if Al Gore won the 2000 election:

1) We would go to war.
2) The national debt would soar.
3) The economy would tank.
4) The stock market would plunge.
5) Unemployment would be rampant.
6) The U.S. dollar would quickly decline in value.
7) We would have a huge budget deficit.

Well, sure enough, they were right. Gore won. and all those things have happened."

Enjoy!

"Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen."

Nah. Thirty years from now, even if Iraq winds up being a disaster in its long run, we'll be divided between people who think it was a deeply immoral and shameful war and people who think that the only shame in it was how President Hillary/President Frist wound up cutting and running roundabouts 2010 or so. Heck, they probably won't have settled on which of the analagous views on Vietnam is right by then...

Now, future generations will probably look back with revulsion on early 21th century policies on Gay Marriage, but they'll more likely associate all that with the late 20th and think of Lawrence V Texas as the beginning of enlightenment.

Bruno wrote:
“I'm amazed how easely [sic] you use the word ‘kill’.”

Why? We’re not there to knit them sweaters. [Didn’t mean that as crass as it sounded; but we’re not.]

“The ‘American way of war’ is making hundreds of innocent people actually die.”

Unfortunately, that’s true. Do you know of any country’s way of war that doesn’t? No one takes joy in the death of innocents, except terrorists.

“Bush has not made a better world. Tell to the hundreds of people in Madrid. Tell to the people who will suffer in a short period of time.

What did Bush have to do with Madrid? The terrorists won there. I’m sure they’ll attack again in Spain if they think they have something to gain.

“Terrorists are crap and all that, but Bush is a fanatic of his own ideas.”

I’m sorry, English is obviously not your first language and I do not understand you. If you mean that Bush is the only person in America that thinks terrorists should be stopped, I assure you that you are wrong.

“I believe in democracy, I WANT to believe, but when I see people like Bush and the ex-president Aznar (Spain, you know) I find out that this people are true dictators under a "democracy-is-cool" costume. Liars.”

I just don’t follow. You want to believe in democracy, but you don’t? Are you from a communist or socialist country? I assure you, Bush is not a dictator. America would be a far different place if he was (fill in the scenario of your choice here). And while Democrats are desperately trying to change it, America is still a democracy. Or representative Republic, actually.

Hoo boy. My friends, my liberal friends...do you remember the Clinton haters? The wingnuts? The Black helicopter crowd? The ones who thought that Clinton murdered bunches of people so he could run drugs from the Red Chinese to score illegal donations to the communist party...etc etc?

Remember how dopey they looked? Remember the big laughs you had at their expence?

"Bush is the antichrist" "Bush is evil" "Bush is a nazi"

Guess who's laughing now?

Certainly not us living under this religio-fascist jackass Bush....

And Tim, I hope if Bush wins you reconsider. Anyway, what country can you go to where you would have any guarantee that some other guy or gal you didn't like might get elected? Unless you go to some one party state place but lets face it, with your opinionated nature they'd be breaking down the doors within the week.

Bill:

>>Hoo boy. My friends, my liberal friends...do you remember the Clinton haters? The wingnuts? The Black helicopter crowd? The ones who thought that Clinton murdered bunches of people so he could run drugs from the Red Chinese to score illegal donations to the communist party...etc etc?
Remember how dopey they looked? Remember the big laughs you had at their expence?
"Bush is the antichrist" "Bush is evil" "Bush is a nazi"
Guess who's laughing now?

While the paranoid and delusional descriptions you utilize to show anti-Clinton people in a similar ligt to "Liberals" bashing Bush's policies might otherwise appear effective, the comparison doesn't quite fit in my eyes. The formerare over-the-top and largely unfounded, while the latter has much documented proof, inconsistancies, and new info appearing every day to make it at least a likely possibility.

If someone has taken the time to look at facts to back up their beliefs and educate themselves, I'll very rarely laugh.

Tim,
I'm sorry you hate Bush so much you are thinking about leaving if he wins. I really am. I'm not even going to make an argument here. You are obviously passionate about what you believe, and are usually rational and inteligent in debating those with whom you disagree. for those reasons alone, you are unique and it would be a shame to see you leave.
That's all I wanted to say for now. Your statement, and the vile nature of many of the comments on this thread, has killed any desire I might have had to say anything further, at least today.

Well, PAD, I guess despite all my years of graduate and post graduate work at the college level, I must not be too intelligent then. I talk (and often times write - online at least) more in the manner that Bush does than Kerry. You know PAD, while I respect and enjoy your work in the comics field, you're no better than Rush or O'Reilly or any of the others in the right/far right. The straws you are grasping at are getting farther from you. Why don't you just do one more post on the matter - get everything off your chest about Bush, etc. - we can all respond and move on. We get you, ok.

And as far as your last comment about our children's children wonder how we could have allowed this (Bush) to be - I was thinking more might ask the same of Clinton. Who knows, maybe they'll look at the whole past 12 years with disbelief.

> Logically, what group in the United States has more money than any other group? People over 65! So why do we need to take my money and give it to seniors in the form of free prescriptions and medical? (Jerry)

As my mother (who definitely falls under the age category) points out, that's not necessarily true of all elderly, and even so, they paid into the tax system all their lives. Why should they have bothered if, when they need to get something back from it, they're being ignored?

> Hitler started by declaring his steps were neccessary too... (Bladestar)

I didn't want to make the comparison with him or some other dictator as it tends to turn people off very quickly, but it IS true that he didn't start out the way he ended up. Little steps, little steps ...

> I knew the definition of arrogant, and intentional or not, the implication of your remark is that you are one of the "people who are smarter than they." and by that token, smarter than most Bush supporters. I would call that arrogant. (Ken)

Half of humanity is below median in intelligence. And median is not terribly high to begin with. I have no problem in believing someone, whose writing is as clever and imaginative as Mr. David's consistently shows itslef to be, is above that in intellect and knowledge.

> The only thing I can be sure of thirty years from now is that the Democrats will still be blaming Ralph Nader for Bush's rise to power instead of their own ineptitude. (Dave)

I will admit that, given how many people supposedly loathe Bush Jr, it is baffling that the Democrats are having such a hard time coming up with someone competent and charismatic enough to mop up the electoral floor with him. I'm not sure I'd vote for such a disorganized and ineffectual group. Remind me again who the third parties are? *sigh*
OK, I don't live in the U.S. so I couldn't vote anyway. But it's still depressing.

PAD,

You can tell a person's argument is devoid of merit when it becomes ad hominem. Sad to say, that is the case with your posting on Bush. Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment. No offense, as I love your writing and think you are a very talented person, but what is your education? What qualifies you to launch frankly ad hominem arguments against Bush? I can understand your posting comments on your blog in a mood of frustration, but calling someone an idiot is hardly a reasoned comment.

Kerry seems fake when he talks. Bush seems real. The commercial with Kerry double talking to the Veterans seems to stick in my mind.

The recent photos don't give me a good feeling but I think as interrogation methods go nudity and humiliation beat torture anyday. To bad the US pow's in Iraq were not treated so well.

I think we all want Iraq fixed quickly but I wonder how long it took to rebuild Germany and Japan after WWII. I know that we occupied them for quite some time but know little else. Would these give us some benchmarks to temper our expectations.

I think the worst part of the whole thing is that in the future we are going to find out that most of Iraq's weapons were moved to neighboring countries and the dangers are just next door. Seems like the terrorists they caught entering Iraq recently with the chemical weapons must have gotten them from somewhere.

I wish we had a Regan but between Bush and Kerry I still think Bush is my choice.

I wonder how different the world would be today if we would have accepted Osama when he was offered to us in the mid 90's.

I'm not super intelligent so please forgive my poor writing style incomplete thoughts and bad spelling.

Peter your great!

Will: "I voted for Bush in 2000. I think it was Abe Lincoln who said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time...' Well, I was fooled. It won't happen again. "

To give you some perspective, here's a similar quote from George W. Bush in 2001: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you need to concentrate on."

And Tim, I hope if Bush wins you reconsider.

I hope we can safely make it a moot point ... but thank you. As I said above, it's certainly not a definite choice yet -- among other things, both of us are quite fond of our current jobs and would have to put that into the mix.

Anyway, what country can you go to where you would have any guarantee that some other guy or gal you didn't like might get elected?

I think you misunderstand just slightly.

I've had plenty of experience with people I didn't like in charge. I didn't particularly like Reagan or Bush (and rather suspect I'd have really detested Nixon were I old enough to really remember his presidency). I strongly disliked Al D'Amato during a period when he was one of my senators, and did the Xander happy-dance years later when my once-fellow New Yorkers voted him out. I wasn't especially enchanted with Pete Wilson as governor during eight of the years I've lived in California, and certainly didn't like the idea of Schwarzenegger as governor. (I will admit, though, that so far he seems to be turning out kinda sorta okay.)

I'm fine with disagreement. I'm even fine with having people I don't particularly like in charge. That's part of the process, and changes over time.

The problem is not that I dislike the current administration. The problem at this point is that I fear it.

We've got John Ashcroft, who IMO shows no sign of seeing a civil liberty he likes. We've got Tom DeLay, who has explicitly said he considers himself in power "to promote a Biblical worldview." We've got the Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Perle PNAC affiliates trying to impose a Pax Americana on the planet, even if it means parsing the definition of the word "torture" in a way that would make Bill Clinton go "whoa, dudes, that's just not cool." We've got an EPA which is toothless, a secretary of education who hates teachers ("terrorist organization", anyone?), and a president who thinks all of this is just fine because the people with him "share a love of Jesus." They reject data which does not fit their worldview, dismiss all opposing opinions as "political" if not outright disloyal, and with every statement make it quite clear that whatever the subject, they know all they need to know and don't need to hear anything else.

To quote (possibly in error) Joe "Robbie" Robertson back in the Lee/Romita era, "God save us from those who know all they need to know ... about anything."

Now, Bush coming to power in 2000 -- fine. It was a close race, he campaigned (falsely, it turns out) as a moderate, Gore was inept, and we ran into a grey-area vote we hadn't seen in over a century. I get that.

If the electorate returns Bush to office after seeing the last four years, however, my only realistic conclusion given the evidence will be that this country and I have reached a parting of the ways. Given the percentage of people in this country who buy into creationism, perhaps that's no surprise -- but it will mean that my family will have to do a lot of soul-searching.

It's not a decision I look forward to, and I would frankly very much appreciate it if anyone still on the fence would save me the trouble and not vote for Bush. (Of course, the odds of anyone still on the fence having made it this far down the thread seem awfully slim...)

Sorry for the length.

TWL

Bryans: "Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner....
'It depends on what your definition of "is" is.'
Yep, Just Like Clinton>>

Perhaps Clinton was wondering if he should "is" the correct way, or the way George W. Bush uses it when he says things like "Is our children learning?"

And hey ... Peter, if you're still reading down this far, I'm looking forward to the next Cowboy Pete. Having just watched last night's "Angel", I need something new to rant about :-), and Lisa's and my reactions to it were so clear-cut that we're both very curious to see what other folks are thinkin'.

TWL

If history holds--and considering the multiple debacles already in progress--a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel.

The second term of our last President involved an impeachment trial due to perjury, and his supporters didn't give up. Do you think Republicans are less stubborn than Democrats?

PAD wrote: "Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hell was going through your mind."

No, historians 30 years hence will marvel how the two largest political parties in the United States could not find a candidate who was appealling to a majority of Americans for both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

And the 1992 election. And the 1996 election. Clinton had only a plurality in his first term and a bare 50% share of the popular vote when he was reelected. With the possible exception of Newt Gingrich (think about that one) nobody's had a popular majority since Bush Sr. There may be one this year, depending on how much of a pull Nader has, but I think you're probably right that there won't be a majority candidate until at least 2008, 20 years after the previous one.

"If France disapproves of the United States defending herself and killing terrorists, I’ll live with the shame."

I'm amazed how easely you use the word "kill".
The "American way of war" is making hundreds of innocent people actually die.

Odd, I thought that was the Islamic lunatic fringe way of making war. Note that egregiously broad genralizations can be marshalled by anyone.

All wars have innocent deaths. It's inevitable. The unique thing about Western civilization is that we at least make an attempt to minimize those deaths. Compare the way the Iraq war was fought to the Eighth Air Force's carpet bombing of Nazi Germany. The real American way of war is to bomb the snot out of our opponents and then send in ground troops to overrun the shell-shocked bad guys, and as technology has progress we've gotten much better at keeping civilians out of it. "Much better" is still far less than perfect, unfortunately. But I have no problem with every single member of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Quaeda being slain.

Bush has not made a better world. Tell to the hundreds of people in Madrid. Tell to the people who will suffer in a short period of time. Terrorists are crap and all that, but Bush is a fanatic of his own ideas.

Are you blaming Bush for fighting terrorists, or are you blaming him for not getting them all yet? Or for stirring up the hornet's nest, causing the terrorists to select targets other than Americans?

I believe in democracy, I WANT to believe, but when I see people like Bush and the ex-president Aznar (Spain, you know) I find out that this people are true dictators under a "democracy-is-cool" costume. Liars.

If Bush were a dictator I wouldn't be scared spitless of the Kerry campaign right now. I'm even more scared of the Al Quaeda political machine. They've forced a government shift in one democracy this year already. Who wants to bet they'll go for two?

TWL: I'm also looking forward to the Cowboy Pete analysis of last night's "Angel." If your and Lisa's clear-cut reactions to the episode include the phrase "it sucked" we might be in agreement on something for the first time ever.

On an unrelated note, given the grammarian theme of this discussion, I'd like to confess to the typo in my last post ("has progress" rather than "has progressed"). I apologize.

Luigi Novi: Well, so much for that "no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric" resolution from a while back. :-)

Peter David: As I recall, I simply said we would endeavor to be civil to one another. I have been, despite the endeavors by others to try and recharacterize my comments into the most insulting form possible. I think saying, "If you don't want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic" was pretty civil.
Luigi Novi: I agree.

I wasn't talking to you.

Putting aside the smiley that I included at the end of that statement, Peter, the comment was meant to address the blog denizens as a group. Although there was one or two posts that prompted that comment, yours wasn't one of them.

What will it take to get some of you to stop blindly following this administration? They have lied to us to get our cooperation to go to war. They have taken money we need for schools, roads, public safety, etc., and allowed the wealthy in this country to keep money that they should willingly give in taxes to improve a country that has given them their wealth and comfortable life, while driving the deficit up to outrageous proportions . They use junk science to prop up their own arguments about the environment so there can be more profit to the companies that can't bother to worry about the state of the earth for future generations. They have used corporate officers to make our energy policy. Can anyone say conflict of interest? They have alienated much of the world against us. Some of you even admit all of these things, but still think they should stay in power. Stop listening to the propaganda, and start looking at the facts. They best thing that could happen in this upcoming election is that people become informed about what is really going on, instead of worrying about distractions like military service, or lack thereof, 40 years ago. Can Kerry lead this country out of it's current mess? I don't know. I believe (and hope)he won't continue this trend of trashing what I believe this country used to stand for. Do I think he is the best candidate? I truly think the best candidates are putting their energy into solutions other than political. Anyone with any sense would not want to go through a smear campaign, which is what all of our elections have degenerated into.

Interesting to note the current crop of campaign ads even though the campaign isn't "officially" under way.
Kerry's ads focus on his past, his accomplishments, and his visions for the future (whether you agree with them or not). Bush isn't even mentioned.
In contrast, Bush's ads are a total attack on Kerry's record (whether you believe them literally or not). So maybe Bush's camp is worried.
The best thing Kerry can do for himself is either: A)pick Edwards as a running mate, or, if he's really radical and can get him to agree to it,
B) pick McCain! Now THAT would be something, and who knows? America might get some real leadership for a change!

Oh yes, and on that last point, get the DNC and the rest of his campaign organizers to agree to it as well.

