I agree it's great the election is over... I agree thalo.net was ahead of the curve, and I also share your experience with people who seem to be on the verge. Like you, brother, LOL. But don't worry, that's what I like about you.

Man, the sheer volume of bummed-out, angry and emotional emails I've gotten today... Bush this, Bush that. It's like everyone's a thalo, and Apple just announced that Tiger was going to be released on 14DVDs with two majillion new widgets.

Because I'm an artsy fartsy-snob cultural elitist, people all ASSUMED I was a Kerry supporter and wanted me to commiserate. The faces around here are longer than Kerry's. Nobody had their heart in their work today.

I think in the end, Bush got a lot of independent voters like me (even though deep in my heart, I was pulling for brother Ralphie, just 'cause he got the squelch job).

When it came down to it, I voted war on terror. And I think even though it's tough for a lot of people to parse, when you have the combination of "MANIAC DICTATOR WITH OIL MONEY" with a hardon for us, and "MIDDLE EAST" where everyone has a hardon for us... you have to do friggin' SOMETHING right away. George W did. It was kinda clumsy, coulda been better, but it was probably right. War is heck, but Saddam was a rallying figure for extremists in that part of the world, who happened to be a state leader. A guy who used his defiance of us and the UN as the way he scored chops. Nah-ah, sorry. Buh-bye. Osama is just a plain idealogue. Yes, he's got money, yes he's probably got state sponsorship... but holy crap, he ain't a president of a country in the middle east. In some ways he's more dangerous... styling himself kinda a saint or pope of Islam. But he is not sitting on top of rich oil fields as a head of state. Rather, an outlaw.

Saddam made law. Used weapons. Shot rockets at Israel, gassed Kurds, invaded a neighboring country. Guys like him, like Hitler, don't just go quietly. You can't embargo them into submission. No wait, you CAN, but that causes exactly the kind of desperate poverty that breeds terror in that part of the world.

We were fucked either way, so we went and got rid of him. Fine by me. It's world war III and we're simply the first at the front (although some would argue it's Israel). Is it a bitch the front is hazy and perverts a one-time enlightened and noble religion (we of European descent would still be eating raw meat and dressing in filthy rags if not for Islam). In the late 30's it was England first to put up its dukes. They've been there, they know, and that's why they're such staunch allies. Everyone else will come around when they realize it IS a world war. Until that time, they'll blame us, hate us. The problems are terrible, but at least we're trying to deal with them. It's tough to justify going on the offensive. Nobody wants to be the first to deal with violent, scary, fanatical evildoers.

My answer? Fast food, strippers, and hollywood movies. Give 'em all iPods. Let 'em twiddle OS X and be so busy with that, they forget to hate.

Brother thalo you crack me up.

Don't even get me started with the artsy fartsy types.

The five boroughs sans Staten Island voted about 80% to 20%. It can not get much bluer than that. I absentee balloted to my home town in New Jersey were I thought my vote had half a fighting chance.

I don't talk politics outside thalo.net very often for many reasons including the need to keep my job.

I greatly appreciate the ability to rant here on the blogs.

I am sure they are hard to get thru at times but I hope I have given a kernal of humor and insight from time to time.

I certainly have continually been enlightened by so many posters here.

Now we can get back down to what is really important the glory that is Mac OS X.

Do we need to send out a search party for Brother Brad?

.
In the end, the presidential election of 2004 was determined by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.


Markle

Sure, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, war OR sanctions, will breed the animosity from which terrorism grows. Except, if you continue sanctions, our young men and women don't have to die, and we can function viably as part of a world community, rather than being the go-it-alone-do-as-we-damn-well-please cowboys who sacrifice lives for relatively nothing.

