C James

Just don't take me too seriously... I have some rather odd political leanings (for example, there are darn few people who are members of both the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association, which I am), and those leanings on various issues color my perceptions of some things if I'm not very careful (and sometimes even then). I also live in a very rural area (over twenty miles from the nearest town) and that gives me a perspective that's markedly different than someone from a city or suburb. I'm a member of no political party, which has both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to trying to view a political event or situation objectively. On one hand, I don't have the "us against them" perspective, but on the other hand it's all too easy for me to play the role of cynic and just criticize, instead of actually proposing solutions. I'm also not a professional or an expert in any of these areas. I tend to focus mainly on politics at the national level (and even then only as an "armchair general" not a participant or player), so on state issues (even in my own state) I'm usually not very knowledgeable. I think I'm rather jealous of DK's profession, as he is a true professional, and is doing something I've only dreamed of doing. I do love to discuss science, politics, history, and a few other subjects, but I'm prone to be very long-winded once I get rolling (as if that is news to anyone here. ) As for the UN.. I think I fully share Switzerland's rather skeptical past view. I also admire Switzerland for "bucking the trend" for so long. It's been a few years since I've visited Switzerland, and I miss it, as it's one of my favorite places. I was mainly in the Lucerne area (The William Tell Inn, a really nice place on the river that I highly recommend) last time, and loved the whole region.

Hi Lacon! Ryan's behavior certainly seems to be stirring up some very interesting thoughts! I certainly can't argue with either of those points. Mikey's situation is, sadly, all too common. In many cases it's even worse: the kid is tossed out and disowned, and ends up on the street. I too was at a loss regarding who was banging on that door that dark and stormy night! My guess was Eleanor Van Epps, out searching for Dominic, or those who "lead him astray". As you might notice, my guesses are usually way off base! Kitty, I had the exact same reaction and impression.. I was positive that there was religion involved. But I did a re-read, and found nothing. Hmmmm. I think we could just blame LB for this somehow.... I have no idea how, but there must be a way. I was perplexed by one of the twins mentioning that he thought the other was Bi, right before Mikey was invited over! I really wonder what is going to happen there when Mikey stays the night! I absolutely loved Connor organizing the intervention, and the irony of it all.

ROFL! I know that feeling all too well... Hi Altimexis! That's sure an interesting idea! And I like your line of theorizing, as it certainly is plausable. Hmmmm.. It was mentioned that Jones, Sr, is Tom Daschel's right-hand man in the Senate. That would IMHO put him in a good political position for a run. I think you might be on to something there!!!

That is (like all her work) fantastic! Xandra, thank you so much for all that you do... As for the song titles.. I had no idea! That's brilliant! I'll have to go see if I can find the lyrics.. BTW, a serious word of warning: I freelance as a computer consultant (second career), and one of the most common causes of service calls to me is a teenager who has gone surfing for song lyrics. Many of those sites are spyware launchers, and once that junk infects your system it ccan be a nightmare to be rid of (sometimes requiring a full clean re-install of windows). So, if anyone is inclined to go surfing for lyrics, please be very careful, have the latest security patches, use a browser other than IE, and whatever you do, don't let it install anything, no matter what it says. (A common trick is to claim it needs to install something to view the site). But.. but... but... I was just thinking that you might appreciate a new pet, realy! Hmmmm.. Bad Karma I can do without.. I might not like the Vipaka. Hmmm... I seem to have few options here.. OK, ok, you win, no surprise new pets.. But, please bear in mind that Toby's attempt to run you down with a motor-scooter had nothing to do with me, nor will any future things Toby might try and do to you... Now, if you will excuse me, I've got to go burn the receipts for the airline tickets I bought for Toby... I've been on the receiving end of that reaction too, and I see where you are coming from. However, I'm a bit concerned over the length of this reaction. If Ryan continues, and Toby dies, all other considerations aside Ryan could be messed up for life once he realizes what he has done.

Ahhh! Thank you! OK, my speculation was dead wrong (not exactly a first for me!).. They would indeed be (chronologically, for Davey) 30 in 1999. So, Davey and Brian have precocious kids... How great! They sound so cute, too... One other thing I really loved about Chapter 15: How well Brian can read Davey, such as knowing what he was thinking regarding getting on a plane himself. That, to me, says more than anything else could about how well they click.

I'm not even competent to be in the same room as a toddler, let alone say what one is capable of, so I have no opinion on that aspect.. I hope I don't stir up trouble by asking this, but... Is there mention anywhere else in the DO series of the year of Davey's birth?? In other words, might the 1999 be a typo? OK, doing some re-reading here... in chapter 32 of DOR, he arrives back in 1976. I can't find a reference to his age, though I recall he was eight when he arrived? He had a birthday right after that, also in 1976, which would have made him nine during 1976. If so, then he would turn 30 in 1997, not 1999, so is it possible that we have a typo here? Or did I mis-remember? EDIT: Ahh, I'm probably wrong. I'd missed the following post by DK, which seems to indicate that he did intend an age of 18 months or so... Although, there is plenty of room there for the kids to be younger or older than that... Perhaps there will be more clues in the next chapter?