"When he's pausing, he's mentally constructing what he's going to say" - PAD

No, he's mentally constructing a lie. The man may be more articulate, but what good is it when you can't trust a word he says. Everyone wants to say Bush is a liar(Hell, check out all the recent book titles) but do you really think a career politician like Kerry doesn't lie through his teeth? The man is just a smooth talker who follows the polls just like Clinton did. You really don't know if he is coming or going.

Here, check out these quotes on Iraq:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, 10/9/02

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, 1/23/03

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it." -- Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman

"If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004

David:

>All wars have innocent deaths. It's inevitable. The unique thing about Western civilization is that we at least make an attempt to minimize those deaths. Compare the way the Iraq war was fought to the Eighth Air Force's carpet bombing of Nazi Germany. The real American way of war is to bomb the snot out of our opponents and then send in ground troops to overrun the shell-shocked bad guys, and as technology has progress we've gotten much better at keeping civilians out of it. "Much better" is still far less than perfect, unfortunately. But I have no problem with every single member of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Quaeda being slain.

Be that as it may, the estimated Cilivian dead in Iraq ranges from 10,918 to approximately 13,000, depending on which source you choose to believe. These are soldiers carrying guns, extremists with bombs, etc. Regardless of whether one is for or against this occupation, if that number doesn't give you pause to reflect on what is going on over there, than chances are that little else will.

I'm not sure that much has changed for the common person over there since Hussein was taken out, but I'd be very interested in seeing estimated numbers of those that that Saddam and his own soldiers had taken out in the year previous. (Before ayone throws it out, I am glad Hussein is out of power and realize that he was a tyrrant. I simply wonder about what other options were open to or considered by the U.S. government, since they felt the need to take him out.)

"Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment."

Then your immediate reaction is misplaced. I would recommend you pick up a copy of "Fighting Words," a collection edited by James Charlton that consists of nothing but the greatest writers and thinkers in history, back to Aristotle, trashing-talking others of the greatest writers and thinkers in history. One may be educated and intelligent, but first and foremost is a "person," and if that person feels an intellectually stunted, duplicitous, and manipulating individual in the Oval Office is best described as "idiot," then that's the word to use. And that's if for no other reason than that his apparent belief that attacking a country with no clue what to do once we're done bombing them is somehow a spiffy idea.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider." He's united the world against us and even further polarized the American electorate, and still can't put his finger on something he might have done wrong. Yes, I think "idiot" covers it.

And by the way, just for the record...I don't think of myself as especially smart. I think of myself as having average intelligence at best, and believe me, I've got the grades to back that up. The vast majority of my friends and associates are smarter, cleverer, better educated than I, starting with my wife. So when I'm saying that many Americans resent people who are smarter than they, I wasn't lumping myself in with the latter group, except to say that I don't share that resentment. Instead I'm someone who's dumb enough to think that the President of the United States *should* be the guy who was the smartest kid in the class...not the guy people feel the least threatened by because they figure they're going to be watching him on TV and are conditioned through years of sitcoms to want someone they'll feel comfy cozy with while knocking back a brew.

PAD

"If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004

So let me understand this:

John Kerry, over the previous three years, believes the lies of George W. Bush, believes Colin Powell, believes the people who sold him and the rest of the country a bill of goods. And when the magnitude of the lies and duplicity become evident...when Bush now declares that the absence of WMDs really "doesn't matter"--Kerry turns around and says that he would never do the same thing...that he would never go to war the way Bush did, by lying to the American people, our allies and the world and sending in ground troops who are desperately fighting for their lives while engaging in nation building endeavors that they're wholly untrained for...

And you think something is wrong with KERRY?

No wonder Kerry has an uphill climb.

PAD

Please excuse my grammer and improper use of language. I went to a good school.

I still don't understand people's blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support.

On Bush and Iraq...
take a look at the spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the current abuses that have been going on in the prisons our military currently controls. Bush has said many times since the scandal broke that torture is not the American way. That this is a blemish to our country. (which is in all respects true.) These are certainly not his beleifs, nor the beleifs of his cabinet. The military has TRAINED specialists in the art of interrogation. Almost none of these have been called to Iraq or Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay. Instead we have hired private professional interogators at immense costs (Salary is $10,000+ a month), while our trained soldeirs would cost far far less. Why do we hire these people then? Because as private companies these people are not bound by the same laws our military would be. They are capable and allowed to perform torture on suspects in the name of the United States. These people are paid to do this with our tax dollars. An expenditure that has to be approved by Rummsfeild and Bush. A vote for Bush says its okay to torture suspected terrorists and other prisoners. ITs a lie straight to our faces.

Jerry Smith:

You are right, English is not my first language. So please everywone excuse me if my spelling or expressions are not as correct as they should

You are right. All wars kill a lot of people. But maybe war wouldn't kill so many people if people like Bush (not only him) made any effort trying to avoid war...but that's the way it is, so...

Bush is not guilty for Madrid. Aznar would be more guilty for the terrorist atack than Bush. I don't say that they are the "phisical" responsables for the death of the victims. But I also think that their way of doing things makes easier this things to happen. Aznar ignored 90% of spanish population and he went to war...and now we have the results..

Everyone wants to stop terrorism, I know that. Nobody wants to live with fear. But the world is not black and white. Stop saying "with or against me" (that sounds pretty dictatorial). Stop putting the "terrorist" label in everything you (I mean Bush and others) dislike.

Actually now in Spain there is a Socialist Goverment. Not comunist. I think democracy is the best option. I wouldn't want anithing instead of it. But the game has becomed too dark, too many interests. In Spain all the partys say that they love democracy and all. But the PP(Aznar's partido popular)ignored lots of people's rights "defending democracy" and for example going to war. As I said: Liars.

David Bjorlin:

"Are you blaming Bush for fighting terrorists, or are you blaming him for not getting them all yet? Or for stirring up the hornet's nest, causing the terrorists to select targets other than Americans?"

No, I'm not saying that. I CARE about american's life. I call Bush and Aznar liars. When US went to war for the chemical weapons and get Saddam I didn't like the way things were going to be made. But I said to myself "all right, if they find weapons and all maybe that will be fine". Now: Saddam out, no weapons. And your goverment says that "maybe their info about the weapons was not that good". Liars again.

And now that's very important: Al Quaeda DID NOT make a goverment shift in Spain. Spanish people did. People were fed up of war even before going to it. Spanish people didn't want our soldiers to go to Irak. But the goverment ignored that. And now lots of people have died, and yes: Aznar is guilty for that.
The people with their right to vote did the change. Do not say Alquaeda did.

Finished for now.

P.D: Where in this forums could I talk about PAD's comics and all? Make questions and that stuff...I would feel weird asking things like that here.

Posted by CO:
"A vote for Bush says its okay to torture suspected terrorists and other prisoners. ITs a lie straight to our faces."

Unless you think stripping someone naked is torture, can you explain how Bush says it is "okay" to torture prisoners? If you want to understand torture, read about how Saddam Hussein treated his prisoners. That should give you some perspective.

Jerry:

>>Unless you think stripping someone naked is torture, can you explain how Bush says it is "okay" to torture prisoners? If you want to understand torture, read about how Saddam Hussein treated his prisoners. That should give you some perspective.

I don't disagree with you on your point, however, being sexualy humiliated and disgraced in front of your countrymen falls lower on the list than physical torture for many of the Middle Eastern people involved. Read up on that culture and you will come to realize that these photos may prove far worse and more damaging in our relations with the world than one would originally think.

eClark wrote: "Hey, a 14 year old girl just got beat up by her school mates at a dance! Bush should apologize! A plane crashed killing both of it's occupants! Bush should apologize! The Polar ice caps are melting! Bush should apologize. I stubbed my big toe! Bush should apologize! Terrorists blew up a train in Madrid. Bush should apologize. The British press faked photos of British troops abusing Arab terrorists! Bush should apologize!"

As Tim Lynch (no relation) pointed out, people don't want Bush to apologize for those things.

Amazing. I post something that's obviously no more than a sarcastic rant, and the Lynch "brothers" think I'm serious. And Tim even backtracked on the polar ice caps!

Sometimes life is just way too amusing!

Say, isn't time for another Cowboy Pete Round up? I wanna hear what PAD thought about Angel and Smallville.

oops.... add to my above-mentioned point the fact that a handful of these photos show female soldiers grinning and openly mocking the nude prisoners and stir slowly.... quite a soup being brewed in the mindset of a traditional Muslim or even most men in our culture, unfortunately.

Tim,

Where would you go? Seriously?

Others,

While I wouldn't classify "liberalism" as a sickness, I can't agree with much of it. As I understand "conservativism" it puts responsibility in the hands of the people, not the hands of the government. It isn't the government's job to feed the poor, it is the poor's job to feed themselves. To take responsibility for their own choices. To evaluate their life and figure out that bad choices have bad consequences. That people in general should have the responsibility of caring for their family and giving to the poor and downtrodden with money or opportunities.

It is the government's job to protect people from outside harm and leave them to the harm they inflict upon themselves without enabling self-inflicted harm. It's a real plus that the government has the world's best institution - public libraries - so that anyone can educate themselves.

Someone explain to me why the rich should HAVE to pay taxes to help the poor? Why should we penalize people for success and reward those unwilling to work for their own success?

Bush spends too much, absolutely. I should think that would please liberals. I have no problem at all with faith-based initiatives. If the government HAS to have entitlement programs, help fund those groups that are already doing something to help. Better to leave people to themselves, though.

Tax cuts ARE working and working well. Didn't most of us spend our tax refunds?

Why tax companies at all? Stop taxing companies, since they pass the cost on to consumers anyway. If we didn't tax companies, outsourcing would end overnight. Tax the consumer as a sales tax. Then rich and poor pay on what they consume and nothing more. Pay 23% sales tax. We do anyway, whether we know it or not.

*sigh* rant ended.

Tim, I'd miss you (though you could post from any country, so I guess I wouldn't miss you... if you're a teacher, THANK YOU, by the way. We homeschool, ourselves, but the neighbors need people such as yourself.)

"I still don't understand people's blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support."

True enough but A- I wouldn't call it blind hatred--more like bemused contempt. and B- By that logic shouldn't the hatred that some French have toward America make no sense since they would likely be under German control today without OUR support?

Me (to PAD)
If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself?

Tim (to me)
I'm not Peter, but I'll answer this.

The only way in which that scenario would make me feel badly about myself is that I'd wonder how I could have misjudged Bush's presidency so badly.

Fair enough but realistically, if there's one thing I know about politics it's that a person can rationalize any event into meaning what they want it to mean. Already the economy is showing impressive growth and 1.1 million jobs have been created since August (with the last 2 months having the largest growth in 4 years). Good news! Not at all! at least, if you're a Kerry fan.
Why, those jobs are mostly SERVICE jobs. We want manufacturing jobs!

No I don't recall any of them asking Clinton about the quality of the jobs created during his run but I'll guess that more than a few republicans did. The point is, if you can't take something as complex as the economy and make it look good, bad or indifferent, depending on your preference, you just aren't trying.

So I suspect that the real hard core Bush ahters will nver admit he's done a good job just because they will play Calvinball with the definition of what a "good job" is. And ditto for the kerry haters, should he win.

But when even a part of you looks forward to the country being thrown into turmoil just so you can say that you were right...it's time to take a sip of a cool drink, kick back, ignore politics for a bit and, I don't know, review Angel or something.

"So Bush is horrible because he "can't speak English?""

No, he can't speak English because he's horrible. There's a difference.

PAD

"P.D: Where in this forums could I talk about PAD's comics and all? Make questions and that stuff...I would feel weird asking things like that here."

The place to discuss them is on individual threads set up to discuss various titles. I'll be setting one up for the new "Spyboy" limited series shortly, and there's also one up for the recent "Captain Marvel" and "Fallen Angel."

PAD

PAD wrote: "And by the way, just for the record...I don't think of myself as especially smart. I think of myself as having average intelligence at best, and believe me, I've got the grades to back that up."

Whoa, there, PAD -- it's fine to be humble, but don't start beating yourself up intellectually. If I didn't think your writing was smart, sensitive and insightful, I wouldn't have invested as much of my time over the years reading it.

By the way, in my opinion, grades can be highly overrated -- especially if a student lacks motivation during the period of time he or she is being graded. For example, my five-year GPA during high school was 1.05, I believe, even though I always scored in the upper 90s percentile for aptitude/standardized tests. Seven years after finally graduating high school, I started taking college courses after work. Eleven years after that, I graduated with a BS in technical management (and a secondary in computer science) with a GPA of about 3.25. It's all about motivation and focus, and I try to never forget that whenever I'm training/teaching someone.

Russ Maheras

Tax cuts ARE working and working well. Didn't most of us spend our tax refunds?

Speaking for myself and my wife: No. We'd have to have gotten a refund first in order to spend it.

Bush may done given some nice tax breaks to the Ken Lays of America, but self-employed people like my wife still continue to get shafted.

Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don't think i'm quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay.

EClark:

Amazing. I post something that's obviously no more than a sarcastic rant, and the Lynch "brothers" think I'm serious.

Except, of course, that said "sarcastic rant" was being used to disparage the idea that Bush should apologize about anything.

As such, the sarcastic rant had a serious point, which both James and I addressed in the course of responding to the rant.

Be as amused as you like, but it's not helping your case.

TWL

Except, of course, that said "sarcastic rant" was being used to disparage the idea that Bush should apologize about anything.

As such, the sarcastic rant had a serious point, which both James and I addressed in the course of responding to the rant.

Be as amused as you like, but it's not helping your case.

Except you didn't address the POINT. Both you and James go off about why doesn't he just apologize for this, this and this?

My POINT is that you and others that want him to apologize don't really give a DAMN about the actual apology. You just want to see him placed in a certain position, one of contrition, regardless of whether he's actually guilty or not.

I'm sorry that Bush finally broke down and said it. Now I'm going to just sit back and observe whether it actually matters or not to anyone, or whether the heat is actually turned up to get him to apologize for something else.

Rob Thornton said:

"Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don't think i'm quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay."

Rob, you're over-simplifying something as complex as the Internal Revenue Code. As an accountant I can tell you...that way lies madness.

More seriously, A) I notice that you did not include the Magic Words that Den did that explained his point to me: "Self Employed." Self-Employment tax is a bear that can eat you alive if you're not careful. B) The whole arguement is actually meaningless absent further information. You getting a tax refund just means that you paid more to Uncle Sam over the year than you owed. I'm happy that you were able to get by while giving the IRS an interest-free loan, but you simply can't compare your situation to someone else's on that little info (and I wouldn't be rude enough to pry into Den's actual finances with personal questions).

On the French-- While yes they as well might not be a nation without our help as well... the french have come to our aid far more often than we to theirs. So as it comes down to it, both wouldn't exist without the support of the other. But to suggest that we should hate the french for their lack of support for our "war in Iraq" and not worshipping our feet for saving their country in WWI and II (I know you didn't say this exactly... I'm speaking more of the whole "Freedom Fries" stupidity) is a farce. They were extremely grateful to us for years and years after we rescued their nation from the germans. Most of the French do not hate us, the strongly dislike many of our leaders. They steroetype us for comedic purposes just as we use to do... but now the stereotype has begun to be seen as a reality by quite a few people. So much so we have the whole "Freedom Fries" Fiasco.

As for the prison torture... not all of the prisoners were just stripped naked and paraded around. According to the news reports from all sides...(and this is what i was referring to) a couple were beaten to death with blunt blows (fists clubs ect...) there were reports of sodomization (with a light fixture as well as a broom handle) and the rape of at least 1 female detainee. All this is what we do know about, which looking at it suggests torture was going on. Beatings, rapings, sodomy... All this is considered torture. And this was just the softening up of the prisoners. The getting them ready for the interogation room and the private citizens who don't have to disclose their meathods, but did ask for this kind of softening up. And Fred Chamberlain's point about being sexually humilaited in Muslim culture is correct. (No i myself am not a muslim, nor an expert on Islamic culture, but i have taken classes dealing with the area and their customs)It is definately on an equal level to torture in their society.