You hit the nail on the head. Not only was Saddam Hussein an evil dictator with an itchy trigger finger, but he did sit atop one of the world's largest oil reserves. And we had, and continue to have, a deep hatred boiling out of the most oil-rich region of the world. A region that we rely upon heavily for our own economic stability and strength. So, we just had our blind and ignorant asses handed to us by some jihadist assholes from the region, whaddya gonna do? You have to kick some Arab country's ass to save face and demonstrate that you don't fuck with Mr. Zero, that's what. And Afghanistan was too piddly a target. Or, at least that is what the neo-cons believe anyway. So THAT is exactly why the war in Iraq IS part of the war on terrorism. Not because of WMDs. Sanctions worked and there weren't any. Not because Saddam was an evil fucker and the world is better off without him. He was and the world is, but there are plenty of evil-doers sitting as heads of nations, nations with legit WMDs I might add, that we could give a rat's ass about. And not because we wanted to free the oppressed and impoverished Iraqi people. There are plenty of oppressed people in the world sitting in crushing poverty that we do nothing about. It wasn't about getting rid of terrorists. There were, and are, other countries that harbor far more terrorists that pose a direct threat to the US. This was simply about kicking somebody's ass and flexing muscle. And Saddam was the perfect foil by his own making. Iraq was the only country that we had any claim over going to war, other than Afghanistan. Right or wrong, that is what the war was about. Saving face, kicking ass, and taking names.

And, I think, by and large, the American people wanted some ass kicked. Bush did an exemplary job in getting us through very tough times after 9/11. Part of independents voting for him, I believe, is a reward for his strength and leadership during that time. One mistake though, in my opinion, is to make the miscalculation that Kerry would not have been equal to the task that lay before us in terms of the war and in terms of terrorism. He would have. Although, it is fair to want to keep a uniform administration during a time of war. But, to vote on a single issue, and neglect a candidate's opposing tack on other equally important ones is turning a blind eye to the future and looking solely at the past.

An election is about the FUTURE, the direction the country should be taken. Sure, we need to root out and defeat terrorism. But we also need to engage the world community so that we can use our riches to help the impoverished in a way that diffuses hatred and terrorism. We need to ensure that the rights and freedoms of people in this country are respected and protected, by honoring the Constitution and its design to allow freedoms, not restrict them. We need to make sure that our environment, and the world environment, something we cannot do without, is protected. We need to work towards solving the crushing poverty in our own country. Deal with immigration. Redefine government entitlements so that they make sense. Have a tax code that makes sense. Eliminate wasteful spending and reduce the deficit. Bring people to the bench that use judicious thought, not ideology, to interpret the laws. What we need most is vision. We need someone who isn't concerned about being a giant, but who can humble themselves to sit on the shoulders of giants so that we can indeed see farther.

Second terms are usually the best for a president. They don't have to think of re-election and subvert themselves to the will of their party and base. Instead, they can think about the country as a whole, with all different religions, ethnicities, incomes, etc, and how to better this country in real and tangible ways felt by the people. It is here that we can witness the type of man the president really is. Is he a uniter or a divider? If he stays right and cow-tows to the nutjobs of the socially conservative, I'd say he is a divider. If he makes a move towards the center, I'd say he is reaching out and trying to heal the deep divide in this country. I think Bush has an amazing opportunity to do that. He needs to listen to the fiscal conservatives and swing right in that direction, there is far too much discretionary spending and the deficit is growing again. But he needs to listen to more of the social liberals of his party and recognize that moral values are not absolute stone-written rules. Instead, he needs to recognize that the spectrum of morality is quite broad, and is worth keeping that way.

Joe Scarborough the other night made the most telling point, at least for me, about American politics today. The House, with the aid of both parties, is wantonly redistricting so that each district is heavily represented with one extreme or the other. This sets up the new paradigm that members of the House need to run towards one extreme or the other in order to get elected. Thus, we have politicians geared towards ideology, and an atmosphere in the government of two diametrically opposed sides that cannot yield. If a politician had to run in a district populated by equal numbers of opposing viewpoints, they would have to consider their opposition and work in an environment of collaboration. Thus, our House of Representatives is basically populated by ideologues. But, that is the most important branch of government, in my opinion. It is the place where the people of the country have the best chance of being represented on the national scale. It is here that we need more voices, more opinions, from different parties than the two that maintain a stranglehold on our electoral process. Although I agree that voting for Nader at the level of president, at this time, is generally not wise, voting for a third party at the local scale is the best thing anyone can do for our country. Especially if you are against squelching. Others cannot stand and speak if we do not give them the opportunity. It is my hope, that in the next election, we can begin to get other parties into Congress.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mithradites,

Excellent, brother miths. You need to send that post in to a newspaper.

quote:

---

Joe Scarborough the other night made the most telling point, at least for me, about American politics today. The House, with the aid of both parties, is wantonly redistricting so that each district is heavily represented with one extreme or the other.

