Dear Censor,
Hope you are well.
In your spare time, just wanted to recommend some reading to you. You're a college student? Maybe you haven't gotten around to this one yet. It's John Milton's "Areopagitica" -- it's one of the reasons that we have freedom of speech in the United States (a place that is distinct from the internet where not all speech -- not even all civil speech -- is allowed). You might want to read Milton. He's passionate. He's instructive. He's a moral teacher. He's free (the book is available online now).
And, by the way, he's a much more entertaining writer than Ms. Huffington. Even if this site does have fantastic web design. Please tell the web designers (not to be confused with intelligent designers) just in case they cannot read this remark for themselves (you know, like if you don't post it).
Thanks, ever yours, the Muse

The 100 Years Defense Makes No Sense
Your background, you "also served on the homeland security task force of the Kerry-Edwards campaign"? Wow, another reason why I'm glad I voted for Bush.
Maybe you should do a little reading in military history before making any more observations. posted 04/16/2008 at 19:10:45
Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House
I'm against violence also. And I want to defend justice. But obviously we will not agree. Still it's good we reached a light moment anyway.
But, gotta go now.
Peace be with you.
Muse posted 04/15/2008 at 20:54:14
I have no problem at all with the level of the person being prosecuted. First, however, there has to be a crime. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:50:37
Of course, you must be sweet. You're a cat person. What was I thinking? posted 04/15/2008 at 20:28:21
Torture discussions. Yes, let's criminalize that. Discussion. To hell with free speech. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:24:05
First, however, there has to be a crime. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:22:16
Now it isn't even crimes, it's "evil-doers." Definition of a witch hunt. Fortunately this is all just pointless ranting. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:21:02
Indeed, the worst hell is found in the mind. But how do you presume to know these things about people you've never met, peacekitten? This is the opposite of this country's obsession with celebrity: the idea that somehow politicians elected to office are not ordinary human beings.
President Bush has made difficult decisions. That these kinds of decisions would be hard for any leader to have to make is one thing about which people here might consider in some humility.
As to the wisdom of Bush's decisions, history will judge. Certainly it is not apparent if Iraq will ever grasp the potential of democracy that has been offered to it.
I neither condemn nor praise Bush.
Many people in high office are wealthy. Gore, Kerry, the Clintons, Edwards, et al are millionaires. I am not fans of this particular group, but I am not blaming them for anyone's poverty or illness either.
How much power do the sick, the poor, the vulnerable deserve? We live in a country of one citizen, one vote. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:08:40
You have finally said something that I like. I misjudged you peacekitten. You have a sweet sense of humor. posted 04/15/2008 at 20:00:44
The agent who administered the waterboarding would be prosecuted under your number 1. What is the penalty under the Geneva Conventions? And what court has jurisdiction?

Where in the Geneva Conventions is "a war of aggression (as opposed to peaceful, non-aggressive wars) waged under false pretenses for access to natural resources," is this cited. Someone said the Geneva Conventions were quaint. Perhaps they were right after all.

While we're charging people with crimes, what court will hear the case of al quida fighters kidnapping people and beheading them?

(Not so much outrage about that here, one cannot help but notice.) posted 04/15/2008 at 19:59:36
In your fantasy land, evidently, no one is protected by them either. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:54:24
My comments have nothing to do with Obama, just as Obama has nothing to do with the hate talk being vented here. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:52:34
The stuff that lynchings are made of.... posted 04/15/2008 at 19:50:37
Well, that was fast! Beyond a reasonable doubt? You don't even need evidence! Once they are proven guilty.... etc.
Great system of justice here in la-la land. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:50:06
Yes, peace is a good thing. You should try it sometime. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:48:29
I have been on this planet. Where have you been. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:47:47
It is illegal to lead the country to war when the United States Congress has given the president the authority to wage war? This, after the United States made a case for the possible necessity for war to the United Nations. Etc.

They discussed torture? Who is "they" -- or does it even matter in your fantasy court? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:47:16
Should Bob Novak be prosecuted? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:45:07
I would prefer that you just answer the question. It shouldn't be so hard. All the evidence, etc. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:44:28
What are we condoning? Is it a secret around here? What did Bush do? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:43:46
Yes, show the true colors of the so-called "progressives." posted 04/15/2008 at 19:42:32
hdkghbhvgjgmfc nv hnjhjbv mghrtyjh jtk,ihkrthkvdrogl;dgdthnkord.jhvklrtjg';lkj posted 04/15/2008 at 19:40:06
Peacekitten,
When the criminal is "known" he is no longer presumed innocent and no justice is even possible. When you can know a crime was committed without even specifying what the crime is, you have no case.
The only brainwashing going on is your brainwashing of yourself. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:39:15
It's as if I assume that no one has even specified what "crime" Bush has committed. Here at the lynching. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:36:55
It's always a good idea to specify one's topics when trying to persuade someone. Except for the goofy supporters, about which we agree, I do not find so much difference between Obama and McCain. There is not really that much difference between the two parties -- certainly not as much as the Great Hissy FIts here at Huff Po and FOX News would have one believe.
Looked at objectively, there's much continuity of thought over the spectrum of mainstream American politics. This is a Good Thing.
I am trying to look at the men as individuals, not as flags waving a Policy. Policies can change (and sometimes should). What one wants is leadership.
Well, it's what adults want. I'm not sure what makes this crowd tick. They enjoy their angst. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:34:08
My aren't you good at prejudging people. Now you have the power not only to read "their" minds (anyone in particular? or just anybody who works in his administration?) but you can gaze into their souls.
Who elected you God? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:29:09
Peace? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:27:42
After a trial? On what charges? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:27:17
What part of everybody is protected by the law don't you get. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. Guilty of what? Where's your proof? What is the crime? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:25:11
May have. Really? What a nuance. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:20:53
Right, no one is bereft of it either. What "crime" has the president committed? If there were even a crime, he would be innocent until proven guilty.
This sentiment being expressed here has nothing to do with the law. It is a desire for revenge.
With an election so near, it looks particularly petty. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:17:52
Does justice still include "innocent until proven guilty"? Are you sure it's justice you want? posted 04/15/2008 at 19:14:09
Nazis? Oh this is deep thinking. Poor Obama. To think that you guys are his loyal, rah, rah supporters. Fortunately for him, other citizens don't judge him by his supporters. (Still one has to wonder ....) McCain is looking better all the time. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:04:08
Nice try peacekitten,
But ...
well, actually I have no reply.
My ideas don't fit on a bumper sticker. posted 04/15/2008 at 19:02:03
Another person quoting the thing that Bush never said. Your lie is showing. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:58:52
If Obama's idea of governing is to criminalize the decisions of his predecessors, then McCain just got my vote. However, I suspect that Obama didn't really say what you seem to think he said.
God forbid the government should be involved in anything but petty power struggles. Obama has campaigned as the candidate to unite the country. It is the only way he'd have a chance of winning. But if he decides to be the good leftist, I thinking we're looking at another Republican. Four more years. posted 04/15/2008 at 18:47:29
Clinton: Gore And Kerry Lost Because They Were Viewed As Elitist
I think Gore and Kerry viewed themselves as elitist, as does Mrs. Clinton as well. She wants to "fight for us," she says in a recent ad she approved. She cannot understand people not wanting her to "fight for" them, but rather to listen TO them. Clinton and these other elitists believe that political ideas arrive from the top down. They no longer "represent" the people, they "empower" them.
Now, what is this puzzling thing she says about Gore losing because he was out of touch. He very nearly won. (I voted for Bush, by the way.) The election was for all practical purposes a statistical tie. It had to be resolved in court because of the slim differences between vote counts and the competing strategies for interpreting them by each party.
Mrs. Clinton is a mystery! That's for certain. She sees things in a most peculiar way. It reminds me of her 35 years "experience." I'd be more willing to believe she had dodged sniper fire in Bosnia than that she has 35 years experience.
She was first lady lots of times, first in Arkansas and later in Washington. It still never fails to amaze me that she has gotten this close to the White House. Oh, Democrats! What has become of you! posted 04/13/2008 at 19:20:53
Atom-Smasher Could Open Black Hole, Reveal Secrets Of Science
Psychology and logic are both at work in trying to discern the universe's origins. It's the age old question, after all: why are we here? Etc. That's pretty good science, I'd say. Agape. posted 04/14/2008 at 18:09:23
We live in two parallel universes evidently. I am not aware of an economic or anti-constitional hell.
And even you seem to have survived.
Have you heard? There's an election upcoming. Try to look ahead. This by rights ought to be a happy time for you. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:39:53
themodernleader,
As to beginning to understand everything, I don't think even the most fervert supporters of the CERN project are making THAT claim. As to "except ourselves," we really ought to take a little more trouble about THAT, don't you think?
"For we are all alone." Forgive me, but could you provide some proof of that? Seems a little over-reaching to me. The odds of their being "others" is quite good.
As to the meanings of the everything, as in your comment "The universe was not originated for intelligent enquiry ...." Do you know something the rest of us don't? For what was it originated?
We're really getting ahead of ourselves here. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:37:10
Tsk, tsk. The ignoramuses are the ones paying for it, darling. Mind your manners. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:08:04
Not an apt analogy. According to the prevailing view, black holes would appear to be necessary components of a galaxy without which a galaxy could not be! I voted for Bush, but I'm quite sure the US could have managed even if dreadful Gore had got hold of the office (still covered in chads). :-) posted 04/13/2008 at 19:06:38
How quickly this interesting topic degenerates into political drivel. That would define the half-life of real information at Huff Po. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:03:17
LeftLeanWing,
Notwithstanding the nice image of Ms Dion's singing, this is not reassuring. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:01:47
I disagree. What's wrong with this project being in Switzerland. And what relevance has the size of the host country got to do with scientific experiment?
True, it might have been nice to have made their decision $11 billion dollars earlier. But other than that, I find this whole aside to be meaningless.
Let is be a source of Swiss pride. posted 04/13/2008 at 18:59:02
More junk science? I certainly didn't see this coming, Dap? What kind of science is valid? Only science that could somehow disprove God?
Gotta say, Dap. You're an enigma (connundrum wrapped in a riddle). posted 04/13/2008 at 18:55:10
Hunger Striking for Socially Responsible Capitalism
Sounds like it's their intellectual nutrition rather than their corporeal nutrition that ought to concern parents. If these students find their university not to their liking, why don't they get their education elsewhere? Their grandstanding is morally bankrupt. posted 04/11/2008 at 19:12:09
Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism's Manufactroversy
A lot of "modern" concepts have been around forever. Human beings get their drawers in a wad about the same stuff, century after century.
Plus ça change, plus c"est la même chose. posted 04/16/2008 at 18:37:06
"The ancientness of a notion has little to do with it's validity." -- Agree completely. I mention this only because the ID is supposed to be so controversial. If so, it's a very old controversy.

