dwt

Read this Press Briefing from May 2001 regarding gas prices then and energy policy:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010507.html

Excerpt:

Q Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day.

My "blessed" life sucks right now, and people who bought into this crap in 2001 and the re-elected this bozo in 2004 owe this country a huge apology for their idiocy. If they make the same mistake again, we're toast, if we aren't already. How's your 15 mpg SUV working out? posted 07/02/2008 at 13:55:37

HRC had promised him Secretary of the Treasury? posted 07/02/2008 at 09:10:59

Exactly what planet are you broadcasting from, or, if from Earth, what drugs are you strung out on?

Obama couldn't lose this election if he tried, given the incumbent doofus' antarctic approval rating and McFlipflop's platform of four more years of the same, including a tanked economy, morally and financially bankrupt Iraq War, no health care, insane foreign policy, ravaged environment, etc. Not to mention the symbolism of a strong, vibrant, eloquent, intelligent multi-racial young man applauded by the rest of the world vs. a faded, cranky, stumbling, out of touch, old fart white guy whom the rest of the planet abhors.

Political Reality 101: Even given the stacked deck of Obama's popularity vs. McFlipflop, for a Democrat to win the White House in the generally conservative USA, it is necessary to follow the Bill Clinton road map down the center line, and not the McGovern/Dukakis detour to the left side of the road, playing to the base. The base is a given; kick them in the butt with centrist pandering, and they still have no choice but to follow. They're hardly going over to Barr, or, God forbid, Nader.

Presidential elections are won in Ohio and Florida, not California and New York. posted 07/01/2008 at 17:24:29

Fine with me. I didn't want to pay her debts anyway. Let the whiners do it. posted 06/27/2008 at 13:00:00

Put me down as another Maddow supporter. She might be a tad too unseasoned to make the leap to MTP at this point in her career, but she is so brimming with talent, brains and charisma that MSNBC would be foolish to the extreme in not promoting her to hosting a show sooner rather than later. She will be around and a major force in cable news and radio for a long time.

In the meantime, Gwen Ifill or Judy Woodruff are the only other two women I can think of with the necessary gravitas to host MTP. posted 06/23/2008 at 21:43:09

Thank you for this interesting insight.

I wonder if one reason for Vietnam era elevation of regular soldiering to hero status is that the vast majority of eligible males of that era did not serve, voluntarily or not, and many of those - myself included - were loud and active war protestors. Of course there were many valid reasons to protest Vietnam as a senseless and wasteful war, as there are now concerning Iraq, but males such as I now admit that a HUGE reason for protest was that we just didn't want to get drafted and forced to go.

You recall that returning soldiers were treated like crap those days. But as the years went by, that disdain eventually was replaced by the respect that should have been accorded from day one. Let"s be honest: people grew up and realized that the men who served had bigger cohones and more honor that those who did not - whatever the pros and cons of the war were. Even John Kerry, his actions after serving notwithstanding: the man went in country, he got shot at, and he shot back. Like his father did in WWII. I stayed home and listened to Country Joe and the Fish.

So maybe much of the elevation of soldiers to hero is simple guilt mixed with respect and regret by the large number of boomer males who found a way to get out of it.

So let's give McCain respect for serving and leave it there. posted 06/17/2008 at 14:49:29

Ma'am, please post your name and address so you handlers may find you and get you back to your institution. You are scaring the normal people. posted 06/16/2008 at 17:41:41

Time to cut back on the hallucinogens, eh? posted 06/16/2008 at 17:36:25

The reality is that "Hillary Women" like this one are showing the first signs of dementia or Alzheimer's, not uncommon when you hit 60. Nothing you can do but leave 'em behind and keep marching. posted 06/16/2008 at 17:33:34

Lame troll, or mentally challenged? Hard to decide. Both? posted 06/16/2008 at 17:26:36

Who needs to grow up? Can you say "irony"? Your candidate LOST, even as she and her ardent supports, such as aging old school uber feminists such as yourself, tried to change the rules mid process, and then affected to be outraged when the party decided - *SURPRISE* - to stick with the rules all candidates had ratified from the beginning.

