Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by monoghan

At a minimum, this will reverberate around the advertising community and lead to lower revenues for the offenders. Layoffs, etc.

Confidence in yet another institution takes a blow.

You mean Michael Moore can lie straightface in a movie, and get rave reviews and box office to boot, but the folks who read The Los Angeles Times are gonna get upset over a few whoppers about their circulation numbers?

Get real. Only big business and the GOP get hurt by these kinds of stories. For liberals and Democrats this stuff is expected, nay demanded by the rank and file base. If anything revenues will probably go up at the Trib and Times, just like the NYT's did and Bubba's are.

The big revenue drop has come from advertisers, not readers. Of course the readers will continue to read from the hymnal, but readers do not provide the bulk of the revenue for newspapers. But if they are lying about their circulation numbers, then maybe something is happening with the readers as well.

Originally Posted by Mr. David Bromwich

Edmund Burke, the greatest British political writer of the 18th century, was
a principled opponent of wars and revolutions. Hatred of violence and love of
liberty were the central motives of his work, and sudden political change, whether
imposed from above or below, from within a country or by an external force,
inevitably produced an increase of violence and a loss of liberty. Above all,
Burke opposed wars that were entered into from choice and not necessity.

The pertinence of Burke's thinking to the crisis in Iraq, as the United States
seeks to impose a good revolution by force of arms on a large portion of the
Arab world, requires little comment in view of the startling aptness of his
words.

A "Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol," from which all of the passages
below are taken, was composed in early 1777 when Burke was a member of Parliament
from Bristol. England then appeared to be winning the war with America, yet
Burke was alarmed by the means his country employed (for example, its reliance
on mercenaries) and deeply skeptical regarding the announced purpose of the
war: the projection of British power into America in order to subdue the resistance
of the colonists. Burke recognized that King George III's prime minister, Lord
North, had consistently underestimated the number of troops that would be required.

North and his administration, the "king's men," had persuaded themselves
that America was full of friends who would welcome the stabilizing authority
of British arms as soon as a determined show of force was offered.

This was not the first mistake of North and his administration. Burke believed
that their preference for force over diplomacy had been the cause of the war.

Why did they do it?

"Let them but once get us into a war, and then their power is safe, and
an act of oblivion passed for all their misconduct."

"Has any of these gentlemen, who are so eager to govern all mankind, shown
himself possessed of the first qualification towards government, some knowledge of the object, and of the difficulties which occur in the task they have undertaken?"

"They promise their private fortunes, and they mortgage their country.

They have all the merit of volunteers, without the risk of person or charge of contribution."

"They are continually boasting of unanimity, or calling for it. But before
this unanimity can be matter either of wish or congratulation, we ought to be pretty sure that we are engaged in a rational pursuit."


By a recent act of Parliament, England had suspended the protection of habeas
corpus. Persons accused of treason in America could now be transported to England
and jailed without a chance to confront the charges against them:

"To try a man under that act is, in effect, to condemn him unheard. A
person is brought hither in the dungeon of a ship's hold; thence he is vomited
into a dungeon on land; loaded with irons, unfurnished with money, unsupported
by friends, three thousand miles from all means of calling upon or confronting
evidence, where no one local circumstance that tends to detect perjury, can possibly be judged of; ? such a person may be executed according to form, but
he can never be tried according to justice."


Burke saw a connection between the continuous violence of the war in America
and the contempt shown for civil liberties at home:

"Power in whatever hands is rarely guilty of too strict limitations on
itself."

"Not one unattacked village which was originally adverse throughout that
vast continent, has yet submitted from love or terror. You have the ground you
encamp on; and you have no more. The cantonments of your troops and your dominions
are exactly of the same extent. You spread devastation, but you do not enlarge
the sphere of authority."

Having failed to anticipate the difficulties of the war, the administration
blamed the chaotic result on militias organized by the enemies of the empire.
Burke, on the contrary, believed that the resistance was largely spontaneous,
that it was becoming more virulent because of the presence of an occupying army
and that its cause lay in human nature:

"General rebellions and revolts of an whole people never were encouraged,
now or at any time. They are always provoked."

"If any ask me what a free government is, I answer that, for any practical
purpose, it is what the people think so; and that they, and not I, are the natural,
lawful, and competent judges of this matter."

Not only the outlines but many details of Burke's analysis show an uncanny
resemblance to what critics of the Bush administration have said; so it may
be asked what deeper continuity of political life accounts for the strength
of the parallel. A tentative answer seems possible. When imperial conquest is
grafted onto the normal structures of constitutional government, the change
will produce grotesque distortions of thinking that undermine judgment and common
sense.