"If Plato he were alive today with up to date knowledge, he'd be against ID...." I am not so confortable as you, putting words into Plato's mouth. Moreover, I think Plato would have found the conflict between politics, religion and science very intriguing since similar conflicts erupt in the dialogues. He would perhaps smile at how accurately he depicted enduring aspects of human nature.

As to the American history teacher's lesson plans, I expressed no opinion on the topic except to say that the whole controversy was above the heads of the average high school student.

The whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. posted 04/16/2008 at 18:34:39
Darling atheist friend Dap,
Just found this reply of yours to a comment of mine
"Muse my dear believer friend, how many times do I have to tell ya, "Logic" is a science, the science of reason, you don't go there. Did ya like the art of Albert Alcalay? Agape."
Sorry to reply so tardily. Yes! How wonderful and amazing his adaptation of his art to his vision deficits. It's very inspiring. Sorry I have missed seeing it on PBS, but thank you for bringing his work to my attention.
Agape,
Muse posted 04/16/2008 at 18:19:11
Mathematicians are the most religious of the scientists (according to some poll somewhere). Evidently, mathematics puts the fear of God into you! (A little humor from an innumerate.)
I love your eloquent defense of everything, avicenna! I hate this either/or stuff.
As to Sadsong's addition of a "seventh day" to your scenerio, I wonder how many readers are aware of numbers having symbolic value in religious contexts? Seven was believed to represent perfection. Hence, God's "week" represented "completion," "wholeness," "perfection" -- well, until Eve showed up (they always blame the woman, which annoys the heck out of me, got to tell you ....)
Good post, avicenna! Let's hear it for "moderation"! My middle name! posted 04/15/2008 at 18:24:08
GOP4moretears Part 1
I am starting a new thread. Your comment was to HeevenStevens, but I add my 2 cents, since I seem to be the only advocate (sort of) for "intelligent design" (which I'll call Platonism).
"It was shown" (As in: "It was shown, in a court of law that "Intelligent Design" was developed by intent to deceive....") is passive voice. Your comment would be more persuasive if you supplied some particulars. However, all that aside, I was not addressing high school curricula in my comments. Neither was I really even advocating for ID as science, nor am I a "nut," even by HeevenSteven's interesting standard! And I suspect that I'm not alone in finding something intriguing in the broad notion of intelligent design.

(More to come. Why won't they let us make our long posts?) posted 04/15/2008 at 17:29:45
GOP4moretears Part 1 1/2
This notion, which is quite ancient and not necessarily connected to any particular religious ideology, provides a kind of alternate narrative. And that's really all. It's a philosophical fulcrum, a different kind of "what if" scenerio. Why would anyone, scientist or anybody else, find this threatening? As to introducing this idea in high school, it would have to make its appearance with serious texts -- starting with Greeks first, and then ... I don't know what (am not a philosopher). I don't see it happening. It is too hard for high school. Similarly, cutting edge physics -- string theory, etc. -- is too hard. Gracious, who would teach it? Does anyone think that the average high school physics teacher is some kind of genius? And evolution at the high school level? Come on. It's not going to be gene sequencing. You guys need to revisit a typical high school for a little reality check. posted 04/15/2008 at 17:28:42
GOP4moretears Part 2
The Pandas and People thing is part of the culture wars. Why people keep fussing and fuming about this is a real mystery to me. It shouldn't scare the scientists. (What a timid bunch!) Nor should it provide overmuch comfort for religious fundamentalists. People doing cutting edge science are an elite group. They're really the only people who even understand what they're doing. Their chief problem is not designing high school curricula -- it's getting research grants. Scientists need the big bucks. So they must go courting the ignorant masses. Evidently scientists are not entirely comfortable in this role. Hence the sturm und drang. I don't, however, think one persuades anyone to reach for their wallets by notifying them how stupid they are. (Ms. Tarico, take heed.)
Fundamentalists pay taxes too. Carrots, my friends. Not sticks. Try carrots. posted 04/15/2008 at 17:26:40
Indeed! posted 04/15/2008 at 16:46:08
If you're referring to me, I'm not a Creationist. Creationists read the bible literally, taking all the features of Genesis to be in some manner literal markers for material events. I do, as you know, believe in God but read Genesis metaphorically. The "seven days," for instance is symbolic -- seven being a number denoting perfection. There are two accounts of the creation of man, quite different. They don't conflict any more than do Wordworth's two different approaches to "The Prelude." You are absolutely correct about projection being a part of biblical hermeutics. The Bible is rather like a mirror that one looks into. It's very psychological and interior.
I don't see it in conflict with science. It really isn't doing science. The Bible is dealing with things in a non-literal and narrative/poetical way. posted 04/14/2008 at 18:46:14
Mathematics is "inside" the universe. Humans are "inside" the universe and math is inside the humans. (Some of them anyway. Sadly, it has eluded me!) posted 04/14/2008 at 18:38:44
You should read "Life of Pi" because, being fiction, it is radically different from all the other (rather amazing) things you're reading. It plays more upon feelings. The characters are wonderful. The story is very powerful and very surprising. Would love to elaborate, but one rule of recommending the Life of Pi, one does not spoil the book for others. It packs a punch, but you have to go through it to get there. It's linearity is stunning: the plot REALLY takes you into a complex narrative experience, taking you from "here" to "there" most ingeniously. It's long, but I read it in 2-3 evenings. It's a page turner! And if the book has an agenda (I don't think it does), it would be hard to pin down. Different people see vastly different things in it. Believe me, I had to talk to people about it afterwards and everybody has a different take. It's kind of a modern Moby Dick.
Read it you'll love it.
Meanwhile, your list is rather daunting! Bravo!! posted 04/14/2008 at 18:36:51
Well, this is all quite nice. But just to reassure, I did not assert that ID was theory. I said it represented one half of an either/or paradigm and that if could lead to useful ideas, some of which might/ could perhaps actually rise to theory maybe. (Are those enough caveats?) Or not.
I made no comments on high school curricula as regards string theory, ID, philosophy or anything else. High school curricula is usually more devoted to survival and minimal skills.
Would gently remind you that "ID nuts" is ad hominen.
Plato appears to have been pro-ID, as to whether he was nuts -- dunno, but I like him.
All this sounds a little defensive. There is plenty of ID speculation in Hawkins and others. It has seemed to add vibrantly to their ideas. But, yes, we agree it is not theoretical or replicable or refutable perhaps either and hence lies outside the confines of science per se. posted 04/14/2008 at 18:24:23
It's a nice saying, but by that logic being a toddler would be followed by more toddler-dom. Or once a Democrat, always a Democrat (and hence no dear, great, good Ronald Reagan).
Meanwhile, nobody is talking about Jevohah. The topic is whether reality has an "intelligent design" or has come into being "randomly." It's an old dichotomy. Goes back to pre-Socratic times. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:49:48
"ID" is rather pointedly an undefined term here. Tarico is erroneously.identifying it with creationism.. From a historical perspective, it would seem to be something like Platonism. Is there a unified theorical format presented now as ID? I don't think so. Nevertheless, it's a very useful idea -- offering a needed corrective to the prevailing and equally unproven sacred cow known as probability.
Since ID lacks definition, it's rather "in the eye of the beholder." If the universe can be described mathematically, wouldn't that mean that it was perforce "intelligently designed"? posted 04/13/2008 at 18:18:47
I agree with everything you say, but ID by its very nature could never be able to satisfy these perfectly reasonable demands of scientific theory. You will not believe me because I'm a Chistian. But if you think about it ID (which needn't have anything to do with Christianity) is a philosophical notion. It is the opposite of "random." In the simplest account that's all it is. Either/or. And either/or propositions are useful paradigms. They open up ideas to possibilities.
ID as a notion also exists in a part to whole relation. If ID were true, it would mean that "everything" was designed. Being a part of this "everything," we can not see the whole that we are trying to understand. This is a problem for scientific method as well. The latest physics paradigm is not more able to be corroborated by experiment than is ID. That doesn't make string theory and its competing theories illegitimate.
The legitimacy of ID would lie outside science by definition since it would represent a whole of which science is a part.
As to the chief problem of ID, predictability, you have a nice part to whole analogy that is helpful there as well. You possess intelligence yourself. But can you predict the next thing you will do, think, believe? The same might be true of intelligence on a larger scale. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:46:13
Why Progressives Should Support the Draft and Why Aren't People Protesting McCain's Lack of Patriotism?
Amen. "Military necessity." People forget that the military serves a purpose. Its purpose is not served by people who don't want to be there. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:07:28
Part 1
That sounds nice until you think of the mechanics. First is the bureaucracy that administers it. That costs a bundle. Then how are infractions enforced? And what about the inevitable exceptions? There will of course be exceptions. We already have systems in place rather like this -- consider jury duty. At least in regard to jury duty (which isn't free) it serves a very clear and significant purpose. But your two years of paid public service has no goal other than trying to make citizens be "good." It's an FDR program for digging ditches that no one needs. FDR had a depression to fight. We, however, have a very strong economy. You would take people away from the economy for two years to uphold a meaningless "moral" agenda. And what about immigrants? Especially illegal immigrants! Gracious, these questions aren't contentious and complex enough? You would ratchet them up more?
We have a volunteer military. They need a level of training of a caliber that is more strigent than ever before. We ask them to be expert at very highly technical armaments and want them to be policemen and social workers too. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:05:36
Part 2
If we cannot meet our country's military needs, we need to recruit. We need to ask citizens to sign up. We have to ask the "best and the brightest" to do their fair share as well. But we do not need a corps of sullen, conpulsory workers to go about a bunch of invented, busybody jobs.
Lincoln got rid of slavery a long time ago. We don't need to bring it back and make slaves of an entire generation.
Did you do your two years of conpulsory busy work yet? Why ask your kids or mine to do it? posted 04/11/2008 at 17:04:44
The notion of our Constitutional protection of speech originated in the 17th century, and it's interesting to look at the origins. They would have had no problem with prohibiting pornography, for instance. It was political speech above all for which they claimed protection. Of course "political" is a big sphere -- one that certainly includes many things such as religious speech.
But I wasn't arguing censorship. Quite the contrary, I was only suggesting that our military follows a very nobel ideal indeed when part of the "freedom" they protect extends to a citizenry among whom many members have become selfish and corrupt.
As someone who has been censored here, at Huff Po, plenty of times -- and evidently not on account of profanity -- I would certainly champion free speech.
Regarding your intriguing remark, "If you can't accept that fully then you shouldn't be in charge of sheparding our rights and liberties," I would note that no one has put me in charge. I'm not sheparding anything. A pity, it is too. Somebody SHOULD put me in charge. With Miss Manners at my side, we could really clean this place up! posted 04/11/2008 at 16:52:50
I'm against the draft. Had to break my comment into two parts. You only read part one. Said quite plainly in the other half of the comment that the draft is a very unmoderm and bad idea except in extremity (e.g. World War II). posted 04/11/2008 at 16:40:20
Your comments are addressed to "progressives"? Exactly what is a "progressive" if not: [people who] "think they as a group have higher moral standards than [everybody else]. So if, as you say, A recent poll found that two-thirds of armed service members think they as a group have higher moral standards than the nation they serve. How is that any different? Except that in the case of the military, it might be true.
There is something "morally superior" to one's being willing to risk one's life to save others. That members of the military sometimes feel this way is merely to acknowledge that they are aware of the responsibility they've chosen as well as that the society they protect isn't the God, Mom and Apple Pie ideal of myth. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:57:32
Have you looked around at the rest of Huff Po? Have you considered that THIS is encompassed by the free speech protections that our Constitution enshines -- all the mean-spirited name calling, the pornography, the incivility here? Would you lay down you life to protect someone else's right to these rants?
Maybe it's time we brought the rest of the country up to the high standards of the military. That said, military service needs to stay voluntary. It's not for everybody. The draft should be reserved for real desperation (as in World War II).
You don't just tote a gun and wear uniforms. Today's military is highly technical (as of course you know). For the sake of WINNING wars, we need our military force to be the best in the world. And that means volunteers.
If you want the service spread out into larger segments of our society, the way to accomplish that is to recruit -- and if you can find recruits among "progressives," hats off to you. But I wouldn't count on it. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:57:02
The Clinton-Colombia Connection: It Goes Back a Long Way
Ms. Huffington,

