Quote:
(or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt [censored] I can think of)

Quote:
so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence

Quote:
Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence.

Hmm, the more pessimistic viewpoint would say the 48% of Americans where going to vote democrat regardless. Leaving only a couple percent at most who acknowledged the incompetence and allowed it to affect their vote

-Mike

Quote:
Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.

Quote:
but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).

Quote:
Eyeman?

Quote:
Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

Quote:
Just ...started.

You go Jim Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Quote:
Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.

Quote:
or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.

Quote:
very large portion of this country disagrees with their views

Quote:
Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)

Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Quote:
Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way..<SNIP>..If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

Quote:

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here..<SNIP>..I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".

Quote:

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Quote:

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Quote:

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Quote:

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

Quote:
Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Quote:
I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them.

Quote:
They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.

Actually, the only reason I would have trouble believing it are hearing lies parroted as fact. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link. The weapons of mass destruction. It's not even an overwhelming majority of people who voted for Bush who cite these as reasons, and so it's not like I could reasonably sit here and tell you that everyone who voted differently than me is dumb or blind. But, for the people who do believe it, it's not hard to stereotype. I'd be happy to be wrong. If I am, then Fox News presumably has stories about the link or the weapons being found, right?

I'm open-minded: tell me what I missed.

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be.

Quote:
And I stated that I hadn't intended to insult and hoped that he hadn't taken it that way. Your point, Mark? Are you implying that "Sorry, I was making light of your comments" should have made it ok?

Quote:
I'm well aware, thank you, of what Jim stated in his post. My comment was in reference to what Brad had said regarding "Democrats and people on the left" failing to "get it". You yourself say you feel he was trying to state the viewpoint of Kerry supporters and people unhappy about the outcome of the election. I'm both. So Mark, by your logic, he was referring to me.

Quote:
And he was wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Again, Brad made this comment about "Democrats and people on the left". Assuming this is (as usual) inclusive of anyone supporting someone other than Bush, it did include me.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

I don't really understand the first part of your comment. I don't think I'm reading into Brad's comment at all, though. Brad said "the issues that drove the vote ARE America." Well, the issues that drove the vote were, by and large, things considered by the Christians as "moral issues". Things such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These are things on which I totally disagree with the majority, or so it would seem. Hence, I must not be "America". Could you explain how I'm reading too much into it?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

I would think that would be clear. The "been had" comment is, I'm sure, due to frustration.

The "Jesusland"? Not the words I would use. Would you prefer "Bible Belt"? It is no secret that Christians are quite happy with the way the election went. Maybe not all, but I would guess a majority. Ask Archbishop Chaput here in Colorado. Jim, it would seem, is not fond of the idea of America moving just a little closer to being a Theocracy. Nor am I, but then I am (the election would suggest) part of the slim minority.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

So anything someone says here is beyond criticizm as long as they don't "start the thread"? That's a bit silly, don't you think? And though I agree with you that people have been more likely to start a post with "Throw Bush out!", have you considered that the demographics of this board may not be the same as that of America?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Again, Brad didn't direct his comments at Jim. He directed them at the "Democrats and people on the left". The "elitists" if you will.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

I think, sadly, that you may be being a bit naive here, Mark. I think it speaks well of you that you registered without party affiliation, and that you claim to have voted in the same manner. But from the people I've spoken to, if they were voting for Bush, they just went Republican right on down the line.

Quote:
He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

Quote:
Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Quote:
Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America" I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are suosed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:
Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

Quote:
I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Quote:
I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

Quote:
The problem is, many people with those same beliefs are of the opinion that the only people who should have the right to exercise their opinions are straight, conservative and pro-life.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, plenty of people on both side seem to not give a damn if the other side has a right to exercise their opinion.

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.

Quote:
Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?

Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.

It's pretty easy, actually.

Quote:
Hey, I've got this line on a furnished apartment in Puerto Vallarta that you might be interested in!

My spanish is pretty rusty, but I'm down. First 'rita is on me!

Quote:
Voters who can't appear to get enthusiastic about _anyone_ and who simply vote against a candidate.

Sadly, I think you're right. This was my problem. I had to look at it like genetics, though; you cull out the traits you don't want, and reinforce the ones you do. The next generation you do the same. And again, and again. That's the only way I was able to justify voting for anyone this year.

