Optional

Sort of. The fact that he lost the popular vote and only won the electoral vot under very peculiar and some would say suspicious circumstances would indicate somewhat less than a ringing endorsement. But no matter, moving on...

Except that none of these actions are making us one jot or tittle safer. Terrorists can not be stopped by security, if they are truly determined. They can not be stopped by military means. They can only be stopped short-term by police action, multilateral action by the combined police and intelligence of the entire world. Bush has managed to dramatically weaken diplomatic ties between the US and nearly every other country on earth, thereby weakening any multilateral police effort, and making us as a whole LESS SAFE.

Terrorism can only be stopped long term by correcting the conditions that led to the existence of the terrorists in the first place. This calls for diplomacy, aid, and complete overhaul of foreign policy. Instead, bush engaged us in one more meddlesome adventure in the mid-east, extending and dramatically increasing the conditions the led to the terrorists, making us as a whole LESS SAFE.

Well, I'm unfamiliar with the history of most of the countries he listed, but I am very familiar with the case of Chile. In that case, it was indeed a true and fully functioning democracy. We toppled it because polls were showing that the next president was going to be a communist. Before you say it, the two are NOT in fact incompatable, communism is the opposite of capitalism, not democracy.

Whether you believe it or not, it's true. The reach of the democratic government we installed in afghanistan is not much greater than the city limits of the capital.... The rest of the country is indeed in the hands of the warlords. Although that's changing... These days it looks like the Taliban are on their way back up.

First of all, I don't believe those numbers are correct. I could be wrong, but I think somewhere near 70% was about his peak. Nevertheless, whatever the numbers are, they are misleading, I think. He has gained this approval rating mostly through blatantly lying to the american public.

How many of those 70% believe that saddam was involved in or even directly behind 911, and thus approve of bush's war as a measure of revenge? How many believe that WMDs have, in fact, been found, thus justifying the war? How many understand the fact that if 'liberation' was indeed our only reason for war, we've broken international law, and a number of treaties signed by us?

What would bush's approval ratings be if everybody knew and understood exactly what the hell has been going on for the past two years?

-me

Optional

Depends on what you mean by 'mold society'... They have every right to put as much social pressure on society as they can muster. They do NOT have the right to have laws changed to suit them and their morality.

Culture, yes. Law, no.

No, sorry, wrong. Neither homosexuals nor methodist mothers have the right to dictate what is taught in a public school. That is a matter of law, and should not and can not be a political bat with which to indoctrinate kids in ANY belief.

Anything you want to teach your kids of a moral or lifestyle or ethical nature, you can teach em, at home, or at church.

If you absolutely MUST have your kid indoctrinated with a particular belief, feel free to put them in private school, or home school. Public schools are not the place for the opinions of ANY group, left right center or other.

As long as we're talking society here, and not law, I agree completely. And it is precisely THAT which I object to in the soccermomandbabtistminister crowd, their attempt to remold society in a kid-friendly manner, to make everywhere in the country a McTouristAttraction. We need our Disney Worlds, our Family Fun Parks, our soccer fields, our churches. But we also need our Las Vegas's, our New Orleans's, our Times Squares, our San Francisco Gay Pride Parades, our lap dancers and adult movie actress's. We need ALL of it, and I *HATE* the current attempt to McKidFriendly the US!

-me

Loren Pechtel

It's not just here but anywhere. Big blocks of text like that are *HARD* to follow, especially for people like me running 1280x1024 and merely normal fonts. The monitor is big enough it's perfectly readable but there are a lot of words per line. If it were any other forum I would simply have skipped your messages.

Loren Pechtel

You are contradicting yourself here.

Ok, at first you say we should have our freedom of speech. Fine. However, you then go on to say that what's shown should be a matter for the majority of the community to decide.

The whole point of free speech is to protect *UNPOPULAR* speech. About the only case in which popular speech is challenged is when it's in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendmant.

What's legal to show is in no way an issue for the majority to vote on. If one person wants to say something and 999 object he should still be allowed to say it.