You bill yourself as Obama's supporter. But you sound like his alter-ego -- in a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde sort of way. Have you any idea that your candidate is taking the high road? That he wants to unite the two parties, go back to an earlier form of civility and bi-partisanship?
If you understood what your candidate really wishes to accomplish, would you even still support him?
Actually Hillary is more YOUR candidate. The any dirty fight to win gal. You've put your loyalties on the wrong one! posted 04/09/2008 at 20:04:50
Bush Gets Emotional Tuesday, Talks About Drinking On Wednesday
I just now saw this -- your saying "his economic policies were the beginnings of all the problems we have now" -- how old are you? You are not aware of the economy pre-Reagan? Or post-Reagan? The great economic boom that succeeded him? What does any of this mean?
You would blame Reagan for the home mortage crisis of today????
Moreover, you have a bone to pick with the Dems too.
We are living in the richest country in this history of mankind. Not good enough? Longing for the good ol' days of vassalhood and the pnemonic plague?
My guess -- you're a college student doing the political correctness tour? posted 04/13/2008 at 18:33:48
unintended humor!
For "peach" please read "peace."
(Though peach is nice too!) posted 04/13/2008 at 16:28:18
I thought you were an advocate of peach. That's how one "excuses" anyone. Judge not that you be not judged, transendentilist.
Meanwhile, I've got to go. No offense intended. Hope you have taken none. I know you have a good heart from your previous comments.
We just disagree.
Best wishes to you. Hope you are well.
A bientot, Muse posted 04/13/2008 at 16:27:30
He was cheered as well. You listened to the sounds that support your view. It was a baseball came, however. And notably he threw a rather good pitch, despite the reactions pro or con.
Valley Girl was a teenage phenomenon of about twenty years ago that has morphed into an unfortunate status quo. I think "insult" is a strong word. I was trying to point out that your reaction is over-wrought and unrealistic.
The man is president. He was elected into office in a democracy (rather different thing from the old form they had in "soverign Iraq." He will soon leave office to be succeeded by a newly elected president.
All this is just noise. Arguably you are more "in denial" than I, transcendentilist, because I'm looking at who the next president will be. I'm not wringing my hands over the past. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:24:54
Please explain how Iraq was a "soverign nation"? Exactly how does a dictator gain legitimacy? As to their being no provocation? Do you mean that there was no provocation the week prior to the US invasion? You certainly are incorrect in assuming there was no "provocation" during Saddam's tenure.
Isn't it interesting that in order to criticize Bush one has to make this false argument about Iraq under Saddam's rule. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:19:42
Cloudwatcher, [Part One]
Regarding your comment: "No teacher!!! I am in the 6th grade! And I can read, too. Even big fairytale books like Reagan's. Teacher? Was Reagan really the second coming, and we missed it? Shucks."

Since you're a big sixth grader, let me explain why I brought Reagan into the discussion. It was to point out that history, by which one means succeeding generations, may look at Bush's administration differently than this present one does -- just as Reagan's administration looks different today -- because we know things that Reagan could not know about the outcomes of events he influenced. To a mature person this just means that time brings a greater measure of objectivity. To immature Huff Po correspondents, however, it seems a threatening commentary.
Interestingly enough, this whole tempest takes place in an election year. We are only a few short months away from selecting a new president and yet people cannot get enough of whinning and vengence talk at this forum. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:16:05
Cloudwatcher [Part 2]
When I argued that one should read Reagan's book, I was not saying that it was the last word on his adminstration. My point was more that it was a first word, a first-person account that needs to be put together into a larger mosaic of points of view.
Quite apart from politics, though, Reagan's book is fascinating in many ways: chief among them, in my opinion, is the way he mythologizes his life. He saw his life as having a shape and purpose. He notes how small events that occurred early in his life led him toward more significant choices later. He believed his own life could have meaning, and it led him to look at others' lives as similarly holding meaning. Perhaps for that reason, even when he was president, he sometimes wrote letters to ordinary citizens to explain some of his actions. It's something touching and amazing about him as a man. Perhaps it helped him to formulate his ideas, perhaps it was a way of holding himself accountable, perhaps it reconnected him to his own earlier life before he became famous. In any case, the book is very uplifting. It is informative. It is certainly harmless to read. That you cannot be bothered doesn't argue your superiority as you seem to think. It merely shows that you would condemn a man without hearing the man's own defense. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:15:23
You have nothing of any importance at hand. How could you have? How can anything be "important" when it bears no resemblance to reality. posted 04/13/2008 at 16:02:00
Yes, he takes responsibility for the whole episode. He informs the reader that certain members of his cabinet were against it from the beginning (and tells who they were, giving them the credit.) He argues that it was not arms for hostages, but could seem to look that way. He says that two hostages were days away from possible release -- that they had good reason to believe they would be immediately released -- that his administration had asked the media to hold their story for a few days. That the media refused.
If you knew his account, you could research it yourself to discover how credible it is. But, transendentilist, it is so much easier to bear false witness against people than to do the research involved in learning the complicated truth that represents real life.
I was never arguing that Reagan's own account should be the last word. Only Huff Po types believe such nonsense. I was merely saying that of course it's a hugely significant primary source. I guess I was addressing those interested in history.
This is a forum for name calling. People need something to hate. And this, unfortunately, satisfies some of that need.
Would that people were more interested in learning, in objectivity, in patient observation than they are in snap judgment, pat answers and bigotry. But que sera sera.... posted 04/13/2008 at 16:01:05
It's your comments, cloudwatcher, that lead me to infer that you didn't read the book. That he would write about events in a confident way does not make his account any the less significant. It is exactly what one should expect -- obviously he believed in the decisions he made. His explanations about why he believed in them is of the utmost significance.
I never argued that it should be the ONLY book you should read. Did I? Indeed, part of one's analysis of the book would be to consider what topics he pointedly leaves out -- and there are many. One that comes to mind is AIDS. Reagan says nothing at all about it.
If you had read his book, you would not call Granada a "fun little war." You don't have a clue, do you, why Reagan sent troops to Granada.
My criticism was that people here at Huff create these "cartoon" versions of politicians. They act as if we elect saints and angels and then get all bent when our leaders turn out to be human beings.
Reading a first person account like this puts the very humanness of the officer holder back in center place. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:53:08
Do you similarly stand in judgment of Harry Truman? What about FDR? George Washington. posted 04/13/2008 at 15:43:57
People do like him. You sound like a Valley Girl, transendentilist. It's not a popularity contest. He's president. But some people do like him. Some don't. Those who voted for him, like me, didn't vote because we "liked" him. (In my case, I voted against Gore and Kerry.) posted 04/13/2008 at 15:42:35
When did he say this? Who heard it? Why is Bush not asked about it now? Why is Jim Lehrer not all over this?
Looked at your sources. They are not credible.
Do you know what credible means? posted 04/11/2008 at 17:31:54
No, transcendentilist, "Two words" doesn't do it at all. Even Oliver North was NOT convicted for "Iran-Contra." Or did you know that? What his conviction for? Or do you remember? The Iran-Contra affair referred to the now little noticed Boland Amendment, which had no criminal penalties even tied to it.
Reagan addressed the Iran-Contra episode, as have, numerous historians of various political persuasions. The point is you have to READ the book even to know what he said. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:26:55
I see we have the entire 5th grade commenting today. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:22:59
HatingtheGame,
The United States government is rather a largish organization. Reagan gives his account of the Iran-Contra events as well as describes what he did in attempt to prevent its recurrence. Much of his account is quite interesting to anyone willing to examine it objectively.
As to condemning the party that won the election, I don't see why that is good policy. Our country is governed by elections. One side wins, one loses. Life goes on. You should get over it.
A political party that wants to win elections can start by trying to address the topics that the electorate cares about -- instead of trying to impose their ideas upon the electorate.
Maybe you should learn a little more about Obama. He's actually very "Reagan-esque." posted 04/11/2008 at 17:22:32
Reagan addresses the Iran-Contra episode. Read his book, you inform yourself of his answer. My question: why are you willing to condemn someone and yet not hear his testimony? That's your idea of fairness? posted 04/11/2008 at 17:17:22
cloudwatcher,
Reagan was wearing his halo while he was living. He won by good margins. No chads were consulted. But, nonetheless, when emotions are spent, other generations judge by different standards -- particularly since they have more information about the outcomes.
Interesting how you put these various Republican presidents into one big lump. You missed my entire point which was -- that it's wiser and more realist to judge them as individual human beings.
Have you read Reagan's book? If not, you don't even know what I'm talking about. So what's the point? If definitely wouldn't kill you, however, to read a book whether you agree with its author or not. posted 04/11/2008 at 17:15:44
google it yourself. Also search the NY Times, Washington Post, and other major news organizations. Ain't there. posted 04/10/2008 at 21:17:15
Someone else was quoting this line, Bush saying the Constitution is just a ... piece of paper. Why hasn't the New York Times commented upon that yet? Don't you ever wonder?
Hmmm. Could it be that Bush never said it?
My question: why is it so important to hate someone that you invent dialog for him? I searched this "quote" on the internet. It comes from one source. And it is fictional, too. posted 04/10/2008 at 19:41:48
Barky,
Since writing that I have looked at the Hitchens link. I'm sorry, but I do not find Hitchens credible at all. To begin, he cannot resist ad hominem argument (even his title). Furthermore, there really is not alternate view in a Hitchens essay. He rather pointedly omits reference to evidence that goes contrary to his own view. In this instance, as I noted earlier here, Reagan was actually rather a prolific writer and wrote a lot even before his political life -- chiefly letters. One finds a portrait of the man in those documents that reveals much about who he was and what kinds of ideas motivated and shaped him. Notice how little space Hitchens gives to any of Reagan's own words, except ones taken out of context, that HItchens warps to prove his own agenda.
Hitchens thought Mother Theresa was dishonest too.
I won't say that Hitchens doesn't make some true comment somewhere. Mathematical probability would argue that occasionally Hitchens is right about something. But Hitchens worst vice is his own bitter hatred of his fellow beings. If blinds him rather severely. He is not capable of understanding motives that come of altruism.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that he would vilify Reagan. Reagan stands for everything that HItchens is afraid to face -- God, compassion, self-possession, hope. Add to the list "weakness." At the end, Reagan was weak. He lost his memory, his personality. Yet even in weakness, he still made an impact.
Best,
Muse posted 04/10/2008 at 19:24:02
utopiandrive writes: moderationsmuse, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to why Bush would be "vindicated by history"? On what grounds do you expect the over 70% of Americans who think he's doing more harm than good to suddenly change their views? I hope you realize you prove absolutely nothing by asking someone to read a book by Reagan.



