Issue:Is Justice Scalia a Neo-Con? The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Scalia's recusal sought in Guant�namo case: "In a letter delivered to the court late Monday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's remarks on March 8 to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was 'crazy' to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a 'full jury trial,' and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba."

Address: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002894066_scalia28.html

Issue:Is the Neo-Cons and the Administration use the former Soviet style in foreign affairs? Shiites Say U.S. Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside - New York Times:

Specific:"Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush 'doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept' Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister"

Comment: When you combine this kind of behavior with the reaction to the Afghan who converted to Christianity, is the question or comparision unfair. What is the historical factor I am missing that makes the comparison invalid?

Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/international/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1144213200&en=d678b720829aa95b&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Issue:Goes to the notion of power vs Braveheart quote Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says - New York Times:

Specific: "During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times."

Comment: There is a line in the movie BraveHeart by Mel Gibson, that is relevant. "You believe the people exist to give you position. Your position exists to provide for the people".

When I speak of the "notion" of power, that the president is power hungry, I am not referencing the obvious political necessity of support persay. I don't know that it is a particularly Democratic party ideal. The JFK qoute comes to mind - "ask not what your country...". But it is not about partisanship.

This article if true, goes to a assumption of power that is unwarranted and intimidating. The Dubai ports deal is an another indication of the insensitivity of the Administration and the Neo-Cons. So it is fair to say that it is clear that the President does not give a damn about the sentiment of American's who disagree with him.




Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ex=1144213200&en=9a4a7039bce0c3c3&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Issue:If anyone can say this it is a news man - Broadcaster says serious news at risk:

Specific:"'Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news,' said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News."

Comment: Where does the "truth" come from these days? Topics can be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, and yet be lacking truth. This can be the case when truth is ommitted. What is truth? this questions should be explored by the body politic yet again. Imagine if the Fox news dedicated the time it spent on Natalee Holloway's disappearance - since May of '05 to current reports - on the many aspects of truth.

It seems that opinion and not truth is what matters to FOX. Opinion is not a subset of truth. Opinion is the expression of a set of ideas and fact that the individual accepts as accurate and therefore deemed to be a truth - but only for one. It is in my humble opinion that a Truth it requires agreement among many.

The existence of many individuals expressing a synchronocity with a set of ideas and facts that make a truth with which society can deal.

I like Aaron Brown.

Address: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html

Issue:The king of the bait and switch - CNN.com - White House?steps up defense of?domestic eavesdropping - Jan 23, 2006:

Specific: "'I'm mindful of your civil liberties, "

Comment: I am glad the President is "mindful". But just as he "doesn't read". Civil Liberties was not the issue people were concerned about. It was the void where an explanation belongs. Why is a 72 hrs after a wiretap has been started not enough time to get a warrant? After 4 years, why as he not corrected the issue? If this is so necessary and valuable - what stopped them from using it to catch the 9/11 attackers?

Please do not think that I am surprised or outraged. This is the new reality. I like truth or honesty from my President's. I am concerned about the next Nixon or other President who want to extend his even more. I am concerned about the neo-con supporting cast of the administration.

I'm waiting for the day when the revelation of a political operation using this information is ignored.

In the current environment Watergate was not a crime.

The premise that in a time of War Presidents has no limits, is only valid when the battle is active and visible on American soil - like the civil war. This conflict is not at that level.

But what if the war is invisible and never ends? Like Korea - perhaps President Bush doesn't need to defend himself because we are still in a technical state of war with North Korea. Who needs a new war?

Address: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html

Issue:A good example of the Twisted Right - Nation...

Issue:
A good example of the Twisted Right - National Review Book Service: The War on Christmas by John Gibson:

Specific:"Happy holidays!' Every time a supermarket checker or store clerk greets you with those words instead of 'Merry Christmas,' you have met another soldier in the war against Christmas. Secularists are bent on imposing upon us a neutered, secular winter holiday that throws out every trace of Christianity from the public observance of Christmas. It's all necessary, they tell us, to avoid offending non-Christians and, above all, to keep from violating the all-important separation of church and state. Meanwhile, Christians in America are increasingly marginalized and shunted aside."

Comment:This is a non-problem. But this kind of hyperbole needs to be examinined to expose the gaps in it's logic. Once the gaps are revealed then it can be acknowledged and discredited just as the debate on intelligent design. This kind of rhetoric or flawed logic is the kind the controlling cabal of the Republican party uses to defend America and the war in Iraq.