I realize now that it was a bit naive of me to think that would work.

Quote:
Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?

Quote:
3) "I don't want to have to pay taxes for..." : Yeah, and I don't want to pay taxes to drop bombs on other countries. We all have to suck it up sometimes and pay for things we don't like. It sucks but that's the way it is.

Quote:

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Hmmmm. You must have somehow gotten the impression that the Clintons are my pals

Of course, if GWB could talk Bill into serving as his Secretary of State (maybe GWB could offer him a BJ!) it couldn't hurt!

Edit: I don't want to be coy. For those of you whose Internet Service Providers censor terms like B*J*, it would probably help if I spelled out that B*J* really means B*L*O*W J*O*B*

Hope that helps.

Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal ).

Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".

Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").

Jerz

Quote:
The problem, as I see it, is that it is impossible to make both sides happy here...

Quote:
The best answer I have been able to come up with for myself is this: I ask myself, "who is being told they may not do something they wish to do? Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do?" In the cases above, the answers are "the liberals" and "no".

Quote:
But I am affraid it might be even worse:

Quote:
Just to play Devil's Advocate...just who would you like to vote _for_?

Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.

Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

Quote:
Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal ).

Quote:
Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".

Quote:
Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").

Quote:

Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.

Quote:
polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)

Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.

Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.

Quote:

Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.

In reference to your "believe it or not" invitation, I choose "not." Reason being, exit polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)

Quote:

Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.

I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.

Quote:
it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage

Quote:
Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live.

Quote:
Indeed. And let's not forget that this previous one was not fully resolved untill a full century after the war.

Quote:
(and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage)

Quote:

Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.

I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.

Quote:
sooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

Quote:

Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.

FWIW, to conservatives the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is dealing with an innocent life and the death penalty is a guilty one.

It's still a strange coupling that those who are for one are almost invariably against the other.

Quote:
I have to heartily agree with both of the preceeding posts; and most depressingly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!

Have I told you how nice it is to have you here yet?

And you're right. The person who wants to be president may very well be among those least deserving of the job.....

Quote:
Bonzi, I cherish your posts on this BBS. I have to say, though, judging from the number of your typos and the time offset, that I suspect that you are *way* more drunk than I (me?).

Thank you, Jim!

Actually, I am quite sober now. Discussion on the BBS keeps swirling in my head from the election day, and I am struggling to put some of my side of it in the posted words; there is just so much of it. Also, I seem to be almost dyslexic recently (except when writing code - I guess it is like people not stuttering when they sing :-)

Quote:
Have you ever been the the U.S. of A.? It seems that you know about ten times more about the US than most of its citizens. How do you manage that if you have never been here?

I have been there few times, but not for long: a week in LA, two times a week in NY and a month in Argonne National Laboratory (near Chicago). What surprised me was that it was exactly as I imagined it. Very kind people in a weird country.

Politics in general and civil rights in particular interest me quite a lot. USA cought my then childish attention in the days of Vietnam, and still holds it. Despite Vietnam and my very left leaning, I never saw USA as a threat (the same holds for my country: even in days of Tito's Yugoslavia, military maneuvers always assumed attack from Warsaw block countries); it is beginning to look as one now. On top of this, sometimes I am so disgusted with domestic politics that I prefer following yours

Quote:
If you have never been here, but would like to opine about US craziness with some increased authority, I would like to extend an offer. Come to Seattle for a week and we will jump in the Subaru and go explore Jesusland. I don't have much more to offer than my Ikea couch, but I have slept there successfully on more than one occasion. Oh, a plane ticket? Award seats on United are hard to come by, but I will work with you to figure out *some* sort of ticket -- maybe from Frankfurt or (shudder) from CDG. On me.

CDG would be the best, as I am now on consulting stint at SNCF, Paris.

Seriously, I might take you on your offer once (not ticket, of course, but couch and company while exploring the strange terra incognita occidentalis). Besides, I have heard from multiple reliable sources that Seattle is a place where we decadent European liberals could survive.

Quote:
Let me know. Thanks for your continuing insights.

Quote:
For a somehat light rejoinder to this queston, see http://michaelmoore.com/
17 reasons...while the topic couldn't be more serious, we can all use a little lightness; "Is it hot in here, or is it me?"