---

More evidence of the dumbing down pandemic. And of the dysfunction where sure marketeering bases, and success at all costs outweighs doing good and right. And certainly kills the idea of discourse dead.

quote:

---

More evidence of the dumbing down pandemic. And of the dysfunction where sure marketeering bases, and success at all costs outweighs doing good and right. And certainly kills the idea of discourse dead.

---

I wish it weren't so, but it is. If everyone took it upon their shoulders to vote for just one third party congressional candidate next time, I think we could make a stand against this. It is important for people in this country to stand and speak up for what you believe, even if you might lose an election. That is something Kerry did not do. Too polished, too handled. Bush too, but he had the advantage of being an incumbent, with the general malaise of "not wanting to change" affecting most of the voting public. We need more people standing up for what they believe, rather than standing up for a party platform to get the money to run.

Bush hardly has a mandate. He did not crack the Northeast or West Coast and he barely reached a majority. I hear everyone clamoring about how he received the most votes in history. True, but Kerry received the second most in history. That is hardly a mandate. It means the country is still split fairly evenly. Look to see who Bush appoints as new cabinet members. That will be the first indication of his true self. I think he will try and be a uniter. I think he believes his destiny IS to bring the country together. But, we'll see in the end.

http://smithz.org/x/BadChoice.GIF

published in a german newspaper, before the election...

Uh, I remember when comics were funny.

Fox news is in total agreement with brother Markle. I must have heard the Massachusetts supreme court theory ten times yesterday.

Yes, I saw it a lot yesterday, too. You don't see me usually do this, but note the time stamp on my post--it was almost still Wednesday on the West Coast, and I thunk it up ALL BY MYSELF!

Some of us are just blessed with a keen grasp of the obvious.

Markle

I hear everyone clamoring about how he received the most votes in history. True, but Kerry received the second most in history.


Right you are, miths. The spin never stops. Sure Bush received the most votes in history for his presidency, but he also received the most votes in history against his presidency. The spin just never stops.

I think looking at the exit poll numbers for the election is quite fascinating. See those from CNN.

The one that accurately reflects the real vote is how people voted by party affiliation: Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Where Kerry lost was in his own base it would appear, with Bush getting, on a nationwide scale, about 11% of Democrats versus Kerry's 6% of Republicans. It is even more interesting in Ohio, where Kerry clearly won the Independent vote 59% to 40% for Bush, but his margin in the Democratic vote (90% vs 9%) was not as wide as Bush's with the Republican vote (94% vs 6%). That 3% difference accounts for the 130K+ difference in votes. Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, and Iowa all show the same trend. Amazing that a candidate could soundly win his own party AND the independent vote, yet still lose.

If you look at the numbers state by state, it is clear that Bush's margin of victory in Republican bastions was quite wide, probably accounting for the popular vote (as well as the electoral). But looking at how independents voted nationwide, it was a split, with Kerry garnering a little more. How anyone can claim a mandate from that tally is beyond me. But, as you said HH, the spin never stops.

I think the Democrats should wonder who it is in their party that they are not convincing. My bet is that it is conservative Democrats. Of course, it may just be people like thalo who are nervous about terrorism and feel that it is best to keep Bush in office to finish what was started. Looking at the numbers, I think the Dems can take something positive from this. That is, 46 Electoral College votes are readily attainable. But, to gain them, they have to ask hard questions of themselves. Personally, I think if you focus on a meaningful and powerful strategy to better America, you won't need any spin to win.

A thalo.net brother? You decide.

LOL!

Nah man, something about that tantrum was pussified. And his rage is directed at human beings (as opposed to a product) in that same downlooking way. Southerners are just his flavor of chimp. He needs a blame-shift target. I liked that he's complaining, though. Expressing himself. It's a good start.

At thalo.net, I hope we're starting to see that the friggin' dysfunction is locked up precisely in that bullshit where some people think they're better than others. As long as some people honestly believe that one set of rules governs THEM, but only if things go their way... then we're going to see meltdowns like that. This election was fair. His side lost. He knows he's right, but it's just easier to say fuck you to the south, than it is to work toward making crap better. And that's where free speech comes in. Did that rant remove W from office? Nah-ah. But I bet it sure made him feel better. And it got his point of view across. Trouble is, he seems to me to be the kind of guy that would run home crying if anyone challenged him, or he got a bloody nose. He wouldn't stay in a fight long enough to be a proper thalo.netter.

