[dkstories] DIR Chapter 14

[C James]

There are a lot of factors that go into that. Some I know, some I don't (yet). I'm still at work and have a few things to do so won't go into them now, maybe after the election.

 

Bottom line is a well-designed phone call will have a positive impact...cases like you're talking about where the call has the opposite effect are usually a result of bad scripting (writing), and not paying attention to what's going on in the race. A good hit-call is subtle enough and well...never mind...enough for now.

 

The reason the ones here were so reviled was that they kept calling (repeatedly) even after being told not to by their recipients, as well as using tricks to evade caller ID screening and blocking (definitely unlike what you do, as it was anything but subtle!). That honked off a lot of people (and garnered many votes for the opponent), as many (such as myself) consider it somewhere between criminal trespassing and outright theft to use someones phone against their wishes. It was the refusal to take people off of the list, combined with tricks to circumvent caller ID screening, that garnered the most anger. It's much like someone planting campaign signs in your front yard or stickers on your car without your permission: you pay for the phone, so it's your property, and therefor not free for someone else to use for their own purposes against your wishes. That's why I, a rabid supporter of free speech, backed the Do-not-call list. My only regret is that it has loopholes.

However, as a pragmatist, I do realize that if one side is doing it, the other has to as well. I just couldn't comprehend the type of campaigning they did here (different, I'm certain, from what you are doing) where the end result achieved, at great cost, was ticked-off voters. It didn't exactly make much sense.

 

Bear in mind, though, that here in Northern Arizona, politics are rather strange at times (all times IMHO). Remember a few years ago, a politician claimed that Homosexuality causes Bestiality, human sacrifice, and Cannibalism? Yep, that was my then local state rep, Barbara Blewster. Charming, eh?

 

And BTW, that's far from the only offensive remark that she has made. One little gem was her claim that slavery really wasn't all that bad, followed soon after by another racist gem: "Native Americans are not smart enough to do what they need to do to get ahead," and that "even African-Americans are more advanced than Native Americans." She has also managed to offend Jews, and so many others that I've lost count.

 

What happens to a person like this in Arizona politics after such statements? Why, she ends up President of the Arizona Republican Assembly! I wish I was kidding.

 

Arizona, proudly leading the way in Gubernatorial impeachments, Federal indictments, and convictions since 1987! :wacko:

 

Anyway, sorry for rambling, and again, good luck in the election!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 3, 2006 by C James

[Rad]

Wow......

 

the last several chapters really highlighted on Davey and Brian's love life. As it should! Now, I like reading about those American political infighting. I remember reading a novel by Allen Drury about it I forgot it's title but it's one of the best political novel I've read

 

But.......the one thing I notice about this Doing It Right is the seemingly jumping time-line. In one chapter you're in this year and in the next immediate chapter you're several months or even years after the last immediate chapter. Why is that? Did Dan just want to speed the story?

 

Well, I'd like to see more of davey and brian exposed to the media of course! lol! I'm eagerly waiting for those times when they were forced todefend themselves and their relationship from those bigotic politicians. Those right-wing, holier-than-thou politicians who have extramarital affairs of themelves Hippocrites

 

Hmmmmm..It seems that davey is out to get OBL all by himself. I hope nothing bad would become of Brian though. As always, DIR are in the footsteps of Do Over stories, my only regret is that jumping time-line. Sometimes it kinda threw me off. Like when Jeremy died, while in the last immediate chapter he's still fine. Oh well.....

 

Cheers!

 

Rad

[C James]

Wow......

 

the last several chapters really highlighted on Davey and Brian's love life. As it should! Now, I like reading about those American political infighting. I remember reading a novel by Allen Drury about it I forgot it's title but it's one of the best political novel I've read

 

But.......the one thing I notice about this Doing It Right is the seemingly jumping time-line. In one chapter you're in this year and in the next immediate chapter you're several months or even years after the last immediate chapter. Why is that? Did Dan just want to speed the story?

 

Well, I'd like to see more of davey and brian exposed to the media of course! lol! I'm eagerly waiting for those times when they were forced todefend themselves and their relationship from those bigotic politicians. Those right-wing, holier-than-thou politicians who have extramarital affairs of themelves Hippocrites

 

Hmmmmm..It seems that davey is out to get OBL all by himself. I hope nothing bad would become of Brian though. As always, DIR are in the footsteps of Do Over stories, my only regret is that jumping time-line. Sometimes it kinda threw me off. Like when Jeremy died, while in the last immediate chapter he's still fine. Oh well.....

 

The jumping time-line, especially when it's between chapters, does rattle me a bit, too. However, on the flip side, one of my favorite things is beginning a new chapter and looking for clues as to what is going on, and how far ahead they have "skipped".

 

I loved the way everything moved so fast in the last chapter, BUT, I also wondered how much of the story we were "missing.". IMHO, it's a two-edged sword: can't have it both ways. :2hands:

 

I agree about Davey going after OBL... I suspect he will. I have a hunch that there is major heartbreak coming up in the next couple of chapters, and I suspect it's either Brian, or Davey's father. Just a hunch.

[C James]

IMHO, it's not going to make DK feel great if he comes back and finds his forum inactive due to his abscence of just a few days. Dom's still gets posts and Dom hasn't been active for weeks.

So, would anyone care to join me (please) in some speculation about what will happen in 15 or later chapters?

 

My hunch is that Davey has plans for Bin Laden... I also find the conjunction with the upcoming operation Desert Fox (Clinton's 4-day strike on Iraq) to be very interesting.

 

If Davey knows where Bin Laden will be, could he use his military status to gain access to targeting co-ordinates for standoff weaponry like the Tomahawk cruise missile? From their launch points in the Red Sea (where some of the TLAM's for Desert Fox were actually launched from) Sudan (where Bin Laden was at that time) is well within range (It's where Clinton's missile attack on Sudan was lauched from). And, once a missile is launched, it doesn't matter if anyone notices it going "off course", as there is no way to self-destruct a warshot (contrary to what you see in the movies). This theory would be predicated on Davey gaining access to the cruise missile targeting packages, which would require access that he probably doesn't presently have. BUT, he did probably have high-level access codes during his naval career in DO, and they might work in this timeline, soooo...

 

OK, that's one theory I have... It's about all I can think of that won't require him to "come out" as a time traveler to anyone. Unless, of course, Davey and Brian are going to personally go hunting...