Look to 1777 and Learn, Mr. Bush from the 24 June 2004 number of the Los Angeles Times quoted for educational use only.

I had a dream last night.
I was at this sort of flea market/in-door fair when a troop of Jihadists dressed in gray (kind of like samurai)
invaded and started beheading everyone.
Of course I was incredibly strong and beheaded a few jihadists before I went into hiding. It was very scary.
Finally though Viggo Mortensen from Lord of the Rings led an army to take back teh flea market from the jihadists.
He kept his army encamped for days and nights until the jihadists were very, very worn out and tired.
Then he led the charge, and it was off with their heads.
Wouldn't it be nice to sneak into one of their lairs in Baghdad in Riyadh, behead the whoel bunch, and post it on their own Internet forum? :lol:
Now tell me, was that a 3T or 4T dream?

I had a dream about a deep blood red moon last night. I dont remember the circumstances of the dream, just that moon.

This is pure 4T realignment talk from someone on the Right, absolutely unheard of during the 3T. The author argues that the Democratic Party has now replaced the Republican Party as the party of small government and constitutionalism. Furthermore, the author attaches great significance to the upcoming election as a watershed. A guy on the Right actually cites the rhetoric of Al Gore in defense of small government and the Constitution in so far as it is now Democrats, and no longer Republicans, who routinely cite the Founding Fathers. Heretofore, this was absolutely unheard of.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts54.html

(Standard disclaimer. Emphasis added.)


Role Reversal

by Paul Craig Roberts


Since 1932 Democrats have been so confident of the inherent virtue of government that they have been willing to trust any amount of power to it. The liberal agenda boiled down to the growth of government power.

Republicans were the naysayers, forever quoting the Founding Fathers? warnings that government power meant liberty?s demise.

The administration of President George W. Bush has brought a reversal of these positions. Conservative Republicans argue that government can be trusted with any amount of power in the war against terrorism. Habeas corpus, the attorney-client privilege, due process ? indeed, the full range of constitutional rights ? have been set aside as obstacles to the war on terrorism.

Patriotic citizens have nothing to fear, say the conservatives, as the police state methods will only be employed against terrorists.

Such assurances have always proven false.

We were assured that the war against the Mafia required a new power to freeze a suspect?s assets and that the draconian power would only be used against gangsters. The new power quickly spread everywhere, even into divorce cases.

We were promised that the asset confiscations employed in the war against drugs would only be used on drug lords. When I last looked in 2000 there were 140 federal crimes that permitted asset forfeiture, and the practice had spread into state law. Some states permit asset confiscation for every felony on the books.

The war on terror has brought an even more rapid growth in arbitrary, unaccountable police power, as every airline passenger knows. Lowly airport security personnel can put citizens who object to an intrusive search or have an "attitude" on no-fly lists. A kid with a toy water pistol in his carryon bag can be detained. Citizens can be fined if airport security arbitrarily rules that an item in a carryon bag is "inappropriate." One bride returning from her wedding was fined $150 for having a silver cake server in her bag. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

President Bush?s war on terror has resulted in the greatest growth in police state powers since Adolf Hitler subverted German democracy. Republicans cheer this growth as necessary to our safety. It is the Democrats who are having second thoughts.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa), the Constitution?s greatest ? and perhaps only ? defender in the US government, early warned that elements in the Bush administration were using deception to manufacture an Iraq crisis. The consequences would be dire, Byrd predicted. The US would cease to be perceived as peacemaker and be seen as warmonger. To facilitate its conduct of war, Byrd warned that the Bush administration would seek to reduce the powers of Congress and the rights of citizens.

In his June 24 speech at Georgetown University Law Center, Vice President Al Gore detailed the extent to which President Bush has unbalanced the balance of powers and destroyed the US Constitution by his claim to executive dictatorship.

President Bush, backed by the Department of Justice (sic) has assumed the power to label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," to arrest and imprison the citizen, hold him in secrecy without the right to see a lawyer and without the necessity of charging him with a crime, and to authorize his torture.

President Bush has asserted the power to invade any nation on earth subject only to his decision.

President Bush has merged his role of president with commander-in-chief in order to claim that he is above the law.

Republicans are pleased with Bush?s role as Caesar, arguing that unconstitutional power is necessary to fight the war against terrorism. Conservative media such as Fox News, National Review, Weekly Standard, and the Wall St Journal editorial page glorify Bush?s exercise of illegitimate powers.