Yes, in fact, I did address the point. I said that most of the things you mentioned had nothing to do with him, but that Abu Ghraib happened specifically on his watch and that his policies and actions created the environment in which it occurred.

"The buck stops here" used to mean something. Bush now has enough sycophants that apparently nothing that ever happens is his fault. Ditto any higher-ups in his administration: the only people who actually have consequences attached to their actions are the ones who criticize the policy du jour (cf. Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, etc.). Conflicts of interest are redefined out of existence, obvious policy mistakes are retconned, and Congress and the press let them go right on doing it.

The fact that they finally woke the f*ck up this time makes me take heart at least a little.

So yes, I did address your point. I simply didn't give the answer you wanted.

TWL

On the issue of tax refunds:

Yes, we got one. It was a pittance. We probably spent it.

If we get one this year, it's going right to someplace like MoveOn. I like the idea of Bush funding ads that'll send him home. Anybody else care to hop on that particular bandwagon?

TWL

Okay, I know that this is a little behind for a quote, but I just couldn't help it when I saw this:

"If Bush is given another four years in office, that's a long time to pack the Federal benches and (god forbid) the Supreme Court with anti-choice and anti-privacy advocates. That's a price that we will pay for years and decades to come.

As both of us are fathers with daughters, the possibility of back alley abortions scares the hell out of me."

Steve Miller

Well, as another fellow liberal I do agree that four more years of Bush would be a nightmare, but I draw the line at the abortion thing. The idea of back alley abortions aren't a welcoming thought at all, but the idea of a life or death decision being determined solely by one's financial status is just as sickening as Dubya's last war.

Think about it. You said that you're a father, so I would imagine that when you first heard that you were going to have a baby, you were overcome with joy. Now imagine that your wife (girlfriend, etc.) or yourself decided that you simply couldn't afford to have a kid, and so she simply aborted it. That means that that little bundle of joy, a person, would never have existed solely due to lack of money (a very Republican outcome if I ever heard one). And abortions do occur over money -- you're only kidding yourself if you doubt that.

PAD, feel free to chime in on this one. I'm curious to see how a father can justify something like this.

To me, I feel that first of all money should be taken out of the equation. Fully federalize the funding for prenatal care all the way up to childbirth. That would help to eliminate those "back alley abortions" and bring this country one step closer to resolving this abortion "issue" in something approaching a rational manner. And if conservatives feel half as strongly about this as they say they do, then they should embrace this idea with open arms.

And getting back to the Bush bashing, I feel that this idea would take far more imagination that Bush would ever be capable of. he would just outlaw abortion and pat himself on the back for a job well done -- even as those back alley abortions start piling up. So even with this issue, I still want him out.

-Alonzo

Tax cut? I guess you could consider owing the feds $2K in 2002 and only $1.5K in 2003 is a tax cut, but I also spent the last two months of 2003 out of work...

Alonzo: "To me, I feel that first of all money should be taken out of the equation. Fully federalize the funding for prenatal care all the way up to childbirth. That would help to eliminate those "back alley abortions" and bring this country one step closer to resolving this abortion "issue" in something approaching a rational manner."

Uh, kids cost a lot more AFTER they're born. Your solution would have no effect on abortion.

Besides, if you aren't one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it's none of yours or anyone else's goddamn business.

"If we get one (a tax refund) this year, it's going right to someplace like MoveOn."

Better to send it to AirAmerica. Apparently they are having trouble meeting their payroll.

Just think of all the good that the 30 million dropped into THAT money pit might have accomplished.

""...I suppose when you've got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; 'I'll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn't matter about the world left behind.""

So now come the attack the man's religion. No, let me take it back, now we start to attack him because he is Christian. Out of everything that can be brought up, people seem to always bring up Bush's christianity as a show of his weakness. Whatever happened to freedom of religion or is that only for other religions except christianity.

I don't like where this is going. attack a person's character is one thing, attack a person's belief is dangerous.

Find me a perfect leader anywhere in the world. Find me a perfect person, period. other then PAD (read all his posts on all the different threads & you'll see he has all the answers) there are none. Humans fail. And it's in those failures that people seem to be most interested in, but what about the success a person had? who cares right. None hope for the best, just this "i can't wait to see him crash & burn" attitude. All i see is hatred & venom spewing out of your mouths.You attack his intelligence, his character, his religion. You attack those that support him. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. That's the name of the game i guess. The economy is is doing better (240,000 new jobs last month, Unemployment is down to 5% i believe) but who cares, he can't speak in correct sentences. Why such negativity? Why hope for the worst? Why the hate? It's more then just disagreeing. People have disagreed for milleniums. I don't have a problem w/ disagreements, but this hatred is just so bad.

Hey PAD, why don't you run for president. Throw your name out there, since it's obvious you would do so well, after all, you know what a great leader should be from all the criticism you've exerted on Bush. I'm quite sure you would always be eloquent and you will make us a greater nation. You wouldn't make mistakes in office, but if you did, oh i'm sure you would be a greater man & everytime you made an error you'd tell us, right. I see you take criticism well, when you ask people what they think of of a particular piece of your work & they disagree with you, you don't get defensive, right.

""Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He's abhorred -- but no apologies.""

Why should he apologize for this, it's not like he gave the order for those women to torture them. It's not like he tortured them himself. & by the way, Do you forget these are the same people that mutilated 5 of our people & dragged their corpses through the streets & mutilated their bodies. And you think that what these women did was torture. Good God what is wrong with you people!

Oh and as to why people don't read anymore. It's called TV, video games, movies. The illitarate rate has grown to epic proportions world wide. not just the US.Everyone just wants to look @ the preety pictures. Most people stop reading newspapers because they can get their news on CNN or FOX News.

As far as abortion goes, for those of you afraid that another 4 yr term under GWB will mean the end of abortion, think again. It DOESN'T matter who is in power, abortion will NOT be made illegal so let's get off that subject.

Joe

Blade old buddy... your point is????

Abortions because of money is heinous reasoning. Every city - EVERY city - has crisis pregnancy available. Lines of people are waiting to adopt. Anyone willing to bring their child to term and adopt it out can do so without financial fear (other than lost time at work... and even that is most often compensated for).

John Kerry, over the previous three years, believes the lies of George W. Bush, believes Colin Powell, believes the people who sold him and the rest of the country a bill of goods - PAD

No, John Kerry believed what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence sources told him. He, and numerous other members of congress, were presented the same information that George W. Bush was faced with. Funny thing is they all walked away from those meetings with the same conclusion; Iraq is a threat to our national security.

However, forget the WMDs because John Kerry has. When he talks about the war on terror he says that Iraq should NEVER have been considerd. He makes it sound like he was never for it at all. Nevermind the long list of quotes one can find with Kerry saying how evil Hussein is and how he needs to be taken down. Nevermind that he said, "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward".

The whole Democratic party is trying to pass the buck and put the load squarly on the Bush adminstration. They must feel he is the most uber-powerful man ever in that he was able to coax the CIA, FBI, British intelligence, and numerous other sources into lying to congress just so he could invade Iraq. Hell, how he got the intelligence agencies to lie to Clinton for eight years so that Hillary would stand up in 2001 and say that Hussein had WMDs is anyone's guess.

Joe V. wrote:
... & by the way, Do you forget these are the same people that mutilated 5 of our people & dragged their corpses through the streets & mutilated their bodies. And you think that what these women did was torture. Good God what is wrong with you people!...

No, Joe. No they’re not.

They’re not the same people.

They’re people of the same race, who live in the same area.

But they people being tortured are not the people who did that.

And the fact that you think it’s okay to punish someone of the same race for someone else’s crimes is sad indeed.

It’s probably not a coincidence that this is the same attitude that brought us into Iraq in the first place: “Osama attacked us! Quick, lets get Saddam!”

Rob Staeger

(I should probably point out for reasons of clarity that the person posting as Rob S and I are different people.)

Rob Staeger

"Besides, if you aren't one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it's none of yours or anyone else's goddamn business."

Bladestar

Don't you just live that sense of unity and oneness that everyone keeps talking about?

I know how this sounds (so very conservative) but I share the same concern over that as I would over someone committing infanticide. Or to put it another way, it's the same part of me that feels for the plight that the Iraqi people are facing right now.

And I said that it would be a start, not a long term solution. But I think you'd be surprised by the impact that The Short Term has on people ("A three hundred dollar tax check in the mail? I can finally buy those prescription drugs now! Thanks Bush!"). I'm betting that funding for prenatal care would have a stronger impact than you would think.

-Alonzo

No, John Kerry believed what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence sources told him. He, and numerous other members of congress, were presented the same information that George W. Bush was faced with. Funny thing is they all walked away from those meetings with the same conclusion; Iraq is a threat to our national security.

So why isn't George Tenet being sacked? That's about as incompetent a job of intelligence as I can think of.

Bladestar,
I believe you missed the point in your prior post.
Prenatal care would help many moms, especially the young ones who are afraid if their baby is even going to be healthy. Isn't that a good thing?
Also, many "safe and legal" abortions are NOT the former. Abortion, especially later in term, is always a risky procedure.
Oh, and the way it stands now, the "sperm-shooter" (the term "father" is obsolete I guess)has absolutely no say or rights in the matter. Until the child is born, and he is nailed for child support.
But back to the main point, which is if we helped provide better prenatal care and birth control, abortions would become extremely rare. Babies would be healthier. Women would only have babies they really want and they would be spared the risk of a surgical procedure like abortion.
Wouldn't they all be good things?

Joe V.,

I have never seen Mr. David claim that he has all the answers and have seen him explicitly admit that he DOESN'T have them at times. His frank admission of a lack of an idea how to stop the cycle of killing over Israel comes to mind.

Also, the quote about President Bush and his belief in the Rapture that you use to launch a rant against PAD is not something that he said.

Finally, I don't think that most of the people here want to belittle President Bush's religous beliefs. I think a fair number are concerned that he thinks very little of any religous beliefs but his own and would make his own the Law of the Land if he could. It concerns me, even though I belong to a Christian faith.

This is man who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw flag-burning, to outlaw gay marriage (thus taking the right to decide such matters out the hands of individual states). I've heard of one other way that he wants to amend the Constitution that I can't remember right now. However, EVERY change I heard him propose is to let the government place MORE restrictions on what the people can do, places MORE restrictions on our civil liberties. That doesn't sound like the "Conservative" view that govenment should let us run our own lives. And I think it's because he doesn't respect the views of anyone other than himself or someone giving huge amounts of money to his election fund.

David Hunt - Fair enough, I didn't pay attention to the self-employed part and consider the differences in taxes that relate. My fault. I will argue, though, that a great number of people did receive a tax refund, who don't fall into the "rich" category - which I believe was half of Den's argument.

David Hunt,

I know pad ddnt say anything about Bush & his christianity, I was sort of comenting on several different things.

As far as the rapture goes, that is a belief of millions of christians (not all, but a lot)so that Bush believes it is really not a big deal.

As far as PAD stating he doesn't have all the answers, I was ranting, because he does seem to lean so hard on GWB, i figure it's because he feels he can do it better.

As far as restrictions on Gay Marriage goes, if he doesn't make a stand on that, it would be political suicide for him not to as most republicans do oppose Gay Marriage. I'm not saying it's right or left... I mean wrong (that was a joke)but if he doesn't do that then all conservatives & republicans start to jump on him. The man is really in a famn if you do, damn if you don't situation.

Joe

Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don't think i'm quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay.

Good for you, Rob. Now, are you self-employed? Do you understand the complexities of self-employment tax?

I will argue, though, that a great number of people did receive a tax refund, who don't fall into the "rich" category - which I believe was half of Den's argument.

Obviously, you missed the part where I said I was speaking just for myself and my wife. My point is, my wife did everything that republicans are supposed to love: She became an entrepeneur and started her own business. Does she get any tax breaks? No.

BTW, a tax refund is not the result of George cutting your taxes. A tax refund is just an acknowledgement that your employer overwithheld from your payroll over th past year. At 29k, you're in a tax brackett that makes it likely that you would get a refund, even with no deductions. You've gotten that refund even if Bush hadn't pushed his tax cuts through because very little, if any, cuts were made in your bracket.

So my point stands: Ken Lay gets a tax break from George. My family didn't. Neither did you.

For everyone who was ragging on Rumsfeld (and Bush, for that matter) for not taking direct responsibility for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, here's Rumsfeld's quote from his testimony today on the Hill: "These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility."

That seems pretty direct and blunt to me. No waffling. No splitting hairs about the definition of what "is" is. Admit you screwed up and take the consequences.

Russ, that was only after he was publically taken to task for attempting to draw a distinction between "abuse" and "torture" in the case, claiming that since the prisoners were just "abused", it wasn't really that big a deal.

Den said:
"BTW, a tax refund is not the result of George cutting your taxes. A tax refund is just an acknowledgement that your employer overwithheld from your payroll over th past year. At 29k, you're in a tax brackett that makes it likely that you would get a refund, even with no deductions. You've gotten that refund even if Bush hadn't pushed his tax cuts through because very little, if any, cuts were made in your bracket.

So my point stands: Ken Lay gets a tax break from George. My family didn't. Neither did you."

Den you referred to both tax refunds and tax breaks in your argument. I'm not a corporation, neither am I a self-employer. I'm just a semi-poor state gov't employee. You bring up the tax refunds as inconsequential, then bemoan the fact that Bush provides tax breaks, an entirely different area of tax law, as far as I know, to corporations. Pardon me if I didn't get a little confused by your original post.

To get back to my original point: A lot of people were provided a refund check from the government, enough that it was a statistically reportable percent of the population. We liked that, and we were by and large not filthy rich individuals, but got served by the gov't nonetheless.

Russ,

Saying "admit you screwed up and take the consequences" sounds like a perfectly good taking of responsibility, yes ... assuming there are any consequences to speak of. I'll wait and see.

(As Jonathan pointed out, it also seems a lot more helpful if the people in question act before they're being pilloried for not doing so. I had a roommate in college once who did something most of us considered way out of life, and it was obvious that the only reason he apologized is that it was the only way to get the rest of us to speak to him. As apologies go, that's not a great one.)

But yes, it's a good start. I'd like to see what comes next.

TWL

Jonathan wrote: "Russ, that was only after he was publically taken to task for attempting to draw a distinction between "abuse" and "torture" in the case, claiming that since the prisoners were just "abused", it wasn't really that big a deal."

I think you are selling Rumsfeld short. He was just as shocked as everyone else that such activities were going on. I spent 20 years in the military, and I know I was sure shocked! This sort of thing is not at all "OK" by ANY military standards I've ever seen.

Rumsfeld's initial defensive reactions reminded me of the denial you see from the close relatives of killers or rapists when the crime suspects are first arrested. "Billy was a sweet boy. Everybody liked him. He'd never do something like that." But as the rock-solid proof mounts, and the details of the horror begin to grow, the denial turns to sadness and inner blame. "What did I do wrong? Why did I not see this coming?" But the sad fact of the matter is, sometimes you just CAN'T. In the case of Rumsfeld, he is dealing with, and delegating to, hundreds of thousands of people. And sometimes -- regardless of how much of a taskmaster or micromanager you may be -- people disappoint, and even shock you. And the sad part of it is, all of Rumsfeld's decades of past work as a hard-charging public servant will be overshadowed by the recent and indefensible actions of a very few people.