Edited June 5, 2006 by C James

[EMoe57]

But.......the one thing I notice about this Doing It Right is the seemingly jumping time-line. In one chapter you're in this year and in the next immediate chapter you're several months or even years after the last immediate chapter. Why is that? Did Dan just want to speed the story?

In Dk's original plan, he wanted to write all these story nuggets in ONE chapter as a follow up to Redux. As he started working it out, he realized there was far more than would fit. Thus was born Doing It Right. Imagine how much story compression would've happened to get the gist of this story into one chapter. There is more story here than originally planned, but I don't think he ever really expected it to be a separate stand-alone story - more like hitting the highlights of this timeline. Think of it more as a long postlude to wrap up the characters and the Do Over universe.

 

Dan hasn't said this in so many words but I get the feeling that he's grown tired of the story and has heard from some sectors of the readship that they have as well. Several times he's pointed out that his dormant story, "Dawn of Tears" still has a higher reader count than the Do Over series.

 

 

Arizona, proudly leading the way in Gubernatorial impeachments, Federal indictments, and convictions since 1987!

Some state has to be first - why NOT Arizona?

[LittleBuddhaTW]

Sorry for joining in so late on this one ... but things have been really hectic with my move and getting my thesis stuff completed, so I just got the chance to read DIR 14 a couple days ago.

 

As usual, it was a great chapter, and it's nice to see that Davey is finally have the chance to live out a somewhat "normal" life again, albeit much better off than the first time around, and to be able to share it completely with Brian. I'm also glad that he got to live out one of his dreams ... playing Olympic baseball.

 

The thing about him going after OBL is definitely an interesting twist, and I'm dying of curiosity to see how that turns out!!!

[Rigel]

So, would anyone care to join me (please) in some speculation about what will happen in 15 or later chapters?

 

You want speculation? Okay. Davey and Brian eventually open up a political consulting firm for Democrats and other liberals/progressives, modelled somewhat on DK's current employer.

 

--Rigel

[C James]

In Dk's original plan, he wanted to write all these story nuggets in ONE chapter as a follow up to Redux. As he started working it out, he realized there was far more than would fit. Thus was born Doing It Right. Imagine how much story compression would've happened to get the gist of this story into one chapter. There is more story here than originally planned, but I don't think he ever really expected it to be a separate stand-alone story - more like hitting the highlights of this timeline. Think of it more as a long postlude to wrap up the characters and the Do Over universe.

 

Dan hasn't said this in so many words but I get the feeling that he's grown tired of the story and has heard from some sectors of the readship that they have as well. Several times he's pointed out that his dormant story, "Dawn of Tears" still has a higher reader count than the Do Over series.

Some state has to be first - why NOT Arizona?

 

Chapter 21 of DIR will the the 100th chapter of the DO series, so I can see why DK might want a change. I'm sure that whatever he chooses to write will be great, whether it's something to do with DO or not.

 

Some state has to be first - why NOT Arizona?

 

I dunno... For some reason, I'd just prefer my state to be first in something other than gubernatorial impeachments, federal indictments, and convictions. Sort of like (I'm guessing) that you aren't overly thrilled with Florida being target #1 for hurricanes...

Hmmm, hurricanes and politicians... They do, upon reflection, have so much in common... Both contain an enormous amount of hot air, and can be massively destructive..

 

Sorry for joining in so late on this one ... but things have been really hectic with my move and getting my thesis stuff completed, so I just got the chance to read DIR 14 a couple days ago.

 

As usual, it was a great chapter, and it's nice to see that Davey is finally have the chance to live out a somewhat "normal" life again, albeit much better off than the first time around, and to be able to share it completely with Brian. I'm also glad that he got to live out one of his dreams ... playing Olympic baseball.

 

The thing about him going after OBL is definitely an interesting twist, and I'm dying of curiosity to see how that turns out!!!

 

I too thought it was great that Davey got to play in the Olympics! This time, he sure does seem to be "doing it right", IMHO, as things seem so much better all the way around. The OBL hunt sure looks fascinating, too!

 

Good luck with your moving. I know all too well what hell that can be (especially international moves, which I've done). It usually takes me about a year to get over mine (and months to prepare), and come to think of it I still have boxes to unpack from several moves ago. I should probably adopt a new rule: If I haven't opened the box in a decade, I probably can survive without it and should get rid of it.

 

You want speculation? Okay. Davey and Brian eventually open up a political consulting firm for Democrats and other liberals/progressives, modelled somewhat on DK's current employer.

 

Now that is certainly an interesting idea! They certainly could to that, especially as Davey has "inside info" regarding what will happen. Hmmm.. I definitely think you are on to something there! Thanks!

 

As for other things coming up in DIR... I have concerns regarding the health of Davey's father. If I recall correctly, he passed away in timeline 1 around this time, and then in DO as well.

 

One of the things I like most about this whole series is the gradual "redemption" of Davey's Father.

[old bob]

Chapter 21 of DIR will the the 100th chapter of the DO series, so I can see why DK might want a change. ke

( Hmmm, hurricanes and politicians... They do, upon reflection, have so much in common... Both contain an enormous amount of hot air, and can be massively destructive..

 

Hey everybody

Funny how you can learn about the politics in the States from the Forum. Almost as much as from the DK stories. Im also expecting the follow up of DOT and even..... we can dream the volume 2 of Shapers Chronicles....

But ... a important question : what kind of character should you have to be a successful politician ? Wenn you follow the career of Jones senior in DOR, it seems me that you just need money (above all) and to be the right time at the right place ? BTW, I cannt understand the reelection of Bush after the chaos he organised in

Irak. Is it also a question of money ?

Old Bob

[EMoe57]

a important question : what kind of character should you have to be a successful politician ? Wenn you follow the career of Jones senior in DOR, it seems me that you just need money (above all) and to be the right time at the right place ? BTW, I cannt understand the reelection of Bush after the chaos he organised in Irak. Is it also a question of money ?

To answer your question, I have a question of my own: Define 'successful politician'

 

 

Yes, it takes money to get into a political position but not necessarily your own. The higher up the ladder, the more expensive your campaign will be. That's why fundraisers are such a big part of politics. This is supposed to make the playing field equal so every person interested in the position can launch a campaign and try to get elected. They have rules about who's money and how much of it you can use but, like everything else in politics, there are loopholes large enough to drive an armored car through.

