You got me thinking about the reason of this seemingly stupid spamming, but the last sentence in your post sort of provoked and answer that might be correct or might be not. Could it be that the people who do such spamming are against free thinking? I mean, the free exchange of thoughts? It could be personal, could be general, aiming at certain individuals or groups (right, left, whatever) or just the net in general. I'm just knitting in the air here, but usually every human act has a reason behind, so...well this has a posibility -from my view point- of being that reason. God bless :)

that is the trouble with news stories..they leave out the nitty gritty of the "true" story... she probably had paper work to prove the hubby died in another state..but you will never find out..until much later if at all..besides the state has only so much money to pursue these things and contrary to CSI ,they dont spend a fortune on old bones that turn up in a desert(ie)

So you are saying that if the Electorate of Berkeley want to spend their local tax money on renting a refrigerated warehouse to store the shopping carts of the homeless, they shouldn't because "you know better"? That they can't spend their money on projects they choose?

Is this Quixote guy one of the Liberal Elite after all? ;-)

From my point of view, the electorate of Berkely a) can spend their money on what they want and b) this is probably less harmful than promoting "A living wage for workers in the Sex Industry" (that was an issue on the ballot in Berkeley during the last election), free needle exchanges to promote IV drug use or a dozen other projects of the Berkeley government.

And don't even consider returning the shopping carts to the original owners. In Berkeley, once a shopping cart (or almost anything else) is expropriated by The People the original owner has lost title

Signed
A guy who was once stupid enough to own rental real estate in Berkeley

You know, if I were a highly loyal Republican I would have a hard time not taking glee in these exit polling discussions. Because anyone who has much understanding of statistical analysis knows that all the bloviating about how these "moral values" people were gay-haters and rabid fundamentalists and such only hurts Democrats. Not only is it insulting to many voters who might vote Democratic but it's also a good way for Democrats to scapegoat their losses rather than figure out ways to persuade more voters to support them.

Some Democrats obviously get it but the hysterics are sure drowning them out right nwo.

Dean,
I agree. First of all, people drawing obviously false conclusions from data generally bothers me, even outside of any political context.

Politically, as a socially conservative independent, I have really mixed feelings. On one hand, so long as the Looney Left controls the Democratic Party, it is probably best if they continue to lose power through grossly misunderstanding the US people. On the other hand, I think it best for the country to have two strong parties who use different perspectives in a way to best serve their constituents.

Right now I expect the Democrats to continue to lose power for a few more elections. Then my crystal ball gets really hazy. The Dems will then either change and start regaining power or go the way of the Whigs. If the latter, I suspect the Republicans will eventually split into two parties (Libertarians and Social Conservatives by whatever names they pick – one of them will obviously keep the Republican mantle).

As I understand exit polls, they are _not_ designed to pick the winner a few hours earlier in the day. Everyone is very anxious, and uses them for that purpose, but that is dangerous because the polls are not designed with that in mind.

What I understand to be the purpose of US exit polling is to determine who voted which way and why.

For example you may want to know (as Q mentioned) if single women in urban areas vote with a different pattern from married women in urban areas. Or from single women in suburban areas.

Exit polls are designed to let you see the demographics of who voted for what, and to see what reasons they give (ie "I voted for Bush and the reason was concern over Terrorism." "I voted for Kerry and the reason was I am worried I may lose my job." "I voted for Nader because I he favors a Constitutional Amendment giving Redwood trees the right to vote." Things like that.

Good summary of original intent. Of course, people being people, they will continue to use exit polls to predict races.

Zogby was not too happy this year.

"There was a time you could go to the bank with the early exit polls," Zogby said. "Now we have a problem."

Zogby did very poorly in his predictions this year. If the early exit polls had been correct, he would have done much better. As it was, he had to eat much crow.

"Zogby did very poorly in his predictions this year. If the early exit polls had been correct, he would have done much better. As it was, he had to eat much crow."

THAT explains it. I had heard that PETA was furious with Zogby, but I didn't understand why until now.

*groan* - OK, here's some crow for you.

After Quasimodo's death, the bishop of the Cathedral of Notre Dame sent word through the streets of Paris that a new bellringer was needed.

The bishop decided that he would conduct the interviews personally. He ascended into the belfry to begin the screening process. After observing several applicants demonstrate their skills, the bishop decided to call it a day when a lone, armless man approached him and announced that he was there to apply for the bellringer's job.

The bishop was incredulous. "You have no arms!" "No matter," said the man, "observe!" He then began striking the bells with his face, producing a beautiful melody on the carillon.

The bishop listened in astonishment, convinced that he had finally found a suitable replacement for Quasimodo. Suddenly, rushing forward to strike a bell, the armless man tripped, and plunged headlong out of the belfry window to his death in the street below.

The stunned bishop rushed to the dead man's side. When the bishop reached the street, a crowd had gathered around the fallen figure, drawn by the beautiful music they had heard only moments before. As they silently parted to let the bishop through, someone asked, "Bishop, who was this man?"

"I never learned his name," the bishop sadly replied, "but his face rings a bell."

The following day, despite the sadness that weighed heavily on his heart due to the unfortunate death of the armless campanologist, the bishop continued his interviews for the bell-ringer of Notre Dame.

The first man to approach him said, "Your excellency, I am the brother of the poor, armless wretch that fell to his death from this very belfry yesterday. I pray that you allow me to honor his life by choosing me to replace him in this duty."

The bishop agreed to give the man an audition, and as the armless man's brother stooped to pick up a mallet to strike the first bell, he gasped, clutched at his chest and died on the spot.

Two monks, hearing the bishop's cries of grief at this second tragedy, rushed up the stairs to his side.

"What happened?" the first asked breathlessly. "Who is this man?"

"I don't know his name," wailed the distraught bishop, "but he's a dead ringer for his brother."

Where I live they just opened a new Opera House. Actually it is a refurbished 1920's movie theater and very ornate.

I wanted to see the new venu (and an opera) but my wife said we had too many things on our schedule over the coming weekends through the holidays. We will miss Marriage of Figaro, and the first thing we can go to will be Carmen in early January.

That is the first weekend we are not already too Bizet.

You know that all potatoes have eyes, right? Well, Mr. and Mrs. Potato had eyes for each other. They finally got married and had a little one -- a real sweet potatoe whom they called "Yam." They wanted the best for little Yam, telling her all about the facts of life. They warned her about going out and getting Half Baked because she could get Mashed, get a bad name like Hot Potato, and then end up with a bunch of Tater Tots.