The "Supermarket checker" is not a securalist warrior when he greets with "Happy Holiday's". He or she is a teenager. Working as a clerk is probably one their first jobs. They are under stress because they have finals coming up or a big important event - in addition to Christmas. The cash the make is of greater value to them in the moment than it will later in life. They have a great many more things on their minds than many adults. Teenagers are aware that we live in an age of many different cultures, customs and traditions. They are probably more intent on being non-offensive to the customer than they are of making the sale. The clerk's manager is is probably too busy to give his staff direction on this fine a point. Beyond asking them to be polite and smile, the likely hood of managerial pressure to use one form of greeting over another is minimal. So when the "store clerk" makes this greeting, it is because the logic of choosing a greeting that is least likely to offend is clear.

There is no separation of "church and state" involved in the interpersonal transaction or the financial transaction. Politics are not a part of it. Perhaps politics can be a part of the transaction in the context of taxes or if both parties have some prior personal history. But the average supermarket check out sequence does not involve politics or religion.

It almost sound like a conspiracy against Christmas? It can't be people being caring and polite.

As to the "Meanwhile, Christians in America are increasingly marginalized and shunted aside." comment - this makes me do a double take. The President is evangelical born again Christian. The Republican Party is his party. The Republicans control both houses of Congress and is responsible for seating most of the Supreme Court. When I surf my local cable channels, there are at least a half dozen CBN (Christian Broadcast Network) channels. The leader of a major Christian group - Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of a foreign leader - without penalty from either God or the state department. And we are to accept the statement that Christians are MARGINALIZED and SHUNTED?!?!?!? - it hurts my head.

So when Bill O'Reilly takes on this cause I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised in his use of flawed logic. His motto is the "no-spin zone" yet acknowledges and defends his far right show of opinions. He does not recognize that Opinion is spin. President Bush, the neo-cons, the Fox network will be recalled by historians as having flawed logic.

Even if the Iraq adventure succeeds in bringing a peace to the middle east, it will not be attributed to this regime's impeccable use of logic and reasoning. They may have facts, a sense of conviction, a dedication and loyalty to their cause. Their cause may take the day, but historians cannot look back on this time and have a consensus that reasoned logic was what made it happen. Logic has a timeless nature and quality. Missing WMD, opinionated "no-spin zones" are not examples of logic and reason. Perhaps they are of intelligent design.

Future historians cannot avoid it any more than Bill Clinton's biographer can ignore his impeachment. Not even revisionists.

ISBN#: 1595230165

Address: http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6824

Comment: There is a key point for the NSA surveillance that I don't understand. Why is the tap-now-approve-within-72hrs not fast enough? How can this be too much of a delay. How is it a delay?

This points to the key problem I have with this President as a person. Much of his logic is flawed. His policies are based on his logic and reasoning.

His personal secretiveness does not serve him well because his logic and reasoning is inadequate. If his logic and reasoning was consistent, then his secrectiveness would be acceptable and a virtue.

Instead it give the notion that he is constantly hiding something he did wrong. It is simply a matter of finding and deciding what it was - Katrina, WMD, Valerie Plame? But that is right, this man does not make mistakes.

Or is it possible that he is showing signs of true guilt about those past mistakes by attempting to appear strong on this issue?

Issue:What about the next Nixon? - NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance:

Specific:"has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said."

Comment:The surveillance is not so much the concern. It is the logic and reasoning used with the information gathered. It is the competence of those handling the information - this time and in the future. These are items for the debate.

What is the guarantee that information gathered was not used in political objectives? What is/are the guarantee that the information gathered is not used in enabling large corporation to gain advantage in the "flat" world?

In a slightly different issue. There is some discussion about "Attack Prevention". It has been said that the value of this kind of surveillance has been proven, but it would be a violation of national security to make the case. Well, to this old software developer this rings of the old "Zero bug initiative". This is a management technique used to prove to other management, that their house is in order. But it is a paradox and a myth.

The state of having "zero bugs" in a software program cannot exist. "Zero Bugs" is in actuality a social communication. It the sociological mechanism that specifies and limits the uses and confines the environment within which a software application is run. So if an application has zero bugs on an Intel Chip machine, running on XP - is run on old Apple Mac - it will fail. So where is the error? Is that developer didn't design it properly? Is that the Manager allowed the client to run it on an Apple? Is it with the client for actually running where he knew it couldn't run? Many of those answers depend on the cash and power positions of the players. The reality of a state of zero bugs does not exist.

