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