It is Al Gore, not conservative Republicans, who invokes George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison. It is Al Gore who says, "We cannot depend upon a debased Department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots," who are determined to create a presidency unconstrained by law or the Constitution, the better to impose their political will.

Are we witnessing an American version of the Reichstag fire in which dictatorial powers are created and civil rights subverted in the name of crisis? Can the Bush administration be held accountable for unprecedented lies and deceptions? Will the newly asserted powers of the executive survive Bush?s administration and permanently unbalance the balance of powers?

The stakes for liberty and political accountability have never been higher than they will be in November.

June 29, 2004

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Another voice from the Right senses that the time is right for a 4T realigning election, even if Kerry is an empty suit. He urges Kerry to at least adopt consistent Jeffersonian "small constitutional government" rhetoric as even opportunistic Jeffersonian rhetoric should be sufficient to expel the Bush people and their power-consolidating, liberty-destroying Big Government program.

... As far as advocates of small, peaceful, unobtrusive government are concerned, the two major political parties have nothing much to offer. And given the major parties' dominance of the political system, small-government types might as well sleep-in on Election Day.

As distasteful as the choice presented by the major presidential contenders is, it's not entirely hopeless. While George W. Bush is unlikely to change his tune ? after all, he's in the White House and has already won a following as the Nero of American politics ? there's still hope for Kerry. Kerry's campaign has so far failed to catch fire; he can probably be best characterized as the candidate less likely to use dog collars on prisoners of war ? or at least less likely to allow the torture to be videotaped. As important as that distinction is to prisoners of war, it's not enough to win a national election.

John Kerry should go back to his party's long-lost roots. With Bush well-established on modern Democratic ground with bloated budgets and a social program for every interest group, Kerry has an opportunity to return to the Jeffersonian foundation of the Democratic Party and become the champion of small government and personal liberty.

Kerry may make an unconvincing convert to peace and freedom, but what he's doing now isn't working. Even an opportunistic commitment to a different philosophy of governing would offer Americans a choice, and possibly win Kerry the White House. Then, just maybe, we wouldn't be doomed to a future of ever-bigger government.


Could Kerry Be the Small-Government Candidate?

by J.D. Tuccille

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/tuccille-jd2.html

Originally Posted by monoghan

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Dear Sir,

As an Ohioan, are you too troubled by my lack of a Progressive Platform, my failure to put forward a Five Year Plan?

I have only had this complaint from others in your state (save a long ago plea from a member of the CPUSA during the Awakening; he too was much exercised by my lack of an architectured scaffold on which the future might be executed. He expired and was at that funereal time an exponent of the North Korean path to Progress; any plan it seemed to him was better than no plan at all.) Do other regions of the Nation put so much stock in Programs and Platforms? The Democrat Party and the Grand Old Party seem to have them; but the Democrats and Republicans do not put them into use.

Yo. Wayward Sv.

Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by monoghan

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Hehe. So Scalia dissented when the majority of this Republican court, in unbelievable (but not at all suprising) arrogance, casually set aside the clear letter of the law in the Bill of Rights in ruling that the Bush administration (and all future administrations) may hold American citizens indefinitely without charge? The justices proclaim: "We don' need no steenking Constitution!" And, in this instance, Scalia was the brake on the "enthusiasm" of the majority of this Republican court? Even if true, Scalia's longstanding disregard for the Fourth Amendment destroys any credibility he might have. I do not see him making a stand in defense of the Founding Fathers and constitutional government.

BTW, how did Thomas rule on these things? Do you know?

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by monoghan

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Hehe. So Scalia dissented when the majority of this Republican court, in unbelievable (but not at all suprising) arrogance, casually set aside the clear letter of the law in the Bill of Rights in ruling that the Bush administration (and all future administrations) may hold American citizens indefinitely without charge? The justices proclaim: "We don' need no steenking Constitution!" And, in this instance, Scalia was the brake on the "enthusiasm" of the majority of this Republican court? Even if true, Scalia's longstanding disregard for the Fourth Amendment destroys any credibility he might have. I do not see him making a stand in defense of the Founding Fathers and constitutional government.

BTW, how did Thomas rule on these things? Do you know?

Thomas ruled with the administration straight down the ticket. This was one of the few times that Scalia and Thomas have not voted in tandem. The old saw was that "Thomas thinks with Scalia's brain." Wonder if this has to do with jockeying for Rehnquist's job.