Utopiandrive,

I am not saying Bush will be vindicated. That's not something one can know. However, what 70% of people currently think is beside the point. That's precisely what one means by suggesting that history will vindicate or perhaps judge. Another generation will know the outcomes that are not visible to us seeing these events now. I had used Reagan's autobiography as merely an example of how differently events read after the passage of time. Reagan's book came out in 1990 and has him predicting that radical Islam would be a serious threat in the future. One reads these things different now, though Reagan thought the threat would come chiefly from Iran.
Certainly nothing of this sort is visible, however, to persons who simply refuse to read books by people they disagree with based on partisan stereotypes.

I guess I was arguing for "objectivity." Obviously I had not chosen the best audience for that message. But I took a shot at it. Interesting, even amid these many tirades, I got some thoughtful responses. (Such as yours.) So I'm glad I made the attempt.

Muse posted 04/10/2008 at 19:14:23
Barky
My apologies for sniping at Hitchens. I have not read the Hitchens corpus but am familiar enough with him to find him definitely not to my liking. I would not put the Reagan book in anything like the same category. Even to Reagan's critics, his own account should weigh significantly in how we evaluate his presidency and its impact. That some people commenting are unwilling to accept that Reagan even wrote the book demonstrates one element of the stereotype applied to him. Reagan was rather a prolific writer so there's plenty of material with which to compare the autobiography, including, for that matter, material going back to his early days before politics.
I brought Reagan into this discussion because the overwhelming negative judgment of Bush expressed here may in fact bare little resemblance to how Bush will be judged in the future. One doesn't really know. Certainly there's much partisan "static" in the air while events are actually taking place that will not be a factor once outcomes are known.
Anyway, my apologies for dumping on your hero. Though I cannot see the connection between Hitchens and these other topics. Perhaps I should look at your specific Slate link.
Muse posted 04/10/2008 at 19:01:31
read the book
provide some evidence. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:57:46
I'm afraid I'll have to say that Hitchens is a pisseur de copie. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:55:30
No, he DID cry when he visited burn patients from the Pentagon in George Washington University Hospital. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:52:30
Name callers (of both parties, I suspect) are not the happy crowd. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:50:57
Good point. Would that we could ask the poll takers about their methodology. The happy Republicans are probably the ones, like me, who are not listening to talk radio. Me, I listen to music. posted 04/09/2008 at 20:50:06
Boy do you have a short memory. Bush was near tears the week of 9/11. It was unsettling then. posted 04/09/2008 at 19:58:11
Obama is going to have his work cut out for him, judging by this crowd. Reminds me of and demonstrates some information about the differences between Republicans and Democrats
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/301/are-we-happy-yet and here http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060315_happiness_pew.html and here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020701904.html posted 04/09/2008 at 19:55:53

update april 5

moderationsmuse is an artist

http://moderationsmuse-about-art.blogspot.com/

As some Huffers know, I voted for Bush twice! But I post at Huff Po to demonstrate that the stereotypes "progressives" have about folks like me are false.
Moderationsmuse just finished reading Reagan's wonderful autobiography "An American Life" and recommends it to everyone. Whatever you thought about Reagan, you don't know who he was until you've read this book.
Meanwhile in this election time, I'm reading John McCain's "Worth Fighting For," Hillary Clinton's "Living History," and Barrack Obama's "Audacity of Hope."
What are you reading?
Recent comments by this user
The Embarrassment of Riches
Is it OKAY at Huff Po, to be rich? Isn't this really the question? (Arianna, pay attention.) Put me down as it is OKAY that some human beings are rich. I don't think it's "unfair." I don't lose a moment's sleep thinking that somewhere somebody is rich, while I am not.

But as a Reagan Republican, I would just point out that if too much of the rich person's money is taken from them (Reagan grew up poor, too, by the way) that the rich -- having ever so many more options -- are just as likely to take their nice money elsewhere. Getting them to reinvest it in the economy benefits everybody.

So, to a certain extent, one should encourage the rich to live it up -- though not to the extent that it damages their souls -- for they are human beings, and their lives matter, and life is short for rich and poor alike. posted 04/05/2008 at 16:04:32
Having the government take the excess money of wealthy people in the form of taxes and then "give" it to the citizens in the form of benefits strikes some people (who are obviously not rich themselves) as being more "fair." However, I would remind my dear fellow citizens that allowing the government to take these revenues pretty much guarantees that you'll have rather little influence over how it is spent -- whether it is spent wisely, or whether it is just frittered away, or used to finance a war! Whereas, in rather sharp contrast, if the wealthy person goes out and buys a big house and decorates the hell out of it, and you are in the home improvement business or the decor business (etc.) then you make some money from their extravagance.

But whether the much sought after money stays with its wealthy few or ends up in the US Treasury, in neither instance does it change the spiritual quality of your particular life.

You can attach your heart to things that have meaning -- you can do this any time you choose -- and no amount of money can purchase a finer sense of self -- and no depth of poverty can rob someone of human dignity.

Set your sights higher, Huffers! posted 04/05/2008 at 16:03:56
Being an "activist" in college qualifies one to become president? And she "really" cares. John McCain spent 5 years in a prison camp, but Mrs. Clinton "really" cares. Interesting.
Each time the American economy "turns around" I think the business people, the manufacturers, the suppliers, the truck drivers, the stock clerks and their colleagues deserve a little bit of the credit. As to our getting out of Iraq, it would be an interesting change,to say the least, to have a president who actually wins a war, given that -- from time to time -- wars invariably end up getting fought. Certainly the Iraqis would be the most obviously immediate beneficiaries of our winning the war, though of course they cannot vote for our president. Alas, for them.
Just about the only thing you and I are likely to agree about is Mrs. Clinton's having "guts," as you put it. Her husband humiliated her before the entire nation, but she wants to be president SO BAD, that she is willing to put herself back onto his arm and be a good little wife in their much ballyhooed "political marriage."
You and I definitely have different ideas about the presidential qualifications. posted 04/05/2008 at 15:36:39
Bill Maher: The Biofuel Boom
"Global warming" is a political catch phrase. Climate change in contrast is a valid scientific question, note "question," one that can only be answered definitively with time. I disagree with Mr. Maher that further politicizing this topic will improve anything. Alternative energy sources will not be developed in response to political grandstanding. Indeed the political gesture provides little more than egotistical "feel good" moments for people who are otherwise doing nothing to solve the problem. Grandstanding also alienates half the electorate by turning environmentalist into a form of "hipness."
Clean air, clean water, sustainable agriculture, sustainable growth, reintroducing habits of thrift and land stewardship are bi-partisan issues that deserve to be treated as common concerns for everybody.
The pointless name calling papers over the many unintended consequences of extensive "progress" and should provide a cautionary tale for advocates of "change." About 30,000 deaths can be attributed yearly to automobile wrecks. How does that compare with casualties of war? Meanwhile, no matter what comes out of the exhaust pipe -- even if it be breatheable air! -- having highways everywhere means the destruction habitat. Does wildlife matter?
Will people wish to share land with wild animals ever again? Do we really want to have nature be a part of our lives? Not just something we drive hundreds of miles to see in a "wildlife preserve." Are we going to bring nature to our doorsteps again? Will we ever be a part of the natural order again? posted 04/04/2008 at 18:32:37
McCain Booed At Martin Luther King Speech: Watch The Video
Nunzia,
I'm against bombing Iran. I have friends there. As for you, do you favor Iran's development of nuclear weapons?
Decades of war in Iraq. I'm not aware of anyone who favors decades of war unless it is al Quida. Winning in Iraq is something that I favor. A long-term US presence in Iraq would be a direct consequence of that as it has been in Japon, Germany, Korea, Kuwait, etc. The US presence in those countries would appear to have assisted peace. (Germany and France have fought wars with each other since Neanderthal times.)
I am presently going into my meager retirement funds to pay for a large medical bill. But I'm not so certain that "universal health care" would solve my family's medical problems. Perhaps it might, perhaps not. I don't see that "elitism" even enters into it.
McCain and Obama have much in common, except age (obviously) and also they differ in several, fairly nuanced ways philosophically. But in many other respects they are quite similar -- just as most Democrats and Republicans are actually quite similar. The whole business of labeling people prevents many people from seeing myriad, rather obvious similarities.
I think the labeling serves its own purpose: it creates a fictional character that one is permitted to hate. Evidently, most people need somebody to hate. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:19:16
Why does respect for a man have to "end" anywhere? When will we begin dealing with people as human beings. Why can't one just "respect" other people. Period. Without caveats? I'm registered Republican and am undecided about the next election as regards Obama or McCain. I'm assuming that Clinton, for whom I have little fondness, will not be a factor. But even I, can "respect" Senator Clinton and acknowledge that she believes she is serving her country honorably.
I don't have to agree with her. I don't have to agree with Obama. I don't have to agree with McCain. It's possible to respect them all as hard-working proponents of various ideas.
It is possible for people to cooperate while believing different things, while holding different ideals. posted 04/04/2008 at 18:46:44
Hillary Clinton With Jay Leno On Tonight Show: Enters To "Rocky" Theme, Jokes About Sniper Fire
Do Clinton supporters think the joking is funny? If you are asking me personally, I don't know. I am not her supporter. Obviously her extraordinary claims of valor are not helping her. posted 04/05/2008 at 14:47:11
Then we can add me to this list. posted 04/04/2008 at 21:01:45
I've just glanced through a few comments, but almost all the hate positions are represented so far: those who, of course, hate Hillary, those who hate Obama, those who hate Bush, -- McCain haters must be in here too, haven't gotten that far yet. Great forum. So much kindness and empathy going on here.
Wow, is it any wonder there are wars? We all live in this one country where most people -- certainly all of us commenting here, have food, shelter, safety, opportunity, freedom -- all as testified by our mutual access to computers -- and yet see the venting of all this mean-spiritedness and we pretend to be friends of peace.
Yeah, Senator Clinton is lying. Okay. She evidently wants to be president real bad and thought she could fool the gullible people with the sniper claim. Who's that gullible? None of thissays anything very complimentary about her judgement.
So, don't vote for her (I'm won't) and otherwise, get over it. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:33:00
Want a Taste of the McCain Presidency? You've Already Had One
Not lifted a finger? Like being leaders of America's foreign policy doesn't benefit anyone? Was Rice's also becoming a classical pianist, along the way, too selfish for a black woman? Shame, yourself. Maybe the "poor," the "black" and the "under-privileged" (whatever that euphemism means -- how much "privilege" should one have?) -- as though these people are not able, not capable of living their own lives. The problem with Democrats is that they have so little confidence in African Americans and suppose that blacks must have everything done for them, since they are presumably incapable of doing anything for themselves.
Who "gave" Secretary Rice her education? Her intelligence, her drive? Or General Powell -- was he just a token? As though he didn't earn his military rank and work for everything he accomplished.
And Martin Luther King, who you aptly address as "Dr." King, how -- tell me -- did he come by a doctorate degree? Did someone give it to him because he was poor, and black and underpriviledged?
While we're at it, what about Jim Gates, Neil de Grasse Tyson, Ronald E. McNair, Mae Jamieson, Michael Anderson, and -- well, I'm not going to list famous African Americans all day long -- but tell me if THEIR accomplishments matter? Or do we credit them only if they're registered Democrats? posted 04/05/2008 at 16:37:10
Silksnspark
Here, here!
Would that both Obama and McCain each do their utmost to demonstrate why they should be president. I'd love to see a race in which they each try to out do each other in generosity, decency, idealism, inspirational example, intelligence and common sense, hard work and optimism. A grand ambition, one that lifts people up.
What would it be like to have an election in which voters are torn between two fine candidates, either of which would make one proud? posted 04/05/2008 at 14:56:11
If your party "needs" something to use against its opponent, what does that say about your own candidate? Why not persuade why people should vote "for" rather than against? Why not seek candidates that people will want to vote for? The chief criticism of Obama will be his inexperience, which is not a damning criticism is it? It merely implies that the man needs to spend more time in government before trying the presidency. A lot of people who are not Democrats (like me) find things to admire about Obama. Whereas if you find nothing to admire about McCain, I'd judge that you don't know much about him.
Trying to figure out why McCain is high in the polls, because he believes if we fight a war we should win it. If we are not going to win, we shouldn't fight in the first place. He believes in private industry and individual initiative. He believes in the right of the unborn to live. He believes that immigrants come to the US in search of a better life and that we should acknowledge our country's need for the work that immigrants do. He believes in bi-partisanship (something that has cost him within his own party). I'm reading his book "Worth Fighting For," now -- where he narrates his "beliefs" and how he came by them. I'll be reading Obama's Audacity of Hope," and Clinton's "Living History" as well. posted 04/04/2008 at 20:55:24
So's your car. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:02:53
So your ten year old has learned this prejudice already? Being a Republican is the new black. I wonder what Dr. King would say in this era of present and former Secretaries of State who are African-American. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:00:12
Jon Stewart Mocks Media Shock: Obama "Bowling For Votes!"
This is real bi-partisanship. Jon Stewart has something to teach everybody. Laugh. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:08:09
Obama: I'd Hire Gore
It's not spin. Somethings are not spin. That's what you learn when you are not looking at everything through the lens of politics, when instead you are looking at people, ordinary, everyday people. posted 04/03/2008 at 18:23:36
I've been keeping an open mind about Obama, but his claim that he'd put Gore in a central position regarding global warming is not good news. McCain is also concerned about Global Warming, but I'm pretty sure he won't be adding Gore to his cabinet. He won't be adding Madonna and Sting to the cabinet either. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:28:02
Your cheap shot is very revealing. You aren't so interested in protecting nature as you are in making baseless attacks. Nature conservation is the prime consensus issue -- or would be -- or used to be before the "Left" decided (with the acquiescence of a servile media) to co-op it as their wedge issue. In other words they would just shove 50% of the electorate off the stage.
The climate of the earth is a topic for scientific study and as such scientific theory and data will change as scientific methods become more accurate. In contrast, "global warming" is a pseudo-scientific front for income redistribution and feel-good grand standing. Gore's answer to environmental dangers was to organize a rock concert.
Serious people of both parties want to and historically have long attempted to find ways to protect wilderness places while balancing for economic growth. Non-serious people like yourself, in contrast, indulge in pointless and sanctimonious rants.
We agree, however, upon one point: Gore is YOUR kind of guy. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:26:35
Sometimes Honor Is Wrong -- The Problem With John McCain
I was addressing someone who thought soldiers could opt out of wars they do not approve, which is entirely different and decidedly not legal.
So it's apples and oranges. posted 04/05/2008 at 16:09:48
Al Quida's interest in fighting the US predates the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and began with the US presence in Saudi Arabia. Well, ideologically, it goes back much farther still with Arab distain for American mores.