Evangelion

No worries, mate.

It's just that a totally unformatted paragraph is very difficult to read at the best of times, and especially when you're running a resolution of 1600x1200 @ 85 Hz - as I am.

Ultron

Oh really? Who are you to tell them what they can vote for, and what they cannot? What next? Tell them what to say and what not to say? How would you enfore silencing these people, or preventing them from voting?

So mothers and gays don't have the right to vote now?

fornuften

Optional

you brought up some interesting points in your response to my comments on the state of democracy in the U.S. However, you mention that none of the actions taken to curtail the efforts of terrorists (arrests, the war in Iraq etc) have made us at all safer. I disagree.

I do agree with the fact that not ALL terrorist actions can be stopped and that not ALL of our citizens can be totally secure 100% of the time. However, the homeland security measures taken HAVE in fact improved the security of our country whether we see it publicly or not.

I believe, for a recent example, that the very fact that we have NOT been the victims of a terrorist attack during the short term of the campaign in Iraq stands as a testament to the effectiveness of the security measures implemented. One could argue that maybe no attacks were planned, however, I believe that if Islamic Terrorists were to attack us at any sort of "justified" time, it would have been during the campaign in Iraq when they would have received the most "support" from Arabic nations opposing the war.

Unfortunately, the American public likes to have open, publicly accounted for, immediate results as the result of policies inacted by the government. The public at large likes to have results "now" and "fast." The war on terrorism is a silent one where the large majority of victories will never be heralded and almost none of the heroes will be welcomed home with the flags and banners and CNN coverage that the navy seamen and officers who returned home today received. Remember, just cause you can't see it or have it now doesn't mean that it doesn't work or that it isn't worth it.

In regards to the campaign in Iraq: will it stop terrorism? No. There will be no end to the war on terror as long as we clumsy, and terribly imperfect human beings are in charge here. No single battle or event will signal the end of the threats. Will the war on Iraq hinder the ability of terrorists to inflict mass casualties through the use of weapons of mass destruction? Absolutely.

Now, before you argue about the existence of WMD's, let's remember that the opposition to the war was never about whether or not the former Iraqi regime had WMD's, it was about how to deal with their possesion of them; in other words, how to disarm Iraq. Is Iraq a threat? Almost ever nation on earth agreed about that, including France, Russia and Germany. Does Iraq need to be disarmed? Almost every nation in the world and the U.N. agreed about that, including the above mentioned specific nations, as was manifest in the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441. In order to disarm, one must be armed first. Almost the whole world recognized that Iraq had WMD's. Those who claim otherwise are in the very small minority. The only question in debate over Iraq was the question of HOW to disarm them.

You mention that one of the effects of our decision to go to war is that it hurt our much needed diplomatic ties with other countries. Here, I paritally agree with you. However, the United States had a group of around 40 countries who supported the war openly with another, smaller group who supported it privately. Whether or not they contributed military forces to the conflict is not the question because it is, after all, diplomatic, not military support that we are talking about here. Yes, the damage to our relationships with other nations, i.e. Fr, Ger, Russ, is not a desirable thing but you have to weigh two evils. To let the very organization that was set up to protect us and others (the U.N.) be the very tool by which nations opposing us can deprive us of our right to defend ourselves is wrong, regardless of what the diplomatic costs may be. The buck does not stop at the U.N. It is not world government and certainly nothing sacred in terms of diplomacy.

In addition, the more we delve into the connections of Iraq with these other nations, the more we have and will discover about the behind the scenes political/economic agendas that were motivating our international opponents. One can only assume that there is still more going on there than meets the eye.

The war on Iraq and the actions taken on the homefront are by no means "do all end all" solutions to terrorism; they are just steps along the way. While not perfect and while it is true, as you say, that we need to attack terrorism at the roots, these things are integral to our success. The war in Iraq can open the doors to democracy in Iraq, a political event that will have positive, if disrupting, influences on the region that is the bread basket and root of many of the conditions you mentioned that breed many of the world terrorist organizations. And, I am not saying that Islam is one of these, rather, the governments and social/economic/political structures at work in that part of the world.