Russ Maheras

Rumsfeld's initial defensive reactions reminded me of the denial you see from the close relatives of killers or rapists when the crime suspects are first arrested. "Billy was a sweet boy. Everybody liked him. He'd never do something like that." But as the rock-solid proof mounts, and the details of the horror begin to grow, the denial turns to sadness and inner blame. "What did I do wrong? Why did I not see this coming?" But the sad fact of the matter is, sometimes you just CAN'T.

Problem was....this sort of thing was entirely predictable.

And I don't mean in that ideologically driven type thing; I mean in that empirically driven, studies done, classics-in-behavioral-psychology-type thing....folks have known about the effects that occur if you put poorly trained personnel out there, with little outside contact, and with ggreat pressure to get results. [See the Zimbardo study on simulated prison behavior...where the same sort of guard behavior resulted]. Rumseld should have known what would happen...because the techniques he was using for interrogation came from the same general field of studies as Zimbardo's studies].

In my mind, it's part of the general pattern of incompetence and ineptness. Letting the Irqui army and police go away, the lack of preparedness for civil unrest, the failure to anticipate the guerilla war that is now occuring in Iraq, the dismissal of military personnel who had warned of these potential stumbling blocks, the agonizing slowness of getting basic services back on line...these are all signs of basic incompetence that cannot be defended or rewarded.

Bladestar cussed, "Besides, if you aren't one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it's none of yours or anyone else's goddamn business."

Actually, the "sperm-shooter" has no grounds to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion either. It's entirely the woman's choice under the law. And I'm curious to know why you think one has to be personally involved in a problem to have an opinion about it. Under your logic, if someone were walking down the street and saw an assault taking place, that person should keep walking because it doesn't concern anyone but the two people involved.

I am not one of them, but there are a large number of people who believe that there is little, if any, difference between abortion and infanticide. Why can we not take their opinions seriously? They are derided as simpletons, or people not minding their "goddamn business," but hardly anyone (exception: http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/thomson.html Judith Jarvis Thomson) addresses their opinion on the issues. It's rather like pacifism; the opinion that all war (not just Iraq) is inherently wrong is a coherent viewpoint that I dispute but that I have to take seriously as a philosophy. You, Bladestar, would do well to rise above verbal abuse as a method of discourse, if you are capable of doing so.

THe Point David, is that no one other than the potential parents has the right to tell someone they can't have an abortion.

Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don't care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there's going to be trouble...

"Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment."

"PAD: Then your immediate reaction is misplaced. I would recommend you pick up a copy of "Fighting Words," a collection edited by James Charlton that consists of nothing but the greatest writers and thinkers in history, back to Aristotle, trashing-talking others of the greatest writers and thinkers in history."

Good point PAD. But then I've been wrong before and will be wrong again. Thank for the reference to the Charlton book. It looks interesting and I ordered a copy today.

Dennis

You bring up the tax refunds as inconsequential, then bemoan the fact that Bush provides tax breaks, an entirely different area of tax law, as far as I know, to corporations. Pardon me if I didn't get a little confused by your original post.

Please, read your own post. I wasn't the one who equated tax refunds with tax cuts.

You did.

Joe V.,

Given that every other president in anybody's lifetime here has also been one stripe of Christian or another, saying that we're attacking Bush for his Christianity seems entirely off base. Sure, every president I've disliked has been Christian ... but so has every one I've liked. They're the only ones who get elected.

Now, if you want to say that some are attacking him for being a fundamentalist who has no understanding of the scientific method or the meaning of evidence, and who clearly believes that if his God says it, everyone else should fall in line regardless of belief ... well, then, I can only plead guilty as charged. I think knee-jerk aggressive fundamentalism of ANY faith is dangerous, and would oppose anyone that dogmatic in office regardless of the faith in question.

(Well, okay ... maybe not every single faith. It's hard to think of how a fundamentalist Zen Buddhist would be threatening...)

TWL

Roger wrote: "I mean in that empirically driven, studies done, classics-in-behavioral-psychology-type thing....folks have known about the effects that occur if you put poorly trained personnel out there, with little outside contact, and with ggreat pressure to get results."

You're making quite a few assumptions here. Poorly trained? Very, very doubtful. Besides, poor training does not account for such behavior.

Yeah, I can see it now. "OK, recruits, during this human relations training session, I want you all to understand that in the Army, you are not allowed to sodomize, beat and torture people like you did back home."

To be sure, there was a serious leadership problem somewhere, and based on my experience, it was probably at the unit level in Iraq. But ultimately, like any CEO or senior organization leader, the buck stops at Rumsfeld's desk. All I'm saying, however, is he's really about as responsible for what happened as are you or I.

I could use your exact armchair general argument about Clinton's debacle in Somalia; Reagan's disasterous foray into Beirut; Carter's embarrassing failed hostage rescue in Iran; Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon's bloody, never-ending war in Vietnam; Roosevelt's blindness about the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, etc. You see, it's EASY to say stuff was "obvious" after the fact.

May I suggest that any of the folks out there who feel they are that much more intelligent and perceptive than so many of our country's current leaders, perhaps they might do us all a favor and run for president, or some other important elected office. Judging by the level of stupidity in Washington I keep hearing about, such a feat should be quite easy.

Russ Maheras

May I suggest that any of the folks out there who feel they are that much more intelligent and perceptive than so many of our country's current leaders, perhaps they might do us all a favor and run for president, or some other important elected office. Judging by the level of stupidity in Washington I keep hearing about, such a feat should be quite easy.

Not without a buttload of money, an independent already-made power base, or a commitment from one of the two major parties to bankroll you, it isn't. Given how frequently you claim you're an independent voter, I'm surprised you didn't raise this issue yourself. (And yes, I realize you were mostly being sarcastic. I'm pointing out that it's just not that easy.)

Electoral politics in this country are screwed up beyond belief. Not beyond repair (instant-runoff voting, where are you?), but beyond belief.

TWL

"Think about it. You said that you're a father, so I would imagine that when you first heard that you were going to have a baby, you were overcome with joy. Now imagine that your wife (girlfriend, etc.) or yourself decided that you simply couldn't afford to have a kid, and so she simply aborted it. That means that that little bundle of joy, a person, would never have existed solely due to lack of money (a very Republican outcome if I ever heard one). And abortions do occur over money -- you're only kidding yourself if you doubt that.

"PAD, feel free to chime in on this one. I'm curious to see how a father can justify something like this."

My justification lies in disagreeing with a single word of your description above: "And so she simply aborted it."

There's nothing simple about it.

You make it sound as if women look at their check book, decide whether it fits in their budget, and opt out of having a child on that basis. Are there women that cavalier? Quite probably.

But I know women who have had abortions, and there was nothing "simple" in their decision. It was gut-wrenching, agonizing, soul searching. And it's one that the government has absolutely no place in.

Then again, I've also come to the logical realizaton that if one supports a woman's right to choose, one must also support legalizing prostitution. You can't say, "I support her right to do what she wants with her own body when it comes to pregnancy, but not what she wants to do with her own body insofar as the act that leads to pregnancy." So what do I know?

PAD

"My justification lies in disagreeing with a single word of your description above: "And so she simply aborted it."

There's nothing simple about it."

Or, to quote feminist author Frederica Matthews:

"A woman doesn't want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. A woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg."

Bladestar: Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don't care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there's going to be trouble...

Blade, laws are enacted on beliefs every day in this country. Zoning ordinances are passed that prevent a sex club from opening up right next to a school. Tax codes are modified so that the elderly and handicapped don't see a huge spike in their property taxes. There are arguments for and against it all. Why shouldn't a sex club open next to a school as long as they are not soliciting the business? Why shouldn't a retiree pay as much as a worker in property taxes?

Your belief is that abortion should be legal. That's fine. However, having the opposite belief doesn't make one ignorant/superstitious. I see the merit in both sides, really, as I think most people do. I find it horrifying that a woman with no medical need to do so would choose to end a pregnancy, but I find it equally appalling to have government involved in preventing it.

Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don't care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there's going to be trouble...

Oh, I didn't realize that a philisophical viewpoint held by millions of people was a superstitious ignorant religious belief, but if YOU say it, then it must be true. MY point was that it's better to address viewpoints you dispute through debate, but I suppose it's also possible to just bypass deliberative democracy and make thinly-veiled threats of violence. That seems to be the path you've chosen.

I notice that you also have an opinion. Will there not be trouble when you try to enforce it?

And for what it's worth, I essentially agree with Mark L on the underlying morality of the issue.

TWL wrote: "Not without a buttload of money, an independent already-made power base, or a commitment from one of the two major parties to bankroll you, it isn't. Given how frequently you claim you're an independent voter, I'm surprised you didn't raise this issue yourself. (And yes, I realize you were mostly being sarcastic. I'm pointing out that it's just not that easy.)"

Yes, I was being sarcastic, but really only up to a point. The process of getting oneself elected to a high office like senator, representative or president IS a very difficult process, and can literally take decades. Yet, all these "idiots" and "morons" I keep hearing about in Washington figured out how to fill all the squares and do it. Why can't all the intellectuals out there do the same and come to our rescue? Why, indeed? Over the years, I've wondered the same thing during several elections where I was faced with NO candidates I wanted to vote for. More than once, I've found myself saying as I stood over a ballot, "Geez, is this the best we've got?!"

The fact is, intellectuals often excel at criticizing, but rarely put themselves at risk by taking charge and subjecting themselves to the scrutiny, abuse and criticism inherent in public service work. Too bad. Their fear of failure just could be our loss -- but we'll never know now, will we?

Russ Maheras

Tim,
Electoral politics in this country are screwed up beyond belief?
I would argue, that even if your statement is true - and I'm not conceding it is, mainly because it's pretty broad - that the ELECTORATE is even more screwed up.
The average person talks about "politics" like it's a dirty word. I was discussing 9/11 - not the politics of it, the event itself - with a friend of mine in a hometown bar recently - and he asked the bartender who we both know personally - her opinion. She said she doesn't talk about "politics". Politics? We were talking about 9/11! How can anyone not have an opinion or feelings on that?
There is a lot more I can say, Tim. But the fact remains that an alarmingly high number of people DON'T GIVE A DAMN about anything that goes on. It's not because they're "disenfranchised" or any of the elitist codewords people use to explain why people are apathetic. They just are, and it's been that way since the Revolution itself. It takes people who are knowledgeable, like yourself, to put themselves on the line and work hard to make change happen.
Which is why I respect anyone who actively seeks public office to some degree, whether that be John McCain, Ted Kennedy, the Greens and Libertarians who have convictions and are trying to get their ideas and voices heard, or your local school board members.
Everyone bitches about "politicians", but few people want to work with them to solve problems, and even fewer want to become them.

Russ,

While I agree with most of what you said, part of the reason "intellectuals" (your word) tend not to end up in higher office is that when they run, they lose. Look at Adlai Stevenson -- or, for more recent examples, people like Bill Bradley. I think this actually gets back to Peter's original point, though I wouldn't put it as strongly as he does. This country has a profound anti-intellectual bias that dates back decades if not longer. As I've said before, we're the only Western nation for whom creationism vs. evolution is even an issue -- something which I certainly take as evidence that intelligence (or at least analytical thought) is dismissed as "egghead stuff."

You are of course right when you say that for a lot of people, it's easier to criticize than to propose solutions -- but just because someone's not running for office doesn't mean they're not putting themselves out there proposing solutions.

TWL

Jerome,

I'm not seeing much to disagree with there -- the electorate is certainly screwed up as well.

I think the two go hand in hand. The more our two-party system breaks down and the more we have elections where we really, really want to have "None of These Dorks" listed on the ballot as an option, the more people assume that their opinions and their votes don't matter and decide that everything is "just politics."

And again, it gets back to the anti-intellectual bias I was mentioning to Russ. Here, we consider it a good turnout if we have 55% voter participation in an election. In other countries, that would be (and is) laughed at as a pathetic showing. That doesn't mean every single voter in those other countries is seriously considering the issues, of course -- but it certainly suggests that a greater percentage of, say, the Spanish, are doing so than Americans.

TWL

Michael Savage has for years said there should be a 3rd major party. The problem is how does one of the major parties go & play w/ the big two (& i don't mea DC & Marvel)

Joe

While a third major party would be nice, I'll keep on arguing that it's the method of voting that should change.

Preference voting (instant runoff, etc.) is, so far as I understand it, a marvelous tool that can often lead to the birth of viable third parties.

The key thing about is that no vote is really "throwing a vote away". If your first-choice is a long shot, you can vote for him/her anyway -- it just means that if he/she really does come in 10th out of a field of 10, they're the first to get bumped and have their votes redistributed.

The "is Nader a spoiler?" question would not have been an issue in 2000 under this system. Neither would similar questions about Perot in '92.

The odds of either major party going along with this change in system, however...

TWL

No, the major parties are pretty well entrenched. The state legislatures have gerrymandered the House districts on both sides so that only about 5% of seats are competetive. Campaign laws are such that if you aren't in one of the two parties forget about a chance of getting media coverage, or anything resembling a shot at getting on the ballot. At my most cynical, I think that Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie are smoking cigars and laughing at the electorate.

"You guys don't understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.

Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds--and considering the multiple debacles already in progress--a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won't be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.

Second term of Bush: Bring it on.

PAD"

So you actually want him to become President again just to see him fail? Do you realize how sadistic that is?

Why the heck would you want to see the leader of our country fail? Even if the man I don't want to be in office is elected, I sure as heck wouldn't want to see him fail. That only hurts the country.

Good grief man, you've got some issues.

hmmm...

What will it take to get some of you to stop blindly following this administration?

I'll accept this as a valid question from someone who doesn't still blindly assume that the vast majority of media is actively controlled and scrip-wrote by right-wingers and as a right-wing information-distribution system.

That disqualifies so many of people.

CJA

I still don't understand people's blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support.

In a way that's an interesting and almost true consideration.

But at this point I'm having trouble seeing "they" and "their" in such a simple way.

We're not a nation because of the support of modern-day France nor because of modern-day Frenchmen any more than George Washington has an opinion of Jacque Chirac.

or any more than I hold slaves.

CJA

Besides, if you aren't one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it's none of yours or anyone else's goddamn business.

In this country even if it is my child I have no rights regarding my son or daughter. The woman in question can have my child killed and I cannot do one thing about it.

Legally I have no rights as such until my offspring is freed from her power.

Between conception and birth a child has no rights at all. The woman has the might and right. Child has neither.

Your empathy has me all weepy inside.

CJA

Legally I have no rights as such until my offspring is freed from her power.

Interesting phrasing. During that same time period, however, one can just as legitimately interpret the pro-life position to say that "the woman in question" has no rights until she is freed from the fetus's power.

Sounds just as inflammatory either way, doesn't it?

Of course it's an awkward question. It's one of the most awkward questions a woman can ever face. That's why the pro-choice position is that she is the one with the ultimate power to decide the question, rather than having someone forcing a solution on her.

TWL

My basic position on abortion, until the fetus is "developed" enough to survive outside the womb WITHOUT special life support equipment, it's not really a baby yet, and is entirely at the discretion of the mother and the skills of any medical personnel that are requested.

Tim: Interesting phrasing. During that same time period, however, one can just as legitimately interpret the pro-life position to say that "the woman in question" has no rights until she is freed from the fetus's power.

That's the burden of parenthood to begin with, as I think many of us can vouch for. I can't fly off and leave my child unsupervised without criminal charges being filed against me. Why is it that the responsibility for the child doesn't begin until birth?

You're right that that is the crux of the argument, and why the problem is so tough but I think there's too much emphasis on abortion as the only alternative. Look at the various pro-life and pro-choice websites (NOW, Planned Parenthood, Pro-Life America, etc). Very few of them talk about anything other than abortion in relation to this. Adoption is a footnote at best.

I can't fly off and leave my child unsupervised without criminal charges being filed against me.