Looks like the page moved. It's now at http://michaelmoore.com without the trailing /17....

But now I'm staring at two coffee covered monitors...

Quote:
Sadly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!

True - political ambitions should disqualify a candidate. Which means that probably the best way to select polititians would be a lottery - something like jury duty.

But this also illustrates another peculiarity of American political life: you actually don't have political parties as we in Europe understand them; it's more like two teams in continous play-off: tactics continuosly changing, players being traded, but essentially just two franchizes doing their lucrative job. We more or less have four or five slots across the political spectrum (demo-christians, social democrats, liberals...) plus some folklore; the difference is in conrete issues, and you pretty well know where each party stands. Granted, the situation is getting a bit more fluid recently on issues like social security, country-wide collective bargaining, immigration...

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Quote:
And Kerry was the one who publicly told a citizen (during the 3rd debate) that regardless of what his religious beliefs were, he felt it wasn't right to legislate them and force them on those who didn't agree. He was, granted, speaking to the topic of abortion when he said this, but I feel it would be fair to assume that smae concept would carry through to other religious beliefs.

Quote:
Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent.

Quote:
So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in?

Quote:
The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven.

Quote:
Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent. Granted this comes from the non-Christian's knowledge of the Bible, though I have read it...

Quote:
So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in? The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven. So when does life start? And do I need to keep my fingernails until I pass on? Please tell me.

Jeff acknowledged somewhere that this argument hinges on when you consider that human life begins. I could understand that someone with a notion of mystical "soul" being "breathed" into us making us distinct from animals believes that this happens at the moment two haploid cells merge their nuclei to form a zygote (however the idea of zygote with a soul might look strange ).

However, that is not the main problem I have with 'pro-lifers': as our kayaking psychologist Jean among others noted, right is doing nothing to lower the number of abortions: on the contrary. They try to supress sex education in schools (except "just say no"), withold money for condom popularization efforts (even as an AIDS-prevention measure), cut money from child care and other support for young single mothers.... And they continue to call pro-choice activists 'pro-abortion'. Liberals are not pro-abortion; abortion is the last resort, and only women involved know the emotional price of it. It is 'pro-lifers' who, in effect, are working to increase the number of abortions (and make them more dangerous for women). But they certainly have the best of intentions, so the consequences don't matter, right?

Quote:
Also, there is evidence that children who die are sent to Heaven

Quote:
You remind me of a local journalist, a nemesis of our Catholic church apparatus (which has strong political ambitions). The guy is very eloquent, experienced, extremely well versed in christian theology (among other things), and atheist. Always fights on their terrain.

Ummm.... Is that a good thing?

Quote:

Quote:
Also, there is evidence that children who die are sent to Heaven

Evidence!? Please, Jeff, enlighten me (and when considering what constitutes evidence, keep in mind that I am by training physicist).

No insult intended, of course.

Quote:

Quote:
You remind me of a local journalist, a nemesis of our Catholic church apparatus (which has strong political ambitions). The guy is very eloquent, experienced, extremely well versed in christian theology (among other things), and atheist. Always fights on their terrain.

Ummm.... Is that a good thing?

Err, isn't that obvious? He is my favourite.

Quote:
Well, that would be a picturesque combination, but I am affraid that USA is far from being ready for a woman president and non-white vice-president, even without the recent sliding to the right.

Quote:
Evidence!? Please, Jeff, enlighten me (and when considering what constitutes evidence, keep in mind that I am by training physicist).

Quote:
Sorry, that was a misstatement. To another Christian of similar beliefs, in context this would have been understood to mean "biblical evidenct", which means a biblical passage to support a theological belief.

I realized this the moment I fired the post, but decided to let it be. Sorry.

So, Dante was wrong?

Quote:
Although, hasn't Jesus taken care of the original sin?

Quote:
However, that is not the main problem I have with 'pro-lifers': as our kayaking psychologist Jean among others noted, right is doing nothing to lower the number of abortions: on the contrary. They try to supress sex education in schools (except "just say no"), withold money for condom popularization efforts (even as an AIDS-prevention measure), cut money from child care and other support for young single mothers....