 

As for President Simpleton, er, Bush: his re-election was enabled by the Republican Party expertly controlling the election discussion and making it all about gay marriage - (re-elect us or there will be gay marriage in your state and you wouldn't want that living next door, would you?) Once the election was over, the gay marriage smoke screen dissolved so they could erect it again for this election cycle. They certainly were not going to do anything about such a prominent vote motivator - why kill the goose that delivered the election? Now the drumbeat is about illegal immigration as well - yet another smoke screen to drive the Republican base to the voting booth. Will American voters allow themselves to be herded once again? My parents don't think so but then they are lifetime Democrats. Can the Democratic Party leader be heard over the obfuscation of the Republican Party?

[C James]

Hi, Bob!

 

You, as usual, raise some interesting questions. I think, though, that this aspect of politics is largely subjective, as so many people see it in different ways.

 

IMHO, Money is a vital ingredient, as, indeed, is being in the right place at the right time. In the case of the current President, he has a Father who was President (which was vital to him both in business, and in politics)

 

However, as I said, there are differing points of view about Bush. Obviously, as the winner of a Presidential election, and receiving over 62 million votes in that election, there are plenty of people who voted for him.

 

So, to help give you some insights into differing political opinions, I thought I'd comment on Emoe's post.

 

To answer your question, I have a question of my own: Define 'successful politician'

Yes, it takes money to get into a political position but not necessarily your own. The higher up the ladder, the more expensive your campaign will be. That's why fundraisers are such a big part of politics. This is supposed to make the playing field equal so every person interested in the position can launch a campaign and try to get elected. They have rules about who's money and how much of it you can use but, like everything else in politics, there are loopholes large enough to drive an armored car through.

 

As for President Simpleton, er, Bush: his re-election was enabled by the Republican Party expertly controlling the election discussion and making it all about gay marriage - (re-elect us or there will be gay marriage in your state and you wouldn't want that living next door, would you?) Once the election was over, the gay marriage smoke screen dissolved so they could erect it again for this election cycle. They certainly were not going to do anything about such a prominent vote motivator - why kill the goose that delivered the election? Now the drumbeat is about illegal immigration as well - yet another smoke screen to drive the Republican base to the voting booth. Will American voters allow themselves to be herded once again? My parents don't think so but then they are lifetime Democrats. Can the Democratic Party leader be heard over the obfuscation of the Republican Party?

 

I respectfully disagree with Emoe in some aspects here, as I find the dynamics of the 2004 election to be much more complex. I do completely agree that the Republicans used gay marriage as a shameful wedge issue, and more to the point introduced anti-gay measures in many key states that appeared on the same ballot. This did indeed increase right-wing voter turnout and gave Bush and the Republicans a lot of extra votes. However, it did not, IMHO, hand bush the election, as no analysis that I have seen claims that it garnered Bush enough votes in critical states to change the course of the election. Therefor, I feel it was just one factor of many (though perhaps the most odious). I suspect that the Republicans are making it an issue again this year, and frankly, I hope they do: Much of their own base is disgusted with such tactics, which combined with their abject failures (such as with spending) has caused this issue to be seen by many Republican voters as a smokescreen and a sham. For one thing, there is zero chance of getting the proposed amendment through the ratification process, let alone through both houses of Congress. It's a red herring, and many Republican supporters are disgusted by that. So, yes, I'd like nothing better than to see the Republicans use this issue, and get bitten by it, hard.

 

There were other reasons for the Bush victory in 2004, and I'd like to mention my own opinions on what some of them are. The first, IMHO, was that the Democrats not-so-cleverly nominated as their candidate perhaps the only man capable of running against Bush and losing. There were many aspects to John Kerry, but he ran a truly bad campaign, had a very poor public image, and his record in the United States Senate was, for me, the thing that made him utterly unacceptable and someone for whom I could never vote. Had the Democrats nominated just about anyone else besides John Kerry or Howard Dean, I'd have almost certainly voted for them in 2004. As it was, I, for the first time in my life, went to the voting booth seriously considering leaving the Presidential choice blank. I've voted in every presidential election since I've been of age, and there were other things on the ballot, so I did vote. I even, finally, decided to vote in the Presidential race, as I felt skipping it would be a bit of a cop-out. The problem for me was that I could not stand any of the third-party candidates. I also detested the Democratic candidate, and I loathed Bush in some areas. Hobson's choice.

 

There was also the factor that many in the political center in this country (the majority) do not fully trust the Democrats of foreign policy. For some examples of how and why, re-read the DO series. This is especially critical since 9-11, and some public policy statements by leading Democrats during the election were not taken well by the public. Thus, the Republicans were able, in some ways, to paint the Democrats as a party of loony leftists (which is far from the truth in most, but not all, cases) who can't be trusted with the nation's security. There is also the point that many, such as myself, support Bush on many aspects of foreign policy. In fact, on foreign policy, Bush is a bit to my left. As for Iraq, I was opposed to it during the run-up, but not for the usual reasons. I felt that the troop levels Rumsfeld was planning in (fairly obvious for publicly available information) was nothing less than insane. I felt that it left us open to disaster if the defending forces proved stronger than we expected (which did not happen) and also would leave Iraq a breeding ground for Vietnam-style insurgency driven by outside forces (which certainly has happened). I also opposed Iraq on the grounds that Iran was the more pressing danger (clearly, given the lack of Iraqi WMD's, and the admitted Iranian nuclear program, Iran was the more pressing danger). I've also been utterly disgusted with the mismanagement of the occupation, and more to the point, the lack of preparation (and sufficient initial force) for the occupation itself.

 

My opposition to Iraq, though, stopped the day the war started. At that point, and certainly after the fall of Saddam, we didn't have the option of retreat. A geopolitical issue of this magnitude simply can't be undone by retreat, and it was the implication that it could that gave me further cause to reject John Kerry. His insistence on a Timetable for withdrawal was strategic suicide, a stance he has not backed away from, and hence, for me, made him utterly unacceptable in that regard.

 

As for Bush's lack of intellectual ability: that is a controversial subject. It's all too easy to tar the man with that brush, yet most of those that do so certainly don't with to discuss the fact that Bush had better grades in college (he attended both Yale and Harvard, very top-notch schools) than did his opponent, the supposedly "intellectual" John Kerry. To many intellectuals, Kerry came across as a blatant fake, and dense as a post. So, both sides essentially like to take pot-shots a the IQ of the other. My personal opinion is that Bush isn't stupid, but is something even more dangerous: a man of average intellect with an unshakable (and unfounded) confidence in his own judgement.