Yes, but you have the ability to leave the child with someone else: a relative, a friend, a sitter. When the fetus is still developing, that ability is null and void for rather obvious reasons.

And I think saying "the responsibility for the child doesn't begin until birth" is a drastic and ill-chosen misrepresentation of the general pro-choice position. Nobody is suggesting that person X should get an abortion because she worries the kid's eyes won't match her nail polish, for heaven's sake. The overwhelming majority of abortions occur because (a) there is a threat to the mother's health, (b) the fetus has some sort of abnormality, or (c) the pregnancy was unplanned and the parents are unready (emotionally or financially) of supporting a child at that time.

None of those represents an easy decision, and for you to equate it with jetting off for a vacation is IMO trying to cast all abortions as the acts of irresponsible women who should know better.

(No, I don't think you're doing this consciously, Mark -- from what I've read here, you're a reasonable person. But that's the overall effect.)

And I agree with you that other alternatives would be nice (though in cases (a) and (b) above I'm not sure adoption is really relevant). Very, very few people on the pro-choice "side" want to see abortions increased; as the saying goes, "safe, legal, and rare" is the way I, at least, would like to see abortions referred to in an ideal world. Not a default option, but not an unsafe or a criminal one either.

TWL

"Nobody is suggesting that person X should get an abortion because she worries the kid's eyes won't match her nail polish, for heaven's sake."

But if she does, what then? Or to put this into a real world question--one recent study of abortions in India showed that of 8000 performed, 7999 were on girl fetuses (feti?). This has to do with the insane quest for boys that infests so much of the third world (and is one reason they will always be the third world if they don't start putting the value of women somewhere above that of a steaming pile of baboon offal).

Now...should that be legal? the same folks who talk about being "pro-choice" have deemed this "gender cleansing" and tried to make it illegal. But how can "pro-choice" mean only "good choices"? Once you decide that there are such things as bad choices that cannot be allowed you lose the right to condemn the hardline pro-lifers who simply draw the cutoff point somewhere else.

But if I saw someone advertising ultrasound as a means of gender selection...damn, that would be hard to stomach. Thoughts?

It's nice to know that PAD is an elistist and a fortune teller. You have no CLUE what anybody is going to say thirty years from now. Nice try though. What is it thats suppose to revulse me? Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet.

If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents. Not everybody is going to be MLK behind the podium. Most REAL people realize that, elistist dont. Come on PAD I thought YOU were smarter than that.

Abortion for sex-selection purposes is a pretty vile choice (IMO), and seems an awfully cavalier use of a difficult option ... but I can't come out in favor of banning it, since that's directly at odds with the woman's right to choose. (This is assuming it's the woman's choice in that situation and not the father-to-be's.)

Ideally, of course, no one would go that route. Somewhat less ideally, I think a sensible route would be to allow that, but have a sufficiently strong educational system in place that few if any people would think of sex-selective abortions as a good idea.

On a different note, I also don't quite agree with the statement that if you draw the line anywhere you can't condemn those who draw it elsewhere. Roe v. Wade prescribes limits ... but limits that have a significant scientific finding underpinning them (i.e. fetal viability). That particular line has data for backing it up, and I see little to no inconsistency in saying someone else is out of line for wanting to move the line to a location grounded only in their own biases.

TWL

Tim,
Sorry to interrupt your abortion debate, which I will gladly stay OUT of, but just a few responses to your comments about the electorate/elections:

1.) I believe in some countries the reason the voting percentage is so high because they are given cash and/or a vacation if they vote, which is really nothing short of bribery and repulses me.

2.) Our voting percentage as a nation took a huge hit when the voting age was lowered to 18. Our young people are extremely apathetic (as a whole, not all).I hate to generalize, but in this case, it's really hard to argue with the numbers. A huge reaso for this is lack of civics courses, the coddling of our youth, and a refusal of many of our young people to act like adults until they're about 30 (or at least 25).

3.) If, with the freedom of choice we have, we do get 55% of the people to the polls, well, great. They, at least, care. Do I wish more people gave a damn? Sure. But I would rather my vote not be cancelled by someone who gets upset when the War in Iraq interferes with their soap operas, or people who still don't know the candidates positions and will only vote because they think Kerry is a Communist or Bush is a Nazi. I would never discourage these people from voting, of course, but I think our nation is better served if they spend Election Day doing something they feel is important and that they will invest thenselves in.
As Jeff Greenfield said once, in response to using guilt and other means to get people to vote"
"If you don't care, don't vote."

4.) And i actually think the "lesser of two evils" charge always being leveled is utter crap. You can find something admirable about just about any candidate if you (in general, not you meaning you, Tim) look.
Unfortunately, not a lot of people take the time to try.

Jerome,

I'm not in favor of bribing people to go to the polls, but I'm not familiar with those assertions. Can you provide a source?

One thing which most countries DO do, however, is make it so that you don't need to worry about fitting a vote into your work schedule. Election Day is either on a weekend or a national holiday in a lot of countries -- and that I completely favor. It would be a statement that we as a country take voting seriously, rather than something you fit in between the evening commute and "American Idol."

(For the record, I feel the same way about jury duty. The fact that it's something almost everyone tries to get out of all but guarantees that most juries are made up of the dorks who couldn't find a way out. Is that really what "a jury of one's peers" means?)

And even if you can find something admirable about just about any candidate ("Vote Shmerdling: He's never once had sex with a goat!"), I don't think that means the "lesser of two evils" charge is nonsense. The overall package for a candidate needs to be admirable, not just one or another item, or else you're generally voting for X because "well ... they're certainly better than Y." The admirable bits give you more of a rationalization for doing so, but unless there are a lot of them or a coherent set of them that's all they are.

TWL

"I also don't quite agree with the statement that if you draw the line anywhere you can't condemn those who draw it elsewhere."

If you draw a line based on "good choices" vs "bad choices", I think you lose the right to be very critical. At least the straight line pro-lifers would be consistent. now Roe has limits based on facts, not morality, so that's another thing.

But I note that quite a few feminists suddenly went anti-choice when faced with the reality of female selective abortion. It's escaped being an issue here because we don't have the same cultural bias against girl children.

(What if they discopvered a genetic marker that predisposed a person to homosexuality. Would it be ethical to outlaw testing for the marker, since it the only reason to do so would be to use the knowledge to abort the child?)

At least the straight line pro-lifers would be consistent.

Perhaps, but here's where the old Emerson line about consistency comes in. If you want to insist on absolute down-the-line consistency, the only two permissible positions are (a) abortion at any time, for any reason, right up until labor, or (b) no abortion for any reason even if the mother dies as a result. Yes, they're both consistent, but I doubt more than 0.01% of the population would find either position particularly human.

I think the arguments need to be consistent, not necessarily the positions.

(What if they discopvered a genetic marker that predisposed a person to homosexuality. Would it be ethical to outlaw testing for the marker, since it the only reason to do so would be to use the knowledge to abort the child?)

I'd go with "no", mainly because I reject the claim that abortion would be the only reason to do so. I'm not coming up with another reason off the top of my head (unless you want other equally grey areas like "they want to tweak the genes to "cure" the homosexuality"), but I'm fairly certain SF writers in the past 5-10 years have in fact written stories about this issue in ways that *don't* include abortion.

TWL

But I'd bet that this would be THE issue in the gay community...which brings to mind a frightening yet oddly hilarious scenario where fundamentalist Evangelicals team up with radiacl Queer nation advocates in a "Save the Gay Babies" campaign.

Fortunately I'll probably be dead before all this happens. (Always look on the bright side, I say.)

Tim,
I actually DO agree with you that Election Day should be a holiday. Granted, this could lead to "Election Day sales" that would have some people in the mall instead of voting, but then those people probably would not have voted anyway.
To me, it would be more important to give people the opportunity to vote for president than to celebrate "Presidents' Day" or even Columbus Day. And I'm Italian, but I never recall anyone taking either of those holidays very seriously.
Also, I would just like to make a couple more comments about the "lesser of two evils" argument. My point is sometimes I think we have too much of an idealized version of what our leaders should be like. For example, many question kerry's speaking style, but I have heard others call it "Lincolnesque". I think that may be accurate. Not everyone can be Bill Clinton, JFK or Ronald Reagan. Bush the Senior was criticized almost as much as his son for his way of speaking.
But
A.) It is easier for us, especially when it comes to politicians, to latch onto simple crtiticisms and, more importantly, BELIEVE them than we do about good qualities.

B.) Instead of really trying to grasp complex issues, we take comfort in simple slogans, so Perot can galvanize people by saying "We just need to get under the hood and fix it", Clinton can have people gushing by saying "We need to save Social Security first" without knowing how he plans on doing that, and Dubya can campaign by saying that taxpayers have been "overcharged, and it's time to give them a refund" because a majority of people don't understand how our annual deficits and accumulated national debt affect them.
It is a chicken-and-egg thing. We need more candidates and especially the media to stop dumbing down the debate, but those who would dare to do that would be tumed out by many, since our citizenry, for the most part, has not been conditioned to understand issues in complex terms.

"Why the heck would you want to see the leader of our country fail? Even if the man I don't want to be in office is elected, I sure as heck wouldn't want to see him fail. That only hurts the country.

"Good grief man, you've got some issues."

He has already failed. He has failed on every level. What is astounding is that his supporters don't see that.

This is a man who wanted to get Saddam Hussein before he got into office. A man with a coterie of Neocons who published papers six, seven years ago advocating invading Iraq.

If 9/11 hadn't happened, Bush would never have gotten the country to go along with it. The first nine months of his administration was an orgy of incompetence and isolationism run amuck. He was a national joke.

Then the Towers fell.

And Bush exploited it.

Seeing a population suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, he and his handlers ruthlessly and maliciously played upon the fear that seeped from every pore of the American skin. Every major speech he made was designed to exacerbate that fear, to keep Americans frightened and off balance and, most of all, dependent. (Quick! It's time for another color coded alert!) He steamrolled an Iraq initiative that he never would have managed to push through without 9/11, all the while lying about the threat that Iraq posed. Meanwhile his subordinates angrily dismissed any scenario--even those suggested by top Army brass--that suggested Iraq would do anything other than unilaterally roll over and welcome us with open arms. Realistic calculations of troop numbers required to maintain order were dismissed for lowball estimates that proved to be horrifically wrong.

For years Arab youth has been inculcated into the notion that the United States poses a threat. Thanks to the manipulative actions of George W. Bush, in the eyes of the Arab world, that threat has now been verified. And yet people still believe that Bush is keeping us safe from terrorists (Apparently the WTC, which happened nine months into his watch, didn't count. Perhaps it was a freebie) and are oblivious to the fact that a new generation of terrorists has been spawned by this calamitous and ill-advised new war.

The question isn't why do I have issues with Bush. The question is, why in hell don't you?

PAD

"It's nice to know that PAD is an elistist and a fortune teller. You have no CLUE what anybody is going to say thirty years from now."

A wise man said that there is no future and no present; merely a past that's endlessly relived. All the abuses of the past--the Vietnam war, abuses in internment camps, the repression of civil rights--they're all happening right now in one great festival of insanity. It takes neither an elitist nor a fortune teller to see that. It only takes someone with their head buried in the sand not to see it.

"Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet."

And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?

"If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents."

Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they'll be the same.

PAD

Mr. David,
I try not to get involved with political discussions to much, because, aside from religion, it's the easiest way to get people riled up. Mention anything about politics, and it's the equivalent of putting a stick in a hornets nest and stirring it up. You, as well as a few others on here, really tend to take this stuff to heart.
I do have one question though. Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are blind? You are not the only one to have stated as much, others have posted almost the same thing. Maybe someone has looked at it with a different set of values, or a different way of life, or whatever, and they weighed all the facts, as you have, and they made a decision based off the facts and their life experiences, and for some strange reason, come to the opposite view point as you. Does that make them blind? You've asked how people can't see something. Maybe they do see it, and look at it differently than you. That doesn't make them blind. It just means they have a different point of view.
To me, this is the equivalent of driving down the road and calling anyone who passes you, going faster, a maniac, and the ones you have to pass an idiot.

Steve

If I might have the temerity to answer:

Steve, I'm comfortably certain that Peter disagrees with, for instance, George Will on any number of things, from proper fiscal policy to the relative moral value of the New York Yankees. However, in a recent column (published today in my local paper), Mr. Will reveals that he is not so blind as all that - even he can see that the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses ("We have to destroy those WMDs that Saddam has aimed at us before he can launch them! Oh, wait, there aren't any..."), and that the course Bush and his cronies are intent on following can lead only to disaster.

The ones Peter refers to as "blind" are the ones who still can't tell, even after all the evidence has been dumped in their laps, that Dubya's war is bogus, and his buddies are in it for every dollar they can scrape up (and to hell with anyone, American or Iraqi, who gets in their way!). This isn't a mere matter of "disagreement" about subjects in dispute; this is a matter of willful ignorance of freely available information.

Some people considering sacrificing children to "Satan" a good thing, but I still call them morons, don't you?

I am a self proclaimed fence rider, and as such I get slightly, notice the word slightly, offended at being referred to as blind if I don't have a problem with the war in Iraq. I was in the desert for the big one, and saw things that most people can't imagine. What you see on the news is only a glimpse of the whole picture, and it is only the glimpse that the news people, whoever they are, want you to see. So my view of the war was that it was not ALL good, nor ALL bad. It was something that needed to be done, sooner or later. I don't advocate invasions or standing by and hoping that a group of political heads from all over the world writing down 'resolutions' and saying that you'd better follow this or else we'll write another one, is the right answer. I don't have the answers. I know enough to know that I don't have a frickin' clue about anything. I don't know how to run a gov't. I don't know how to propose to stop someone from committing genocide on his own people. But I do know that what I've seen gives me a different point of view on things, and it doesn't make me blind to things. I know that just because I don't have an issue with a war, doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with me.

Personally, I thought the reaction of the President after 9/11 was right on the money. I'm not sure all of the actions taken were the correct ones, but I feel that the reaction of the gov't to the events was correct. I feel that keeping people in fear of another attack was the best thing at the time, because there are to many people who don't fully comprehend what an attack like that really means. Better to get the masses in a state of paranoia and fear for a time, rather than give false reassurances that everything will be okay. It's not going to be. Ever again. There is no more sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the events that shape the world around us. So there are going to be a lot of different views on things. Some people are going to want action, others not. The ones that want action aren't necessarily blind, they just want something different.

I could draw out all kinds of examples here, but I feel that I have gotten my point across.

It's too easy to sit back and say that you are in the right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, blind, or fooling themselves. Marv has cosmic awareness, do you Mr. David?

Steve

I don't want to go all John Byrne and just say "What he said," but in this case there's no way to avoid it: It's what Jonathan said.

Janeane Garafalo opined that, by this point, supporting Bush represents a character flaw. That the only way someone couldn't admit the Bush presidency is a disaster of global proportions is that they're simply too stubborn or personally invested to do so. I don't know that I entirely agree with that assessment, but there's certainly a grain of truth in it.

PAD

"I am a self proclaimed fence rider, and as such I get slightly, notice the word slightly, offended at being referred to as blind if I don't have a problem with the war in Iraq. "

See, whereas I get seriously offended when, as is becoming more commonplace, people distort what I say for the sake of attacking it.

Let's see what I said:

"Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they'll be the same."

This cannot be argued with. So instead of trying, let's transform it into:

"I do have one question though. Why is it that if someone doesn't agree with you, they are blind?"

which instantly becomes snidely expanded upon as:

"It's too easy to sit back and say that you are in the right and that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong, blind, or fooling themselves. Marv has cosmic awareness, do you Mr. David?"

No, but I do have an awareness of what I said, which appears to be more than others have.

I said that only someone with their head buried in the sand cannot see that some of the greatest sins in this country's history are being replayed right now. That's true. I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical. That's true. But why try to deal with true statements when a nice, tidy untrue one ("Peter says anyone who disagrees with him is blind") is so much more convenient.

