Issue:Can Democracy have a Holy War?

Source:BBC - Press Office - George Bush on Elusive Peace:

Specific:"Nabil Shaath says: 'President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ?' And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God I'm gonna do it.''

Comment:Should this be scary? What if the American people are not as afraid as the President and the Neo-Cons believe we should be of extremist? What will be their reactions?

Where is the logic and reason that was fundamental to American pragmatism. War was a response to a direct and viable threat - like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. War was almost a matter of practicality to defend one's country - not something fought by religious fanatics on both sides.

The BBC is a credible source. Their source being the Palestinian Prime Minister is curious. I question his motivations. Perhaps he feels that this kind of thing will came traction in the American media.

Perhaps it is indicative that so far this has not reached the MSM air waves. The wording is not quite the President in my estimation. Perhaps it is indicative of my inclinations that I should note it.

But on this day, the President has made yet another speech on the Terror War, telling us why we should be afraid. On this day, unnamed sources in the Pentagon have indicated that NYC subways are under threat again. MSNBC Keith Olbermann reported that this pattern has occurred at least 13 times before. I'll follow the President - as long as the threat is real(like a hurricane real) and he does not cry wolf. If this happens too many more times, when it does happen - I may be one who questions if it was caused Al-Qaida or disappointed Neo-Cons.

Issue:Rhetorical evidence of the Right Wing in pursuit of 1 party rule: power for the sake of power only - or - what state of society will satisfy this group?

Source:Wynton C. Hall on Harriet Miers, Supreme Court & 2006 on National Review Online:

Specific:"Virtually any of the usual names discussed ? Michael Luttig, Janice Rogers Brown, Mike McConnell, Priscilla Owens, etc. ? would have sent a clear signal to conservatives that Bush was still fighting their cause, that the licking of fundraising envelopes and endless precinct walking had all not been in vain.
But this threatens that. "

Comment: This comment evokes a sense of entitlement of the neo-conservatives. They feel their "due" is more important than what is good or best for the people. This is mindset in the Republican party that is not of my father's party.

They have the White House, The House, Senate and now the second Supreme court nomination. They have a justified war. They have lowered taxes and a good business cycle. How much more do "they" want? What else is there to want? It is this point that leads to my fear of this ideology in the republican party. That a group of people with all of this control of the country - and yet they feel entitled to more?

And yet it goes even further and deeper. Joe Scarborough gave voice to an opinion of the right to Katie Couric that I've heard a number of times in the past several days. The opinion is one of aggressive hostility. The opinion is that "they want the fight" "They want the nuclear option". The people of the party in control, whose ideology is in control still want "a fight".

What is wrong with this picture? Who or what are they fighting? Why is a fight good for the country right now after Katrina, Rita and high gas prices?

My new conclusion - is that this group is demostrating a pattern that can only lead to soviet style one-party rule and domination and cultural control and stagnation.

I am open minded. I've just finished Walter Isaacsons "Ben Franklin" and in college I've read about communism and the Koran. I am a fan of science fiction, so using my imagination to play out different social visions comes easily to me.

And yet I can't find a different social vision. This "they" - the controlling element of the Republican party - the neo-cons - want to drive the culture back to a time before all of the technological advances enabled their fiscal, social and consequently political power. They want the technology of the 90's and the culture of the fifty or earlier. Somehow they cannot realize that their is a connection that cannot be separated.

The constitution cannot be strictly adhered. The reason is simple - change. We a fifty different states - not 13 colonies. This nation has weapons enough to destroy the planet and yet the party that was fairly elected wants a strict adherence to a document written for and by a society, as if Old Ironsides, not the USS Ronald Reagan was the most powerful ship on the sea.

If "they" are not looking for 1 party rule, then there is an final agenda or a state of society that is being hidden - what is it?

What do they want from us?

Issue:CNN.com - Judge: Priest?likely killed two people in 2002 - Oct 3, 2005 - a possible good to come out of this?:

Specific:"Although Erickson cannot be charged, the victims' families requested the hearing to determine who was responsible for the killings.
The so-called John Doe hearing is used in only a few states, typically as an investigative tool. The hearing was closed to the public, but some reporters were allowed to attend."

Comment:Are there other uses or functionalities of a "John Doe" Hearing? Do other states have these? Could these be legally sanctioned for legal/partisan disputes?

Wow quite a bit has happened since the last time I wrote. There was Katrina and Rita, Justice Roberts, Tom Delay's indictment, Bill Frist's investigation, Judy Miller's release and testimony before the Grand Jury, and let's not the gambling hypocritical conversative Bill Bennett's comments. Where do I begin.

The question of federalism is an interesting starting point. This came up during the Katrina response. The functionality of governance was brought into question because of a Republican administration. This Neo-Con Republican administration pattern of the pursuit of power was highlighted recently by the suggestion that it was ok not to rebuild N.O. because it meant that those who came back would be better off financially and therefore more likely to be Republican.

Republicans do not hesitate to remind Democrats that the people decide to allow others to make the decisions, and therefore America is a Republic. We are not a direct democracy, so that if the people don't like the decision or lack thereof - they can be damned - until the next election. So they say.

This is true but does it absolve the individual of the responsibility to be engaged in some way? Can it be said of the N.O. levee's that not enough people were properly engaged - aisde from being informed. The American society did not properly take care of the people of N.O. 9th ward - before, during or after the hurricanes.