Sharia law, however, is becoming increasingly a source of tension in Europe where there are much larger Arab populations. Especially in the Netherlands and Britian. posted 04/04/2008 at 21:10:08
I grant that we are not at that place where McCain had said a security presence could begin. We have not won yet.
If we are going to stay there, we should "win." And if we are not going to win, we should leave. I suppose the McCain candidacy is really about that question: do we win or not.
Secondly, acknowledge that Iraq is not simply a civil war brewing, though argueably that aspect is nascent. Iraq has outside Islamic forces that wish to prevent its becoming a nation. And those forces do not want to let the US government fix the electricity and water problems.

My question to you would be: what responsibility does the US owe to the Iraqi people to restore order in the wake of our invasion there? What happens to them, the Iraqis -- particularly those who want freedom and democracy -- those who have risked their lives for democracy and self-government? posted 04/04/2008 at 21:07:33
McCain spoke out strongly against torture -- recently since the water-boarding issue came up. Where do you get the opposite impression? He's firmly against it, and said so very plainly and quite publically. I'd like to see a quote supporting your opposite assertion. posted 04/03/2008 at 20:10:40
In fairness to McCain you should quote him as well. Don't you think? And not in a forced way, but using those remarks of his that most nearly address these same ideas.
I dont think McCain would argue with what Washington says, by the way. Do you?
Anyway, how wonderful that you provide these quotes! posted 04/03/2008 at 20:08:31
Do I take it that you do not count Washington among the good ones? I would find that astonishing. Without Washington's good conduct of the presidency there might easier have not been any further presidents.

Bush's comment that he will listen to ground commanders is meant to reassure his critics that he leaves military tactics and strategy to those with military expertise. Hence we are to conclude that the president is setting a policy that he leaves to others to implement. That in itself does not remove accountability.
Actually there is no question that Bush is accountable. And if the Democrats win in 08 it will appear in large part as a mandate against the Iraq war.
In my defense, against your question am I a fool, I would agree with Bush that history will ultimately vindicate or condemn his decision. If Iraq becomes eventually a democracy, Bush will have been visionary. If Iraq sinks back into the mire of Islamic and Middle Eastern ethnic conflict then Bush will be deemed a foolish adventurer.
I'm not ready to make predictions which way it will go, not having a crystal ball or any other means, either logical, historical, or psychological upon which to venture even a serious guess. I do hope for the Iraqis that they turn toward self-determination, but wishes are just wishes, though sometimes they are also prayers..
I still persist in thinking, back to my original point, that Washington was a great president. A truly great president. posted 04/03/2008 at 20:03:30
In his memoir McCain said that he began studying the history of the Vietnam war after his return to the US precisely because he felt he had to understand why he had been sent to fight and whether or not the decision to go to war in Vietnam had been wise. It's historical perspective was very important to him. So, perhaps you should read his account and find out what conclusions he drew. I'm not being coy, by the way. I'm currently reading his book and am only partly through it: "Worth Fighting For." I decided to read books by the three current candidates because I want to judge each of them by their own words rather than by what is said about them by others. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:47:24
I want to say how interesting I find your questions. I wish that more people writing here at Huff Po addressed the issues in the way that you're doing. You ask what "honor" is -- and ask in a genuine and thoughtful way, not attempting to impose a pat moral upon your readers.
Actually McCain addresses the "narcissism" thing very directly in his book "Worth Fighting For," a memoir that takes its title from his assertions that a certain kind of military zeal arises, as you say, from narcissism. And he goes on to say that he had to find, in his own life, something greater than himself to which he could focus his strong desire to succeed, to rescue his ambition from ego.
Indirectly, I think McCain makes the point that while we find such egotism distasteful, yet it's linked to a necessary energy or drive. Without this "egotism" many great leaders would never have appeared -- that "greatness" is not an abstract ideal but is rather a complicated, individual aspect of human nature. Excessive ego occurs, however, when ambition is fastened onto an unworthy goal -- or when the individual acts solely and exclusively from personal ambition. McCain is self-critical enough to win a reader's respect, I think, in his introspection.
Which group had honor? I'm not sure it's an either/or question. How we answer, though, perhaps leads us into a more realistic understanding of our own motives. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:40:31
Americans have a soft life now. It's a sad reflection of our success at democracy and "the pursuit of happiness" in particular that many Americans are unwilling to make a sacrifice for their country. Of course, perhaps Iraq is not something Americans feel they should be fighting for. But contrast the "anti-war" sentiment here with al Quida's recruiting. Al quida doesn't seem to have any difficulty finding soldiers willing -- more than that -- eager to fight they're very unjust war, one that targets civilians equally with soldiers, Muslims equally with "infidels." Certainly they are not fighting for self-rule or anything like that. Al Quida is fighting to put a theocracy into power, one that would impose its interpretation of Islamic law upon others, distinctly from the top down.
One has to wonder what it demonstrates about the differences between two cultures. Democracy is something we want to keep safe over here. And others can kind of fend for themselves. posted 04/03/2008 at 19:03:34
I'm wondering what you mean by saying Nixon "opened the door to communist China." And from this assertion you derive a straight line to McCain's support for the Iraq war. And somehow the Chinese repression of the Tibetans is thus directly laid at McCain's doorstep.
You need to revisit your logic.
Meanwhile if you should ever be interested in reading a first person account of life under communist rule in China, I highly recommend Nien Cheng's "Life and Death in Shanghai." As a somewhat indirect result of Nixon's diplomacy with the Chinese communist government, Nien Cheng was eventually given her freedom and later emmigrated to the US. She was not so critical of Nixon as you appear to be.
Meanwhile, if you are genuinely interested in learning about McCain's thoughts on Vietnam, it strikes me as obvious that you should consult some of his own writing on the topic.
As to McCain's comment about a 100 years, he was referring to a security presence such as we still maintain in Germany, Japon, Kuwait, and other places. We are not, of course, at war in any of those places as presumably you know. posted 04/03/2008 at 18:54:33
If you want soldiers to be able to pick and choose the wars they will fight then you are wishing that the decision to go to war will reside with them and not with the elected, civilian leadership of the country. In effect, you put the military in charge of foreign policy. That's the junta style government.
You would in your fairy tale view, put the whole direction of the nation in the hands of "youth who are easily propagandized."
Do your own statements show you anything about why we have a comander in chief who answers to an elected Congress? posted 04/03/2008 at 18:39:53
I would just remind the writer that our elections of military leaders as presidents began with the first one. Remember George Washington, anybody? posted 04/02/2008 at 18:47:52
Little Girl From Bosnia Scandal Shocked, "Surprised" By Clinton's Lie
These ARE the issues. Dems have whittled it down to two candidates: one who is a former first lady, a carpetbagging senator, who lies about her credentials (obviously) and , the other, a very charming, but thoroughly inexperienced young senator from Illinois.
You had other choices. There are actually Democrats that Republicans and independents would vote for. Did you know that?
You get the candidate you deserve. And meanwhile I'm thinking more and more that this country needs another Republican president. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:38:53
Could the Republicans Pick the Democratic Nominee? -- The Untold Story of How the GOP Rigged Florida and Michigan
Well, at least you guys shelved the butterfly ballot.
You did, shelf it, right?
Somebody check. (Just in case.)