I'm not quite sure I understand here... I thought they were older than that? DK said in his blog That looks like past tense to me, and that would make them older than two, so were meant to be three or older? However, upon re-reading it, it could be taken either way: the terrible twos might be yet to come... I have no idea here.. I'm just confused (a fairly normal condition for me...) Good reading BTW! I'd have never caught that. But, but, but... These are the children of a time-traveler! Maybe they have done it before?

The following are just my opinions and interpretations. There are many differing ones. The US was indeed the driving force behind the Treaty of San Francisco, which founded the UN. The USA often does not accept the actions of the General Assembly, as those actions are often bizarre. For example, replacing the US on the Human Rights commission with countries that are amongst the worst offenders. The Security council is most often deadlocked due to the veto power of the five permanent members. Witness the current impasse on Iran's nuclear program. Europe, too, sometimes ignores the UN. The war in Kosovo was Europe's idea (they asked for US participation.) That action was never approved by the UN in any way, nor was that route even tried, due to the (in that case) Russian veto. The difference between sovereignty and participation could best be summed up by example: Participation could be described as playing a part in the process, and respecting UN resolutions. Surrender of Sovereignty could be described as surrendering US sovereign power over the United States and it's citizens. One example would be the demands by the UN to turn over control of the Internet root servers to the UN. A Better example would be demands by the UN for US citizens to be subject to UN criminal courts, UN institution of global taxes (including in the US), or the US agreeing to UN demands to take away the constitutional rights of Americans (such as to bear arms). Basically, allowing the US to make laws that apply internally within the US would be a surrender of Sovereignty, and that's the sort of thing I'd oppose, with my life if need be. While none of the above examples are in themselves cataclysmic, I believe in the "wedge" principle in that if one is allowed, it will merely be the first. As I oppose the concept of world government in any form, I therefore oppose any move by the UN in that direction. Basically, my opinion of the UN is that it's irretrievably broken and corrupt (witness the oil-for-food scandal, and so many others) It's also rather useless (witness it's lack of response to the genocide in Sudan, and it's utterly hopeless (and that's being charitable) response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami). The one option for a replacement that holds my present interest is a league of democratic nations. BTW, as far as I know, I'm only representative of sunglasses-wearing goats in Arizona, not Americans in general.

Perhaps the author should start checking for tarantulas before he gets into bed from now on. Aww, Kitty, I'd never do such a thing! What would be the point? The Tarantulas here, while big (up to six inches) are perfectly harmless. Kids often play with them and keep them as pets. Interestingly, Tarantulas aren't supposed to live at this high an altitude (over 7000 ft) but I suspect that the Tarantulas are ignorant of the fact, as there are loads of them here. I see them almost daily in the Spring and Summer. But, as for a nice gift for LB.. What about a nice rattle to play with? I have this really cute critter in my woodpile.. It's a Sonoran Rattlesnake. Might make a nice amusing surprise gift for LB? (see, I make helpful and generous suggestions like this, and then LB says I cause trouble.. I have no idea why.. ) I also get frequent visits from both black bear and mountain lions. Last year I left my screen door open while carrying in groceries, and when I turned around a Mountain lion was in my hallway and I had to shoo him out. I think it's the same one that keeps peeing on my porch, and Mountain Lion pee stinks worse than tomcat pee. Anybody know a good mountain Lion repellant? Hmmm.. Maybe LB would like another cat when he moves back here to the US? I found the chapter title rather ominous... When I hear St. Peter, I think "pearly gates", and given Toby's condition, let's just say that I was happy to see him still breathing by the end of the chapter... Was the chapter title meant to be scary in that way? As for Ryan's problems... I just loved this line from the chapter... "I wasn't a psychologist or anything, but it didn't take an idiot to figure out that he was scared, and perhaps this was his way of coping with it." One more thing: LB's initial post mentioned a surprise on his main page... I've looked, but can't figure it out (and yes, I know I'm probably missing something obvious). Is it the "When I see you again" story icon? I think that is new, and would mean it's (as it says) coming soon, which is great news! Or is it something else and I missed it?