 

As for party obfuscation: Both parties seem to have a penchant for this. This is combined with another reason the Democrats lost in 2004: they were perceived as being too far to the left. They took this electoral liability and enhanced it by installing Howard Dean (the original front-runner for the 2004 democratic nomination) as party chairman. Dean had lost, in part, because the party elite felt he was too far to the left to be electable. If that perception is accurate, it makes the wisdom of making him party chairman even more dubious, and does not IMHO bode well for the future hopes of the Democratic party. Dean's party chairmanship was received with great glee by Republicans, and Dean's continuing gaffes have proven them correct in that regard to many observers.

 

One key problem IMHO is the role of the media in US elections. I'm not talking about Media bias here, but rather the format. The TV news format has seen the rise of the "sound byte", where a policy or stance needs to be summed up in a few words. This is often not possible for a complex position, and has resulted in (IMHO) candidates of both parties going for appearance over substance. It has also IMHO resulted in a massive "dumbing down" of political discourse, and the ascendancy of rhetoric and spin over substance.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous trend in American politics.

 

To try and get back on topic, I'd like to mention the politics in recent chapters of DIR. I consider it to be an excellent inside look into political maneuvering, especially the way Davey's father (in chapter 14) was in effect sabotaged by his own party, with them seeking to end his career.

[old bob]

To answer your question, I have a question of my own: Define 'successful politician'

Not so easy, but I will try .A successful politician :

 

From his own point of view : if he is reelected.

From the point of view of the Nation : if he increase the good will among the other nations.

From the point of view of his voters : if he fulfil his programm.

From my point of view : if he increase the purchasing power of the poors and respects the "declaration universelle des droits humains ( I write it in French because it was first proclaimed in France!!).

For the rest , only the History will give the answer, IOW, 2 conditions : he is dead and his name is mentioned positively in the schoolbooks !

 

Any other question about it ? LOL

Old Bob

[old bob]

Hi, Bob!

You, as usual, raise some interesting questions. I think, though, that this aspect of politics is largely subjective, as so many people see it in different ways.

 

Hey EMoe and James !

very interesting to compare your different opinions. IMHO, the real problem is to find a candidate who, on one side, can carry the hopes of the majority and on the other correct the mistakes of the precedent president. It seems that you have the same problem as we have in Europ (GB, France, Germany aso). The people are tired but cannt find somebody who could give them some enthusiasm, like USA did with FDR and the New Deal or Kennedy with the Moon.Could perhaps DK show through his stories a way to find a new democrat leader in the quality of these oldies ? What about Hilary K. ???? Germany has a woman as Prime. A woman has the best chances (now !) to become the new french president, why not the States ?

[C James]

Hey EMoe and James !

very interesting to compare your different opinions.

IMHO, the real problem is to find a candidate who, on one side, can carry the hopes of the majority and on the other correct the mistakes of the precedent president. It seems that you have the same problem as we have in Europ (GB, France, Germany aso). The people are tired but cannt find somebody who could give them some enthusiasm, like USA did with FDR and the New Deal or Kennedy with the Moon.Could perhaps DK show through his stories a way to find a new democrat leader in the quality of these oldies ? What about Hilary K. ???? Germany has a woman as Prime. A woman has the best chances (now !) to become the new french president, why not the States ?

 

As you might guess from my comments, I'm a bit odd politically. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, and I freely attack both sides when I think they deserve it (and that's quite often).

 

As for the upcoming (2008) presidential race, it promises to be interesting! Bush is ineligible to run again, and the "normal" nominee in such a situation, the Vice President, has a serious heart condition. So, I'm fairly sure that Cheney (the VP) won't run.

 

And that is what makes this so interesting to me! In 2008, BOTH major parties will have a truly wide-open race for their nominations, without a sitting President or Vice-president on the ballot. That will be the first time in over half a century that this has happened. (Last time was in 1952, Stevenson Vs. Eisenhower)

 

Incidentally, what you say about a Female President is a big possibility in 2008. Actually, in 2008, it's quite possible that BOTH parties will nominate a woman. (Condoleeza Rice on the Republican side).

 

If that happens, I have no clue who I would vote for, as I both like and dislike aspects of both. I also don't know enough about either one to really have a firm opinion, but that's what a campaign is for!

 

What I'm really hoping for (and a wide-open race like this should deliver) is decent choices, unlike the 2004 choice between bad and worse.

[old bob]

As you might guess from my comments, I'm a bit odd politically. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, and I freely attack both sides when I think they deserve it (and that's quite often).

 

I propose DK should write a new story about the next years ( 2006 to ?????), with a political positive evolution (human rights, gay mariage, no american soldiers abroad, aso) so we could follow the real facts and use the story for comparison. I bet he will be right at least to 80 % ....JK

James, do you support my proposal ???

[C James]

Hi, Bob!

 

I propose DK should write a new story about the next years ( 2006 to ?????), with a political positive evolution (human rights, gay mariage, no american soldiers abroad, aso) so we could follow the real facts and use the story for comparison. I bet he will be right at least to 80 % ....JK

James, do you support my proposal ???

 

Personally, I've been hoping that DK will take the DIR timeline out past the present day, say, up until 2020, but keep the same level of historical and political detail, such as who the candidates are in 2008, how they do, what natural disasters occur in 2007, etc, etc, etc. I'd also be exceedingly grateful if DK would include stock and commodity quotes for future years and other market trends. The date, time, and magnitude of future major earthquakes (and other natural disasters) would be great, too...

 

I have a feeling that DK would be more than 80% right.. Unless he's having memory trouble...

[Demetz]

Hillary has too many enemies and with that, has been around long enough that instead of moving forward I have a feeling all that would happen either in the campaign or a possible Hillary Clinton Presidency would be rehashing of old political garbage. We need new people who aren't so ingrained in the political scene that they can take a look around and evaluate what policies have worked and which haven't and how to fix the ones that don't work while making the ones that do more efficient. As it is, inventing new ways to destroy random people with a different letter in paretheses after their names is about all politics seems to be anymore.

 

Democrats need to take a step back from the micheal moore style "Republicans are evil incarnate out to rob you of your social security and eat your babies" and turn more toward identifying specific problems that have been caused by Republican policies and come up with more efficient and more effective replacements, rather than merely point out that they're not working. As long as you can't answer the question "do you have anything better?" with "Yes, and here it is..." people won't take you seriously.