Grown ups don't cheat. Grown ups don't try to blame the referrees, the opponent, the opponent's supporters - everybody but themselves - after they lose. Grown ups move on after the game is over, and don't try to replay it endlessly. Grown ups don't make coercive threats in order to extort appeasement, as you do. Grown ups don't cut off their nose to spite their face, and take all their marbles and run home when they don't get their way.

Spoiled children do. The shoe belongs on your foot, not on those of Obama supporters. posted 06/14/2008 at 22:52:31

This is your brain on drugs... posted 06/12/2008 at 21:57:33

No, he's for following the rules of the game and not changing them in the middle when the going gets tough.

Good god, get a life and get over the fact that it was your state's elected officials who f***ed you up and not Barack Obama. And that it's watter under the bridge.

What a tool. posted 06/12/2008 at 17:01:46

This is so true.

I do not for one nanosecond believe that this is now, or will be in November, a close election. Irrespective of the media's electoral college predictions, demographic polls, and the rest, the facts are that the economy is completely down the tubes, the war in Iraq is opposed by a majority, precious few voters are happy with the way things are, McCain is both status quo and a weak candidate, and Obama is both change and a strong candidate.

The deck is completely stacked. There is no way in hell that the Democrats won't prevail by huge majorities in all races in November.

Bet the house. posted 06/12/2008 at 16:58:34

The epitaph for the Era's tombstone:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. "
John Kenneth Galbraith

The Bush Administration's Neo-con/Christian coalition took conservatism and selfishness to such a brutal and lethal extreme, with disastrous results both foreign and domestic, that there appears little doubt it will go down in U.S. history as among the worst, if not the worst.

R.I.P. posted 06/12/2008 at 10:19:45

AMEN!!!! posted 06/11/2008 at 16:17:14

"...women over 50, were betrayed by our daughters..."

Just when I think I've heard it all from the egomaniacs of both genders which comprise the boomer generation, of which I am a member, along comes another zinger.

Your daughters did not betray you: YOU HAVE BETRAYED THEM by not judging who they are on their own terms in their world, which it is now. It has passed you by, and you don't appear to get it.

You don't get that the millennials see race and gender differently than their parents did and still do, and actually in a much more healthy and egalitarian way. Not perfectly - society will never be perfect. But suffice it to say that the collective struggles of all the liberation and civil rights movements of our generation have had their positive effect on the next.

Pat yourself on the back. Because of your struggles, your daughters don't have to be the neurotic fanatic you appear to be. Be thankful, not resentful. Also try loving them for who they are and not your vision of who you think they should be. posted 06/11/2008 at 15:46:01

This is your brain on drugs... posted 06/11/2008 at 11:32:24

A second amen.

The "cultishness" you refer to is nothing short of appalling. This 1970's brand of feminism corresponds absolutely to religious or any other kind of fundamentalism and fanaticism, is inherently divisive and undemocratic, and has become irrelvant by the new millennium.

Revolutionaries are necessary to start the process of change, but one the chance begins in earnest, they quickly become quaint anachronisms if they are unable themselves to evolve. The daugher is the product of the mother's struggle. The daughter may now be judged much more than her mother by the content of her character than her gender, and HER daughter will inherit a society even further evolved.

Meanwhile, the mother has become a fossil, and an embarassement.

In 1964, when I was 13 years old, Bob Dylan wrote:

"Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."

I am 57 years old now, but I learned my lesson 44 years ago. I know that my road has, inevitably, become the old road. But I'm doing my best to lend a hand on the new one.

Would that old school feminists lend a hand, or get out of the road. posted 06/11/2008 at 09:45:11

What does that age group care about all the retirement investing and Cialis ads that predominate during Countdown ? posted 06/10/2008 at 16:55:01

But we know how to spell, which is an indicator that we are educated and intelligent, and not a bunch of witless sheep - I think the word I'm searching for is "dittoheads."

As the real prophet of the talking heads, Stephen Colbert, has pointed out: "we all know that Truth has a liberal bias." posted 06/10/2008 at 16:02:13

Unlikely. The revenge voters are, by definition, voting out of anger, outrage, pique, spite, frustration, and all kinds of other emotions which have absolutely zero to do with sense, logic, reason, or sanity.