So, translate this to the War on terror. Can we be truly safe? For there will always be terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic and not a ideology. Therefore, those who oppose the war today can be classified as a threat to national security tomorrow, just because the President decides as much.

There will always be people willing to blow up the American people. Some will Americans - like in Oklahoma and others will be non-Americans. Should we give up our rights of governance to any Presidency, to simply protect us? This President is selling "we the people" - the end users of the software system called Democracy - an application that has "zero bugs".

Americans will and do die. They will die at the hands of other people. These future civilian and innocent death will be unjust deaths. They will be tragic. These future deaths are now unavoidable and certain. The only real question is the definition of the bad guy - who is to blame. The questions of when and how are basically irrelevant. History won't care about that. The leader when it happens won't care. They will predictably seek to avoid the blame.

The key is the qualities and nature of those who survive. America and American Democracy can survive for thousands of years. But only if fundamental assumptions can withstand the demands and strains of temporary and short term conditions.

If the War on Terror is allowed to "conquer" and dominate the world in the name of protecting ourselves, oppositional forces will bring it down and eliminate our culture - eventually. President Bush has indicated that Iran, Syria and Korea are an "axis of evil". Evil is to only be conquered. Evil is not something to be tolerated.

Democracy is a religion in that it must be accepted willingly and it cannot be forced on a population. It is an ideal. It is an idea. A democractic "dogma" will cause participants to overlook details and create vulernabilities through which terrorist to exploit.

The truest and most securing long term tactic is the involvement of the individual. Democracy is time consuming. If you fill the time of day of potential terrorist with the activities that motivates them, they will be less inclined to act out.

That's enough for now.

Address:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100808.html?nav=hcmodule

Issue:Could be an opportunity for VDSS - Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/22/2005 | Democrats: Machines must get vote:

Specific: "Jordan B. Yeager, an attorney for the Democratic Committee, told the commissioners at yesterday's year-end meeting in Doylestown that the state election code and the state constitution require the referendum."


Comment: Maybe a call is in order.

A Few obeservations with using a bit of emotional intelligence:

Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.

-------

I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.

It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.

This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.

The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.

It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.

Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.

Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.

The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.

Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.

Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.

Issue:Credibility of the President - Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls - New York Times:

Specific:"without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases"

Comment:What are the preventive measures to stop the President from changing the definitions of who is a threat to national security - as Richard Nixon did as part of the Watergate scandal. What is to stop the President from using the results of this power for purely domestic purposes? When does the opponent of his policy become a threat to national security?

Issue:The best explanation I've heard - What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics | csmonitor.com:

Specific:"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."

Issue:Consequences - What Consequences? CNN.com - Transcript of Bush speech - Dec 18, 2005:


Specific: "I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. "

Comment:The man does not have to face a re-election. The Judicial Branch has minds sympathetic to his political philosophy. Congress is controlled by his party. When he leaves office, he will have health care and personal protection for the rest of his life.

What consequences could he imagine? What is a threat ? He has proven time and again that he is not swayed by polls. He as indicated that he doesn't make mistakes. There is the questions about his reading/news habits. Either he is in touch with the news and lied about not reading the papers or actually is in the "Bubble" that Newsweek perceives and is not getting all the information. He has a network dedicated to spinning news to being favorable to him.

What consequences?

The line for the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind in combination with executive order to spy on American. "..Badges??, we don't need to stinking Badges..."


Address:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html

Issue:Material to Remember when reading about the surveillance story - George Bush and God A hot line to heaven Economist.com:

Specific: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president. "

Comment:To what ends will someone who holds such a belief go to identify enemies and protect what he believes needs protecting?

Evaluate the logic in the Valeire Plame story and Bob Novak's recent revelations, in combination with the President's faith and the surveillance story. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the War on Terrorism and Iraq is motivated for reasons other than the protection of the American people?

Remember, New Orleans was a democratic town, and the rebuilding is still a second tier consideration for the administration in terms of dollars. The President didn't cause it in anyway. He has not responsibility for rebuilding it - except that he pledged that he would.