This is how distortions thrive. This is how lies surpass the truth. This is how Americans get suckered, and this is how GOP spinmakers convinced everyone that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet and that John Kerry changes his mind on everything (while glossing over Bush's acclaimed "We shouldn't be involved in nation building" statement four years ago.) They do it by repeating distortions over and over again (just as you guys did) until everyone remembers the lie instead of the truth.

Shameful.

PAD

Eh?
Did you just edit your last post? I was going to respond that I'm not trying to twist anyone's words against them. I strongly believe in "Say what you mean and mean what you say" and to me there is a strong sense that people who don't agree with one another on here tend to call each other blind. Maybe its a way of being civil.
I've read a lot of posts on this particular thread, and maybe I got something wrong, but the underlying message that I got, most specifically from you and a couple of others, is "How can you be so blind?"

Steve

AJ said "If thirty years from now Iraq is similar to Japan, Bush will considered one of the greatest presidents."

PAD answers,
"Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they'll be the same."
PAD

Then a few posts later PAD says:

"I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical. That's true."

Where do I begin? AJ stated that if Iraq ends up SIMILAR to Japan in 30 years Bush will be a hero. PAD states that you'd have to be blind to the differences in cultures to think that this would happen.

Now if one wants to think that AJ meant that Iraq woud be full of Asians with great taste in animation and a fondness for raw fish, yeah, you're right. Also, you're John Byrne.

If one assumes that AJ meant that in 30 years our former enemy might go from a dictatorship to a democratic ally...I don't think the Iraqi people are culturally doomed not to have any chance of emulating Japan's success. We will see. Japan and germany were very different culturally and they ended up in similar positions. At any rate that is a highly arguable point. Claiming that one would have to be blind to the facts to think otherwise indicates a rather strong degree of arrogance.

But the second PAD statement doesn't match the first. Apparently he realized that it didn't make much sense so he changes it to "I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical." Which is true of course. It's just not the same thing as the earlier statement. And he knows it.

I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own. When I see the smug condenscending attitudes that some have toward those who dare to come to different conclusions...I sure hope you don't have to deal with any family members who go to the "other side". Gonna make for a fun Thansgiving.

"Did you just edit your last post?"

Yes, because I posted one lengthy message discussing people being blind and then realized that I'd fallen prey to that exact mindset: Defending not what I said, but what people said I'd said. So I went back and deleted a chunk of it.

"I've read a lot of posts on this particular thread, and maybe I got something wrong, but the underlying message that I got, most specifically from you and a couple of others, is "How can you be so blind?"

First, this is a message board, not an underlying message board. Subtext is in my fiction, not my posts. Second, you've just admitted to doing what I said you were doing: Taking your interpretation of what I said, pretending I said it (in this case, even ascribing quotes to it) and then discussing the interpretation. It's sloppy argumentation. Unfortunately, it's not only epidemic in this country, but Presidential elections are starting to turn on it. Smith says "A"," Jones comes back and says, "You said 'B'," Smith replies "I didn't say 'B'!" But the problem is that he has to repeat "B" in order to address the lie, and all people remember is "B" because it's reiterated.

As I said, no wonder over a period of months the RAM (Republic Attack Machine) manages to convince Americans of untruths so thoroughly. The "Peter says everyone who disagrees with him is blind" lie required only 45 minutes to take root here. And that wasn't even organized. This entire exchange, right here, offers intriguing insight into the steering and manipulation of the electorate.

PAD

Perhaps we should say instead, please take the blinders off? I wrote about people blindly following this administration. Even staunch Republicans are up in arms about the doings of the people in power. Listen to John McCain for a view from the right. Criticism of those in government, when their interests outweigh the country's, is a moral imperative. And when we talk about those who blindly follow, we are talking about the people who believe this administration can do no wrong. They have made major mistakes. The deficit. The environment. Education bills not fully funded. Job losses. Etc. But some on this thread continue to argue that we are just bashing Bush when we point these out. We are bashing his policies. Which are making life worse for most people in this country. When you adore someone who is not working in your best interests, this is blindness, not simply a difference of opinion.

"But the second PAD statement doesn't match the first. Apparently he realized that it didn't make much sense so he changes it to "I said you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical." Which is true of course. It's just not the same thing as the earlier statement. And he knows it."

No, it's the same. One's just a restatement of the other. I stand by both. Now if you want to endlessly try and split hairs and pick them apart on that basis, knock yourself out, but the sentiment remains: Iraq and Japan will not be similar in thirty years, and anyone who thinks they will be is blind to vast cultural differences between the two (which is now a THIRD way of saying the same thing).

For the most mild of starters, we didn't storm into Japan, capture the Emperor and drag him away. The Japanese emperor voluntarily lay aside his claims to divinity and urged his countrymen to cooperate in the rebuilding. The only people in Iraq urging the people to cooperate with America are Iraqi exiles who are perceived as being in America's pocket. In Japan, a house was built upon a foundation of concrete. In Iraq, we're on a foundation of sand. Iraqis have thousands upon thousands of years of enmity toward EACH OTHER, much less us. Comparing Iraq and Japan isn't just comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and milk shakes.

Saying that *if* Iraq is like Japan thirty years from now, then Bush will be remembered as great, is ridiculous, because it requires a pie-in-the-sky view of Iraq that is blind to the historical circumstances that made the Japan rebuilding possible.

Oh, and by the way...the rebuilding of Japan came as a result of a "World" war. Not a "United States" war.

PAD

I supported attacking Afghanistan, did not support attacking Iraq. Bush's inarticulateness hurts him in the respect that it appears that he had insufficient reasons to attack Iraq, and that his inability to articulate very well makes it appear that he has not thought things through very well. All he can do is repeat things like "stay the course" like a mantra, which is not enough to convince me that we really should stay the course.

Mr. David,
I really had no intention of angering you. If it did, I apologize. I was looking for an answer, got one (not quite what I wanted), and seemed to stir up the hornets a bit myself. I suppose I couldn't get anywhere near it myself without a few stings, no matter how careful I tried to be.

Steve

Didn't Japan actually lunch an attack on United States property bacvk in WWII? Don't recall Iraq doing doing that even recently...

I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own.

Close friends? No -- probably in part because most people I've run into of a significantly different political persuasion also have tastes sufficiently different enough in other arenas that there's not much basis for an initial friendship.

Relatives? Oh, yes, most certainly.

When I see the smug condenscending attitudes that some have toward those who dare to come to different conclusions...I sure hope you don't have to deal with any family members who go to the "other side".

Leaving aside the fact that this is perhaps a touch condescending itself ... in that particular case the solution is fairly easy.

I do, for example, have friends of a significantly different religious faith than mine (to wit, they have one). Both couples are aware the difference of opinion exists, and as a result we tread a little more lightly around that topic than we might if we were around those of "like mind."

Similarly, politics tends not to come up at family gatherings where we know it would only cause grief. When it does, there's generally an attempt to focus on the areas of commonality rather than differences. Not the same tone I'd use at a rally, no -- but the tone I use in my classroom is certainly different than the tone I'd use at an SF convention. (Well ... most of the time, anyway. The AP kids tend to bring out some overlap.)

We all wear different hats at different times, at least if we pretend to have any social graces at all. I don't think it's especially valid to look at writing here and extrapolate out to the rest of anyone's life.

TWL

"Didn't Japan actually lunch an attack on United States property bacvk in WWII?"

Well, it was more like breakfast-time than lunch, really... ;)

If one assumes that AJ meant that in 30 years our former enemy might go from a dictatorship to a democratic ally...I don't think the Iraqi people are culturally doomed not to have any chance of emulating Japan's success.

However, I think we are doing quite a job of dooming it ourselves, with these incompetent boobs in charge.

A quick, orderly exchange of power, with little disruption would have been the best chance of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq.

Given our blunders with consistent disruptions in power and utilities through the early part of this year, the fractured political situation, the constant insurgencies (which I suspect are part of an orchestrated counter movement by Sadaam's underlings who waited until now), the large number of mistaken detainments of Iraqui civilians (up to 90% according to the Red Cross) and the lack of leadership and training that allowed the abuse of some of those civilians, I have a very hard time seeing that Iraq in 30 years time will become a US ally like Japan.

If you want to say that "Only someone completely blind to the differences in culture between Iraq and Japan could possibly think they'll be the same." is the same as "you have to be blind to believe that the social climates of Japan and Iraq are identical." well, ok. Others can judge for themselves, the words are just a few clicks above.

I might suggest though, that if you really want us to be sympathetic to the way the Republican Attack Machine twists your words you ought to be a little more careful. AJ talks about two countries ending up "similar" and you talk about them being "the same". Two different words, two different meanings.

"For the most mild of starters, we didn't storm into Japan, capture the Emperor and drag him away. The Japanese emperor voluntarily lay aside his claims to divinity and urged his countrymen to cooperate in the rebuilding."

True. We also burned them to the ground and dropped two nuclear bombs on them. Japan was destroyed to a degree that the Iraqis will never have to face even a fraction of.

One could argue that this lack of destruction may work against us--Hitler didn't give us his blessing but germany also was pacified, so maybe it can be argued that to make the peace work you need to make the war as brutal as possible. But I'd prefer we try this approach.

One can also point out that the Iraqi people never considered Sadam a god. few were willing to give their lives for him, as opposed to the suicidal courage of the japanese soldier. At any rate we will be handing him over to their tender mercies in a few months. I rather doubt that he will get the Hirohito treatment from his beloved countrymen.

"The only people in Iraq urging the people to cooperate with America are Iraqi exiles who are perceived as being in America's pocket."

That isn't true. Many Iraqis are working with the coalition. Few have joined up with the insurgents. The AP is reporting that "about 1,000 people, including a few women in black veils, marched through the streets of Najaf on Tuesday to urge radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers to leave the city."

I've seen articles on Iraqis doing all kinds of things with the coalition. What is your source that only the exiles are urging cooperation?

"Iraqis have thousands upon thousands of years of enmity toward EACH OTHER, much less us. Comparing Iraq and Japan isn't just comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and milk shakes."

Japan has thousands and thousands of years of enmity, war, and atrocity against its neighbors. It's history is a fascinating but highly bloodstained one.

At any rate, your claims to the contrary, a reasonable argument can be made that decades from now Iraq will stand among the civilized democratic nations. You may not be receptive to the idea, you may prefer to think anyone who thinks otherwise blind to the facts. Hey--in the end you may even be right!

"Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet."

And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?

That was a really ignorant response. You have many but this one was really ignorant.

What does how many fights he has been in have to do with his intelligence?

Maybe you,Peter Allen David, are questioning the intelligence of the wrong people!

It just occured to me that to believe that only the exiles are urging support for the coalition requires one to totally ignore the Kurds, who have been supporting us before, during, and after the war.

I have to wonder how many of the people on this board have any close friends of a significantly different political persuasion than that of their own.

As it turns out, I have quite a few. And what happens is that we have civil disagreements...but sure as hell don't treat each other with contempt..and sometimes...we change each others' opinions on things.

Roger, that's good. I think that part of the reason that civil discussions are getting so rare is because it's easy to think about those "other people" in (self indulgently) negative ways when they aren't folks who have demonstrated their capacity for friendship and love.

Whenever there's an election and the losing party members staggar around saying dopey things like "I don't get it...how did this happen? NOBODY I know voted for _________" I have to marvel at the mindset that could possibly end up with only friends of a particular political party.

"And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?

"That was a really ignorant response. You have many but this one was really ignorant."

And yet no answer was forthcoming...

PAD

Roger, that's good. I think that part of the reason that civil discussions are getting so rare is because it's easy to think about those "other people" in (self indulgently) negative ways when they aren't folks who have demonstrated their capacity for friendship and love.

Whenever there's an election and the losing party members staggar around saying dopey things like "I don't get it...how did this happen? NOBODY I know voted for _________" I have to marvel at the mindset that could possibly end up with only friends of a particular political party.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Give the man a prize! I think that's exactly how we should approach things.

I think there HAS been an unfortunate tendency for people nowadays to group together with only like-minded folks; makes it easy to demonize others. While it's very apparent in racial matters, it crosses all sorts of political, class and ideological lines. And this encourages a type of thinking that's not so very different from the people we oppose or are fighting against. Hm. A point in favor of message boards like this.

I think we should be on guard against that kind of group think or monoculture. Recognize that there are things we all agree on (Democracy in Iraq? Goooooood. Abusing prisoners of war? Baaaaaaaaaad) and there are things we can legitimately disagree on (What's the best way to do this?)

Of course, that doesn't mean everything has to be sweetness and light...Some of my friends have this amazing ability to really piss me off sometimes....

This is how distortions thrive. This is how lies surpass the truth. This is how Americans get suckered, and this is how GOP spinmakers convinced everyone that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet and that John Kerry changes his mind on everything (while glossing over Bush's acclaimed "We shouldn't be involved in nation building" statement four years ago.) They do it by repeating distortions over and over again (just as you guys did) until everyone remembers the lie instead of the truth.

History may come down against Mr Bush on the war (hell, I wasn't crazy about it to begin with, and I'm a Republican who plans on voting for the President again this fall), but don't succumb to the same temptation you were railing against Steve for, namely ignoring uncomfortable facts when they're inconvenient. Al Gore honestly did say “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” Gore in close association with Newt Gingrich did in fact take the lead in the Congress in supporting the internet, and both Gingrich and assorted net geeks affirmed during the 2000 Campaign that the internet would have been much slower in developing without the assistance of people like (and including) Al Gore. Gore wasn't a liar; he was a clod. But it is kind of funny that you'd bring up this statement at the trailing end of a thread that started when you criticized Bush for being inarticulate.

"And yet no answer was forthcoming..."

Do you think it is because the question had nothing to do with the topic and was of no importance on establishing Bush's intelligence?

"Janeane Garafalo opined that, by this point, supporting Bush represents a character flaw. That the only way someone couldn't admit the Bush presidency is a disaster of global proportions is that they're simply too stubborn or personally invested to do so. I don't know that I entirely agree with that assessment, but there's certainly a grain of truth in it.

PAD"

So Janeane Garafalo is the Democratic Poster child now? I wouldn't take too much stock into what she says. Doesn't she equate Bush as being as bad or worse than Saddam?

Maybe she can be Kerry's running mate.

"The question isn't why do I have issues with Bush. The question is, why in hell don't you?

PAD"

I think he has done a great job as our President. He says he's going to do something and it gets done. That's the bottom line.

I am so glad that he was President when we were viciously attacked. I hate to think what would have happened if Gore was President instead.

"The question isn't why do I have issues with Bush. The question is, why in hell don't you?

PAD"

Novafan:

>I think he has done a great job as our President. He says he's going to do something and it gets done. That's the bottom line.

The economy, employment, healthcare, finding those responsible for the 9-11 bombings, taking out a country that was on the verge of setting off nukes and revealing them, and resolving the North Korea conflict to name a few..... maybe not so much.

>I am so glad that he was President when we were viciously attacked. I hate to think what would have happened if Gore was President instead.

Possibly utilize the simpathy that the entire worldhad for us and work as a global community to focus specifically on bin Laden and his cronies, revealing them to the world as the weasals that they are.

"I am so glad that he was President when we were viciously attacked. I hate to think what would have happened if Gore was President instead."

Well, for starters, he might not have stonewalled the concept of a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was a recommendation of the Clinton Administration, and there might not have BEEN a vicious attack.

Certainly Americans wouldn't be dying in Iraq and the world wouldn't despise us.

PAD

"The economy, employment, healthcare, ... maybe not so much."

You know what? I was out of work for six months and couldn't collect unemployment benefits. I don't blame this on Bush for one second. So you're barking up the wrong tree if you want to tell me Bush was to blame for our economy and unemployment rate being in the tubes.