Challenge to Obama: attempt to negotiate, persuade and appease, or just forget it ? posted 06/10/2008 at 14:26:20

I am not an appeaser :-)

"[The] old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'."

-Bob Dylan, 1962 posted 06/10/2008 at 10:28:00

Angry white women, hard working white racists, DINO'S, spoiled children who didn't get their way, etc. PLEASE. Leave the Democratic Party. You're not needed, you add nothing of substance or value to the mix, and you're bringing the rest of us down.

For every one of you who is nutty enough to defect to McSame and four more years of Bush insanity, two new 20 or 30 somethings with brains, idealism and commitment register to vote as Democrats, support the platform, and are more than happy to have a candidate a superior as Barack Obama. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:00:33

Even more amusing is your smug, self important response. Let's be clear: Hillary's base consisted of rabid feminists, racist white goobers, old school Democrats, old people, and Hispanics.

I figure you for an aging boomer with an expanding waist line and a contracting intellect. The fringe would be that fuzz around your cranium you call "hair." posted 06/09/2008 at 16:46:36

It must suck to be you. Maybe you could do yourself and the rest of us a favor and move the hell out of the country. It wouldn't hurt to reduce the population by one less whining, self-centered, half-witted "hard working white" woman. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:39:25

It is posts like this from women intelligent enough to boot up a computer, log onto HuffPo, and write in grammatical English, that boggles the minds of males and anyone else who knows how to use the left side of their brain, and is precisely the reason that sexist stereotypes exist in the first place.

For a woman to state in the same paragraph that her "loyalty to her gender" leads to a vote for McCain is so manifestly irrational, self-contradictory, and absurd, that any man who has ever been chided by his wife or GF for "not getting it," cringes in confusion and incredulity.

Hell, indeed, hath no fury like a woman scorned.

How do you deal with a woman whose fury is so vast that she justifies abandoning her party to vote for the candidate who advocates the reversal of Roe v. Wade, as "loyalty to her gender"?

Answer: you don't. All you can do is shake you head in amazement, thank all that is holy she's not in your family, and hope that she is on the fringe and not in the middle. posted 06/09/2008 at 13:16:20

...the dismissal of her supporters as racists or irrational feminists or uneducated rednecks..."

Add old school party Democrats and Hispanics, and you've her whole coalition in a nutshell. Although I haven't heard or read much from the latter about the "nuclear option" of voting for McSame over Obama or staying home in November. A cursory reading through HuffPo, however, reveals innumerable comments of this sort from Clinton supporters, accompanied with varying degrees of venom, hatred, resentment, bitterness, spilt milk, sour grapes, and the like.

Given that the McSame platform is indeed Bush 3, and antithetical to the Democratic platform espoused by Obaba, what other reasonable conclusion can be reached than such spoilers among the Clintonistas must be one or more of the following: racists, irrational feminists, or uneducated rednecks? posted 06/05/2008 at 10:39:39

God help us with spoiled narcisistic children who bitch, moan, whine and complain, AFTER the game is over, AFTER they lost - and lost even though they tried to change the rules in the middle of the game. And then have the unmitigated gall to scold the winners.

You must be a self centered baby boomer, like your candidate and her loathsome husband, because you clearly have the same lack of maturity, morals and character.

For your edification, here is the complete quote you missed from Tracy Morgan on SNL: "Bitch might be the new black, but black is the new President, bitch."

Can you say: "HUMOR"? posted 06/04/2008 at 16:20:53

Like people who know how to turn off "capslock"? posted 06/04/2008 at 14:25:26

Dude, lay off the cool aide. posted 06/04/2008 at 14:23:26

Ms. Rosen: As a political junkie who is glued to MSNBC and HuffPo much more than is healthy, mentally as well as physically, I am quite familiar with your ardent, but always fair, tactful, respectful, and articulate, support of HRC. As a HuffPo editor, to boot!

My hope and prayer is that her supporters now follow your lead, and not that of the "GOBAMA, VOTE FOR MCCAIN" crowd, which is, of course, childish, counterproductive and downright insane.