The War effort is rumored to get another 150 billion dollars to the 3.1 Billion that New Orleans is getting.

What are the true motivations of this President and administration. He is having credibility issues and the logic of his policies are not synchronized to making sense.

--------------
Address: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861"

Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: Drudge is a NEO-CON sympathizer - Is the Cold War Over?

Specific: "NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers 'news break' is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that 'months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.'

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking' stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration' is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing... "


COMMENT:The observation is that Drudge is more alarmed that the NYT didn't reveal something than he is of the Federal Government not revealing something. He is more concerned about the power of the NYT, than the power of the Federal Government.

This suggests that he is less concerned about the "body politic" the individuals than the government.

A theme that I've seen else, but was less inclined to accept, is the notion that the middle class is under attack. This presentation by Mr. Drudge and this policy of surveillance combined with the Administration secretiveness suggest a social category is indeed under attack.

The elevation of concern about China's market by financial media elites supports a notion that maybe the neo-con feels that the need to clear out the American middle-class in order to make room for the rise of a Global middle-class to be dominated by foreign markets like China. Perhaps Corporate American board room feel they can maintain growth by courting the markets of the developing world - like Inda and China.

Perhaps the cold war is not over - but it simply partner have changed. Who brung ya to the dance is not who you go home with.

-----------------
Address:"http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm"

Issue:Credibility - Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - New York Times

Specific: "Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications"

Comment: There are 2 aspects of this that are troubling. First and foremost is that it was without judicial branch supervision. The President did not feel encumbered by any sense of check or balance. The other is that it has been 3 years it has been going on.

Remeber, this is an administration that has been inclined towards propaganda and disinformation. So, when after 3 years, we NOW find out that about the surveillance - is it reasonable to believe that it was ONLY international calls?

I recognize that "conspiracy" thinking can enables one to jump to conclusions too soon. That is a bad thing to do. To be avoided. Let's face it, even the President did that concerning WMD. Oh, excuse me - he had faulty intelligence.

But it is worth noting that social click's do exist. Social groups don't have to be secretive to not share information. They simply do not communicate. So as I have suggested on past occasions, there could be a social group that happen to be in control of both the federal government and a popular political party - that simply does not communicate. The Neo-Cons could be should a group.

Is this group something to be discussed? Just not over the phone. Where can one have privacy?

Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Commentary on the President's most recent Iraq speech

I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.

In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.

These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.

Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?

The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?

Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?

Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.

Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.

We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?

It goes to control.

It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.

What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?

The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?

It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.

A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.

Issue:Bush Acknowledges Heavy Toll in Iraq - New York Times - but is that the point of my opposition?:

Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"

Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.

There is a price.

Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.

Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?

30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.

Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.

It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.

If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.

Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?

This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.

President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.

For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate

--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Issue:Characterisitic attiude of the element controlling the Republican Party -courant.com | Ann Coulter Cuts University Speech Short :

Specific:"'I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,' Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday. "

Comment: This is another indication of the character of the neo-con elements that are in control of the Republican party, White House and Congress.

Yes, she was indeed being heckled. I don't mind that she took a shot back. The character flaw is that it lacked humor and bite. It was a demonstration of a lack of thought that is the flaw.

If this was her first experience confronting a hostile crowd, a lack of thought would be understandable. But she has been out there for some time. It is clear that she is indifferent to what other think or feel about her opinion. This is characteristic of the controlling element of the Republican party.

Issue:Show Me the Science - The Archive - The New York Times

Specific: "Only an intelligent designer could have created such a..."

Comment: The advocates of "intelligent designer" are simply Earth focused. There are some observations from Astronomy that need to be addressed by these advocates.

Observation 1: The number of stars burning in the visible Universe is greater that number of human that ever lived. Even the most passionate advocate for God, believes that the stars are real. Is there something to be said about the priorities of the creation humanity and the creation of stars. Even the bible states that man was not created first - it was light - and presumably that means the stars - all of the stars. Is it reasonable to ask if there is purpose or function for creating so much for so little return?

Observation 2: Does the theory of "Intelligent Design" rule out the possibility that life on Earth was seeded? Perhaps a comet or asteroid impact? Is it so far reaching to think that the elements of life remained separated in a ball of ice, until the heat and pressures of an impact, initiated a sequence?

Observation 3: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer.

Observation 4: Without stating that life exists on other worlds, "intelligent design" does not require that a single designer with divinity.