To the extent that the Court addresses fundamental constitutional issues, rather than the gloss imposed since the Warren/Burger courts, then Scalia's views would dissent from what an newly expansive government may want. He really does think that certain things should be decided by the legislature and not the court. Failure to charge Padilla for two years, absent clear congressional authority, was unconstitutional in his view. And rightly decided by him, in my view.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by monoghan

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Dear Sir,

As an Ohioan, are you too troubled by my lack of a Progressive Platform, my failure to put forward a Five Year Plan?

I have only had this complaint from others in your state (save a long ago plea from a member of the CPUSA during the Awakening; he too was much exercised by my lack of an architectured scaffold on which the future might be executed. He expired and was at that funereal time an exponent of the North Korean path to Progress; any plan it seemed to him was better than no plan at all.) Do other regions of the Nation put so much stock in Programs and Platforms? The Democrat Party and the Grand Old Party seem to have them; but the Democrats and Republicans do not put them into use.

Yo. Wayward Sv.

Virgil K. Saari

I cannot speak for others from my state. We are currently conducting an experiment on a Four Year Plan of operating a state of the union without a governor. (While a personage from an old political family was elected to that position, he says nothing and does less.)

Your observation that the major political parties have platforms which their members ignore, may also indicate that we are further into the 4T. The authors' thesis was, I believe, that leaders get to change their minds and the public doesn't care, so long as the leaders do something. To the extent that you hold or don't hold such a view is irrelevant since I do not believe that you hold yourself out to be a bellweather for the nation. A conscience, perhaps, but not a bellweather.

I am unaware of any native Ohioan tendency to seek out Five Year Plans in others, unless you have been afflicted with unsolicited calls from part time retirement planners in this state. In that case, I urge you to sign the national 'do not call' registry.

I

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

Originally Posted by monoghan

That is curious, Seadog, just like Justice Scalia's defense of constitutional liberty in time of war yesterday.

So if S&H are right about the public willingness to let the government address the big issues in the 4T, doesn't that mean that the Democrats are choosing the losing position this time around? They'll have Scalia on their side this time, perhaps.

Hehe. So Scalia dissented when the majority of this Republican court, in unbelievable (but not at all suprising) arrogance, casually set aside the clear letter of the law in the Bill of Rights in ruling that the Bush administration (and all future administrations) may hold American citizens indefinitely without charge? The justices proclaim: "We don' need no steenking Constitution!" And, in this instance, Scalia was the brake on the "enthusiasm" of the majority of this Republican court? Even if true, Scalia's longstanding disregard for the Fourth Amendment destroys any credibility he might have. I do not see him making a stand in defense of the Founding Fathers and constitutional government.

BTW, how did Thomas rule on these things? Do you know?

Thomas ruled with the administration straight down the ticket. This was one of the few times that Scalia and Thomas have not voted in tandem. The old saw was that "Thomas thinks with Scalia's brain." Wonder if this has to do with jockeying for Rehnquist's job.

To the extent that the Court addresses fundamental constitutional issues, rather than the gloss imposed since the Warren/Burger courts, then Scalia's views would dissent from what an newly expansive government may want. He really does think that certain things should be decided by the legislature and not the court. Failure to charge Padilla for two years, absent clear congressional authority, was unconstitutional in his view. And rightly decided by him, in my view.

Here is a link to a color-coded chart which shows how the justices compare to each other:

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001371.html

You were absolutely correct about Thomas and I am absolutely appalled. At a minimum, any justice represented by any other word but "free" under "US Citizen / United States" needs to be impeached IMMEDIATELY and promptly removed from the bench because they voted in violation of the clear letter of the supreme law of the land, and thus are clearly unfit to sit on the bench, lacking as they clearly do proper judicial temperament. But it will never happen.... What a joke this country is! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I cannot figure out Scalia. At one time he was my hero on the Court when I would conveniently overlook his arrogant neglect of the Fourth Amendment. But he blew all claims to necessary impartiality during E2K when he led the effort to take that case the Court never should have taken. When you honestly note the chilling echoes of 1930s Germany in the vile, arrogant dictatorial actions of the Luciferian vermin in the White House, ever contemptuous as they are of Truth, the Rule of Law and constitutional limitations on their power, you have to thank Scalia more than any single person for unleashing this Luciferian scum, so devoid of conscience, upon us. The few surviving areas of constitutional application in this "commercial republic" since the New Deal have been destroyed by this Luciferian gang, and you can ultimately thank good old Scalia for that. So it is kind of hard to accept that Scalia is now a "changed man," converted to the good. I need to see more evidence...a lot more evidence.