Character and class trump gender. You exemplify the former. Kudos. posted 06/04/2008 at 13:34:20

Don't know if you are a racist, but you are clearly an idiot if you think it makes sense to endorse McCain because Hillary lost the nomination. Either you haven't read the platforms of the three candidates (hint: Hillary and Obama are virtually identical to eachother; McSame is virtually identical to Bush); or you can't read. Yet you continue to post nonsense all over HuffPo for everyone to see. Ergo... posted 06/04/2008 at 12:10:30

If the shoe fits... posted 06/04/2008 at 12:02:08

Help me out here, rabid female Clintonistas.

You say that Hillary's defeat was not based upon the content of her character vs. that of Obama, but upon her gender. That she was treated so unfairly by her opponent, his supporters, and the media, that you, as women, are too angry, insulted and, indeed, bitter - to vote for Obama. Instead, you will vote for McSame in November - or stay home or write in Hillary, which amounts to the same thing.

This despite the fact that an essential part of McSame's platform is the reversal of the primary women's issue of our times: the right to choose.

I'm sorry, but such a response is irrational and deranged. You need counseling, to get a grip, and to grow up.

A tiny alteration in the events of the last year could have ended up with the nomination of HRC, whom I despise for her character and not her gender. Would I have reacted like a spoiled child and threatened to vote against her in favor of a continuation of Iraq, no health care, permanent tax cuts for the rich, the reversal of Roe v. Wade, etc.? The answer is no.

If events transpire that HRC appears on the ticket as VP, will I rebel, grouse and complain, despite my revulsion of all things Clinton? No. The alternative of McSame is worse. I will hold my nose and vote for the Democratic Platform.

Use the left side of your brain: so should you. posted 06/04/2008 at 10:50:21

If HRC and John Kerry - unlike 21 other Democratic Senators, 61% of House Democrats, all the Democrats in my family (8), AND Barack Obama - did not think that GWB would launch an Iraq invasion, then there are only two possibilities:

1) they are very, very, very, VERY stupid, not to mention naive and lacking in common sense and mature judgment,

OR

2) they are pandering phonies who really DID know, but voted in favor anyway for purely politcal reasons (i.e. to appear tough and patriotic to the general public for pre-planned 2004 or 2008 Presidential campaigns).

Pray tell us which, which is worse, and which qualifies HRC to be President. posted 04/02/2008 at 13:53:30

That would be 57. Thanks for the compliment. posted 04/01/2008 at 14:06:27

Excuse me? You actually think you're the only old fart boomer who posts on blogs?

That unintenionally makes the point of WJC detractors: boomers are such self-centered narcissists they can recklessly get blow jobs in the White House from interns, lie about it, and believe they can get away with it. And they and are such self-absorbed egotists they think they can scold all other bloggers for being childish.

Good grief - my irony detector just went to 11.

P.S. I was born in 1951 posted 04/01/2008 at 13:00:34

I have a theory. READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST A COMMENT. Who would have thunk it?

"And yet most nomination battles are resolved well before the last set of primaries is held. That's why Michigan and Florida broke party rules and jumped the line, an action that threatened to disenfranchise voters in late primaries whose states had abided by the rules. If Sen. Clinton is so intent on being fair to late-primary voters, she should be condemning the rule-breakers who tried to prevent them from "having their voices heard and their votes counted" -- especially since she herself agreed, along with Sen. Obama, not to participate in their primaries." posted 03/31/2008 at 20:00:20

Hate is too strong a word. Try dislike or disdain. Why do I and so many others dislike and disdain HRC? First, it has nothing to do with her gender. That is so last century. If you don't get this, please upgrade your system and reboot. It is rather because moral people of both genders and all races disdain people who lie and pander.

What has she done to this country? She voted in favor of the Iraq invasion, which has become the worst foreign and domestic political disaster in our county's history; no need to elaborate.

If she didn't know in 2002 that it was the wrong war at the wrong time against the wrong country, as most educated people knew, then she is a fool. If she DID know but voted in favor anyway, she is much, much worse than a fool: She is a cold, calculating, narcisistic cynic who sold her soul for purely political purposes, and she has the blood of 4000 dead US soldiers and countless Iraqis on her hands.

She is not qualified to be President of the United States. If you want a female to win the office because you are hung up on gender and identity politics, there are countless more qualifed, more electable female candidates to hitch your star to. posted 03/31/2008 at 21:00:42

As a boomer married to one AND having two ex's , I am an expert in this area, and proclaim: if the shoe fits, wear it .