"finding those responsible for the 9-11 bombings..... maybe not so much."

It's not like we have the Biggest manhunt in the history of the world ongoing right now for Osama Bin Laden is it? He'll make a mistake one day and be found.

"taking out a country that was on the verge of setting off nukes and revealing them.... maybe not so much."

I'm guessing you're talking about Iraq here? Saddam was capable of obtaining Nuclear weapons and would not have had a problem with using them.

"and resolving the North Korea conflict to name a few..... maybe not so much."

This won't be so easy since they probably have Nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

"Well, for starters, he might not have stonewalled the concept of a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was a recommendation of the Clinton Administration, and there might not have BEEN a vicious attack.

Certainly Americans wouldn't be dying in Iraq and the world wouldn't despise us.

PAD"

And just how many years did Clinton and Gore have in office to get this Department of Homeland Security established? Can you refresh my memory?

hmmm

Then you're blaming Bush for not having it established before 9/11 because it was a Clinton/Gore recommendation.

Good grief.

"The economy, employment, healthcare, ... maybe not so much."
Novafan:

>You know what? I was out of work for six months and couldn't collect unemployment benefits. I don't blame this on Bush for one second. So you're barking up the wrong tree if you want to tell me Bush was to blame for our economy and unemployment rate being in the tubes.

I didn't blame him. I was responding to your statement that Bush has done everythig that he said he would. He has not accomplished any of the promises of the things that I listed.

No, Novafan, Peter's not blaming Bush for not having the DHS in place before 9/11.

He's just possibly blaming Bush for stonewalling the formation of the department until he could (a) get the union-busting provision in he wanted, and (b) use it as a campaign issue against the very Democrats who helped propose it in the first place. (I may be putting words in his mouth, but if I were in his shoes that's what I'D have meant by the statement.)

You might want to do a little research into the history of said department before leaping to conclusions.

TWL

I think he has done a great job as our President. He says he's going to do something and it gets done. That's the bottom line.

Well, that's the point. He has NOT gotten it done. The whole Iraq war is a stunning example of incompetence. He MAY have got the job done militarily (remember...the guerilla was seems to be a preconceived plan that Saddam and his loyalists may have planned out earlier), but he's fallen miserably short on the political and diplomatic end. Judging by his own goals, he's fallen short in at least two out of three areas.

You're going to give him a pass for failing two of three areas?

Tim,

While your comments on the dept of Homeland Security make sense, this is what Peter actually wrote:

"Well, for starters, he might not have stonewalled the concept of a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was a recommendation of the Clinton Administration, and there might not have BEEN a vicious attack."

So it isn't surprising if Novafan takes away from that the idea that Peter thinks that Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he had established the dept earlier. I wasn't aware that Clinton had even proposed such a thing. regardless, I doubt it would have had much traction up to and including 9/10.

"Well, for starters, he might not have stonewalled the concept of a Department of Homeland Security simply because it was a recommendation of the Clinton Administration, and there might not have BEEN a vicious attack."

"So it isn't surprising if Novafan takes away from that the idea that Peter thinks that Bush could have prevented 9/11 if he had established the dept earlier. I wasn't aware that Clinton had even proposed such a thing. regardless, I doubt it would have had much traction up to and including 9/10."

It isn't surprising since Novafan parrots the Bush line word for word, but that's not the point. My understanding is that Clinton commissioned a thorough study of the intelligence situation in the United States and that commission came back with a report in the last months of the administration that cited major gaps in communication between the Federal intelligence gathering agencies. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security was strongly urged in order to bridge that gap.

However, Clinton's administration felt there was simply no time to do so in the brief months left to their administration. So the report for the creation of such a Department, along with some of the personnel who made the report, was handed over to the Bush administration.

Where it was stonewalled. The Clintonians advocating a Department of Homeland Security got absolutely nowhere with the Bush people, who were too busy focusing on Saddam Hussein and overturning every other Clinton initiative they could. The intelligence gaps continued unabated, and it was that lack of communication that has been repeatedly cited as being a factor in the signals for 9/11 being missed.

I never said Bush "could" have prevented 9/11. Indeed, my guess is that it would have happened eventually, but it would be called another date. But he *might* have prevented it if he'd only listened. Instead, after the horses escaped, he closed the barn door and dubbed the barn the Department of Homeland Security. Nice idea. Too bad it wasn't his, and too bad he didn't do it sooner.

PAD

Early on, Clinton opted to combat terrorism with a so-called law enforcement strategy, by indicting and prosecuting them in court, but the failure of that was plain to all on September 11. President Bush is not immune from criticism; he held over many of Clinton’s appointees especially at CIA and the FBI.

Could someone explain to me why PAD hates blind people and thinks they're stupid?

It's not like we have the Biggest manhunt in the history of the world ongoing right now for Osama Bin Laden is it? He'll make a mistake one day and be found.

Too bad Bush took away resources from that manhunt for Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake and only restored those resources when he realized there was an election. Maybe they would have found him by now.

You liberal elitists are all such intellectual heavyweights. According to your comments, what makes a President great is determined by their ability to speak articulately. Well, Adolf Hitler was a tremedous speaker. Perhaps you would like to express your admiration for him? I also find it funny how the majority of intelligent educated people will vote Bush and the majority of uneducated victims (who need free handouts and don't understand the concept of actually working hard in life) will vote Kerry. Wow - your insightful opinion is so revolutionary! It's just exciting!

Rick:
>You liberal elitists are all such intellectual heavyweights. According to your comments, what makes a President great is determined by their ability to speak articulately. Well, Adolf Hitler was a tremedous speaker. Perhaps you would like to express your admiration for him?

The man wasone of the world's greatest monsters, but he knew how to work a crowd. One of his shortcomings was that he was fanatical in his drive, spread his army out too far, and alienated most of the world. Sound familiar?

Had Hitler not sent off a huge percentage of his troops unprepared, only to have them freeze to death in the winter wasteland of the Soviet Union but had he spent more time planning and listening to consult more than he did, he may well have come closer to accomplishing his goal.

Before anyone comes to the conclusion that I'm stating that George is as cold-hearted and murderous as Hitler was, I'll state clearly that this is not my point. You are right though... he sure aintas articulate.

>I also find it funny how the majority of intelligent educated people will vote Bush and the majority of uneducated victims (who need free handouts and don't understand the concept of actually working hard in life) will vote Kerry. Wow - your insightful opinion is so revolutionary! It's just exciting!

Wow..... talk about insight.

"Had Hitler not sent off a huge percentage of his troops unprepared, only to have them freeze to death in the winter wasteland of the Soviet Union but had he spent more time planning and listening to consult more than he did, he may well have come closer to accomplishing his goal."

Another blockade in the Nazi path, thank heavens, was Hitler's tendency to micromanage his military's technology. The Messerschmitt Me-262 should have been the world's first practical jet fighter, and given the Nazis control over European airspace - but Hitler insisted it should be a bomber as well, which slowed development enough that by the time the first 262 took to the skies, it was too late to turn the tide.

I kind of liked David Brin's response, when asked to contribute to an anthology of "what-if" stories about the Nazis winning WWII. "I couldn't come up with a plausible way it could have happened, because the Nazis were just such *schmucks*!"

As an aside, Fred - sometimes it's better not to feed the trolls, ya know? :-)

I also find it funny how the majority of intelligent educated people will vote Bush and the majority of uneducated victims (who need free handouts and don't understand the concept of actually working hard in life) will vote Kerry. Wow - your insightful opinion is so revolutionary! It's just exciting!

I find it funny that you assume that this is true without a shred of proof to support it.

And for the record: I have a Master's degree (educated) and two jobs plus I help my wife with her business (work hard for a living), I've never in my entire life been on any kind of public support (no free handouts), and I'm not voting for Bush because he's proud of being uneducated (C student who never reads), has never worked hard for anything in his life (had everything handed to him), and the only successful business he ever ran was a baseball team that was heavily subsidized by the taxpayers (free handouts).

Posted by Rob S. on May 7, 2004 09:57 AM:

"Tim,

"Where would you go? Seriously?"

Now, obviously I'm not Tim, and this is only tangentially related to the main topic, but I'll comment on it anyway... Do the questions above mean that you seriously couldn't consider living in any other country than America? (Which is where I assume you live, Rob.) Not even Britain? If so, why is that?

This just fascinates me, because I see this attitude a lot in individual Americans' views: that America is all they really know about and all they've ever cared to learn about. (I'm simplifying a bit for the sake of discussion.)

Not saying it's true in all cases, of course. In the time I've been attending university, for example, we've had three visiting American lecturers, including Professors Hugh Malafry and Robert DiGiulio. The former in particular, though currently living in America as far as I know, has traveled a lot and seemed capable of genuinely appreciating the different hues and colors of living offered by countries other than the U.S.A.

Still, the isolationist attitude is more prevalent in America than in other "Western" countries. Even the trying times your country - and by extension (given its influence in world politics) the rest of the world - is currently facing hasn't changed that. Not yet, anyway. (Tim isn't the only American I've recently seen express reservations about continuing to live in the U.S. if things keep getting worse.)

On that, I'd just like to say that it greatly relieves me to know that there are a lot of people like Peter David and Tim Lynch, people with integrity, intelligence, and independently considered opinions, among the voting public over there.

Hopefully there'll be enough to turn the tide.

Simo,
Turn the tide of what, exactly?

Karen,
You have made some specific claims, some repeatedly, and i was wondering if you could be specific regarding the following:

1.) How exactly has Bush harmed the environment?
2.) What control/responsibility does any president really have over the economy. Or as a Japanese businessman was famously quoted as saying during the Election 2000 hubbub, "What's the big deal? It's not like they're replacing Alan Greenspan:)

Karen and Tim,
Regarding education, Bush has been decidedly LEFT of the political spectrum.

1.)The No Child Left Behind Act increases the Federal commitment to education from 10% to 14% of all education spending (That still leaves a whopping 86% of spending to states and local municipalities, a vast number of which decline to spemd adequate dollars for education. maybe you should be mad at them.)

2.) Secretary of Education Rod Paige was quoted as saying, "After spending $125 billion of Title I money over the last 25 years, 'for the disadvantaged,' we have virtually nothing to show for it."
But what did Bush43 do? he signed legislation that extended the life of and provided more funds for the Title I program! The bastard!

3.) The Right has been more than a little upset about Bush's leftward tilt on education. Bob Noval quoted an unnamed Republican congressman as saying, "We always knew that...(Bush) would go left on education, but that is a small price to pay for a president who is pro-life and pro-defense."

Everyone,
There have been many posts here that have people claiming they support our troops, regardless of whether or not they support the war.
We now all have a chance to put our money where our mouth is.
Dave Cockrum, the oft-overlooked father of the modern X-Men, is currently lying in a hospital seriously ill, with double-pneumonia and a host of other problems/infections he was susceptible to because of his diabetes.
Sadly, this Vietnam War veteran struggles to breathe from an oxygen tank and, as his creations generate hundreds of millions of dollars, he is unable to afford any medical treatment beyond what the government grants him as a veteran.
If you would like to donate to help defray the cost of medical expenses for this man who served his country honorably and gave us all hours of entertainment, please send checks to:
Dave Cockrum Fund
c/o Wizard entertainment
151 Wells Ave.
Congers, NY 10920

Thank you.

Jerome Maida said:

"The No Child Left Behind Act increases the Federal commitment to education from 10% to 14% of all education spending (That still leaves a whopping 86% of spending to states and local municipalities, a vast number of which decline to spemd adequate dollars for education. maybe you should be mad at them.)"

The Wisconsin Attorney General has filed suit against the No Child Left behind Act, claiming essentially that it is what it is -- an attempt by Bush to look as if he's Doing Something About Education (to make lefties happy) without actually Doing Anything [like spending real Federal money] (to keep the Right Radicals happy.

Like most such compromises, it has actually mostly succeeded in ticking off both sides.

Also, you said, about Dave Cockrum:

"Sadly, this Vietnam War veteran struggles to breathe from an oxygen tank [...] he is unable to afford any medical treatment beyond what the government grants him as a veteran."

I wish that i could contribute something, but i have problems of my own; while my own situation is not *quite* so dire -- i'm merely about to lose teeth if i can't register with the VA and get some help -- it hurts me (as it usually/always does) to see a veteran who fought for his country in such straits.

But it's an all-too-common situation to find someone who contributed so much (and made so much money for others) in a bad way for lack of money -- a few years back Dave Guard had to auction (or maybe raffle) the banjo he'd played on most of the original Kingston Trio albums for similar reasons.

Ah, well.

PAD said: "Actually, I've said the exact opposite, repeatedly: That Kerry is likely going to lose."

Zogby (is that his right name and spelling? The Pollster), is saying that it looks to him like this is Kerry's election to lose, not Bujsh's to win.

And Bush Minor's ratings are slipping lately...

Jerome,
1) Well, how about if you go to this website and see their take on the issue. The Sierra Club is hardly a bastion of liberals.
http://www.sierraclub.org/petition/strategicignorance/
2)The man in that position sets the tone and has an agenda. Bush has pushed through many bills that have impacted the economy. But I also blame congress. Not just Bush. The economy under Clinton was vastly better than what we have now, although there were numerous things I wish he'd done differently, including NAFTA. Part of it is the people he has advising him and carrying out directives.

I would also like to point out that I rarely single Bush out directly. On most occasions I criticize the whole administration. Now, of course, that is composed of his appointments. But do you really think that the people at the top of our government are the best and brightest, capable of bringing this country to new heights?

Next Post
The No Child Left Behind bill has put unrealistic expectations on schools and was never fully funded. There is some thought that it was set up so that public schools would fail, thus bringing school vouchers back into the discussion, even though most people vote against them. If a school doesn't show improvement it loses funds. And the children are able to go to different schools. How is this different from vouchers? How is this ever going to help improve the schools that need the most help? Testing and the resultant scores are an integral part of showing improvement, so now we have teachers teaching the tests. How is this helping to bring quality education to our children? We have had many studies that have the solutions to education problems. Smaller classes and more individual attention. Instead of intricate and complex bills, why not go with the simple answer?

Bryans said: "Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner....

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

Yep, Just Like Clinton"

Of course, that remark has been distorted by that great Republican rhetorical method, Quoting Out Of Context -- it was, unfortunately for Clinton, an example of how the mind of a smart-ass good-ole-boy Rhodes scholar works; granted, it is question-dodging, but whoever formulated that question absolutely screwed up and left it wide open..

Essentially, Clinton was pointing out that, by strictly interpreting the meaning of the word "is", he could give an answer, that, while not false in that context.

Here is Clinton's exact testimony that includes the infamous quote: ""It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.""

Here are the latest poll numbers on the race and concerning our soldiers:

1.) Bush's Approval rating is a dangerously low 46%, yet the race is still a statistical dead heat. Which points out two things:

A.) It is pretty pathetic that Kerry hasn't found traction yet. Bush almost certainly can't have a WORSE three months than he has just had. We've gone right from the Commisiion Hearings to the struggle in Fallujah to the prisoner abuses, and kerry still can't pull away. Part of this may be the aforementioned have sucked all the oxygen out of his message as well. At acouple events last week, when he was supposed to be focused on his education message, all the questions were about the prisoner abuses, and those are tricky questions to answer without pissing a lot of people off.
Of course, there's also:
B.) Bush better get his act together, and fast. The fact that he is an incumbent and his opponent thus far has gained little traction in the polls, and yet he is STILL in a dead heat, well...it's not good.
First, the state of the union speech was going to get him off to a flying start. It bombed.
His press conference, while it helped him a little, was hardly triumphant.
Or, to lose a baseball aanalogy, it's one thing to have a bad start, but there comes a point where it can no longer be considered a "bad start" and becomes a "bad season".