Quote:
And they continue to call pro-choice activists 'pro-abortion'.

Quote:
Sorry, that was a misstatement. To another Christian of similar beliefs, in context this would have been understood to mean "biblical evidenct", which means a biblical passage to support a theological belief.

Quote:
Back again to the "we're not worrying about the life that's here, only the putative life to come" issue.

Quote:
I really admire your wide knowledge of our (USA; I'm with the Canadians amd Mexicans on resenting"American" as exclusive for us) history, political system, and issues.

Quote:
There is considerable evidence...

Quote:
...that high school kids graduating in Virginia, across the river from DC, can't name the last 5 presidents or the current vice-president (isn't THAT an appropriate play on words...), and that much of the rest of the country is worse, though at least the current polarization has waked a few people up....

Quote:

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

I'm a liberal. I already have some of my liberal friends saying "You know what? We should all hope that Hillary runs next time, and we can have a Clinton/Obama ticket!"

Quote:
I suspect you are funnin' with me.

Quote:
So, who do you think is going to win in Iraq?

Quote:
as compensation for banning tobacco. The savings in health costs alone would pay for this

Quote:
Work production would drop sharply

Quote:
I'll agree that the church has done a poor job of supporting its stance on abortion

Quote:
How contraception fits into this in your opinion?

Quote:
You seem to imply that there's one unified church.

Quote:
In fact, if I guess correctly, the single church organization you're a part of, the Southern Baptist Convention, has had severe rifts in it in the past couple of decades due to the conservative takeover in leadership.

Quote:

Quote:
How contraception fits into this in your opinion?

I forgot to answer this earlier. Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).

I have to agree, this does seem to be largely the domain of the Papacy and Catholic adherents, though certainly there are some more (conservative isn't really the right word, and neither is radical) Christians who keep their children out of health classes for reasons of/related to it.

I can tell you that before college I spent 13 years including kindergarten in Roman Catholic schools, (and nursery school at a Presbyterian church) and I was required in high school to take health class, and sexual health was part of that curriculum; A survey of world religions was also required during that 4 years. Biology was one of the subjects I didn't care for, so I probably didn't take as much away as i did from Physics or Chemistry, but I can also tell you that I don't recall a denial of evolution in my science classes.

In that regard, my religious education was perhaps more "liberal" than (if all the hype is to be believed, and I'm not sure it is) a public education in, say, Kansas.

Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

Quote:
This is probably another example of a wrong context word usage. "The church" is routinely used among evangelical Christians to refer to the overall body of Christ

Quote:
Instead of realizing that a very large portion of this country disagrees with their views, they have to pull an elitist view that everyone that doesn't live in a major city is stupid, ignorant or a rednecks (actual quotes from editorials at major papers this week) or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.

Quote:
Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

Quote:
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection

Quote:
How do you explain these numbers except for ignorance or they were tricked?

Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

Quote:
But yes, I've never liked how the liberal media, which controls near everything we see and hear,

Quote:

Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".

Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what?

Quote:
Most protestants I know, myself included, have no problem with contraception (as it's pre-conception). The Catholic church has a tradition of being against contraception (except for "natural means") and I know of one protestant minister who is against it (he says he knows of only three others).

Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly

Quote:
Granted, my only source of information were efforts by Bush&Co to supress efforts to popularize use of condoms, to the extent that they witheld aid from AIDS-fighting programs that even mention condoms.

Quote:
Some of it IS willful ignorance:'don't confuse me with the facts...', some is apathetic ignorance--following the issues takes time and thought,

Quote:
and then there's the other half of the normal curve.

Quote:

Quote:
BTW, what is it that makes Christians (all three descendants of ancient judaism, actually) so obsessed with sex?

To some degree, most societies are; it is a very powerful life-force, if not, as in Freud's theories, the dominant one, and hard to separate from survival of the species. The feminist view, which holds a lot of validity, also suggests that, especially in the cultures you mention, the sexual taboos keep women in their place: barefoot and pregnant. The U.S. culture is even more ambivalent about it than most; it's used to sell everything from cars and blue jeans to toothpaste, and these days you can find any deviation or degradtion of it you care to imagine online, but we are if anything becoming even more ambivalent and confused about it as a result. As I think you're suggesting, that ambivalence and fear is at the root of a lot of the cultural values clashes; it's not just Viet Nam we're refighting in a new form, it's the 60's and the Sexual Revolution.