Evangelion

Paragraph breaks! Halleluyah!

Optional

Well, in the context of freedom of speech, and in the more general context of all the rights and freedoms granted to us by our constitution...

Mmmm. Everybody certainly has a right to vote for whoever they want. Every candidate has a right to run on any platform he wants. The elected official, however, does not have a right to pass a law that would abridge one of those rights or freedoms. That is what I was trying to say when I said 'have laws passed that suits their morality'.

Well, again, everybody has the right to vote for whoever they want to. School boards, however, do NOT have the right to, say, mandate the teaching of creationism, or alternately mandate a class which explains how fun it is to be gay.

-me

fornuften

Optional,

I believe that the foundation of our differing opinions about your comments made before reflect a fundamental difference of understanding about the relation of society and the goverment, or law, that rules it.

I do not believe that it is possible to separate law and society. The two are mutually reflective. The idea that law can be objective or independent of the ideals and beliefs of those who create it is not realistic. If our politicians (the law-makers) were such people, no one would endorse their elections because they would, in turn, be endorsing no one through their creation of laws and the policies that enforce them.

As I mentioned before, you can't get away from social influences no matter who you. The notion that the government should and can be able to create a system, be it schools, parks, whatever, that does not reflect ANYONE'S values simply is to idealistic or romantic of a view ot hold up in our communal world. No matter what, some one will be influencing the laws to suit their moral sensibilities. The only measure of who does this should be the majority of voices in the given community.

Examples of this are manifest in the multitude of very diverse democracies found throughout the world. Democracy in Sweden looks very different from democracy in South Africa. Yes, there are certain principles, practices and laws that the two hold in common. But, many of the laws, escecially policy oriented laws (the real world applications of the principle-based laws) that deal with the nitty-gritty stuff like, for example, how to design and present a publicy owned place, are vastly different due to the intrinsically different natures of the two societies. The United States has one of the most diverse populations on earth and thus, one of the most socially multipolar societies in the world. There will be different views and those views will be reflected in the laws made. Law inevitably reflects society and visa versa.

In regards to schools in specific, the above applies just as much there as any where in society. The curriculums taught inevitably reflect one or more social views and moral standards. To assume otherwise is to assume that what is being taught can be neutered so as not to represent any semblance of moral point of view. There is NO such thing as objectivity here or anywhere else. Our views are ALWAYS colored by our standpoints. (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) So, what is taught in school does reflect society. If biology is taught, the teachers stance in regards to evolution is conveyed. If sex ed is taught, the very take on sexuality espoused by the school district will invariably be manifest even if, for example, abstinence and protection are taught. Saying our social institutions are free from, or even potentially free/should/can be free from social influence is like saying that the media is objective.

You also refer to the indoctrination of our children. Let me put it this way, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHILD BEING FREE FROM INDOCTRINATING FORCES. If you don't indoctrnate them with the views you hold to, the outside world will. And, what sort of "freedom of choice" does it give our children if they only here the "outside" point of view. In order to be able to make an educated decision, one must have both sides not only presented, but encouraged. Because, after all, regardless of how objective, who can truly ever put forward an idea without advertently or inadvertently advocating it one way or the other. So, why not just abandon the fake/superficial attempts at reality altogether and just realise that every one is pushing their cause and make our choices while we let our children make theirs, "indoctrinating" them as much as we can along the way because they will be getting just as much indoctrination from the outside society.

So, how do we deal with making laws that are fair and just? Well, we make laws that are the MOST fair and the MOST just for the MOST people possible. Any attempt to make everyone happy just won't work. Will such laws be objective and fair to all? No. But, they will represent, porportionately, the population of the given community. To assume that we can rise above this is to assume that their is someone absolutely objective and perfect out there who can see all sides without bias and somehow inact laws that will be fair to all. But, unfortunately, this just can't work as long as imperfect politicians and peopla in general are in charge.

So, let society represent itself through its laws in a way that is porportionately reflective of its members. You cannot separate the two.