She said not to worry -- no Mr. McSpud would get her in the sack and make a Rotten Potato out of her! But she wouldn't stay home and become a Couch Potato either. She would get plenty of food and exercise so as not to be skinny like her Shoestring cousins. Mr. and Mrs. Potato even warned Yam, before sending her to Europe, to watch out for the Hard Boiled guys from Ireland and the greasy guys from France called the French Fries. They also said that she should watch out for the Indians, when going out west, because she could get Scalloped.

Mr. and Mrs. Potato wanted the best for Yam, so they sent her to "Idaho P.U." (Potato University) from which the Big Potatoes come; then, when she graduated, she'd really be in the Chips. But one day she came home and told them she was going to marry Dan Rather. Mr. and Mrs. Potato were very upset. They told her that she couldn't marry him, because he's just a . . .

Common Tater!

Two shellfish, Sam Clam and Irving Oyster live together for years
in a seabed until a furious storm washed them ashore one day, where they die.
Being a very virtuous oyster, Irving ascends to Heaven and is given a seat
in the Celestial Orchestra, playing a harp.
Sam, being of a more disreputable nature is sent to Hell, but some is
fitting in with the other damned souls (soles?) as he opens a disco and
boogies the night away.
After several decades in the Celestial Orchestra, Irving is missing his
friend, so he goes to God and asks for a weekend pass to go visit Sam.
God takes down a BIG book from his BIG shelf and looks up Irving.
"Hmmm," he says, "you played very well and been an example to us all since
you arrived. I believe a pass can be arranged. I think you should take
your harp with you, too. Maybe hearing true Celestial music can show
some of those poor, damned souls the error of their ways. Just remember,
you must be back in Heave by the stroke of midnight on Sunday!"
Irving is overjoyed. Gathering up his harp he is zips down to Hell.
He and Sam have a brief, heartfelt reunion and then Sam gets Irving out
on the dance floor where he starts strutting his stuff. The weekend passes
in a whirl and it isn't until late Sunday night that the two manage to sit
down and reminisce about old times.
Sam happens to glance at he clock and sees that it is only 2 seconds to
midnight!
Irving rushes his goodbyes and zips back to Heaven, where he is met at the
Pearly Gates by God, who is looking at his BIG watch while tapping his BIG
sandal.
"You cut that awfully close, there, Irving," God says. "And what happened
to your harp?"
Irving pats all his pockets as he looks around wildly, finally offering;

"I left my harp in Sam Clam's Disco!"

(sung to the tune of "I left my heart in San Francisco")

Yeah, I've got Celestia on my computer. It's cool, from what I've been able to do with it, which is however seriously hampered by the fact that it runs like molasses on my system: PIII, 700 MHz, 384 megs of RAM, Mandrake Linux 9.1.

After trying Celestia, I decided to settle for the next best thing (distant second place), alias Kstars. However for some reason I was unable to get Kstars to compile successfully (usually have no trouble with that). I think you'll enjoy Celestia if your computer is powerful enough to deal with it.

This is a georgeous program. Well worth a look!

Thanks Paul, Drew.

Hope to make time for it over the holidays.

When it comes to newspaper registration, you've got 3 options: Tell the truth (Boo!), Lie (Fun! I'm an 83-year-old Pacific Islander woman from Alaska making $100K a year!), or use BugMeNot!. I use option #3.

But yeah, filtration is a good idea.

Blog Jones,
Many thanks! What a wonderful utility.

Glad to help!

There are not words ...

I decided to give it a go, and try to find some words ...

First, even though I'm an advocate of using our military with caution, I'm so historically and currently impressed with the British people and government that I'd almost consider an attack on England the equivilent of an attack here in the States.

Second, France. Literally. "First Iraq, Then France". Am I advocating bombing France? Its an interesting thing. The only problem with that being that there were Iraqis that needed liberating from an evil tyrant and the French are the victims of ... themselves.

Who would we turn the country over to? We've liberated them from themselves before, only to turn it over to them and look what happens. Why bother!?! Sure, I'd get a little smile watching France explode on CNN. But I'm almost as happy to watch them suffer slowly, self-destructing as they sink into a puddle of well-deserved bitterness and loathing.

After giving it even more thought, I feel bad about saying such ugly things about France. I'm sure there are lots of perfectly lovely French people. They don't deserve to be lumped into one large monolithic group characterized by a few freaks. Sorry, I let my temper get the better of me.

Thanks for the kind words!

However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Melting Pot is part of
the Star Traks Nexus. Many, many fine
stories can be found at:

http://www.star-traks.com/

I read your second story last night and it confirmed my initial impression. Your tales remind me of the Phulish series (very light sci-fi written for entertainment).

The first book in the series is described here.

I believe that I have nearly everything that Mr. Asprin has written - Bug Wars, Tambu, Cold Cash War the MYTH series and the first two Phule books. I think there are some new Phules out, but I am not sure if he is still writing them.

I'm honored to be compared to him!

Someone I know in Europe read this (and a covering letter) and sent me this response. I thought his response and my answers might be of general interest since they highlight the difference between Europeans and the US.

----------------------------------
From: "A Correspondent in Europe"

> I shall forward the mail to home and mull it there. A first read shows
> once again that I have the wrong idea about how y'all Republicans
> actually think about the issues.

Hehehehe. Not surprising. The US is the exception. We are the one's who are
different. Anyone who is dissatisfied with "there" comes "here". No one is
in the US unless either they or an ancestor disliked being "there" (used to
be Europe, now is mostly Asia) so much they got disgusted and moved.

> I wouldn't class myself Left, more like Deeply Cynical. It may surpise
> you that I don't think Arafat was a man of peace (I am perfectly aware
> he was a terrorist like wossisname, the Israeli prime minister) and I
> don't like the idea of gay marriage

Actually I _do_ like the idea of gay marriage.
Short Sidebar:
I am Catholic, divorced, remarried. My current marriage is a) not recognized
by my religion b) recognized by the state. "Marriage" means a set, a package
deal of legal and civil rights and privileges and also means a sacrament (at
least for Catholics). As far as the set of civil and legal rights and
privileges go, that is "Caesar's" (I presume you have enough general
Christian background to remember but let me say, they asked Jesus if it was
OK to pay taxes to Rome and he said "show me a coin you pay taxes with" and
he said "who's picture is on that coin" and they said "Caesar's picture" and
Jesus said "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is
God" ie the civil government rightly runs civil things and the religion
takes care of the religious things and that doesn't conflict itself). So
render marriage to "Caesar" in the civil sense of my marriage (the part
recognized by the state of California).

BUT (and this is a big "BUT"): Let the voters decide what "Caesar" will do.
Do NOT let the people who think they are in charge tell the voters what they
can vote for.

Remember we have a "permanent revolution" government to a level that is
almost impossible for a European to imagine. Remember my state fired its
governor and replaced him with another governor. Can you (the voters of
England as a group) over-rule and fire the Law Lords (as I understand it
that is your equivalent to our highest court) if the Law Lords decide an
issue in a way to which the majority of the voters object?