P.S. Don't tell my wife I posted this. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:10:41

When did Barack Obama tell everybody he was under fire in Bosnia, when actually it was flowers that were being thrown?

When did Barack Obama tell everyone he was "against NAFTA from the start" when White House documents prove otherwise?

When did Barack Obama sponsor an amendment to the constitution, in one of the most transparent example of pure pandering in memory, which would criminalize flag burning?

When did Barack Obama support the worst President in history and vote to commence the war which has ruined the entire invaded country and helped to bankrupt the invading country? Not to mention waste thousands upon thousands of lives not just for nothing, but to make things many times worse than they were before. THE most transparent example of pure pandering in memory. Or aa example of no brains or judgment, your choice.

Tip of the iceberg.

I have facts to support my disdain for the candidate who panders and lies without shame. How is she qualified to be the President of the United States? posted 03/26/2008 at 15:15:03

"Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war" - John McCain, 3/26/08.

George W. Bush thinks it would be romantic adventure to be on the front lines in Iraq.

Hilary R. Clinton blithely lies about being under fire in Bosnia in another pathetic attempt to exaggerate her otherwises paltry "experience" as qualification to be President.

Lambasting her for her bald faced lie, turning a simple visit to a war torn country into actual experience of live fire combat, is not making a "mountain out of a mole hill." Besides revealing her utter lack of candor and character, it demeans real soldiers who have fought, died, and been wounded under fire.

Worse than Reverend Wright's words, which were not Obama's, but have hurt Obama's candicacy by association, these are her OWN words.

I have never been under fire, but it does not take rocket science to be certain that it cannot be an experience that anyone would have only a vague recollection about, let alone forget.

This particular lie is so egregious, that condemning it It is not a "mountain out of a molehill;" rather, it is, hopefully, "the last nail in her coffin." posted 03/27/2008 at 12:50:42

Things are "being done." Behind closed doors, among the heavyweight superdelegates. Democracy at work. posted 03/25/2008 at 18:15:57

Drink as much HRC cool-aid as you can stomach.

If it were as dangerous as you imply, then why didn't the local Child Protection Unit seize her 16 year old daughter for child abuse once they returned to Washington? Maybe because they saw the photos of Chelsea smiling at the 8 year old Bosnian girl who welcomed them at the airport, and didn't see anybody ducking bullets.

I have never been under fire, thankfully. But in 1998, my wife was in a group of airline passengers who were held at gunpoint by a squad of Turkish Militia as their baggage was searched for drugs by dope sniffing dogs. Shades of Midnight Express. She assures me It was not the kind of trivial event for which the details dissipate over time. It is as clear in her mind today as it was 10 years ago.

Being under fire is of a different order. I would go so far as to suggest that for HRC to claim with a straight face that she did a double time duck walk across the tarmac dodging sniper bullets demeans those who really do face such circumstances as their job. Like soldiers and police officers. I bet they don't forget a single minute of real live threatening combat.

Her claim, indeed, is the resume padding equivalent of downing 20 Irish Car Bombs at a Harvard Frat party and later inserting on your C.V.:

Undergraduate Education: Harvard University; summa cum laude. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:59:19

You knew in 2000. I knew in 2001. So did my wife and two sons, brother and sister-in-law, niece and nephew, closest friends, 21 US Senators, 61% of House Democrats, and Barack Obama. posted 03/24/2008 at 23:06:45

Here's an even handed scenario of the next 3 months from a "vicious" Obama supporter:

1) Fact: neither candidate will arrive at the convention in June with 2,162 delegates.

2) Fact: It is mathematically impossible for HRC to arrive at the convention with more elected delegates than BHO.

3) Fact: It is mathematically improbable for HRC to arrive at the convention with more popular votes than BHO.

4) Fact: In order to win the nomination, the succesful candidate must acquire enough superdelegates to achieve the necessary 2,162 majority.

5) Fact: In order for HRC to win the nomination, she much convince enough superdelegates that BHO is less likely than she to defeat John McCain in November.

6) Fact: In order to convince those superdelegates to vote for her, HRC must convince them to overrule the majority of elected delegates and popular votes.