I think where us guys think disagreement is healthy, wusses like him can't take the slightest trimming without it being the end of the friggin' world. And then they miss things that really ARE the end of the friggin' world (like Apple selling out, lol). I mean, as far as I'm concerned, one politician is as good as another. But there was a day when one operating system really stood out as a force for creative freedom and liberty. Thumbed its nose at the geek elite and gave power to the people, baby.

I'm not saying this guy has to LIKE the fact that the people spoke and his candidate and his agenda got its well-meaning ass kicked. It's a bitch when your idealogy isn't seen as valid by everyone. Hey, I know the feeling.

But the measure of a bro is just how much they (really) let it get to them. I mean, do you pick up your toys and go crying home to mommy? Or wipe the blood out of your eyes and go another round just when it looks like it's time to throw in the towel? You tell me.

There are things worth fighting for. Our collective destiny is a biggie. If we have to have a few skirmishes with each other until we're on the same page, what's the big deal? That wus is ready to stop being an American because his feelings are hurt.

My feelings are hurt about the Mac, do I abandon the cause? Do I say fuck it and embrace Windows? Hell no.

quote:

---

Did that rant remove W from office? Nah-ah. But I bet it sure made him feel better.

---

Department of Utter Cluelessness: Yesterday, a week after Dubya was re-elected, there was an antiwar demonstration at the Federal Building in West L.A. "Stop the war!/Stop the attack on Fallouja!/Bring the troops home NOW!" As Ross Perot would say, "Now that's just seh-yud!"

Markle

Ross Perot was a tough little bird. And he had a knack for poking fun at the utterly ridiculous. Demonstrations are healthy, as you know I'm all for them. They are part and parcel of a free society. They're American. Unless they're about stopping OTHER people from expressing their views in a like manner. Can they be seh-yud? Give me the douche chills? Piss me off? God yes. But we'll get over it. But whenever I see them, I breathe a sigh of relief. I'll worry when I STOP seeing them. What worries me is the ANGER that demonstrations provoke. We have a choice to have demonstrations make us PROUD, and we seldom make that choice.

Also seh-yud is Howard Dean wanting to be the DNC national chair. You want to shake the dems and tell them: move. to. the. middle.

If I really soul-search, about HALF of the issues I find important, are imminent domain liberal. Issues like environmental protection, separation of church and state (well, used to be)... freedom of choice, health care, yadda yadda.

But then the other half of what I believe is GOP territory. Strong military, second ammendment rights, a vibrant space program, smaller less bloated government, accountable education, tax relief... and on and on.

The failure of the dual party system is, as we've been discussing, like putting the marketeers in charge at Apple. You get polarizing, dumbing down. Emotional intensity and soundbytes, rather than rational thought, are what gets people involved. It all hinges on the basic assumption that people are chimps. If I could prescribe anything to America, it would be to try and stop being manipulated emotionally. Find the tricks and cons that are out to shape your opinions, and be aware of them. Make up your own damn minds and stop being controlled.

Fallujah is exactly where we need to be. We should have purged it of insurgents last spring. What I'm worried about is the art historical legacy of the city. The amazing mosques and shrines. Of course those are the FIRST place the friggin' terrorists hole up.

I am surprised, you are getting soft in your old provocateuring days. You focused on delivery, rather than content. Perhaps you were hit one too many times over the digital head with your opponents tack in OSX Talk? Why not focus on the ideas set forth in the rant? Remember, someone could be on the soap box pounding one fist on the Mein Kampf, with the other with a finger up their nose, and you, supposedly, would get past the delivery and focus on the message. Remember?

The rage is not directed at any single human being, but at an ideology put forth by a collective group of people. Not one single person is attacked. The core ideology of the Southern conservative is criticized with its marketeered implementation as a single-thought Republican base comprised of ignorant, holier-than-thou bible-thumpers being called to task. How is that different than the core ideology of Apple being criticized with its marketeered implementation as a glossed over OSX with a fan boy base comprised of chimped-up, crap-settling digikids? Yeah, you guessed it. It ain't any different. The slant of the rant was designed to tweak the emotions and to provocateur, thus the over use of down-talking. Yes, down-talking as a critical tool. You've heard of it I am sure. It is the exact way the Conservative leadership talks to all of us. Unfortunately, it is also exactly the way the Liberal leadership talks to the rest of us as well.