 

Republicans, if they're to have any chance at staying in power, need to score major victories in the war on terrorism. The war on terror will make or break the Republican party, more than anything else, it was that which kept Bush in the white house after the last election, and more than anything else its the strong perception of losing the war in Iraq that is killing the President right now, and with him, much of the Republican party. They got handed a big victory in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If they can deliver several more such victories over the course of the next few months, it will do much to turn the perception of the war back toward the positive and with it, bring in votes in favor of the Republican party.

 

I'm torn at this point, because I want to see every last member of Al-Qaeda executed in swift fashion, but I don't want Republicans to get the credit for it because while I support a hard-line approach in the war on terrorism, I can't support the Republicans' approach to domestic politics. What was once a party all about limiting the power of government and limiting the expenditures of government has turned into a power-crazed tax-dollar wasting hypocritical cesspool that is more and more under the thumb of the theocratic religious right than any major political party should rightly be. Unfortunately, their ridiculous domestic agenda comes hand in hand with the aggressive stance in the war on terror.

 

I suspected they might pull this sort of thing before. At that time I reasoned that whatever damage they did could be undone by the courts as their religious agenda is unconstitutional. However, with the next Supreme Court justices on the list of likely retirees being in the liberal category and the pushing by republicans for an amendment to the constitution because they know what they want is unconstitutional as is, I've decided I can't in good conscience vote for republicans in the up coming elections. I'd rather vote for democrats, hope they don't foul up the War on Terrorism too badly, and hope the Republicans get it through their heads that they can't get by with trying to strip people of their rights to religious freedom.

[old bob]

Hillary has too many enemies and with that, has been around long enough that instead of moving forward I have a feeling all that would happen either in the campaign or a possible Hillary Clinton Presidency would be rehashing of old political garbage.

 

Wow ! I learned a lot from the 2 last posts. THK a lot ! Just a other question :

The death of Al Kaida leader in Irak will IMO not bring peace without the death of many many US-soldiers.

Then, remember the Vietnam, what will be the influence of the soldiers back in the States on the next

elections ?

And Afganistan, the war is going on. I dont know if the people in the States are well informed about it. How many soldiers must die till the people will understand the uselessness of the military intervention of USA. With the financial help of the States, Israel is strong enough to resolve itself his problems ( JTLYK I'am jew) and the arabic nations should fight alone their civil wars against each others !

 

USA should concentrate on China and Russia. They could be the world economic leaders of the future and are much more important that middle east.

 

Just another point : USA should fight terrorism at home first and not export his fear. We, in Europ, with 2 wars home in the last 100 years, have difficulty to understand the psychological shock after 9-11. My son was then busy in Los Angeles. He wrote : "les americains sont devenus fous" (I translate : the american people on the street became crasy) . Are they still ?

 

DK : There is a lot to describe in your next stories of the future....

Edited June 9, 2006 by old bob

[C James]

Hillary has too many enemies and with that, has been around long enough that instead of moving forward I have a feeling all that would happen either in the campaign or a possible Hillary Clinton Presidency would be rehashing of old political garbage. We need new people who aren't so ingrained in the political scene that they can take a look around and evaluate what policies have worked and which haven't and how to fix the ones that don't work while making the ones that do more efficient. As it is, inventing new ways to destroy random people with a different letter in paretheses after their names is about all politics seems to be anymore.

 

Hillary does indeed have a lot of baggage (and enemies). This will make the 2008 Democratic primaries very interesting indeed in my opinion. She's done (IMHO) some very interesting triangulation by attacking Bush from the right on some aspects of foreign policy. I think she is positioning herself to run a mainly centrist campaign. I also think that John Kerry will make another run, and I suspect Gore might as well. All of them have a great deal of political baggage, and the primaries might just resemble a circular firing squad in some ways. I'd certainly like to see some "new blood", too. My fear, though, is that there will be a repeat of the 2004 election in the sense that the left wing of the Democratic party will cause the candidates to run too far to the left during the primaries, leaving the eventual nominee with a great deal of negative political baggage. Another danger for the Democrats is the old adage "beware of what you wish for", if indeed, as looks quite possible at the moment, they seize control of both houses of congress in November. If they do nothing perceived as positive with their majority, they will find themselves in 2008 with a major liability, much akin to the one facing the Republicans in congress now. That, indeed, could tilt the 2008 elections against them.

 

I certainly could not agree with you more regarding the penchant of some on both sides in national politics to fixate on the letter after their opponents name, to the detriment of all else.

 

Democrats need to take a step back from the micheal moore style "Republicans are evil incarnate out to rob you of your social security and eat your babies" and turn more toward identifying specific problems that have been caused by Republican policies and come up with more efficient and more effective replacements, rather than merely point out that they're not working. As long as you can't answer the question "do you have anything better?" with "Yes, and here it is..." people won't take you seriously.

 

Absolutely spot-on, IMHO!!! IMHO, they should take a very, very close look at the 1994 Republican "Contract with America." which was IMHO in large part responsible for the Democrats losing control of Congress. The fact is that most of the ten proposals in the contract had a very broad appeal, and more importantly very low negative ratings. In other words, most voters either favored them, or were ambivalent about those they did not support. That made for both excellent political strategy, and good government.

 

However, the Republicans have now handed the Democrats a golden opportunity. The Democrats can point to sections of the contract that the Republicans have failed miserably on, especially in the fiscal responsibility area. The Republicans are taking a lot of (justified) heat, including from their own political base, for their big spending. The Democrats could cry "breach of contract" and promise to fix the problem, pointing to the balanced budget under Clinton. This would be a strike directly at the Republican base (which is largely repulsed at their own parties big-spending habits), and IMHO would be both good strategy and good policy.

I'll also note something about the Contract with America that the Republicans seem to have forgotten: It stayed away from divisive social issues such as Abortion. I think that is a lesson the Republicans earnestly need to re-learn, so I hope that the current posturing on the FMA comes back to bite them, HARD. I'm hopeful of this, as I've heard people who support the concept slam the Republicans for this blatant and futile political circus.

 

For their own sake, I hope the Democrats have come to realize that running on a platform of "we will raise your taxes" is political suicide. I also hope that the Republicans learn the lesson that deficit spending is no alternative, and that breaking one's own avowed policy of fiscal responsibility is also political suicide.