Quote:
President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women:Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice.

His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurateassertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's livesor to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and researchmust not be influenced by anti-abortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

Quote:
My wife received this in her email recently...

Quote: {another trainwreck and imposition on women's health courtesy of the shrub and his cronies}

Quote:

Quote:
Now, the flipside is I can certainly remember an opposition to abortion during that time as far as what we learned, and, at least in religion class, we were encouraged in the direction of abstinence. So in that regard, I guess it was rounded, a "here's how you should live your life, here's what you need to know about life" education.

I am not against mentioning advantages of abstinence at all, just against preaching it as the only possible way. For example, a few months ago an African politician (I don't remember who) drew fire from some liberals because he was 'too reserved' towards use of condoms in anti-AIDS campaign. What the guy was saying was, essentially: "The best way to avoid AIDS is through abstinence or strict monogamy; failing that, and I know many of you will, *please* make sure to always use condoms!". Fair enough, I would say (needle sharing was not mentioned because his country is not rich enough for that kind of vice).

Quote:

Quote:
The surprising thing is that during high school I had a corporatist, fiscally and socially conservative philosophy, which went against the current of the social justice type of class I took as a junior, and now, years later, I'm on the other side.

I am 31. In view of the quote variously attributed here I am heartless *and* brainless.

So, you saw the light, if I understand correctly

Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.

Quote:

Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Quote:

Quote:

I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient.

Me either. But, I prefer they be made efficient, and others seem to prefer they just be cut. (for instance, in another post:

Quote:

I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.

and not for instance one who fixes welfare.)

Quote:

Quote:
I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.

After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

Quote:
While I've started looking harder to find American-made things, or at least things made where I know the working conditions are likely to be reasonable, I know I'm guilty of buying things on price, recently even.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault.

Did these people screw up by not being able to foretell the oncoming collapse of these industries? Did they screw up by not being able to keep their medical insurance when they lost their jobs and had to find positions which would pay for either that coverage, or their food and shelter, and then got sick? Where is the line as far as personal responsibility?

Hey, shat happens. I myself am from a family where we lived below the poverty line for many years. My wife is the same. I grew up in northern Maine where I witnessed the decline of the small time farmer (grandfather and uncles included), the poor job market, and the closure of an Air Force base. All of these factors affected the local economy negatively. My father, a contractor, began having health problems when I was about 12. What he did was quit the construction business, go to college and get a degree in mathematics (my mom supported our family with a job as an administrative assistant). He then started teaching school as an alternative to his old labor-intensive job. In the 70's my dad moved to North Carolina where there was a construction boom so he could support his new family. You have to have your own backup plans. I'm sure you aren't relying on Social Security for your retirement, are you?

Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it

Quote:

Quote:
I don't think anyone will buy it

More than that, I think it would be difficult to determine exactly what the magic number for each program is that means it has "enough". I fear the arguments would simply relocate rather than go away.

Quote:
Well, there's some defined number (or other metric) that the government is throwing at it now.

Quote:
Sure, but even if they meet it, your tax money would instead be allocated out of the general fund for something else, not be returned to you.

Sure. He wasn't arguing against your idea, only my argument against your idea.

And he's right, but I'd still bet those figures would come under a lot of fire.

Quote:

Quote:
After considerable thought I came up with the concession I'd offer towards Libertarians if I were in power: codify in law that social programs would be reduced and eliminated, and taxes dropped accordingly, as charity met social needs. Like, if charity can help, when that's proven, then we let charity do it, and give you your money back. When charity has no pants, everyone else gets to bend over, too.

This is an interesting viewpoint. I think this would actually be a good start.

Quote:
In other cases they give you a tax credit, e.g. your taxable income is reduced, and there are weird rules and games you can play.

In this case you simply wouldn't be charged tax for this purpose. You'd be eligible for whatever tax credit you might otherwise, the point is not to change the tax code, the point is to meet a need, if possible outside the government's budgeting powers, and having done so, allow reaping of the reward for it.