So, let's try this, what is the message over the content? It is a call to arms. Not to sell out to the current marketeers of the Democrat party who want to rid the party of its lipstick and high heels image and dress it down in an Amish frock, hoping the transformation will influence voters in the South. It won't work because it is a superficial change. All the party needs to do is recognize that the ideas and strengths of its convictions are solid. And it is ideas that win voters hearts in the long run, not makeovers. Take a page from the Republican party. Stand up with conviction for your ideas. The Republicans do that and they garner more of the vote. The fractured ideology of the Democratic party right now leaves voters all over the map, giving just enough of an edge to the Republicans. Take the core ideas and treat them like the HIGs should be treated. Make them great ideas with genius implementations and voters will flock to the party in droves. Look at the exit polls and the maps from the links above. The Republicans, even with their conviction, still do not garner more than a bare majority. That tells me if the Dems got their shit together, they have a shot at something big.

So, don't sell out and choose a candidate just because he may be from the South. And don't have a guy like Dean as party chair. It smacks of a desperate appeal to emotion, rather than fundamental ideas. The Democratic party is like the old Apple, a great ideology, but destined to be a niche player if it doesn't get its act together. How does it do that without dumbing-down all of the great ideas in the party to appeal to the "liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical" bible-humpers. Here are my suggestions:

Like thalo said, there are a core of Democratic ideas that are appealing on their own merits: environmental protection, separation of church and state, freedom of choice, health care, economic populism, education. These are the formulations that I think work for more than just a liberal base.

Environmental protection We love our environment, we need our environment, it nourishes us both physically AND spiritually. There should be environmental sanctuaries. Places where not only can the animals and plants be protected, but where we can find refuge and solace from an often hectic and sometimes cruel human world. We also need to recognize that human endeavors require energy and produce waste. Environmental protectionism isn't about cutting off possibilities, it is about creating new ones.

To that end, the first part of environmental protectionism is to encourage the development of energy resources that do not damage the environment, both in the harvesting and use. We provide federal subsidies to farmers to keep food prices low at the consumer level, why not do the same for companies developing and selling new energy technologies? Sure, that means tax dollars will likely be spent or not collected, but isn't energy usage one of the most important issues facing our nation, facing the world. For the most part, it is why we go to war. We are willing to die for energy independence and/or security. Why not bring that about by our own actions. Solar, wind, water, and geothermal are all viable sources of energy that could be added to our collective toolkit. Nuclear should be further developed. Petroleum, has its place as well, but given its finite nature and the relatively infinite nature of the other sources, it seems better to focus developing new cleaner technologies. And that development can create more jobs.

Provide tax incentives to companies that reduce packaging and increase the use of recyclables. Remember, market forces dictate how companies and consumers act. Provide a friendlier market in the form of tax breaks to offset initial costs of switching.

Encourage job creation in regions where environmental protections would cost jobs. Do it in ways that fit the people losing jobs. You can't stick a logger behind a desk. It is like caging a lion.

Be open to ways in which resources can be harvested with minimal environmental impact. Companies who display sensitivity to the environment, while at the same time responsibly extracting resources, should also be given tax and other incentives. We need resources. We don't need devastation.

Do that, and you eliminate a ton of consumer and industrial waste. You eliminate the need to enter current wild-life refuges. You remove the threat of jobs versus the environment.

Separation of church and state Read the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It does not say that church and state should be separate. It states that the government will not interfere with folks establishing religion or freely exercising a religion. The founders did not say religion is to be excluded from government because the government is comprised of people, people who bring values derived from their religious beliefs, which they are free to practice. It means that God can remain part of government. If people do not want to recognize the existence of God in government functions it is their choice. You can leave God out of the "pledge of Allegiance". You don't have to swear on a Bible or say "so help me God", although if you don't believe it doesn't really matter. I say, let the government reflect the people, all the people and all the religions they practice. Don't make government religiously sterile. But do reflect the fact that there is a portion of the populations that doesn't believe at all.

Let me make it plain. Let folks determine their own religion. Support them in their efforts to the extent that you do not hinder their practice in their personal lives. Let them practice it in the professional lives if it fits within the guidelines of the private company's, or public government's, rules. That means fight against any attempts to make a religion a state religion that can discriminate or prohibit, but allow pretty much everything else.