7) Opinion based on facts: In order to accomplish no.'s 6 & 7 above, HRC must assassinate the character, credibility, and credentials of BHO.

8) Opinion based on facts: If HRC wins the nomination with the likes of Green and other partisans overruling the majority of delegates and popular vote, then: a) black Obama supporters will go NUTS as they perceive the Man screwing them once again, will at least disrupt the convention, may riot, and will stay home in November (and who would blame them?); and b) the millennial generation (under 30), who will someday inheret a world totally f***ed up by the boomers and their elders, also will stay home in droves in November, because they see no reason to support Clinton over McCain, inasmuch as both represent the same old- same old partisan and bought and paid for politics of the past.

Let me hear your even handed alternate scenario.
posted 03/24/2008 at 13:07:46

Mark Green speaks with forked tongue, as do all HRC surrogates. I upchucked and spewed corn flakes all over my kitchen table this morning when I heard Howard Wolfson telling Mika on Morning Joe that Obama has resorted to the politics of personal destruction in his campaign after Texas and Ohio!

Huh? Come again, Howard "Karl Rove" Wolfson? Rove playbook: "Whenever you go into the gutter, spin and deflect it by accusing your opponent of doing it, and then pretend the moral high ground."

Hey, Howard and Mark: Ever hear of the "kitchen sink?" How about the "red phone?" Here's one: "Obama wouldn't be where he is if he weren't black." Or: Obama's Iraq War opposition is a "fairy tale." Then there's the classic: "Jesse Jackson won the black vote in S. Carolina, too." And the infamous: "Obama is a druggie and maybe a drug pusher." Tip of the iceburg, no?

Message to Green, Wolfson, Penn, and HRC: IT'S OVER. THROW IN THE TOWEL FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY. And please: SHUT UP ALREADY! You make my hair hurt. posted 03/24/2008 at 12:08:12

As KQuark correctly admonished, "get off the cross already." Why do HRC partisans constantly resort to identity politics in this campaign? " Kick a woman when they are down." Good grief. What an irritating cliche. Enough already!

Expanding on Martin Luther King's immortal words:

"I have dream of an America where people are not judged by the color of their skin OR their gender, but by the content of their character."

Hilary Clinton has proven time and time again - irrespecttive of her irrelevant gender - that she lacks the kind of admirable, inspirational, and moral character to be President of the United States.
posted 03/23/2008 at 10:47:43

Here are some FACTS to chew on:

"One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party"s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote " which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle " and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

For the good of the Democratic Party now, and ultimately the American people in November, it's time for her to throw in the towel NOW. IMMEDIATELY. TODAY.
posted 03/23/2008 at 10:18:19

Dude, I'm a DISCIPLE of Sam's work.

Sam decries the regressive and destructive aspects of irrational, fantastic and dogmatic religious beliefs. Two of the worst offenders, and the two with the most fanatic claims to possession of "Ultimate Truth", are Islam and Christianity. Terrorism in any form in the advancement or defense of any religion, indeed, is a real threat to be feared.

But people with the brains to understand Sam Harris are decidely much too intelligent to support the policies of the Bush Administration and the neocons against "terrorism," which not only have not succeded, but have backfired.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a dogma. What needs to be addressed are the dgomas which justify terrorism as a tactic.

Get it now?
posted 03/21/2008 at 17:20:29

Sam:

This country TWICE elected the most inept and administration in the country's history. In the first go-around, the anti-intellectual electorate bought into the proposition that self-professed religiousity is equated with leadership, morality and compassion. In the second , after the first assumption was proven to be 100% incorrect by the acts and deeds of a posse of religious and politcal fanatics, the same electorate was manipulated into sticking with a clearly unsatisfactory status quo out of irrational fear of the bogeyman known as "terrorism."

Now, the electorate is on the verge of being manipulated one more time into choosing an ineffecitve and under-qualified leader (either Clinton or McCain), and eschewing the most qualified candidate because of his race.

How can a country as unenlightend as this POSSIBLY be ready for the audacity of reason?

Baby steps, Sam. It will take another generation. The millennials are closer than their parents and grandparents, and the former's children may have a go once the latter are dead and buried. posted 03/21/2008 at 16:41:24