Meanwhile, if you NEED help from the Republican party to fix your delegate problem -- sorry, we're kind of busy -- got to get our candidate out to connect with the voters.
See, we've already picked our candidate. (While you guys were busy fighting among yourselves.) Maybe you haven't had time to notice.

Anyway, keeping working on your problem. You'll fix it, I'm sure. Just remember the election's in November. (Mark your calendars.) posted 04/02/2008 at 19:18:35
President Bush Booed At Baseball Game
It was a baseball game. posted 04/04/2008 at 17:50:55
Glancing through a few of the comments tells one that some of Bush's opposition is juvenile, either in fact or in attitude.
When I read the headline, I thought it was unfortunate that the president was booed. It's just a baseball game and presumably there ought to be some events in life where politics can be put aside. But watching the video, it's obvious that as many people were applauding and cheering.
All that aside, President Bush certainly threw the ball with much grace under pressure. He wasn't letting the booing affect his pitch at all. I'm kind of surprised they didn't sign him to the team right there.
If we have an Obama administration, I guess at least we won't have to listen to booing at baseball games. Perhaps chants of "O-ba-ma" -- though one hopes not -- but certainly no booing.
It's the "left" wingers that like to protest things. Conservatives count among the traditional values they hold dear that of being polite in social settings. So they won't boo no matter whether they like or dislike an Obama presidency.
Bush has a mixed report card among those who voted for him (like me). But I'll give him credit for not letting public opinion affect his decision making -- or his baseball pitch. posted 04/02/2008 at 17:44:14
Carville, Coulter and the Others
Why be so reactionary. Coulter is an intelligent woman, and many of her serious ideas are compelling ones. If you're secure in your views, you ought to be able to accept that. The problem, as Mr. Franken has noted, is the sensationism that Coulter and others indulge. So, shame on her (as well as her counter parts on the other side). But when you get behind the ideas, past the lights and sirens, she says some interesting things. Maybe you should read some of it before you judge. Even in regard to her heavy partisanship, it's still revealing to discover why people believe the things they do. Whether "inflammatory, callous" or not, she is still a human being.
And yours (and others') over-reactions is revealing also. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:37:04
I'm not very familiar with Coulter the tv person. In print, she comes across as sarcastic but very intelligent -- enough so that her views deserve more serious attention. Notably, however, she is not a part of anyone's campaign. What she says, whether wise or unwise, she says on her own behalf. However Carville is a member of Hillary's team as he was in her husband's campaign and that says something very revealing and very unpleasant about the Clintons. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:24:41
Different Strokes
Your comments were so cute. A bit paranoid, but cute. What's my point? It's that, since we all agree that science is fascinating, why don't we talk about SCIENCE? If Mr. Horton has written anything about science, I missed it. He is obsessed with the fact that people like me believe in God.
Get over it.
In contrast "Avraham Trahtman, a Russian mathematician, solved the "Road Coloring Problem." The conjecture assumed it"s possible to create a "universal map" that can direct people to arrive at a certain destination, at the same time, regardless of starting point. Experts say the proposition could have real-life applications in mapping and computer science." [Ref:
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/russian-jew-solves-math-problem-that-makes-foolproof-global-tracking-possible/]
This, dear, is science. Why doesn't Horton talk about stuff like this? Don't know about you guys, but I'd love to learn more about this.
Astrophysicists are also finding new planets nearly daily and the means by which they discover them is as fascinating and clever as the discoveries are wonderful.
Do you suppose you folks could ever get off your anti-religion ranting long enough to notice?
Science is fascinating, whereas these diatribes are boring. That, friend, was my point. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:23:50
Why is it that the Huff Po "scientists" never write about science? You have made your point -- rather ad nauseum. You might even find yourself more persuasive in "defense" of science if you could occasionally bring yourself to talk about it. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:10:51
The Fear Factor
HeadScratcher, You're vision's a little blurry today. Actually I'm a Reagan Republican. Absolutely no way, I'd ever vote for Hillary not during Hell's biggest deep freeze. Loathed the husband and don't like the wife any better.
All I was saying was: make specific criticisms not the vague amorphous ones. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:19:01
Now you're talking. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:09:02
Lisakaz,

If you're reading, I address your remarks way at the back last page of the comments. Yes, okay. The delegates wished to remain anonymous. But what were the vague "threats" that they felt the Clintons were empowered to impose? Let's assume it was something more substantial than being removed from their Christmas card list.

Various Clinton donors threatened to withdrawl their financial support from unnamed House Dems seeking reelection if Pelosi didn't cease her suggestions that Hilliary step aside. That kind of "threat" is at least specific.

It's this nebulous, eerie "what-will-they-do?" with background music that I think is a bit over the top.

LIke I said, I'm not a fan. I just make the comment. Meanwhile, answering ron071 as to why I could vote (agast!) vote Bush twice? Easy. The reasons are Gore and Kerry.

Sometimes one votes against as much as for. I could argue that ron071 is "brave" to admit that Mr. Save the Planet was ever a viable candidate. What would his response to Iraq have been? Perhaps a rock concert.... posted 03/29/2008 at 17:05:28
What's wrong with McCain? posted 03/29/2008 at 16:17:00
Mr. Lux,
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who dislikes Hilliary Clinton more than I. (I voted for Bush, by the way. Twice.)
But even her love-to-hate-her fans like me believe that the kind of commentary you make deserves at least a shred of evidence. Got a "shred"? Could you be a little more specific? Either you should provide that evidence or confine your comments to matters about which you have evidence.
Support Obama all day long. But certainly you can do so by admiring him rather than making claims about his opponent that you are too coy to detail. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:38:57
Peggy Noonan: At This Point You Either Understand The Problem With Hillary Or You Don't
Reagan served in the Army Air Force during WWII making training films for pilots. Part of his mission involved classified material such as simulations of planned bombing runs. In his capacity of providing this training he also had access to classified material about the enemy and became aware, earlier than most Americans, of the full horrors of the Nazi concentration camps. His wartime experiences are recounted in his memoir "An American Life."
As to why he served states-side, Pres. Reagan was profoundly near-sighted. He was already an Army Reserve Officer when WWII began having enlisted in 1937. At that time he was a cavalry officer. Reagan gave as his reason for enlisting his desire to learn riding. He had a lifetime love of horses. At the time, he was still in Hollywood. After the US entered the war, he like many other Hollywood actors, was called into active duty.
I don't know what Noonan's purported outrage consisted of, but Reagan served the military admirably during WWII and finished the war at the rank of Captain. posted 03/29/2008 at 17:21:43
Right wing nut. How broad-minded of you. Yours is the new racism. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:29:58
Add to your list, that Huff Po found it convenient to post her comments here when it served their purpose. That said, they finally post some tasteful and truthful remarks. Take a listen to what Hilliary's fellow Dems say about here at Huff. Noonan is being civil. That's more than you can say for the Dems. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:28:54
I have been reading Reagan's autobiography, "An American Life." I'll bet you haven't read it. I'm willing to bet your "Ronald Reagan" is the cliche that was fed to willing believers by the media during the 80s and since.
But read the man's own words, and then make up your mind. You might be surprised. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:26:31
Dear Hadda
(Can I call you that?) She has always made sense. You are just now "getting it." posted 03/28/2008 at 20:24:30
Emily,
It was the Clintons who obsessed over the polls. And the Republicans have already played their "race" card: it was Colin Powell and Condi Rice. When the GOP plays a race card, it means that the best person for the job is an African American.
My only regret is that Colin Powell couldn't have been president.
Sign me -- Voted for Bush posted 03/28/2008 at 20:23:34
University Of Chicago: Obama Was A Professor
Lemeritus,
Somebody says you're quoting Bugs Bunny! That's very bi-partisan, I'd say!
Muse posted 03/29/2008 at 17:38:14
Dodging. Sorry. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:44:17
This is SHOCKING! How does Obama get away with this? Law professor? RIght. How disingenuous.
One more reason to vote for Hilliary! She's got 35 years of experience! (Or was it 15? I remember it was alot.) And she's got 15 minutes of fame dogging bullets in Bosnia, too. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:43:49
Rice: Race Still Issue Because Of U.S. "Birth Defect"
I'm disappointed transendentilist. This isn't the high road. Condi was not whining, she was -- how do Dems put it? -- "speaking truth to power."
There's a lot of Up South in the Democratic Party. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:14:48
What a crock. You should have ended your comment with she "is so smart." She is smart enough to make her own brilliant choices. She doesn't have to fit her life to your narrow idea of a black person. Meanwhile, W didn't offer her "immense power." President Bush evidently admired her rather stunning resume. She was Provost at Stanford, you know. And a Soviet expert. And a classical pianist. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:09:55
I love it when people say stuff like this.... Let me make a suggestion. Try thinking this through a little more.
Humans are natives of "this planet." And they migrate around a lot. So, the "Indians were here first" stuff is kind of nonsensical -- however politically correct it might currently be.
We have Canadian geese flying around our apartment building, but we're not trying to shoo they away! I think human beings have a few more rights than birds.
When the Europeans first reached this hemisphere, there was plenty of land for both the colonists and the Indians to share. The problem of the advent of the Colonies was not a scarcity of land, it was (as we like to say nowadays) a "clash of cultures." One culture was semi-nomadic and the other was political (i.e. a polity, a creator of cities). The Colonists "owned" land and had a system of jurisdictions while the Indians lived more fluidly.
So, Stuttle, your Columbus Day just got more nuanced. The Indian culture ultimately lost in this confluence, but it's really hard to argue that the United States was somehow a bad idea. The original visitors were migrants. First various prehistoric peoples and later "modern" peoples of Europe. But both came here from elsewhere. And people still come here. People still migrate, period. Ask, say, the French who are not dealing so well with their Arab migrants.
One planet. Seen that way, there's NO migration. Is there? posted 03/29/2008 at 18:01:38
How patronizing and sanctimonious. I voted Republican. I am white and have lived in a predominantly black neighborhood for 20 years. Where do you live?
It was a famous Democrat who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
He wouldn't recognize his own party today, the party of whining victimhood. Meanwhile, you seem not to have noticed that the African American whose comments provoked this conversation is the Secretary of State and she is the second African American chosen to hold that high office. And she wasn't nominated by Democrats.
Maybe that distinction was a little to obvious to notice. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:24:37
Stop-Loss: This Generation's Deer Hunter
I don't agree. "Witch hunt" is a loaded term, isn't it? Sounds like something someone says whose mind is already made up. Read Reagan's "An American Life," (which I've been recommending all over Huff). It's a wonderful book. Might surprise you. It isn't the last word, certainly. But it offers an alternative perspective to the one you've adopted.
Deer Hunter, as I said already, has huge problems associated with it that have nothing to do with pro- or anti- war film-making. Read the history on it. It's toxic. Lots of people have committed suicide after having viewed it. There's no excuse for making such a movie.
I'm an old school liberal. I believe in freedom, especially in the freedom of ideas. And I voted for Bush. But don't know who will get my vote this time. Being a liberal, I'm keeping an open mind!
Best wishes and nice debating you. posted 03/29/2008 at 18:46:50
Hallucinocynic
I will try you because amid all this nonsense you wrote a very eloquent post. They should have let you write the blog and Trey could have been on the comment side.
Movies, I suppose, are sometimes amazing. I'm more of a book reader, but even I can think of a few. But the movie scripts cannot take the place of facts, research, thought, debate, soul-searching and choices made by the electorate. Sometimes "propaganda" acts for the good rallying people toward a wise goal. Sometimes even war movies do that. Certainly once we decide to go to war, we should go to war. One could argue that if Western nations had presented a united opposition to Saddam in the lead-in to war, it might even have been averted. France and Germany were trying to ease sanctions against Saddam. What if they had taken the high road and thrown their support to the US and had staunchly demanded that Saddam come clean?
The real issues leading into war were complex and dangerous no matter what road we had chosen.
I just get tired of the grand standing on the part of the "peace" advocates.
So, I "tried you."
Best wishes,
Muse posted 03/29/2008 at 18:39:52
Roost. Oops. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:08:08
Trey,
When you have got something substantive to say, I might even read the blog. (Well, I didn't spend a lot of time with the comments either.)
Try a little less Hollywood, a little more history. A little less fantasy, a little more reality.
Cioa. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:06:38
Oh, I get it. (I still haven't read the blog.) But glancing at the comments, this is the "anti-war" section. (Against movies that "glorify" war.)
Nobody has to worry about the US being militaristic. First off, half the electorate voted for Gore/Kerry. They're all about "speaking truth to power." The Dems are not interested in fighting for anything. As Rev. Wright said, "9/11 was chickens coming home to roast."
But on the plus side, we'll never have to worry about a leftist "coup" either. The Dems are the gun control crowd! Gore might have wanted to rally his side and take the White House, but -- oops!