End of Sidebar

> but calling it "marriage" is like elbowing your way into someone's
> church and demanding equal recognition for things against their faith.

I agree there is this problem that the word "marriage" has both a civil and
a religious meaning, But as I said, I have that dichotomy right now between
me and my wife, the State of California, and the Catholic Church. And we
have gotten along for years without trying to settle the issue by subverting
the right of citizens to vote for their own laws.

> I am however concerned about the convergence of secular and religious
> things in the US and some other countries.

Me too. That is why I object to the Left trying to enforce their "religion"
(their views on religion) on everyone else. As I said, the Left can stand
diversity of anything except opinion.

> I assume you know that "Liberal" means something completely different
> over here to in the US.

I actually think of "Liberal" the way you (I assume) think of it. Liberal =
Free Trade, low regulation, anti Big Government Unions. I find (here and in
Europe) that "left" and "right" lead to less confusion when talking to
people, but you have to remember there are a lot more "dimensions" (issues
to disagree on) to allow you to categorize everyone according to one number
("I am +18 to the Right, you are -14 to the left so someone who is +2 to the
right is exactly half way between us" doesn't work).

> I think it boils down to, we used to have a
> feudal state a few hundred years ago, where people at the bottom were
> very badly treated. "Liberal" meant "slightly less oppressive than the
> other lot" - basically descended from the people who overthrew the
> Royalists and founded our democracy.

Yeah, that is a pretty good definition of "classical liberal". The people
who won the "revolution" (not the Jacobins who won the French revolution but
the voting public who won the much slower revolution in English government).

> You've never had such extremes as
> you were founded as a free country,

No. We fought this war (against you) to win that right. And then we keep
having people try to take that freedom away. So we keep fighting to keep it. At Cold Harbor in 1864 and Belleau Wood in 1918. At At Bastogne in 1944 and in Falluja as we speak.

> so "Liberal" tends to mean "too FAR
> to the left, practically Communist, complete governmental control of
> everything" to you. (?)

For "most Americans" liberal means "Left". Not Communist and not classical
European Socialist (we have never had an effective socialist party. We are
the only western democracy not to have had one. Can you see why?) but "big
government, lots of rules from the government on employment conditions,
wages, car mileage, etc.

"Brussels" (the EU government) is a good example of what the US Liberals
like.

> Another confusing term for Brits is "Conservative", which is considered
> to have bad associations in European countries (not sure why)

In Europe "right" means "the people who lost the revolution (see above). It
means the Old Rich, the Bishops, the Great Landowners, the people who have
privileges because they and their parents had privileges.

Here "right" means more "Liberal" in the sense of "leave us alone and let
each of us go our own way".

> have a Conservative government, the Europeans are extremely leery as
> they assume it means something a lot more fascist than the British
> Conservatives actually are.

"Fascist" is a word with a pretty specific meaning. Unfortunately "Fascist"
as used in common parlance means "I don't like your views" and little else.
More on Fascism later if I have time. Or read "Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert
O. Paxton.

"you were founded as a free country and didn't have to fight for freedom."

The day the most Americans ever died was the day we fought the battle of
Antietam in the US Civil War. Nothing in WWI or WWII cost so many American
lives.

That very bloody battle was fought over the issue of freedom.

And the issue was not the freedom of the people doing the fighting and
dying but the freedom of a bunch of people of another race who were not at
the battle

Fighting wars to spread freedom is a big part of what we are about. It is
really dangerous to warn the US not to free people. Even if you are Kofi
Annan. We tend to free them anyway, regardless of the short term cost
because we are convinced the long term gain is worth it.

If you think it would have been better not to spill that blood, and that the
freedom won for those slaves and their descendants as a result of Antietam
and the other battles was not worth it, take that up with the descendants of
those slaves. Go tell Condoleeza Rice (currently National Security Advisor
and soon to be Secretary of State) for example, that it wasn't worth it.

Here is how Margaret Thatcher toned down the Social Security system in England:

She said people currently retired would continue to get their benefit. People who were 60 would get just about that (since they had no real time to save to compensate for not getting the expected benefit). At 40 you would get a fraction, but left. At 25 you would get only a small benefit, because at 25 you have time to save on your own. (She set up a "401k equivalent" for savings).

This didn't shaft people who hadn't saved and were old without time to save but did lower the burden as time passed and the people still alive and drawing benefits gradually got less and less money.

There still was a transition cost, as those people still working pay more than they will receive, but at least it tries to minimize that transition cost.

It's a model to consider.

Drew,

Do you, personally, want more in benefits (and in payments) or less in benefits (and less in payments)?

This is the wrong question in my opinion. This is also where the politicians and the media continue to miss the problem. The more useful question is:

Do you want Social Security to be funded in advance or do you want it to operate like the world's largest Ponzi scheme?

We currently use a Ponzi scheme and it only works well when you have many more workers than pensioners. Moving to a fully funded system (where your social security contributions are saved for your future use) is preferable. The problem with doing so is that it calls attention the liabilities of the Social Security program – that is, we do not sufficient funds available to cover everyone's contributions to date). This is a huge liability and Kerry mentioned this amount many times in his attacks on Bush. What he didn't realize is that we already have this liability no matter how we invest the money…

Once we make the decision to move to a fully funded system, then we can discuss rate of return vs. risk (making everyone buy US bonds and fund our debt or putting some of it in the stock market).

A well designed Social Security system could provide increased benefits with less payments. The biggest problem is the Ponzi scheme itself, not the size of the payments.

Big subject. I am a "limited pro-choice Catholic."

The furor about abortion seems odd to me. There are lots of other issues with similar or the identical ethical dilemma: euthanasia for example, or the ethics of medical experimentation on children (you can only do experiments on some childhood disease on children, the only ones with those diseases, but those children can't give consent).

But Abortion is the hot issue. It reminds me of slavery in the 1850s. There seems to be, for most people, no middle ground.

For me, though, there is an obvious middle ground. Whose stated view do I like? Why, Bill Clinton's. It is easy to agree with one of Clinton's stated positions. He has so many.

"Abortion should be safe, legal and rare" (Clinton's statement) covers it for me. I can see places where it is reasonable (health of mother in some combination of sure-thing this pregnancy will not result in a person who will live beyond a day or two) and places where it is unreasonable ("I want to know the sex of this pregnancy because I already have one of such-and-such sex and now want one of the other sex.

Anyhow, I see a reasonable middle ground but that seems a rare postion on this very emotional issue.