 

Sadly, history seems to indicate that whenever either party is in full control, the temptation to secure their own districts via-pork-barrel spending is irresistible to the members of congress. I highly recommend the site Porkbusters as they go after Porkbarrel spending whenever they see it, regardless of party affiliation. (though, as the Republicans are currently in power, they are more often the offenders so more often the targets).

 

Republicans, if they're to have any chance at staying in power, need to score major victories in the war on terrorism. The war on terror will make or break the Republican party, more than anything else, it was that which kept Bush in the white house after the last election, and more than anything else its the strong perception of losing the war in Iraq that is killing the President right now, and with him, much of the Republican party. They got handed a big victory in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If they can deliver several more such victories over the course of the next few months, it will do much to turn the perception of the war back toward the positive and with it, bring in votes in favor of the Republican party.

 

I'm torn at this point, because I want to see every last member of Al-Qaeda executed in swift fashion, but I don't want Republicans to get the credit for it because while I support a hard-line approach in the war on terrorism, I can't support the Republicans' approach to domestic politics. What was once a party all about limiting the power of government and limiting the expenditures of government has turned into a power-crazed tax-dollar wasting hypocritical cesspool that is more and more under the thumb of the theocratic religious right than any major political party should rightly be. Unfortunately, their ridiculous domestic agenda comes hand in hand with the aggressive stance in the war on terror.

 

Sounds like you and I are on the same page on this one. It was the Republican "domestic agenda", specifically their efforts to legislate the Religious Rights view of morality, that caused me to resign from the Republican party many years ago. It wasn't just gay issues, but the broad-based attitude that one aspect of society had the right to ram it's views down the throats of others. The insistence that abstinence is the only option for birth control and prevention of STD's is one aspect of this that I consider literally murderous (it's causing many deaths).

 

Other aspects of the "domestic Agenda" I fully supported: Financial responsibility (back when they actually seemed like they meant it), some aspects of deregulation , welfare reform, certain aspects of criminal law and tort reform, etc.

 

Basically, if it wasn't for the influence of the Religious Right and the resulting attack on individual liberties (including a Woman's right to choose) I'd still be a Republican. Well, probably not, as the Republican fiscal insanity of the last few years would have certainly lead me to resign.

 

I agree with the Democrats on some issues too, such as many aspects of Environmental policy (but not the futile and damaging Kyoto treaty) and on many individual liberty stances such as a Woman's right to choose. However, I could never be a member of the party of Howard Dean, any more than I could be a member of the party of Tom Delay.

 

I also hope that the Democrats won't succumb to the temptation of being against certain aspects of foreign policy just because Bush is for it. It's that sort of thing (and the perception of it) that helped them lose the last election, and is also very bad for the country.

 

I suspected they might pull this sort of thing before. At that time I reasoned that whatever damage they did could be undone by the courts as their religious agenda is unconstitutional. However, with the next Supreme Court justices on the list of likely retirees being in the liberal category and the pushing by republicans for an amendment to the constitution because they know what they want is unconstitutional as is, I've decided I can't in good conscience vote for republicans in the up coming elections. I'd rather vote for democrats, hope they don't foul up the War on Terrorism too badly, and hope the Republicans get it through their heads that they can't get by with trying to strip people of their rights to religious freedom.

 

Well said!!

 

My own personal strategy will probably be to pick whom I vote for race-by-race, based on both character and policies. I certainly won't vote for a religious-right type candidate, but I also certainly won't vote for a foreign policy defeatist who wants to raise taxes, either. In all too many cases, I find both parties to be hypocritical on the rights issue. The Republicans seem hell-bent on taking away our civil liberties in some areas (gay rights, abortion, government power, to name a few) while the Democrats also seem determined to do the same in other areas (steal more of our money via higher taxes, take away our constitutional right to bear arms, wreck our economy with futile treaties such as Kyoto, and subject our sovereignty to the whims of the UN, to name a few). Now, both sets of examples I gave do not apply fully to their respective parties, but those are IMHO apt generalizations of the political baggage that both parties have. In some cases, such as Kyoto, it's not even fair: The US Senate rejected it unanimously, Democrats of course included. The fact that Democrats are tarred with it is largely the work of one Democrat, Al Gore.

 

I'll likely vote a split ticket (for some of each party) as is my norm. Looking back at the spending, taxation, and deficit levels for the last 50 years, I note some interesting correlations between divided government (no one party in control of both houses and the White House) and reduced spending and deficits. It looks to me as if when either party is in full control, common sense goes out the window, so I do, sadly, prefer divided government and the resulting gridlock.

 

The problem with me is that I'm all over the place politically. In a lot of ways (though with many exceptions) I'm a libertarian, though I consider the Libertarian party the worst thing to ever happen to the libertarian movement. One thing that does intrigue me is the concept of Libertarian Democrats:

 

The Libertarian Democrats:

[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."

"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent ... But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

 

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional morality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

 

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

 

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

 

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

 

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."

 

The above was taken from an article Here, originally from a Washington post story, describing five main "types" of Democrat.

 

That is certainly a concept that peaks my interest. I have major differences with libertarians on a few issues, but if either party (there are Libertarian Republicans, too) became more along the lines listed above, I'd join, as it would remove most of my objections to the present parties and their policies.

 

I always have and always will envy people (regardless of which party they choose) who can find a party they can enthusiastically support.

 

I have both great hope and great fear for the 2008 elections. It's the first truly wide-open presidential election (no sitting President or VP running) in over half a century. My hope is that we will end up with both parties having reasonable candidates, and thus a decent choice. My fear is that, due to the dynamics of the Primary system, the Republicans will run to the right, and the Democrats will run to the left, leaving us with a "choice" between A Tom Dealy clone on the Republican side, and a Dennis Kucinich clone for the Democrats. Ugh!

 

Hmmm.. I wonder if we will see more of Davey and Brian engaging in politics.. I loved the parts involving Davey's role in his Father's party change.