This kind of stuff is so self-serving, you know. Like the rest of us are "pro-war." No, we just think that some things are worth fighting for. Is Iraq one of them? I'm not sure. But you're a day late and a dollar short for the debate. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:04:24
Mr. Ellis,
Well, fortunately you survived. (I didn't actually read your blog beyond its title, but the fact that you wrote it suggests as much.)
I wouldn't go around recommending the "Deer Hunter." First off, it's a disgustingly maudlin movie. It's most jarring and disgusting component is also completely fictitious.
Secondly, it has set off waves of suicides every time it's been promoted. (Ref: "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini. http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert-Cialdini/dp/0688128165)

Granted Goethe's "Sorrows of Young Werther" had much the same effect, but at least Werther has the "merit"(?) of being literary. (Though I'm taking that on faith, haven't read it.)

I understand that Merle Streep is coming out with a new movie that should finish off those who managed to survive Deer Hunter.

Naturally, Hollywood is a Democrat's town these days! (Not so many happy musicals anymore.) posted 03/28/2008 at 19:53:50
John McCain, Iraq, and the Eyewitness Fallacy
Well, I see little point in acting as though Reagan and Bush are clones. Otherwise, I would agree that Reagan ignored AIDS. He is similarly silent on the topic in his memoir, though the memoir is wonderfully revealing about his philosophy and how it shaped topics such as nuclear disarmament, the economy and including even Iran/Contra.

He was uncannily correct in his assessment of radical Islam, as we are discovering today. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:53:33
They're limiting space again. And I goofed. The beginning of my answer, I accidently posted above after Amerigus, and begins with the caveat, "I don't know if you'll understand what I'm saying." So now it's all out of order, but the gist is still there.
I'm perhaps unlikely to persuade you, but there's no harm in learning more about him. Reagan wrote tons. You can judge the man by his own words.
If you wish to. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:42:53
I don't know if you'll understand what I'm going to say, but here goes anyway. I've been reading "An American Life," which is an amazing and stunning and humane book. You really have no idea who President Reagan was. I admired him after I began really listening to what he said (as opposed to what the media said he said). That was "typical" of Reagan to go over the media's heads and appeal to citizens in his speeches and radio addresses. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:40:15
Anyway, as an admirer, I was prepared to "like" his book -- which I've only now read, eighteen years after its publication. But even still, aspects of it really stun me. Iran-Contra is too complex to address, but reading everything I did, nothing prepared me for this comment from Reagan on p. 541 (540 pages into the book!): "I received a lot of pressure from my supporters, starting from the first days after the Iran-Contra story ... and continuing to my last week in the White House, to grant clemency to Oliver North and John Poindexter. I never gave it serious consideration: I felt that if I pardoned them before a trial, there would be a shadow of guilt over them for the rest of their lives ...." He said the legal process had to take its course. How many Huff readers remember, "innocent until proven guilty"? Reagan, ever the humane man, thought about these men as individuals whose dignity mattered.
It's just one instance. But you really know nothing about him. He was a great, good man and a president who will be remembered a very long time. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:39:59
"Reaganomics" may not be the same thing as the economic policy that Reagan championed. You've asked for my defense. Reagan saw more of the other side than evidently you are aware. He lived through the Great Depression in comparison to which our economic troubles are trivial. It was really global poverty. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:28:21
Reagan's real "vision" was that ordinary people really matter. He took democracy seriously. He believed that the answers would come from the "private sector" because that's where freedom was most unfettered in society. He was well aware that it came with risks.
I'll quote him: "The explorers of the modern era ... are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. ... one of the largest personal computer firms ... was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home." (The audience for these comments were Soviet students in May of 88.) The source is "An American Life," Reagan's autobiography published in 1990. It's an amazing read. Particularly now. The quote appears on pages 713-14.
In that speech he went on to say: "Freedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put on this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer ...."
Yes, I call that visionary. We need this vision again -- of the power of individuals to shape the thing we call history. posted 03/29/2008 at 19:28:05
Some leaders, they are really quite few in number, "see" a vision that comes from their own ideals and then they help bring to life.
Ronald Reagan was that kind of visionary. (It's called being "visionary," Arianna.)
Most your readers don't know a darned thing about Reagan. But he was perhaps the most visionary president of modern times.
Now would be a good time to learn what he was like. We need his vision. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:35:34
Daily Show's Stewart 'Quietly Visiting' Ailing Iraq Soldiers
God bless Jon Stewart. posted 03/27/2008 at 18:30:07
Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
I'll say "bravo" when you see through the "legacy" of her husband as well. THIS is part of Bill's vaunted "legacy." posted 03/30/2008 at 19:43:45
It would seem to me that Hillary's motives for lying about her experiences are obvious: she has a very unsatisfactory resume for the nomination she's seeking. Obama has of course a thin resume himself, though at least he really campaigned for the Senate seat he won and did so as a resident of Illinois.
But don't the Dems have no one but themselves to blame? You had several candidates with full resumes, Biden, Dodd, Richardon -- none of whom made it beyond the single digits.
Truly you get the nominee you deserve. That said, I personally hope it's Obama (I'm a Republican).
Hillary has experience. That much I'll grant her and your book, Mr. Bernstein, has partly persuaded me of that fact. Unfortunately, her experience is BAD experience. And hence, I would gladly see the Dems pass on her.
Obama is honest, I think. He has no experience. Face it, he doesn't. But at least he's honest.
On the odd chance that the Dem candidate might win, let's hope that it will be someone who at least has the merit of honesty. posted 03/30/2008 at 19:39:55
The Tide Is Turning
No it's not. posted 03/28/2008 at 20:11:52
The Real Divide We Should Be Focused On...
Our support for Isreal serves our interests -- in terms of shared culture, in regard to Isreal's being a democracy, in terms of the debt owed to Jews on the part of the West after the Holocaust.
Oil is what the Middle East has to sell. It has caused enormous income disparities in the Middle East because of THEIR system.
Third, which you have not mentioned, but which deeply offends the Arab world is the role of women in Western society. Why this should have become so threatening to them now arises from the exportation of Western culture around the world: our movies, television, the internet in their faces. It is not accidental that women are covered up in Arab society and that they have no political rights. The two things are parts of the same larger religio-political system.
We cannot turn our backs on Isreal, our important American ally. We cannot just stop using oil (certainly not in the short term). And we are not going to stop being a pluralistic and democratic society. We have free speech, rule under law, the ideal of individual rights and liberties. And thus Western women don't wear scarves and have the right to vote (or to run for the highest leadership offices themselves) and cartoonists can portray the unfortunate Islamic prophet.
That Muslims are not likely to give up these differences is precisely what makes the "winning of hearts and minds" an almost impossible task. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:23:40
"Obama's Test" or Ours?
Yes, we are Americans first. We need to be Americans, first. Bravo. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:58:21
I have an open mind about Obama. That said, Obama has no experience. And the White House is not an entry level job.
I've begun reading Sen. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and parts of it are very appealing like the man himself. However, he deals in generalities and unlike you I do not find Obama's analysis of contemporary American life very forward looking. I see lots of cliches as he tries to fashion his picture of what America is like. In huge contrast to Reagan, Obama himself depicts this -- as though it were a college essay exam. Reagan's ideas were shaped FOR him by a long tenure of listening to people. Reagan was the true "grass roots" guy, getting his talking points from real citizens whose views he respected and didn't patronize (big difference from today).
I have been reading Reagan's "An American Life" lately. Reagan is the most "forward" looking president we've had. I have been astonished reading this book, now eighteen years after its publication. The emerging threat of Islamic terrorism is something Reagan predicted with stunning clarity.
Your current progressives are old school Do Gooders. They focus on "solving" the problems of ordinary Americans -- so sure that ordinary Americans are incapable of solving their problems themselves. "Nanny government" is not just a Republican jeer.
Otherwise, though, I agree with you that most Americans are neither "right" nor "left" and the biggest error the two political parties make is supposing it to be otherwise. posted 03/30/2008 at 18:48:50
Clinton Camp: Hillary Misspoke About Her Role In Bosnia
What is Senator Clinton likely to mis-speak about next week? Has she decided yet? posted 03/24/2008 at 19:37:57
Should the Huffington Post Have a Science Section? Vote Here!
Censorship posing as science. What ever happened to argument? posted 03/26/2008 at 19:03:08
And here's my comment -- the art version -- with pictures.
Beat that atheists.
http://moderationmusesaboutscience.blogspot.com/ posted 03/25/2008 at 19:27:38
PS. I can barely add and subtract, but doesn't Trakhtman's solution have cosmological implications? I mean if the universe is finite?