I follow demographics and all sort of surveys about what Americans think. If you ask about a blanket ban on abortion, a thin majority of Americans oppose this (however, if recent trends continue, the majority will go the other way soon). If you ask about a ban on all abortions except for the one percent case (rape, incest, genetic damage, physical danger to the mother's life), the overwhelming majority of Americans support such a ban. This would be the reasonable middle ground. However, I firmly believe the same pro-choicers who fight standards for abortion clinics would also fight any restriction on abortion at all. Hopefully some day I will be proven wrong.

I fully expect to see Roe v. Wade overturned in my lifetime. And then each state will have to make their own laws (as was the case before 5 unelected tyrants imposed their will). The political debates at that time will make our current political climate seem tame.

Well, being a seriously lapsed Catholic (to the point of being areligious - Check out Steven den Beste's article on Mechanism to see a good description of where I stand), I am tepidly pro-life.
However, under current US law, abortion IS
legal and I will support a woman's right to do whatever the law allows.

All the while hoping for the law to be changed.

Actually, there is a lot of ambivalence on aboriton. Most Amercians seem to be ant-abortion, but pro-choice. They do not approve of the practice, but at the same time do not believe it should be illegal.

I was careful in how I stated my sentence. A lot depends upon the poll and upon how it is asked. As a professional marketer, I know I can influence the results by at least 15% simply by how I present the question. This is why I try to be general when reading the attitudes behind the polls.

For example, in general, a majority of people do not want a complete ban on abortion. In general, a majority of people want much tighter legal restrictions on when an abortion may be performed.

If you want to see a summary of the mainstream polls, click here. These polls suffer from the same failings as most media polls, but they do show the general trends that I claimed.

Then what did Dina say?

(Sidenote: Its so nice not to see spittle-n-foaming, even on a controversial topic)

She sent me a nice note. I'll paste it here.

Hi Don,

This is Dina again I want to thank you for your, while critical, very insightful response. I will be researching this topic for my Bioethics semester project and will have a lot of my own stats for you. With your permission I want to use our correspondence as part of the project.

Again thank you so much
for the time you have spent on all of this, it is greatly apreciated. It is a true rarity to find some one who listens to my thoughts with such a degree of respect.

Thank you,

Dina

I hope and expect we'll hear back from Dina when her project is complete.

As one of those "dumb evangelicals", the issue for me is never whether abortion is wrong or a sin. While there is no Biblical "absolute right to life", (there is a right to self defense which may involve the taking of a human life), in general, abortion for any other reason than to preserve the life of the mother is murder. The issue (for me) is whether we, as a society are ready or willing to criminalize the act. I do not see us sentencing desperate young women to prison, and I can't see how we can effectively criminalize the act without legal sanctions against women who kill their babies.
Were we to actually make abortion a serious legal offense,(and I am not totally sure it should not remain in the uncriminalized realm of human behavior, like adultery), I believe we should also provide a safety net so that a woman has the means to carry a baby to term. We should also increase the cost to young men of random and irresponsible coupling. Until we are ready to jail women who abort, we are not really ready to criminalize abortion.
While Christians necessarily judge social trends by Biblical standards, there is another standard which is also useful, and that is utility. How does a custom or practice work out in terms of the long term survival and well being of the society? If demographic trends in Europe, Russia and Japan are to be believed, the current sexual mores are a short term recipe for long term disaster. At some point I would suspect that we will begin to see that most Biblical injunctions are not just someone's idea about how God wants us to behave, but also very wise prescriptions for a healthy social order where children are nurtured and cared for, women are not abused, and the weak are not exploited. Perhaps when we are down to 50% population (check out birthrates in Spain, or Japan) we will be ready to imprison women who abort.

Yes, if abortion were again illegal, there would again be penalties for breaking the law. Laws that are not enforced merely make other laws weaker.

One of the many reasons for the decline in abortions is that less and less people are willing to perform them. Punishing the abortionists would also decrease the number of abortions simply by reducing the potential supply of abortionists.

The birthrates you mention are indeed low and are causing problems for these countries. Social Security is going to be bad enough here when the Baby Boomers are all retired and we have a growing population. Some tough decisions will have to be made in these other countries.

The imprisonment issue is a tough one - not because of the abortion issue, but because I have problems with our current prison "solution" in general. Sure, it does reduce crime in society and any alternative solution must do this as well. Instead of sending criminals to jail, at our expense and to their loss, I'd like the US to buy a huge chunck of land (maybe Siberia) and use it as a penal colony.

Regarding 'punishment' for abortion as crime, imprisonment (for the mothers) certainly seems counterproductive. Prisons protect potential victims from the criminals, but the only potential future victims of an abortion-seeker are the products of her own womb, which is always with her anyway (I'm picturing judges enacting no-contact orders between a woman & her own ovaries!)

How about some kind of long-term fine (garnishing of wages until the child would have been 18?) with the funds directed toward adoption, crisis pregnancy, & abstinence programs? That would avoid a somewhat irrelevant prison term, while reminding the perpetrator of the long-term consequences of her actions and allowing them to (financially) atone for their actions. I am not entirely comfortable with the way that approach treats the murder of a baby more like a traffic fine, but it still seems like a just yet compassionate approach.

For the record, I am a pro-life Catholic who doesn't quite understand how a Catholic can hold a pro-abortion position without feeling some dissonance in their faith. My strongest reaction to the original correspondence was noticing that the writer did not even attempt to reason away the human life of the unborn. Is the unborn baby's life that unimportant relative to the mother in all cases?

My second reaction was that the writer seems to think that the big problem is pregnancy, when pregnancy is merely the natural outcome of sexual relations. Wouldn't that mean that the real problem is the act that naturally leads to the unwanted pregnancy? If I play Russian Roulette and find the chamber with a bullet in it, the bullet in my brain is still merely the natural result of my hand holding the gun to my head and pulling the trigger.

Mark,
I think your suggestion has merit and deserves further consideration once Roe v. Wade is overturned. At first thought, I like your idea for punishing mothers who kill their unborn. I confess I am not as charitable toward professional abortionists. I'd still press for hard labor for people who abort kids for pay.

I also agree with your other points, but our worldviews are much different than pro-choicers. Of course this is self-evident or we'd all be pro-lifers...

When you say 'pro-life', do you include a stance against the death penalty? ...against free market economic policies that leave millions of people without health care, hungry, and dying (including mostly children)?

Eli,

My pro-life convictions are based on both religious and secular reasons. And yes, like many pro-lifers, I also support capital punishment. We tend to protect innocent life and, in general, we believe that one of the ways to protect the innocent is to punish the guilty.