Do that, and you will go a long way towards reflecting the religious nature of the country.

Freedom of choice Well, here you can't appease the religious right. But you can make it clear that all efforts short of prohibition should be taken to reduce abortion. No one likes abortion. No one takes abortion lightly. It isn't a contraceptive. It needs to be emphasized that women get abortions if they feel having a child threatens their own existence. If a woman feels safe and secure, she is unlikely to even think about abortion. To eliminate abortion, you need to help women feel less threatened. Socially, financially, emotionally. Abortion will never be eliminated by prohibition, nor will it likely be reduced. Abortion can be reduced, and probably eliminated, if we work on the social ills that cause a woman to feel threatened by giving birth. Certainly encouraging adoption, and making it easier is one step. Reducing poverty is another. Reducing discrimination so that woman earn the same as men for the same job is another. Providing work environments that do not penalize woman for having children is another. Holding men accountable for the child-rearing is another. Abortion is a symptom of many social ills. Cure the ills and the symptom will go away.

Government cannot legislate what goes on inside a person's body. You cannot recognize an unborn child as having societal rights because they are not yet individuals in this world. But society can make sure that a woman has the best possible opportunities to raise a child.

Populism I'll lump healthcare, social security, wages and economic populism, and education all together here. This are issues that require a large degree of government entitlements. These are issues that we use our collective tax dollars in a Robin Hood venture. But there needs to be some sanity.

Everyone should have healthcare. Employers should be given tax incentives to provide decent healthcare for its employees. Small business owners should be allowed to join a healthcare union so that the get better deals from insurance companies. Costs need to be managed, but not at the expense of doctors making decisions and fat cats executives getting exorbitant bonuses and salaries. For people who are self-employed, again, they should be able to join a larger collective that can bargain for better premiums. People with only part time jobs should be included as part of an employee healthcare plan (need to change the practice of hiring part-time employees just to avoid paying all benefits). People without jobs should be covered as part of welfare or unemployment benefits. However, the gravy train cannot go on forever.

Social security needs to be changed. It should be tied to average lifespan. Benefits remain the same, but the age of benefit acquisition needs to be changed on a rolling basis according to longevity. Make it ten years earlier than average lifespan. There is no reason people shouldn't be living healthier as they get older. No reason why people can't work as they get older. If you want to retire at 65, then plan for it when you are younger. It hurts to hear this, but it needs to be so. Don't privatize Social Security, keep it as a government entitlement. But build some common sense into it.

Economic populism is a must. There needs to be a livable wage. There must be protections implemented to protect the workers from unfair and unsafe working conditions. Other than having to provide healthcare, a minimum wage, and a safe working environment, market forces can dictate.

Education is the one of the most neglected priorities in this country. Accountability with the schools and teachers is part of the equation. But, it will always be difficult to have the most talented teachers and school environments filled with the latest opportunities if there is no money. The wage for a teacher is so horribly low that the best teaching talents find jobs elsewhere doing other things where they make more money to support their families. You want the best and the brightest as teachers, you have to pay. Higher salaries can be exchanged for conditional tenure. Allow a form of tenure that protects teachers against being fired for teaching ideas, but allows them to be fired for poor results. Have standardized tests as part of the equation to measure accountability, but have other measures as well to avoid teaching being focused on only the material on standardized tests. Ultimately, accountability with the parents and students is the much greater part of the equation. I am appalled that some parents don't take the time to support their children's education in the home. There is a reason students in private schools do better than those in public ones. The parents have incentive to help their children do well, because they are paying more for their education. Parents become more involved when there is greater perceived incentive. I think working with the local community businesses and governments to provide some additional incentives might do the trick for those parents who don't view their children's education as a high priority (though I do not understand why someone would need an incentive to participate in their children's learning). Involving business in education is a good thing. Engaging the parents in additional learning for themselves, so they can see what their children are learning is another. There are tons of ideas to try an implement.



Thalo's list for things he likes about the GOP are a strong military, second ammendment rights, a vibrant space program, smaller less bloated government, accountable education, tax relief. In fact, none of these are actually implemented all that well by the GOP rule and are fertile ground for a solid Democrat platform.