Muse posted 03/25/2008 at 18:27:45
I posted a comment on this yesterday, but it failed to appear. I voted "yes" to science, too, but reading through some of the comments today (didn't have time to browse them yesterday), I say "good luck."

A couple problems: first of all your readership isn't really interested in science despite their professions to the contrary. "Science" at this forum equals politics (like everything else). Therefore it must be "global warming." "Global warming" is not a scientific concept, it's a political idea - i.e., that humans are causing the climat to change and threatening life on the planet. Should climate change turn out to have natural causes, would any of your Huff readers be interested in knowing? People who write sentences like the one I just wrote are called "deniers." Doesn't that sound a little like Galileo's plight? Only now the roles are reversed.
I mention climate change because it's the most visible of various political issues that parades as science in contemporary life. The very fact that global warming is to be "accepted" without asking questions demonstrates to what extent it has ceased being science -- which is all about questions. And when Madonna is trotted out to help the cause -- Madonna, that very distinquished scientist who helps Gore. Well, whatever. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:16:17
Also I notice that several of your commenters have given notice that "intelligent design" or anything that smacks of "religion" must be ruled out -- but aren't you one of the ones who keeps harping on religion? I have yet to see YOUR blog really deal with SCIENCE. I happen to be a Christian, as some here are aware. I happen also to have a keen layperson's interest in science. A year ago I had a chance to hear Jim Gates give a public talk on Superstring theory, which was my first introduction to this fascinating topic. And I've been reading various books about it since -- the most approachable of which was "Our Cosmic Habitat" by Martin J. Rees.
Cosmic theories in particular almost require a certain religio-philosophical input if only because they bang into various inconsistencies not compatible with scientific method -- as for instance the notion of a "multi-verse," something that is intrisically un-verifiable. Stephen Hawking has some interesting comments to make on this problem at the conclusion of "A Brief History of Time." posted 03/25/2008 at 18:15:55
Darwinian evolution is another hot button that is supposed to be untouchable by the science as advocacy crowd. Consequently the ways that Darwin's "big picture" has failed (so far) to find confirmation in physical data is also taboo. And this in itself would be a marvellous subject for science writing -- the lacunae of "Darwinian" theory to date and what all this means. Whether Darwin is ultimately demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong" obscures the extent to which Darwin was doing a kind of biological inquiry that is no longer commonplace today: i.e., he was looking at the big picture, trying to find a grand "unifying" theory of the development of life. Even the whole matter of defining what "life" is -- is a rich and problematic area to cover in a public discourse.
But are your readers interested? Not Huff readers generally, but YOUR readers in particular who, if you've taken the trouble to notice, are really obsessed with religion. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:14:43
I am a Christian, but one of my chief criticisms of the Huff Po Atheists is "ils ne parlent que du bon Dieu." God is the ONLY thing they seem to want to talk about!
Well, recently Israeli Avraham Trakhtman, a Russian Jewish immigrant solved the Road Coloring problem. The problem posits that given a finite number of roads, one should be able to draw a map, coded in various colors, that leads to a certain destination regardless of the point of origin. Trakhtman's solution took 8 pages to write. Trakhtman is 63.
This is science news. It appeared in lots of media outlets. If it appeared at Huff, I didn't notice. Do you think Huff readers are interested?
Is there a political angle? Or is there some way you can use this to bash the religious? Or Republicans? Because those are the things that Huff readers care about. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:09:31
How Will Hillary's Bosnia "Whopper" Play in the Media?
cfibasis

But why are others who were also present describing the events differently? Okay, you want to defend your gal, but doesn't it seem a bit cynical of Sen. Clinton to believe that she could -- let's just say -- "generously embellish" the events and that others wouldn't notice?
If it happened as you say, why wouldn't she just tell the truth? It would have been laudable, after all, to go there even without non-existent sniper fire.
She's trying to seem commander-in-chiefish. And it's not working. Mrs. Thatcher, a genuine leader, did not have to wear a helmut to make her point, did she?
posted 03/22/2008 at 15:39:11
floydSmoot

I wouldn't be so sure of that, though I agree that Hilliary believes the "downscale" voter is an easy mark. The "blue-collar" high school-ed crowd is not such a gullible group and the been-to-college folks seem to think.

In any case, did she think that journalists were not going to check? Like a scoop is not a scoop anymore?

I don't know what her motivations are. Clearly she doesn't mind lying, but somehow she thinks she'll get away with it. I wonder why.

Muse posted 03/22/2008 at 15:31:39
Just went to the Post site to read their full story and found this interesting theory amid the comments, this by "texaslovesamerica," posted March 21 at 1:53:
"HRC's desperation looks more pathetic by the day. Her rage at Obama's taking "her place" as Democratic nominee in 2008 is palpable. I believe she's willingly doing everything possible to tear him down to mortally wound him and throw the election to McCain, so she can run again in 4 years (when she's 64) instead of 8 years (when she's 68). I have donated to her campaign in the past and regret it."

Interesting theory.

posted 03/22/2008 at 12:42:33
Poor Hilliary. She really wants to be president so bad. I hope her supporters are paying attention. This goes right up there with the "35 years experience" or the "15 years experience" (that both she and Laura Bush share), etc.
What does she think of the citizenry? Like we're not going to notice?
Queen Hilliary. posted 03/22/2008 at 12:23:17
The 100 Years War
One hundred posts ago I said: "You know perfectly well that McCain was not talking about combat, he was talking about occupation. Remember Germany? (We're still there.)
Now you wouldn't be saying these things on purpose to mislead people? Would you? Nah. Of course not."
I was mistaken. You can fool some of the people all of the time. I am finding some exceedingly gullible people here.
Why is that? What really lies behind gullibility? Believing what you WISH to be true, as opposed to what is true.
Hope these aren't Obama fans writing. Obama described McCain as a great American hero. And I agree with Obama. McCain is a great American hero.
And McCain never said the thing you're alleging that he said.
posted 03/21/2008 at 16:25:40
Wow, am I the first here? You know perfectly well that McCain was not talking about combat, he was talking about occupation. Remember Germany? (We're still there.)
Now you wouldn't be saying these things on purpose to mislead people? Would you? Nah. Of course not.
Find a real topic. And get back to us when you've got one. posted 03/21/2008 at 13:43:57
What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say
I'll talk to him.

HeevenSteven, Knock it off! (Have some more chocolate).

Thank goodness for the Easter Bunny.


posted 03/23/2008 at 19:58:27
Wondering
Friday, October 5, 2007
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That's the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html


GEEZE!! Am I the only one who can do SCIENCE research around here? Duh. And I'm the artist.

Best, Muse
posted 03/23/2008 at 19:54:53
And go easy on the chocolate or you'll bust a neuron. posted 03/23/2008 at 19:50:15
HeevenSteven, my favorite atheist, the one who studies and studies!
It would be better not to "get it." You're sure in a hurry for your answers! Sometimes the question is better than the answer. You asked me (somewhere around here) if I had any thoughts on the matter. I don't. I just paint pictures. Still, it's a GOOD question. And it still stands: why is the human mind structured to accept fictions, mythology, along with religious faith, etc. And the part about animal cognition, why are they not similarly wired? (Or are they?) And I wish somebody would go WAY BACK to the early part of these comments to read what I wrote to LeeFromVA.
Best, Muse
posted 03/23/2008 at 19:49:02
Seinfeld and Kramer studied that. Results were inconclusive. posted 03/23/2008 at 19:39:44
Mr. Harris,

Responding to Merin, I wrote: "You are saying overtly what someone above said without being aware: that the brain is "wired" for religion. Based upon this "wiring" you go on to suggest that religion is fiction. But why, pray tell, did Nature "wire" the brain in this way -- particularly in regard to your axiom that religion is fiction. What, in contrast, to this fiction IS real? Are subjective experiences real? Is consciousness real? Are abstractions real?

But this "wiring" thing is huge. How did this wiring come about? If through natural selection, why aren't the animals religious also? Or perhaps they are!"

I certainly hope you are paying atttention. I repost it here, because some things benefit by repetition. Since you've got all the answers on the why religion is so awful, kindly explain how Mother Nature got mixed up in the whole thing!

Moderationsmuse posted 03/22/2008 at 19:22:28
You are saying overtly what someone above said without being aware: that the brain is "wired" for religion. Based upon this "wiring" you go on to suggest that religion is fiction. But why, pray tell, did Nature "wire" the brain in this way -- particularly in regard to your axiom that religion is fiction. What, in contrast, to this fiction IS real? Are subjective experiences real? Is consciousness real? Are abstractions real?

But this "wiring" thing is huge. How did this wiring come about? If through natural selection, why aren't the animals religious also? Or perhaps they are! posted 03/22/2008 at 19:15:55
JMEB

You have said absolutely the most amazing thing and you seem not to realize. "The idea of a universe without purpose ..." etc. "The human brain is wired to perceive reality as it wants to perceive it...." My goodness gracious, Who wired it? Or put less theologically, how did it come to be so wired?

posted 03/22/2008 at 19:10:37
RButler,
After I wrote that, I wondered myself ... well, am I really saying we cannot comment on the world's religions? So, yes, I guess I have to back pedal. But I'll try to clarify by refining my point. When does the criticism start developing into bigotry? Really what harm does Christianity do to Mr. Harris's "rationalism." Perhaps my point needs to be "live and let live."
The latter is certainly practical. I really doubt we're going to stop believing in God because of what Harris says, and he might do well to acknowledge as much.
In a political realm what is the relevance? If Harris supports Obama, fine. He can do so more soberly by recognizing that he and Obama differ on the topic of God. Bravo to Mr. Harris if he can support Obama without having to agree with every item of the man's personal beliefs. Can he not look at a wider sphere of society than just his own narrow atheist beliefs? What about African-Americans, what about Hispanics, two groups with strong Christian identities? What about white Protestants and Catholics? What about Mormons and others, who while differing with Obama on the details, may well respect his belief in God. The Dems once advertised themselves as the "big tent" people. Well, for Mr. Harris and some others, evidently, the "tent" has gotten smaller.
I guess that should be my point and I thank you for the occasion to clarify it. But in one on one situations, our moms were still probably right that to criticize another's faith is still just plain rude.
Best, Muse posted 03/22/2008 at 15:02:33
elkabong

And yet these founders of the American system recognized churches as a part of the larger dynamic, realized that they played an essential role in human affaires, and hence they put into place a system of mutual tolerance. How about that. posted 03/22/2008 at 11:15:57