However, I think you have a point about how free market capitalism has ethical drawbacks. One of the many reasons why I am a political independent instead of a Republican is because I support a social safety net. So we appear to have some common ground here (I say appear because you have not explicitly stated your beliefs). Of course, some of the Socialist countries that are usually held up as examples of having great social safety nets are the ones that are not only killing their unborn, but their sickly children and their elderly (e.g., the Netherlands). There are no perfect societies, at least none ruled by mankind, but some are definitely better than others. Right now, I believe that the weak and poor are better off in the more capitalistic countries (such as the US) than in the more socialistic countries (such as Holland). That does not mean that we should not continue to improve, because we should. However, it does mean we should be careful about how to improve – we have no desire to duplicate Europe's mistakes.

What I don't understand is why the wife of Arafat was receiving over 100,000K a month: do you think that was silence money on his homosexuality. And how was this kept silent. First I've heard of it. And it has been reported that the last time Arafat saw the bereft widow was in the year 2000. Some marriage. Best REgards Linda

Apparently they have chosen Reid.

http://thehill.com/news/110404/reid.aspx

(The Hill, if you don't read it, is the daily newspaper of Congress and is available online)

It remains to be seen if Reid will lead them toward the center or if they will drag Reid over to the Dark Left Side.

I've never found Reid all that centrist.

King,
Well yes and no. I agree he has toed the Democratic party line for the most part - in fact, as minority whip, he enforced the party line.

However, consider the following. He is from a "red" state, so he has to pay attention to his voters or he'll end up like Daschle. This is why I was happy to see Drew's link - Reid is much better than Dodd IMO (since Dodd is more liberal and is from a blue state who supports his values). Reid claims to be a Mormon, hopefully he will pay more attention to his professed beliefs than some other politicians.

Reid is also considered pro-life because he voted to ban partial-birth abortions, but others are skeptical about how solid a pro-lifer he really is.

I don't know him well enough to make a firm judgment about this, but I'm now at least optimistic there is a chance for some Democratic flexibility. If Dodd had been elected leader, I would not have been optimistic at all.

If Democrats follow the Republican line and rubber stamp their agenda, then we are "bipartisan." If we stick to our guns and vote our conscience and best interests, we are the "Angry Left." Sorry, I don't buy that.

Now is not the time for the Democrats to become Republican "lite." One of the criticims from the Left regarding the Democratic Party is that too often the leadership has wimped out to the Republicans, playing softball to their hardball. While it hurts to lose the Senate seat, I'm glad that Tom Daschle is gone for those reasons.

While it's clear that there were more conservative voters than liberals in the election, I disagree that the center has shifted that much. Almost half the country vote against Bush as well.

There are new political realities that the Democrats will have to deal with -- such as that force known as Evangelical Christians -- but to give in to a Bush agenda is not the way to do it.

Szdfan,

I didn't know liberals had any guns to which to stick ;-)

Seriously, no one is asking you to give up your principles, but one of the principles of a democratic republic is that the majority rules within some guidelines. Daschle is gone because he was painted, correctly in my opinion, as an obstructionist. The Constitution says the Senate should vote on the president's nominations and Daschle refused to allow the issue to come to a vote. This is unprincipled and I have often thought about suing the Senate to force them to vote since I (and all other Americans) are being unconstitutionally deprived of representation by their inaction. However, now that only five Dems need to help force a vote (or only eight Dems if you subtract three liberal Repubs), I suspect the Dems in the new Senate will be much more reasonable. Reid himself comes from a red state and he is certainly aware of that. There are enough Democratic senators from red states that this is not that big a hurdle.

I do not use the word liberal to be insulting, but as shorthand. In order to clearly communicate with each other, we all must use commonly used words. Left and Right, Liberal and Conservative, Leftist and Right-wing are all used interchangeably. The last pair is sometimes used insultingly, so I used the first two pairs the most.

I agree that the shift toward the right is not that big; neither is it new. The Democrats have not received the majority of the vote since Jimmy Carter barely won the majority of the vote in 1976 against Gerald Ford with 50.1% of the popular vote. The right has had a slight majority since Ronald Reagan. Clinton won his first election thanks to a president who took his reelection for granted despite hacking off his base and facing a opponent who took away many of his key voters. Even with the benefits of incumbency, which are manifold, Clinton could not win a majority when he was reelected. The ironic thing is that if Roe v. Wade had not been imposed on the land, abortion would probably be legal in the blue states and the Republicans would have lost a key motivating factor for their constituents.

That said, the percentage of evangelical Christians is growing every year and I believe they will continue to do so. If that means the majority of people want to return to most of the laws and values of our forefathers, so be it. (I say most – I do not know of any respectable people, Christian and otherwise, who advocate a return to slavery).

Anyway, I don't think there is any fear of the Democrats becoming "Republican Lite" – they just need to give up their love affair with activist judges before they lose another 10 or so senators. For my part, I hope they do so soon, America is better served by two strong parties, not by one decent party and one dysfunctional one.

However, the Republicans also have many woes. The Angry Right in Illinois got their way when they got Keyes on the ballot. A moderate Republican had a chance in Illinois, Keyes had no chance. Not only was he too conservative for their state, he was a hypocrite for even running (after he blasted Hillary Clinton as a carpetbagger, he then did the same thing).

I look forward to the day when I have my choice of pro-life candidates. It may surprise you, but I voted for several Democrats on November 2. In my battleground state, there were several pro-life Democrats running for state office and I think the Democratic party needs all the pro-life voices they can get.

Anyway, this has been a long response to a short comment. I am glad you add your "liberal" perspective here and we are the better for hearing it. I am also glad we can both celebrate the removal of Daschle.

Admiral,

I don't think that you would use the word "Liberal" as an insult but frequently I've heard the word flung around as an insult (it's usually coupled with "elite" or "media"). For example, during the campaign it was charged by some quarters that Kerry was the "most liberal Senator" -- as if the fact that he was a liberal made him inelligiable for President.

I agree with you that it is better to have a balanced legislature. When one party dominates, the checks and balances in our system start to become unraveled.

I however, don't agree that Democrats have a love affair with so-called "activist judges." This is a politically motivated key phrase
to throw at judges that rule in ways that conservatives don't agree with.

I don't think I've ever heard any conservative judges referred to as "activist." For example, when Judge Moore placed the statue of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse, I don't believe he was ever referred to as "activist." In the same vein, would any ant-choice judges be also called "activist?"

The reality is that civil rights for minority groups have often been furthered in the courts (i.e. Brown vs Board and the dismantling of Jim Crow). Obviously, there is a kind of severe backlash these days.

The Democrats have a great deal of soul searching to do these days, similar to what the Republican Party went through after the defeat of Barry Goldwater. In a way, this is good for us, because it forces us to take a look at ourselves, perhaps to find better ways to articulate our values and messages.

As I've stated befrore, the Left is highly fractured -- we have not been able to create a Meta narrative with the same effectiveness of the Right.