Happy Birthday Vic! :king:

Uhoh! A Goat Critic! But, LB couldn't have meant me... Since when do I cause any trouble? I mean just a few death threats and murder plots every once in a while surly isn't enough to get one called a troublemaker, is it? I think chapter 19 was there to give a sort of passage of time, before something momentous happens in 20. I loved the Mikey intervention, too! I was especially struck by the Irony: Connor, of all people, having to deal with a friend too stubborn and proud to let his friends help. I was thinking that too... Poor Toby! I have a hunch that the next chapter will be critical for Toby... He's definitely in a critical phase now. LOL, C James! I was thinking when I read David's entry, "Are you sure it wasn't a goat muttering about Toby and leukemia" It hadn't occurred to me that Toby had gotten out of his sick bed himself to do the job. ROFL!! YEah, I just couldn't find a way to get into Taiwan without quarantine... Plus, LB just might have noticed a sunglasses-wearing Goat riding a motor scooter.. Anonymity does not come easily for the likes of me! As for Toby... There is a time gap between the two chapters sufficient for a trip to Taiwan, and I think Maggie, sweetheart that she is, would have helped him get tickets... I note that there is absolutely nothing in Chapter 19 that indicates otherwise!

Welcome Boxerdude! Thank you for joining us! I have absolutely no clue as to what Little Buddha could possibly mean regarding those of us with goats as avatars... I keep telling people that it's a self-pic! I was delighted to read that you have been with your partner so long! I love hearing about relationships that have lasted. Congratulations! I think Ryan is great, but he sure does have some problems right now. However, if Toby dies with Ryan still pushing him away, Ryan will have messed himself up for life. Speaking of Toby... He sure is getting worse fast! The part about him wanting to stop treatment and "let nature take it's course" was a tear-jerker! I have to wonder, though, if there are other factors contributing to him being so tired and weak. I'm thinking that it's the jet-lag, plus dealing with driving the heavy traffic, and the failure of his attempt to exact his revenge. Link

I may be reading this wrong, but, I think that with 9-11 happening, plus DK's reference to the Senate going Democrat due to one Senator (it was Jeffords of Vermont in real life) changing parties from Republican to Independent, we are seeing Davey's timeline coming more and more to match our own. I've got to say, I really, really loved the kids, but I loved it even more the way DK gave us a few references to them well before the details. I love the way DK does that, especially at the beginning of chapters.

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).

I didn't expect Davey to get shipped off for that... Until you said it! Now that you put it together THAT explains the whole trip to Poland. Davey won't get shipped to Guantanamo, but he certainly could be shipped off somewhere. I kept wondering why there was the whole deal with the NSA confiscating the disk... I was definitely hoping that the story was not going anywhere silly like "the administration and the government knew in advance about 9-11 and made sure it happened.". I just can't buy massive conspiracy theories for one main reason: they just don't make sense, as it's impossible to keep a secret of that magnitude. But your comment about using his involvement certainly fits!!! Hmmm... Dan said just two more chapters.. And the last line of this one was "whatever happened to doing it right?" I also note that Sean is now known as a time traveler to Davey's father. So, why do I suspect that soon, Davey, his father, and Sean will sit down and have a very, very interesting conversation about a little construction project? Just a hunch on my part.. 9-11 or no 9-11 and it's aftermaths, Davey has seen far, far worse "histories", so there would be a lot of motive not to do this... So I could see it going either way. So, I hereby predict <drum roll>...... That the DO series will either end in two chapters, or it won't! I've got an analysis of this chapter about half-written. I'll post it on this thread later today. EDIT: One more thing.. I really haven't got a clue at all what Chapter 16 will hold.. I usually at least have guesses, even though I'm usually wrong. In this case, about all I can predict about 16 is that it will be comprised mostly of words.

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.

Emoe, congratulations!!! I'm another who has DK's forum listed in my profile as "most active in", so I sure do understand your sentiments on the matter! Happy 100th, Emoe!!

Erk! This, as if further proof was needed, is proof that I can't spell. So, a really hot summer anthology story, eh? Believe it or not, I've written one too. I don't know whether mine will make the cut or not, but I'm going to submit it and see.

Thanks Kitty!!! I will start reading them first thing tomorrow! I browsed the page and was tempted to start right now, but didn't dare.. I'd have been awake all night reading!

Well, I can't argue that! Serves me right for having my personal pic in my profile! ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, Connor, how is it for you reading SOOTB, and sharing your name with the protagonist? That must be a bit jarring on occasion...

Wow, what a great chapter! Definitely not how I was expecting it to play out. I won't discuss details yet, but one thing I can: the way it was written. DK often starts off a chapter with an aire of mystery, so the reader has to figure out what is going on. This time, he really out-did himself, and throughout the chapter there are examples of this. The bit about the kids was classic!! There sure is a lot to discuss about this chapter, as it's rather momentous, but I will resist the temptation until more have had a chance to read it. Great chapter, DK! I wasn't even expecting one this week, due to your recent hectic schedule.

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. 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.

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. 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). 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. 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 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.