Edited June 9, 2006 by C James

[Demetz]

Most Americans will begrudgingly accept the loss of soldiers so long as they believe that the war can still be won and that it is still worth winning. Over the past several months, the American people were getting dangerously close to believing that neither was the case. The death of Zarqawi serves as a boost to morale, and while it will certainly not be the end of hostilities in Iraq, it does help to restore faith in the ability of our forces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq will be a bit more disorganized than usual for a while, but it will be back as strong as it was before, if the necessary steps are not taken to prevent that from happening. I'm not sure how the administration will approach this - rather they will use a decrease in terrorist activity as a chance for a quick exit, or continue as though nothing special had happened. Hopefully they will take advantage of a weakened Al-Qaeda to go out on the offensive as much as possible, taking the Iraqi soldiers with them so they can get first-hand training.

 

You're right about Afghanistan, we don't hear much about what is going on in that country at all. Ever since the invasion of Iraq, nearly all the focus has been there with only the occasional reference to the first country we invaded post 9/11. As far as I know, that country's doing just fine, with only the occasional Taliban remnant popping up and quickly being scared off.

 

J'ai peur que nous Americains sont devenous fous pour le duration de guerre. But what I worry most about, is that in wars previous where we felt we were going to be attacked and took precautions that infringe upon our normal liberties, there was a clear idea of how those wars would work. We would fight those who attacked us until they gave up for lack of fincancial resources or we defeated them. But how does one defeat an idea? All the bombs in all the arsenals of the world do no good so long as fanaticists are still able to communicate their message of murder in the name of religion. We have to fight them with guns and bombs and so forth, because were we to let them live they would surely use such weapons against us, but unless we also fight their words with stronger reasoning, this war will go on forever, and even then, the best of reasoning can still be lost on those who have no wish to listen and the sad truth of the human condition is that there are many who do not care for reasoning at all.

[C James]

Most Americans will begrudgingly accept the loss of soldiers so long as they believe that the war can still be won and that it is still worth winning. Over the past several months, the American people were getting dangerously close to believing that neither was the case. The death of Zarqawi serves as a boost to morale, and while it will certainly not be the end of hostilities in Iraq, it does help to restore faith in the ability of our forces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq will be a bit more disorganized than usual for a while, but it will be back as strong as it was before, if the necessary steps are not taken to prevent that from happening. I'm not sure how the administration will approach this - rather they will use a decrease in terrorist activity as a chance for a quick exit, or continue as though nothing special had happened. Hopefully they will take advantage of a weakened Al-Qaeda to go out on the offensive as much as possible, taking the Iraqi soldiers with them so they can get first-hand training.

 

What scares me the most about public opinion in this media age is the penchant for the over-simplification of all issues. In the case of Iraq, I've talked to many people who follow the argument that 'because it was a bad idea to go in, we should pull out'. The problem with this, as with so many things, is that such over-simplification leads to false reasoning. In the case of Iraq, pulling out would not un-do the invasion, as it would leave something entirely different in it's wake. I respect all reasoned points of view on Iraq, or anything else for that matter, but the public penchant for over-simplification to the point of false reasoning scares the heck out of me. I've used Iraq as an example, but I see this in all aspects of politics. Basically, I feel that modern media, with it's fixation on the 30 second sound byte, is a huge part of the problem, and this media generated "dumbing down" of the political process is a grave threat to Democracy.

 

As for Iraq, this may sound horrendous on the face of it (please read the whole statement, it's not what it sounds like at first), but I've been much more optimistic since the horrible attack on the Golden Mosque. Let me explain why: I felt that the attack was a desperate gambit by Al-qaeda Iraq to instigate a civil war, which is something they have been trying to do. However, by it's nature, it was a desperate action: if it didn't work, there would be a backlash against Al Qaeda and Zarqawi. I predicted, on the day of the attack, that it made civil war imminent; either it would be an Iraqi civil war, or, an internecine war within the insurgency itself, between the Iraqi and foreign factions.

 

Now, we have Zarqawi dead, due to betrayal by members of his organization. Iraqi members. (Zarqawi, for those who don';t know, is Jordanian, not Iraqi). So, for me, the way he died (betrayal) is FAR more significant than the fact he is dead. I am hoping that this triggers more internecine fighting within the insurgency.

 

The major split withing the insurgency seems to be between the foreign fighters (such as Zarqawi) and the Iraqis (Mainly Sunni) of the insurgency. The Sunnis were beginning to realize that the foreign tactic is to provoke an Iraqi civil war. They seem to have finally done the math: The Sunnis, by far the smallest of Iraq's three main ethnic groups, were Saddam's power base, and as such are widely hated by the Shia and Kurds (of whom Saddam killed hundreds of thousands). So, as the smallest group, and the only one without oilfields in it's territory, they are coming to realize just what the likely results of a civil war would be: Genocide of the Sunnis. Add to this the factor that many of the attacks have slaughtered their fellow Sunnis, plus the Al Quaeda tactic of assassinating some Sunni tribal leaders, and you have a formula for "red on red", or warfare between the two factions. There have been actual firefights, several in recent months.

The good news is that this kind of internecine fighting is almost always quickly fatal to an insurgency, doubly so when combined with a loss of public support.

 

So, for those reasons, the attack on the Golden Mosque was one I had been expecting (or something much like it) for a long time, and the fact that it occurred indicated to me that the leadership of the foreign factions of the insurgency was taking a very desperate gambit. And, you don't take desperate gambits if you are winning.

 

I'm also guardedly optimistic due to the operational tempo and force levels of the new Iraqi military, and also the fact that the Iraqi government seems to be finally functioning fairly well, and more importantly seems to be getting broad-based support. It's a sad and often overlooked fact that Iraqi voter turnout puts ours to shame.

 

J'ai peur que nous Americains sont devenous fous pour le duration de guerre.

But what I worry most about, is that in wars previous where we felt we were going to be attacked and took precautions that infringe upon our normal liberties, there was a clear idea of how those wars would work. We would fight those who attacked us until they gave up for lack of fincancial resources or we defeated them. But how does one defeat an idea? All the bombs in all the arsenals of the world do no good so long as fanaticists are still able to communicate their message of murder in the name of religion. We have to fight them with guns and bombs and so forth, because were we to let them live they would surely use such weapons against us, but unless we also fight their words with stronger reasoning, this war will go on forever, and even then, the best of reasoning can still be lost on those who have no wish to listen and the sad truth of the human condition is that there are many who do not care for reasoning at all.

 

You have stated, far more eloquently than I could, the core of the problem, both at home and abroad.