James Carville is quoted in today's Washington Post --

"We have to treat the disease, not the symptom," Carville said. "The purpose of a political party is to win elections, and we're not doing that."

Carville said that the party's concern about interest groups had resulted in "litanies, not a narrative."

"The party needs a narrative," he said."

Szdfan,
I agree some conservatives use "liberal" as an insult, but glad you realize that is not the case at our roundtable.

I also agree that people do not use phrase "conservative activist judges." However, there is a good reason for this. Conservatives believe judges should enforce the law and interpret it when new circumstances arise (e.g., applying the first amendment to the internet). This is much different than a judge making up a new right or throwing out a practice that had been ruled legal for many decades. By definition any judicial activism is anti-conservative... I think it fair to call Judge Moore an activist and he is a judge, but his activism was shown in his behavior, not his rulings. I'd also point out there was no outswelling of protest when he was removed (which is what I what I promote for all judicial activists).

You are the second person this week to bring up Brown vs. Board to me as a defense of judicial activism. This tells me I should write a long post on it, but I'll try to comment briefly. In a nutshell, Brown vs. Board was the Supreme Court fixing a mistake made 60 years ago by an activist Supreme Court. See this link for some details. I do not consider Brown vs. Board as an argument in favor for judical activism, merely a warning that sometimes it takes the courts decades to clean up their own messes.

In theory, a pro-life judge could be an activist. Let's say Roe v. Wade is overturned (as it eventually will be). Then each State will resume the right to make their own laws about abortion (as was the case before five robed tyrants stepped in and overturned the 10th amendment at their whim). In the future, some Supreme Court justices could say that they had discovered "the right to life" in the Constitution and that all babies had a right to live and abortion is banned. This would be pro-life activism and should it ever happen I would call it such.

Judicial activism is not a charge most conservatives throw at judges when they rule against us. I truly believe it is an honest description of one of the main problems with the current Democratic party. You want to know how conservatives think - we believe that in the last 30 years the Democrats have given up fighting in the court of public opinion and simply appointed judges to force their views on the majority against their will.

If abortion or homosexual marriages or someother issue with which I strongly disagree is ever affirmed by the legislative process, at least then I know that it was done in accordance with the laws by which we profess to live. I may not be happy with the outcome, but that is life in a democratic republic. However, I will never stop protesting judicial tyranny and I suspect the fight may continue until the Democrats have less than 40 Senators. At which point, they may get a clue and start appointing justices who do not think they are legislators...

One of the wierd things about the Post Election Post Mortem is I find myself agreeing with what Lannie Davis and James Carville had to say [G]

"Get over it"
"Enough with the conspiracy theories and hate speech"
"Take a good look at yourself, figure out what people didn't like and do a better job next time"

Wishy-Washy Drew the Moderate

One notable thing about US Politics recently is the reticence of the Left to embrace the Left.

If you ask George Bush, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity "Are you a Conservative/on the Right" they answer "Yes I am."

If you say "John Kerry is a Liberal/on the Left" I saw him immediately denying it.

The Left worry that they are being insulted. Well, Alan Colmes doesn't. But he is the only person I can think of who says loudly "Look at me. I am a Liberal!"

This is a joke, right? Oh, I get it. "Primate Humor". I never really catch primate humor (being a 6 foot rodent in real life).

Is there any doubt but that the "smartest person in the world" will be minority leader, run the Senate, run the Federal government, and appoint herself Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

I don't think there is any constitutional ban on the Chief Justice running for president. If there is, being Chief Justice, she can waive it.

Ahh, but would conservatives want Arnie? Arnie is economically conservative, but socially liberal. He is pro-choice and supported Prop 71, California's stem cell research bond measure. Arnie has also inidicated that if it was legal in California, he would not be opposed to same sex marriage.

He fits very well into California politics, but how would he play with the evangelical base?

With due deference to your polls, which should be at least as accurate as those of Big Media, I do not see a President Schwarzenneger in the future. I do not think the States will pass a constitutional amendment just to elect one man. Especially one whose social policies would not do well anywhere except the Left Coast and the northeast.

However, you may be right about a Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008. 2008 will be the first year since 1952 where we did not have an incumbent president or vice-president on either ticket.

On the Democratic side, the primary race between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and whoever else should be fascinating to watch. On the Republican side, I do not have confidence in any prediction. You suggested Rudy, I have previously suggested a C. Rice vs. H. Clinton race, and there are many others who may want to throw their hat in the ring.

I'm not going to give it too much thought now. I'm enjoying the moment and will revisit the issue in earnest in 2007.

Szdfan,
This independent social conservative would not vote for Arnie in any primary.

Do you realize that at other, boring old webistes people are discussing the 2004 election? How retro!

I don't see Rice running for President. She doesn't seem to have the wheeling dealing quality you need. More of a "my way or the highway" sort of person.

One thing about Arnie is that he is the consumate wheeler and dealer. Arnie is not considered a Republican in California, BTW.

People (I think Melanie Morgan was the first. Melanie is "the Mother of all recalls" ie the engine that got Gray Davis out) describe Arnie as "the official head of the Republican wing of the Democratic party" which is a fairly good description. A social conservative he is not. He is not much of a fiscal conservative either.

But he is (my predicition) unstoppable if that amendment passes.

Drew, I disagree--

Arnie is considered a Republican in CA, particulary during the budget battles with Democrats in the state senate (i.e. the "girlie men"). Granted, he doesn't fit the mold of most Republicans (particulary with the Kennedy connection), but he has been a major supporter of the President and a voice for the California Republican party.

During the conventions, there was a lot of talk about the "Big Tent" Republican Party, yet some more conservative elements will reject moderates as RINOs and not "real" Republicans. It seems to me that these narrow definitions of who is a Republican goes against at least the Big Tent spirit.

Arnie's budget was not that different than the last one, so I concede your point about fiscal conservativism (particulary compared to Tom McClintock), however, he is very pro-business and anti-tax and was a major factor in supporting or defeating a number of Propositions critical to business (i.e 64 and 72).

I do agree about Condi Rice -- she also doesn't seem like a particulary happy or charismatic person that people could support and cheer for.

Regarding the Constitutional Ammendment allowing naturalized citizens to run for President--

The reason this has never come up, is that before Arnie, there has never been a naturalized citizen with the politcal stature to run for our highest office. Arnie does change the dynamic.

I personally support this hypothetical ammendment. I was born overseas with two American parents and even though I have a State Department issued birth certificate, I could also not run for President under the current definition. My citizenship was automatically transfered to me from my parents, but I am considered in the same category as a naturalized citizen.