2.) According to CBS, 58 % of Americans still support the war itself

3.)Asked about what America has done in Iraq:
Overall, 49% feel proud; 29% feel ashamed
Among Republicans, 76% feel proud; 9 % feel ashamed
Among Independents, 45% feel proud; 31% feel ashamed
Among Democrats, 27% feel proud; 46% feel ashamed

Those poll numbers aren't nearly as "pathetic" for Kerry as one might think.

This time in 1980, Carter's approval ratings were around 40%, yet matchups with Reagan had a dead heat.

This time in 1992, Bush Senior's ratings were somewhere in the 30's or 40's, yet he was 5-10 points up on Clinton in most polls.

Given past elections, the numbers about Bush directly and about what voters think of the country's direction are a lot more predictive than any set of head-to-head numbers.

TWL

Ham said: ""Really this Bush is dumb Kerry is smart agruement is weak. Very weak. Both graduated from Yale and Bush has an MBA from Harvard and knows how to fly a jet. If you think thats easy ask any fighter pilot on long they had to study before they even looked at a jet."

And how many fights as a fighter pilot was Bush actually in?

That was a really ignorant response. You have many but this one was really ignorant.

What does how many fights he has been in have to do with his intelligence?"

Very little. (How many he had survived, on the other hand, might have some relevance.)

His fitness to command the military, perhaps a lot.

John Kerry was trained as a Naval officer and a riverboat commander, and received medals.

Bush stopped showing up for physicals and got grounded, then was transferred to another unit where, apparently, he mostly showed up to get free dental care.

I know which this ex-Navy, Viet Nam vet prfefers, and it isn't the one occupying the Oval Office at the present time.

Karen,
First, never for a moment think that I consider vouchers to be a panacea. But some remarks you make/ "problems" you cite seem to defy common sense:

1.) What, exactly, are "unrealistic expectations"?That a high school diploma actually means something again? That children know how to read and write? Why shouldn't we EXPECT the BEST from our children? To expect less from children in poorer neighborhoods, is as Bush says, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

2.) "If a school doesn't show improvement, it loses funds"
Yeah, what's the problem there? Seriously, why shouldn't schools have motivation to improve, and why should they continue to get funded at the same or greater levels when what they're doing isn't working?

3.)"The children are able to go to different schools"
Again, what's the problem? Why SHOULD a child be stuck in an underperforming school. The public school monopoly is a big part of the problem. Kids can't go anywhere else in their district, so why do schools have to knoock themselves out. They get money regardless of whether the kids are learning or not. If you buy a car and it sucks, you can always take it back and buy another car. Monopolies that stifle competition ae NEVER a good thing. I'm pretty sure you agree with this in regard to business, so why would you support a monopolistic school children.

For the record, Karen, I do support smaller class sizes and a LOT more funding. To me, education is the foundation on which individuals can achieve the American Dream and empower themselves. By the same token, quadruplibg the education budget will still do no good (hey, those smug parents of suburban kids, well, if thir schools were doing SO MUCH better than poor schools, as a NATION we wouldn't lag so far behind - read dead last - in other countries in math, science, reading, civics, etc.The poor districts aren't skewing the results THAT much) if we don't do away with corrupt school boards, unaccountable teachers' unions, and the idea that giving a child a poor, honest grade is somehow worse than sending him or her off into the world with a diploma that means nothing.

Jerome,
Traditionally the challenger in any presidential election is an "unknown" to the public until the nomination is officially made at the convention. Right now the numbers reflect what people think about Bush. Once Kerry accepts the nomination and states his positions, not to mention picking a VP, the numbers will start to be more about him than Bush. Interestingly, there was an article in the Seattle PI today talking about a Kerry-McCain ticket. McCain says it will never happen, but wouldn't that turn the election upside-down? McCain would not have to switch parties, either.

Tim,
You miss my point. I'm saying that neither candidate has been able to take advantage of the weakness of the other thus far.
Excet Nader, who has grown from 4 to 7 percent, and who of course gets no air time as a result.

The unrealistic expectations include special needs children in the overall test scores. That will bring the average for schools with decent special needs programs down, while schools that don't have much of a program can keep their average high. I'm talking about the implemantation of a flwed bill. I certainly think actual educational standards should be high. I don't think teaching to the test, which is the result of test oriented funding is the answer.

If a school is in trouble, just like a student, it needs more attention, not less. We need to work to get it up to speed, not cut it's funding.

Underperforming schools are in poorer areas of the country. So, shall we write off these schools and bring over-crowding to others, or work to improve them.

Teachers get into teaching because the want to teach. My sister works in the Philadelphia school system and has to use her own money to buy supplies for the children. Teachers care about their students. If they actually got enough funding, maybe we wouldn't see so much burnout and the good teachers would stay in the schools. And it is one of the resposibilities of government to educate children, because unless you have that, then only those with money get an education.

"implemantation of a flwed bill"
Should be flawed.

Karen,
Yes, having McCain on the ticket would definitely shake things up. I would welcome it, actually. I would look forward to an exchange of ideas and having the best man - who I feel is Bush, win.
See, I am not 100% beholden to either party's ideology. Mst of these threads hae been on the war, and i do support that, so it may seem I tilt totaly to the right. And I do normally support Republican candidates. But I mainly have a strong sense of two things: justice and personal responsibility and freedom. I don't like "welfare queens", but I don't support corporate welfare either. I don't like those who try to divide us by race, but I don't like those who try to divide us by class either (which is why Gore's "people vs. the powerful" B.S. really turned me off). I don't like Big Business being subsidized by the government, but I don't like tons of money being shoveled to failed, counterproductive bureaucracies either.
And I feel schools should be fully funded and there should actually be more of them. I don't think the way we fund schools is fair, but I don't think it is fair to keep a child trapped in a bad school with bad teachers either.
BTW, have you ever read "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol (or any of his other books). It changed my opinion on education forever. Whether you consider yourself liberal or conservative, you must have rocks in your head and in place of your heart if after reading that book you don't feel that SOMETHING has to change.

No, Jerome, I'm not missing your point. I'm pointing out that historically, NO challenger has especially strong numbers six months ahead of the election, and thus that your point is flawed.

TWL
a teacher who thinks NCLB is the biggest load of horses**t education policy has seen in years

Karen,
Okay. The special needs thing I understand. But the truth is there are bad teachers, and bad schools. Why not use the money you're giving a bad teacher to a good one and give him/her a raise for doing a good job. I once had a teacher tell me to my face i was going to fail her class. And i was on scholarship to the Catholic School I went to.She did this to many students. She did this because she only wanted the 'quick learners. Heck, having a classroom full of A students made her look good. And it would be one thing if she said, "If you don't buck up, you're going to fail." It's quite another to tell someone they don't have the capacity to learn. And she did this with fairly bright students! My brother is seven years younger than me, and one of his classmates dropped out of her class because he couldn't learn in her class and it was going to cost him a college scholarship! And I would be the first to say if I just didn't apply herself, but i asked her for help multiple times and she Inever did. the The ironic thing is, since i was on scholarship, I was invited with students in my class to a district-wide math contest. On the way there, one of my friends - his mom, drove us to the contest. She was a teacher at the public school, and on the way just said a couple of things and all of a sudden everything clicked. I FINALLY UNDERSTOOD ALGEBRA II! Because she actually took a couple of minutes to explain what i had been getting confused with. I finished second among kids in my class - all of whom were getting better grades than me - at the contest. All because a teacher who cared did what the person whose job it was should have been doing.
Teaching.
The next year, after being pissed that I got a 94 on my final and was therefore eligible to take Calculus, I was mocked for thinking of entering the math contest again by this teacher and told i was going to fail. I finally decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew.
This teacher now teaches at the public school and makes more money in a year than I ever have, and from what I understand she still teaches the same way.
That is NOT RIGHT!
It is our government's responsibility to educate our children. every child deserves tha foundation.
But for that to happen, the Right has to be willing to open the purse strings, and the left has to be willing to address the failures of the school boards, teachers'unions and bad schools. Again, if money were the only answer, why are suburban students doing porly in relation to other nations also?

Tim,
Well, that "horses**t" policy can't smell any worse than the odor of constantly finishing at the bottom in comparison to other nations in important subjects, or children protesting a priate company taking over some of the Philadelphia school district's schools by staging a protest, with signs in which they misspelled words like....school. ("Skul" was the prefeered spelling in many cases).
I'm pretty sure you're an inteligent and caring teacher, Tim. But it's ironic that conservatives, who are always blated for wanting to keep the status quo, are the ones who are at least trying a different approach, while the Left doesn't want to change the system in any significant way.

You have no idea how difficult it is to resist pointing out the three -- no, wait, four -- spelling mistakes you had in a five-line post about education...

TWL
who again sees the "the Left" being referred to as a monolith and has decided to start laughing rather than objecting

I wrote earlier:

"... I'd just like to say that it greatly relieves me to know that there are a lot of ... people with integrity, intelligence, and independently considered opinions ... among the voting public over there.

"Hopefully there'll be enough to turn the tide."

And Jerome Maida posted:

"Simo,
"Turn the tide of what, exactly?"

As subtly implied in my message, the tide of spreading irresponsibility, willful ignorance, media illiteracy, and disinclination for independent thinking. Regardless of who one is voting for, these are the real threats to America today.

They would be real threats to any nation, of course, including my native Finland, given the right climate to thrive in. Only in no other Western country are they in fact as acutely pervasive as they are in America right now.

Tim: You have no idea how difficult it is to resist pointing out the three -- no, wait, four -- spelling mistakes you had in a five-line post about education...

It says that computer users have gotten way too used to spell-checkers. I was one of the more literate students in school and one of the better spellers, but computers have made me lazy (or is that "made me more productive").

Tim,
You know, I don't think I'm the only poster who, in typing fast, has had words come out wrong. For the record, "preferred"/"private"/"intelligent"/"blasted"/. I know they had been typed incorrectly. I'm going to Philly in a couple of minutes and had to finish my last post in a hurry. Silly me, I thought you would actually respond to the substance of what I had to say rather than focusing on that.
I even complimented you personally, yet you choose to ignore it and focus on me allegedly characterizing the Left as a monolith.
I actually in my recent posts to both Karen and yourself, have detailed steps i think both conservatives (The Right) and the Left need to do to truly improve education.
But in this case, I do feel the Left is more a protector of a status quo, and the Right would be much more agreeable to doing its part and removing its objections if there were systemic changes in place and the feeling wasn't that it was simply throwing more good money after bad.
So laugh all you want. I really don't find the current state of education in this country to be that funny, however.
And to be honest, Tim, by now I expected better from you.

Jerome,

You know, I don't think I'm the only poster who, in typing fast, has had words come out wrong.

Oh, certainly you're not -- but the irony of such a large density of mistakes in a post about education was sitting there with a neon sign begging to be commented on. I should think it's obvious by now that I don't normally post spelling flames.

(Saying "oh, I had to post in a hurry before heading off somewhere" is never a good argument, however. If you can't do it properly in that short time period, then wait to make the post in the first place. In a written medium, you ARE your words.)

you choose to ... focus on me allegedly characterizing the Left as a monolith.

Allegedly? When you say "while the Left doesn't want to do X", there's really no "alleged" about it: that IS a monolithic characterization, without question.

As for the substance, I don't think there's much need for me to respond. Karen is doing a perfectly good job doing so, and I've other fish to fry (such as, for a relevant example, tackling some of the mountain of grading I have sitting near me). When you actually do post detailed suggestions (as opposed to the one-sentence sound bites you're claiming are such), however, I'll certainly give them a look.

TWL

Tim,
Thanks for the compliment.

Jerome,
You've said that the right is willing to try new things. What they want to do is make sure government money goes to private schools. Private schools should continue to be financed by those who wish to send their children there. Not with my tax dollars. Why do you think the left wants to keep the status quo? We want good educations for our children, too. It is possible that when my daughter gets to kindergarten, that by scraping the bottom of the barrel and cuting out all luxuries and entertainment, that I could send her to a provate school. I have even been urged to do so by some family members so that she will recieve the best education. (She is very smart. Not "I'm going to college when I'm 12", but she should be one of the more intelligent kids.) I believe in public schools, though and would like to address what's wrong and work toward fixing those things. It's very easy to blame the teachers and school boards, but that is not a solution. Smaller classes with more individual attention would see a drastic improvement. Whenever that is implemented learning increases exponentially. And those suburban schools you keep decrying that get all the money and are able to limit class size are the reason the averages are as high as they are. We need to hire more teachers and build more schools. We need to make sure our teachers are paid comensurate with the importance of their job. Now, if you think that's just my leftest view to throw money at the situation, I guess you are right. But I think that is the only way we are going to be able to make our schools competetive with other countries. I'm sorry about your experience with that teacher, and I have had some that weren't so great, but most people who teach know they will never get rich. They go into teaching because they either have a love of learning, teaching or kids. They know that their job is important, even when they don't get the support they deserve. In todays climate of fear in our schools, it is especially difficult for teachers to go in day after day. Yet, they do. If we gave teachers the attention and respect that we give sports figures, perhaps this country would begin to turn around. Our priorities are pretty screwed up right now. Education is just being used as another political battlefield and until that stops nothing will change.

Karen,
As I said, I don't feel giving "vouchers" is a panacea. And I do feel we need to drastically increase education spending. I've had a simple plant for a long time: double teachers salaries AND double the number of schools.
But under my plan, we would put two schools in each district. At least. Parents should have a choice where they send their kids to. And competition is good. It motivates people.
(By the way, have you ever read Savage Inequalities? It is a life-changing experience.)
I know very few people who would not be willing to give more money for schools IF THEY THOUGHT IT WAS BEING SPENT WELL and they were getting results.
One of your points I have a problem with is equating "poor schools" with "low-performing schools". One of the "poor schools" in Philly recently had a group of students that had an awesome project for a major science fair. It was really cool. They needed money to go. There was no money in the budget, but people all over the city - thanks in large part to an article in my paper - sent a ton of money and they were able to go and fulfill their dream and have an awesome experience. They presented alongside kids from schools like theirs and schools with much bigger budgets and held their own. Why? Because they were talented and motivated, and got encouragement from their administartion. But most of all the community stepped up.
To me, this proves a few things:
1.) If you are raly motivated and don't play victim, you will make use of your talent regardless of your circumstances
2.)people will freely give money if they feel it is going to something worthwhile.
Many on the Left feel throwing money at the schools will help them, while many on the Right feel only standards and accountability will be a panacea. THEY'RE BOTH WRONG! It takes BOTH!
Can you at least see some merit in anything I've just said?
By the way, kudos to your sister. Philly can be rough, and education IS a noble profession. Please let me very clear about one thing:
There are few things I respect more than a good teacher who genuinely cares about her students and gets the best out of them (that last part is important), and there's nothing I disrespect more than a lazy, uncaring, content, lousy POS teacher.

I'm very happy about the school your paper enabled to go to the science fair. There are a lot of factors that go into my reasoning on the schools in poorer areas. One, the parents work more hours to get by, thus have less time to encourage children. The schools in those areas get less money, thus have no funds for things like computers. A school in a more affluent neighborhood would have been able to send those kids to the fair. They could have hit the parents up for the money and it would never have been a publishable issue. I think we agree on the more schools, smaller classes and paying teachers what they are worth. I disagree on your competition angle, though. I think when it comes to education that cooperation would get the best results. But I do see merit in a part of your argument. Does that mean we're making progress? :)

you must be kidding? Kerry an intellect? gee,. I guess that is why he went after all that money with rich wives? omg, this is just too laughable. The pauses in Kerry's speeches and conversations have to do with the "duh" space...omg you must be such a child. Have you actually research his current wife's past and family? Their education and desires? Are you really that naive? omg ,,,still cannot contain my laughing at your naivte!!!!