Strong military The military should be strong for the defense of our nation. And I emphasize defense. Soldiers should be payed a living wage and have decent accommodations for their families. We should invest in weapons that make sense, not entitlement programs for the Pentagon. Money ear-marked for weapons systems development should be re-evaluated in a timely manner so that we aren't developing and purchasing systems that are designed for a different era. But, we should at all times maintain the absolute best training for our soldiers. I would contend that GOP pays a ton of lip-service to these ideals, and uses excellent political tactics to maintain the idea that they are stronger on defense.

Second amendment rights I think the website link above provided the right framework for this, read the whole amendment:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a function of a well-regulated militia. It can be argued that if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of the State, then the right does not exist. Thus, a centralized military would obviate the need. Otherwise, the amendment obviates the need for a centralized military. However, given the fact that it is important to have both, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be preserved. That includes all weapons, for the need might arise when a civilian militia would be required to function in the capacity of the centralized military.

However, the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that the arms must be identification/registration/regulation free, and the founding fathers made no mention of this at all. So, you can own an assault rifle, but it has to be licensed and accounted for, and that should be true for any other weapon. Additionally, for all weapons, background criminal checks must be part of the equation, because, while the people have a right to keep and bear arms, those whose rights have been revoked due to prior criminal activity do not have that right. Since we all agree that criminal activity is not to be sanctioned by government, the right to bear and keep arms must be protected from those who wish to illegally enact it. This makes sense and is a better position than the free-for-all GOP position.

A vibrant space program I will lump this together with vibrant scientific pursuit. Science requires public funding because its main aim is discovery, not product selling. Because the discoveries in science can come from any pursuit, multiple approaches should be pursued. I don't think you can claim that the GOP holds any strong position in building a vibrant space program or any other scientific program for that matter. The Democrats have a far more tenable position on science, from medical research to environmental research, to computational research to, yes, space research. Democrats would increase funding for all aspects of science, including space exploration. However, space exploration will not be framed with the underlying intent of military use. It will take on more of space research and exploration for discovery.

Smaller, less bloated government Again, the GOP pays a great deal of lip-service to this ideal, but fails to come through. Government has become bigger, not smaller, since the GOP has been in control. This is a facade for the GOP and can be readily meaningfully adopted by the Democrats. No one has a claim yet on fiscal responsibility and smaller government. The idea that privatizing government entitlements would reduce government is a wonderful way of distracting people, but it has no real application. Even privatized, the government would still have to maintain a huge battery of regulations to ensure proper implementation. I'll believe the GOP is for smaller government when I see it. Until then, this is definitely an issue that can be worked by Democrats. But they have to mean it. Government must be reformed on all levels, and pork spending must be controlled. The tax code must be reformed.

Accountable education See above. Accountability goes far beyond vouchers that can be used in private religious schools. Schools should be funded regardless, and the parent-teacher community should be the oversight, not administrators. Certainly set standards, but design multiple ways that they can measured. Don't bleed schools, feed schools.



In the end, the Democratic party, or any party for that matter, will gain popularity, and voters, if it stands on ideas rather than opinion polling. If you have a platform based on ideas and implementations that give the power to as many people as possible, from all religious, economic and social levels, you will capture the electorate. More importantly, you will capture people's hearts and minds. The Democratic party was all about being inclusive, for that is the essence of liberalism. Somewhere, they forgot what they stood for. My advice, do not go and nominate a Southerner or a Mid-Westerner for the sake of their location. Nominate a candidate who believes in the ideas and stands up for them, no matter from they hail. In there, you will find the charisma that will bring new people into the fold.

Wow, what an essay! I could quibble a little here and there, but really well-written!

Meanwhile....


Falwell Launches The Faith and Values Coalition

 
Lynchburg Pastor Says Group is a '21st Century Moral Majority'

LYNCHBURG, Va., Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Jerry Falwell announced today the formation of The Faith and Values Coalition, a national organization designed to maintain the national momentum gained through "values voters" who swept President Bush back into office on November 2.

"Following the sweeping re-election of President Bush and a new generation of conservative lawmakers nationwide, a new organization, The Faith and Values Coalition (TFVC), has been launched," said Falwell from his headquarters in Lynchburg, Virginia. "The group's central premise is to utilize the momentum of the November 2 elections to maintain an evangelical revolution of voters who will continue to go to the polls to 'vote Christian.' "..............