I personally support this hypothetical ammendment. I was born overseas with two American parents

I posted here a few months ago the percentages of Americans who immigrate each year (IIRC 1/3 of 1%. That is huge. Look at the growth rate of other countries and see what an additional 0.033 per year is), what percent of the current population are first generation immigrants and what percent are first generation Americans.

We are a nation of immigrants. That is our strength. We need that Amendment.

I think that both Guilani and Arnold are too socially liberal to win - at least the way that 'W' just won. Either would alienate a large batch of the recent 51%. Who to nominate then? I have no idea. I like the charisma of both guys and no one else comes to mind. Condi has strengths and weaknesses.

I think Edward's 'concession' introduction probably cost him any shot of even running in '08. It was bad - very bad.

I do not know who to nominate either, but three years is a long time. If I were to make a guess (not a forecast, but a guess), I'd say the next Republican nominee is currently a governor. If Bob Taft (Ohio) was a very popular governor, he'd be a natural since he'd take his swing state.

Jeb Bush would be a natural except I doubt the country would elect a third Bush in 2008.

Edwards ("Senator Gone") is gone. He ran for Pres/VP in part because he knew he couldn't even be re-elected to his senate seat as an incumbent.

Worse (for him) he now has no office and no forum for the coming years. You may never hear of him again He will just go back to channeling babies, telling juries the babies are crying out to give Edwards a lot of money. That seems to be his only job skill.

Tommy Franks?

Governor Pataki of New York? Governors tend to become president. What is his standing among the social conservatives here?

Guilani also has the problem of a pretty sordid history -- openly living with his mistress while major of New York City.

What about Rick Santorum of PA? He's been outspokenly conservative on social issues.

At last I have found a place where I am on the Left Wing Fringe! It feels sort of wierd [G]

So, let me ask you. Should Hillary run against Rudy Giuliani would people here refuse to vote for Giuliani because of his personal/marital history?

Should you have the choice in the primaries between a person who would possibly beat Hillary (she's the sure-thing opponent in 2008) but who had separated from his wife and was living with another woman pending his divorce and a person who likely would lose to Hillary but was idiologically pure, which candiate would you vote for?

The problem the Democratic Party is having at the moment is not its issues, but its attitude. "You are ideologically pure and hold beliefs homogeneous to our beliefs or you are dirt to be despised" pretty much sums up the views of the Democrats (more on that when I have time to start a new thread).

I would caution against getting into a contest with the Democrats as to who can be more condescending and contemptuous of people with differing attitudes and beliefs. They are the experts and being condescending and contemptuous and will beat you in that contest without breaking a sweat.

Tommy Franks is a very impressive man. On the few occassions I have heard him speak, he has been very articulate and persuasive. If he were a pro-life candidate, I would strongly support him.

I'd rather vote for Arnie than Pataki - neither will support pro-life and Arnie is at least amusing... Neither would get my vote in a primary.

I would also support Rick Santorum. And if he could take Pennsylvania, he would have a big advantage in 2008. (This brings up one of Quixote's Rules of Politics. Any presidental nominee who cannot win his home state deserves to lose the national election.

Left Wing Drew! Three words that are rarely used together...

I agree we do not want to mimic the Democrats and be intolerant of all. But a party should have several core principles and its leaders should reflect these principles (as the old saw has it, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Other than abortion-on-demand and a belief the government can solve all problems, what core beliefs do all Democrats share? They strike me as being united against a common foe (Bush) vs. united around several key ideals.

"They strike me as being united against a common foe (Bush) vs. united around several key ideals."

See:

http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/boyles200411051146.asp

on the uselessness of trying to use hate to achieve political success. "Hatred as a political tool works best where hopelessness thrives: Jails, France and Germany."

That is humorous but remember it did work in France and in Germany. Not just in Schroeder's re-election but in Hitler's success.

I would be interested in hearing more about this intolerance of the Democatic Party -- this is basically one of the arguments that Democrats have had against Republicans.

I would agree that many liberals are sadly intolerant of conservatives (intolerance masked as tolerance) and I personally struggle against that attitude. This is one of the
reasons I read conservative blogs and argue with you guys -- it's critical (but also frustrating) to understand what and how the other side thinks.

There is a great deal of fear and hatred against the Bush administration. Actually, as these things usually go, it's fear that shows up as hatred. For example, I'm not able to listen to the far-left Pacifica radio network because I cannot stomach their rhetoric. But at the same time, Republicans and conservatives are also not without guilt in this. As a liberal, I have recieved what feels like countless of rather hateful insults lobbed from the conservative machine by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michael Savage. The fact that we live in a political environment where the word "liberal" itself is tossed around like an insult is troubling. My background is highly religously conservative and I attended college in that red state Indiana. In my experience, there have been many moments I have felt a great deal of intolerance from my conservative neighbors.

However, at the same time, criticism of President Bush and his policies is not automatically "hateful" or "anti-American." Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" critique of Bush, while in your face, is not instrinscally hateful. Sure, he takes potshots at the President, but how is that any different than Rush Limbaugh's songs about Bill Clinton? Is that any different from normal partisan politics. Many conservatives compared "Farenheit 9/11" to Nazi propaganda without ever having actually seen the movie -- how is that not a hateful response in return?

These labels get thrown around by both sides in order to silence the critique and the messenger. If someting is "hateful" than it must not be relevant.

So Drew, I would be interested in reading more about the Democrat attitude of intolerance, but at the same time I would like to raise the question, what role if any will Republican moderates play in Bush's America? Moderates like Arnie were paraded out in front for the cameras of the Republican convetion, but at the same time, do any of them have any real say in the policies and direction of the Republican Party?

One thing that few conservatives understand is that the Left is highly fractured into different groups. For example, in the 1970's feminists and lesbian activists often butted heads and fought turf battles. There is a similar conflict today between Gay and Lesbian activists and the transgendered community. One of the things that has given me hope this past election, is that this is the first time the Left has been this mobilized since the 1960's and '70's. There is a unity that has not always existed before and I think it will be helpful.

The challenge for the Democratic Party would be to articulate those values (tolerance, internationalism, equal access to institutions, ending exploitation). Part of the problem today is that the Democrats have not articulated their core values and the leadership has often sounded more Republican than Democrat.

BTW, Salon posted an interview with the conservative activist Richard Viguerie. They are a bit tough on him, but do let him have his say.

Szdfan:

I actually write a lot. An enormous lot. Ask the Admiral. He keeps a whole 200 GB hard disk just for my hourly email opinions.

Yes, I intend to write more here about the intolerance issue but I would also be happy to discuss it with you privately.

I find that often an informal Email discussion lets people clarify their thinking so they can write a more coherent and shorter public statement.

The Admiral knows my Email address. Do you, Sdzfan, know his? If you want to chat more tell the Admiral by private Email (don't post it here, obviously) your Email address and that he should forward that to me.