 

Speaking for myself, I was appalled by the "Patriot act", which had long prior to 9-11 been on the right-wing wish list. The name alone made me gag: it's downright Orwellian. It's also been used primarily in ways that have nothing to do with terrorism, and as such I consider it to be a blatant attack on our freedoms, using 9-11 as an excuse. I'm also equally revolted by the Department of Homeland Security. I can't here that name without thinking "Committee for State Security" or, in Russian, Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, better known in the West by it's initials, KGB. The other problem I have with it is practical, It doesn't work! Making a bureaucracy bigger is never the answer. This, also, is why I blast both Republicans and Democrats on these issues. The Patriot Act was a Republican baby, and they deserve the full blame for it. The Department of Homeland Security, however, was the brainchild of the Democrats, and pushed on the Bush administration.

The Bush admin bears some of the responsibility due to not fighting it, but that doesn't let the Democrats off the hook.

 

Your analysis of the problem we face with Islamic extremists is IMHO spot-on. My own view is that we have to break the dynamic that feeds it. A big part of the problem is the extremist Medresses, both Shia and Sunni, though the Wahhbist (a Sunni faction, mainly Saudi based) are the worst. In a nutshell, they teach hate and fanaticisim. The only way to deal with them, IMHO, is to make certain that it is clear to the governments in question that it is their best interest to reign in the problem. As things stand now, I describe it as the Viking dynamic: It is in their interest to allow it, as it gives the hotheads something to do other than plot against them. As in the case of the Vikings, they are in effect sending the most restive elements off to fight elsewhere, and thus avoiding problems from them at home. Only by breaking the underlying dynamic can the cycle be disrupted, and the culture of terror thus be deprived of it's sustenance.

[old bob]

Only by breaking the underlying dynamic can the cycle be disrupted, and the culture of terror thus be deprived of it's sustenance.

 

Hey you two first class political analysts

I see, my opinion was much too simple ! If I resume your posts, USA has to fight terrorism abroad and "kill the snake in the nest" OK, but how much will it cost and how long the people will be ready to pay the bill ? Are you sure USA has the means of his foreign policy ?

[C James]

Hey you two first class political analysts

I see, my opinion was much too simple ! If I resume your posts, USA has to fight terrorism abroad and "kill the snake in the nest" OK, but how much will it cost and how long the people will be ready to pay the bill ? Are you sure USA has the means of his foreign policy ?

 

Please bear in mind that I'm only giving my opinion. There are also many other points of view on this.

 

My own opinion is that there is no question as to whether the USA should fight terrorism: we simply don't have any choice. Thanks to a global economy and also our dependence upon foreign oil, Isolationism simply can't work. If it would, frankly, I'd be all for it, but it's just not a viable option anymore. Given the expansionist nature of Radical Islam, Europe is in fact in far greater danger that America from this. The Scenario would be as follows. An American retreat would greatly strengthen the radical elements within Islam who support terrorism and expansionism. The dynamic is straightforward: Success always fosters growth in public support. They would effectively gain control of several governments, but also would become the de-facto leaders of the majority of Europe's immigrant Muslim population, especially the disaffected. Remember the Riots in France?? Think about those magnified tenfold and worse. That is a clear and present danger to the existence of Europe, and it, for demographic reasons, is not nearly as great a threat to the US.

 

For any who doubt the real intent of the radical islamists, and think or claim that they "just want to be left alone", I strongly encourage reading the terrorists own words and manifestos. A good starting place is Bin Laden's "Letter to America", including his demand that America becomes an Islamic nation as just one of his terms for peace.

 

Continuing to fight does not necessarily mean that the USA needs to continue launching major operations like Afghanistan and Iraq. It also has non-military aspects (such as intelligence, political pressure, education, etc), and short-term actions such as airstrikes.

[old bob]

Please bear in mind that I'm only giving my opinion. There are also many other points of view on this.

Yes indeed

I dont know if you remember the movie "Exodus" ? there also are friendly muslims (Marocco, Palestina, even Pakistan, aso) and IMPOV we shouldnt fear the islamic world. Look at the evolution in Algeria, with the growth of the average wealth, the extremists are loosing power. The real problem of the States is the dependency of arabic or russian oil. Instead of military expenses, USA should invest in other energies (for instance in gas from plants, like Brazil).

If everything is going on, like now, at the end the situation in DOT or MOF will be the next future. USA cannt rule the world alone, trust the UN for that ......

[C James]

Yes indeed

I dont know if you remember the movie "Exodus" ? there also are friendly muslims (Marocco, Palestina, even Pakistan, aso) and IMPOV we shouldnt fear the islamic world. Look at the evolution in Algeria, with the growth of the average wealth, the extremists are loosing power. The real problem of the States is the dependency of arabic or russian oil. Instead of military expenses, USA should invest in other energies (for instance in gas from plants, like Brazil).

If everything is going on, like now, at the end the situation in DOT or MOF will be the next future. USA cannt rule the world alone, trust the UN for that ......

 

I should have made it more clear that I was referring ONLY to Islamic extremists, NOT all Muslims!

Sorry to anyone whom I confused or offended!

 

I do however fear the Islamic extremists, in very much the same way as I fear Christian Fundamentalists (with whom they have a very great deal in common.). I only mentioned Europe's Islamic population due to the danger it could pose *IF* Islamic extremism gains ascendancy in the Islamic world as well as within that population. Given the minority but fairly substantial support for extremists within the various Muslim communities in Europe, I don't consider it fear-mongering to say that if Extremism comes into ascendancy throughout most of the rest of the Ummah, those communities would be equally at risk, and due to their location pose an enormous danger.

 

I completely agree regarding oil... Our dependency on it is very dangerous. I too favor alternative sources, and one of my favorite concepts is genetically engineered plants for sugar to convert to ethanol. The problem with current plants is that Brazil uses sugar cane, which for climate reasons is unsuitable in most of the US. Other plants can be turned into alcohol, but in many cases (such as sugar beets, the most common sugar crop in the US) you actually expend more energy than you get to do so.

 

However, a genetically engineered corn crop that was far higher in glucose content would make the ethanol fuel concept very favorable indeed, much like in Brazil, IMHO.

 

As for the UN, YIPES!

 

There are certainly a wide range of opinions on that topic! Some Americans would even go so far as to take up arms against their own government if it EVER tried to hand over US sovereignty to the UN, and be willing to die in the act. I'm one of them. But, as I say, there are a wide range of opinions on the subject, so don't take mine as representative of America in general (on this or any subject).

Edited June 10, 2006 by C James