National ID cards anyone?

Here are some of the less publicized provisions of the US Intelligence Reform Bill that passed Congress last week and was signed into law by the president Friday, Dec. 17th.

Beginning in 2005, the federal government under the Department of Homeland Security will issue new uniformity regulations to the States requiring that all Drivers Licenses and Birth Certificates meet minimal Federal Standards with regard to US citizen information, including biometric security provisions.

American citizens at birth will be issued a Social Security Number that will be included on their birth certificates, along with DNA biometric markers. All birth certificates will also be registered in a federal government database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

State Drivers Licenses and ID cards will also contain DNA biometric markers and include the holders Social Security Number and be required for receiving and applying for all State and Federal benefits. Private business may require them for employment and many other everyday purposes. The centralized databases will be shared with authorities in at least two foreign countries; Mexico and Canada. Those as well as other foreign countries can make whatever use of the information as they will.

These national ID cards with biometric markers will eliminate the need to issue credit and debit cards. Using the Department of Homeland Securities centralized federal database, combined with bank and credit card companies' existing databases, will mean only the presentation of a citizens Driver's License or state ID will be needed to make purchases because all of the persons financial information, including credit and cash balances will already be known in ‘real time'. (The combining of federal government and banking databases on citizen's balances and purchases, along with their past and present purchasing information has already been allowed by the courts under previous federal laws including the Patriot Act.) The government will now be able to monitor all such transaction citizens make.

Also included in this bill is a law to require The the federal government's Department of Homeland Security to establish a separate, stricter, ID system for citizens to use prior to boarding airplanes very much like the Soviet and Nazi Internal Passport, only more efficient and high-tech. Internal Passport IDs will be required to allow such internal travel.

Now, don't you feel safer? Aren't you guys who voted for 'your guy' and 'your team' glad you picked the right guys to root for so they could keep that gawd'awful federal government from meddling in the lives of it's citizens? Sure you are! No welfare when you're broke. No health care when you're sick. And pretty soon, no Social Security when you're old. Perfect, huh? Just be careful buying those condoms or anything else you may not want the government to know about. Ya never know. And will never know until they're ready to tell you.

Of course you remember all the public input that went into crafting these provisions, don't you? After all, we live in a free, democratic society so you can bet lawmakers insisted on knowing precisely what the public thought about these matters seeing how they affect us so directly. The endless national discussions, the local meetings! No? They never asked? Well, maybe they knew we somehow became too distracted thinking about whether the neighborhood lesbian down the street was muff diving, or if people we don't know and will never meet love Jesus sufficiently. You know, the really important stuff. Lucky for us our public servants are taking care of public policy for us, the public, without needing to bother us about public input. They all must be dedicated mind-reading wizards, huh? Anyway, you got just what you voted for and always longed for. Didn't you?

Let's all root for our teams! Which team of elites is yours? Do you perfer the team that pretends to have that folksy TV image or the elites that pretends to be smarter than thou? No matter. The elites don’t disagree as much as you think anyhow. For example, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the senate supported by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Lugar and Santorum. Only two voted against it; conservative Democrat Byrd and Republican Inhofe.

What’s the difference, huh? Who cares about public policy when we have these TV images crafted by high-priced public relations firms for us to consider in grave tones? We get to vote for the TV image of our choice. Bring the teams on! When are they scheduled to be on TV again? Four years? Can't wait for the fun to begin. Can you?

Hahaahaahaaa

You are such an easy mark HH.

Thought I would check back in with the "L"osers since an entire year has passed on the RPT.

In light of the spying scandal at present I would like to bring attention to a post made by brother RicoX on September 24, 2004 in this same thread. It is no slight of hand that the appendum (thalo.net will now be briefly monitored by the NSA because Bush Plot Assassinate and the President all came up in the same sentence-Don't mind the low flying helicopters) concluded the post.

How was it that nearly two years ago Brother RicoX understood the nature of the NSA more so than US Senators at present claiming ignorance to the obvious. Any Senator making claims that they were unaware of the function of the NSA i.e. we had no idea that people were being "spyed" on here in the United States- are out right lying to the american people and the world. They are no fit to govern.

(Note at the time of the September 24, 2004 post brother RicoX had not yet become a prophet.)