Regards,

Drew

Drew,

I have forwarded my contact info to the Admiral. Let me know if there is anything you want to discuss.

I almost hate to bring real data into a discussion of opinions, but some people have already starting polling for 2008. Some interesting points to note.

According to this poll, Arnold Schwarzenegger currently does not have a chance with 66 percent of all voters opposed (and 57 percent of Republicans opposed). However, keep in mind a lot can happen in four years – if Schwarzenegger did a great job governing California and moved to the right on social issues (two objectives that may contradict each other), this might sway people.

The poll also shows I was right about people not being ready for an Bush president. The number of people who do not want to see him run is almost as large as those opposing a Schwarzenegger campaign. Giuliani and McCain have the best positive numbers, but they also have about of a third of voters who would oppose them becoming president. The polls with lesser known folks (Owens, Romney) don't mean much other than these folks currently do not have any name recognition.

On the Democratic side of things, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have the most support, but these polls did not ask how many people would oppose their running. Those are very important numbers – if your base is not excited about you (or if large chunks of your base dislikes you), your odds of winning are greatly decreased.

No thoughts about Colin Powell for prez in 08? I heard he might be nominated for the supreme court.

I wanted to comment about an earlier post.

"One thing that few conservatives understand is that the Left is highly fractured into different groups. For example, in the 1970's feminists and lesbian activists often butted heads and fought turf battles. There is a similar conflict today between Gay and Lesbian activists and the transgendered community. One of the things that has given me hope this past election, is that this is the first time the Left has been this mobilized since the 1960's and '70's. There is a unity that has not always existed before and I think it will be helpful."

Does the Democratic party really feel good about a unity between feminists, gay and lesbian activists and the transgendered community? I cannot believe that those three groups are the keys to winning elections in America.

To ACR re Colin Powell:

One "feature" of the US political system is that someone with support, in total, from members of both parties, i.e. someone who would draw a lot of votes in the general election, often isn't electable because he doesn't have enough support in his own party to get the nomination.

Powell, after trying with all his might to undermine the Bush administration during his tenure as Secretary of State has pretty much burned his bridges in the Republican party and is "unnominatable."

Since he is Black he is un-nominatable by the Democrats (see for example the recent comments on Rice or Thomas, who the new senate majority leader calls "an embarassment." (Not really the right sort of person, you know).

And (a big item) I gather Powell's wife is very much against his running. She thinks some whacko would assasinate him.

To ACR re the unity of the Democratic Party:

It cuts both way. I do agree the Democrats are more unified and homogeneous now than they were a decade or two ago. They have done that by shedding the "ideologically impure" and moving further left. So they are more unified but less numerous. They can get a party platform and candidate _they_ are all behind but if as their party gets smaller they have less and less ability to then win the general election.

The Republicans are having the opposite problem. They have a majority (at the moment) but are more and more homogeneous. That has the opposite advantages and disadvantages.

I agree with a comment someone (was it the Admiral) made. If the Democrats continue on their path they will disappear. There is no point in voting for someone who will be a congressman in a party that has only 1/3 of the seats in the house. He may agree with your positions, but he is powerless. Better to vote for the person who will be in the majority party but who is somewhat closer to your views. (An Olympia Snow sort of person).

The US government doesn't really allow for viable minority parties.

But then, as soon as the Democrats get to the point where they have only 1/3 of the house, people will migrate to the Republicans who will be even more heterogeneous and fragmented and the Republicans will fall apart into two new parties. Probably the the "Liberal" (in the Margaret Thatcher/European sense of "Liberal" - the free trade small government crowd) and the Social Conservative Republicans.

Actually the Republicans are an uncomfortable alliance of those two groups right now. After that split (if it happens) at least the division between the two surviving parties will be more rational than the current two parties.

I can't understand the Democrat view (Big Government running your business and the government, but not your personal social interactions) or the Republican view (Big Government running your personal social activities, but not your small business activities).

People haven't read their Thatcher. She points out that is unstable. You can't have freedom in some of the three: Politics/Economics/Personal Life without "corroding" the other areas and winding up with freedom in all of them. ("Asian Capitalism" is similarly unstable per Thatcher. And me.)

Oops, I made a typo. I meant the Republicans are more numerous at the moment but LESS homogeneous (more squabbling sub-groups)

Remember the name EVAN BAYH. If the Dems are smart they will nominate this moderate in 08- fiscally responsible, 2 term governor of a red state, Senator on Armed services and intelligence committees, young, good looks and zero baggage. GOP will be very worried if he runs.

Rudy Giulliani and McCain have no chance winning the southern primaries.
All these polls are irrelevant.

Not knowing where to put this:

From where I sit, the people who (unintentionally) gave that election to Bush were Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco who started the same sex marriage ball rolling and the Massachussets jurists who gave it a huge boost.

This led to numerous Marriage Definition amendments in Ohio and other states. Those all seem to have gone down by 2:1 or 3:1 but what they really did was to get newly registered and rarely voting people out to vote against the amendments. That was the bulge in numbers voting and that is what IMO put Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

Actually my view of gay/same-sex marriage is, I am sure, different from the Admiral's view. I feel marriage has two meanings: a religious ceremony (at least in my religion) but also a package of legal and civil rights and duties. Regarding those civil rights and duties "leave to Caesar that which is Caesar's" and it is perfectly OK by me to have legal marriages. In my religion there are marriages that are recognized by the state but not by my religion. So what?

But the irritating thing the left did regarding same sex marriage was to try to force the issue on an unwilling (2 or 3 to 1 unwilling) public.

So my heartfelt thanks to Gavin Newsome who told people that he could grant marriage licenses even though California law said he couldn't and to the Massachusetts court justices who ordered the Massachusetts legislature to pass laws to their liking. That arrogance is what made Bush president for a second term.

Admiral,

In what state is your small town of 20k. I can't say as I ever noticed you mention it, but tha mostly likely is my memory.

Dusty,
I have never mentioned it ;-)

I'd rather not be too specific lest some of my students put two and two together, but I'm in a midwestern battleground state.

But what does he mean by "state"? Does he mean US state or does he main Nation-state?

The reason that I'm asking is that the parenthesis around US (i.e. US) would signal to me that this was insertion by the translators based on their interpretation. He actually didn't say, "US state" but just "state."

Szdfan,
Good to hear from you again. I owe you a response to an earlier question, will try to get to it very soon.

Regarding this question, the meaning is clear, the translators added the term US to make it clearer, but the word used for state was very specific. The word used refers to the US type of state, not a synonym for a sovereign country. These are two distinct words in bin Laden's tongue.

Here is one source for my comments. “Wilaya” refers specifically to a U.S. state; it would never refer to an independent country. The term for such a country is “Dawla.”