In the meantime, which justice am I to support? Stevens? Un-friggin-believable!

Wow! That chart really underscores Thomas' position on the far right. I wonder what Senator Danforth thinks?

Scalia's dissent was not bad at all. He even implicitly convicts "Saint Abraham" (Lincoln) for unlawfully suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus when only Congress can perform that act. And he directly confronts the idiocy of O'Connor's plurality opinion. Not bad at all. Thomas was indeed way, way off the deep end, however.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/03-6696.pdf

Where would we be today if Lincoln had been constrained by this recent ruling?

Perhaps the Liberals would be quite happy, since the USA might not exist. In lieu of the USA, North America might be the dark world depicted in Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels (Guns of the South, How Few Remain, The Great War - American Front; Walk in Hell; Breakthroughs) of the War Between the States.

Alternatively, perhaps "playing fair" trumps "winning at all costs". Like disqualifying military votes to try to turn Florida for Gore, and disregarding the news organizations? recounts that "awarded" Florida to Bush for the 2000 election.

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

Where would we be today if Lincoln had been constrained by this recent ruling?

Perhaps the Liberals would be quite happy, since the USA might not exist. In lieu of the USA, North America might be the dark world depicted in Harry Turtledove's alternate history novels (Guns of the South, How Few Remain, The Great War - American Front; Walk in Hell; Breakthroughs) of the War Between the States.

Alternatively, perhaps "playing fair" trumps "winning at all costs". Like disqualifying military votes to try to turn Florida for Gore, and disregarding the news organizations’ recounts that "awarded" Florida to Bush for the 2000 election.

The only problem with your scenario is that while Bush is spouting 4T rhetoric, he's not fighting "to win at all costs". If he were, we'd have either found OBL by now or blown both Pakistan and Afghanistan off the earth trying. Instead of farting around in Iraq, he'd have taken down Saudi Arabia for attacking us on 911 and made their oil ours. Not that this would necessarily have been the best way to go, after all It's not even clear whether or not there is actually a 4T-level threat as of yet...there hasn't been even a minor terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the post-911 anthrax letters (which could mean they're doing something right, or not). Either way, while the President is talking Crisis talk, he's still fighting a Fourth Turning War in a Third Turning manner. I'm not certain what that means if he's reelected and things turn really ugly.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Either way, while the President is talking Crisis talk, he's still fighting a Fourth Turning War in a Third Turning manner. I'm not certain what that means if he's reelected and things turn really ugly.

Maybe he'd invade the United States (i.e., declare martial law for some reason or another)?? :wink:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

...there hasn't been even a minor terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the post-911 anthrax letters (which could mean they're doing something right, or not).

I've often wondered if the DC Snipers had any connections with the terrorist cells. Some tabloid articles (yes, on occasion, I've slummed and bought one at the supermarket) claim that John Allen Muhammed (the senior sniper) did, citing his numerous trips to the Caribbean when he was living in a homeless shelter (who paid for them) and his anti-US rhetoric.

That's another story, however...

Originally Posted by Hermione Granger

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

...there hasn't been even a minor terrorist attack on U.S. soil since the post-911 anthrax letters (which could mean they're doing something right, or not).

I've often wondered if the DC Snipers had any connections with the terrorist cells. Some tabloid articles (yes, on occasion, I've slummed and bought one at the supermarket) claim that John Allen Muhammed (the senior sniper) did, citing his numerous trips to the Caribbean when he was living in a homeless shelter (who paid for them) and his anti-US rhetoric.

That's another story, however...

One would think that Al Qaeda was at least taking notes during the whole affair: Just two fellas terrorizing the entire DC metropolitan area for a month. Imagine if Al Qaeda organized four cells of two snipers each and taught them to speak Spanish so they could blend in as Latinos. They could be placed in the New York, LA, Houston, and Chicago metropolitan areas. What a mess they could create.

The DC sniper was a convert to Islam. He was also a terrorist. Seems to me that would make him a Islamic Terrorist. He can?t be called a black terrorist, because he?s really mixed race, like most of us here in the USA.

Use Google to check the many Koran translations on-line (I like Yusef Ali?s, but any complete version will do). Look for the instructions on how to deal with non-Muslims (People of the Book & pagans). Note that the instructions are not limited to a particular group at a point in time, but are for all time.

Bush's response to the Islamic terrorists is ineffective, as shown by the lack of attacks here in the US after 9Sep01 and the anthrax letters.

The best way to fight terrorists is to lash out blindly at any country whose population includes terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, like Saudi Arabia. Too bad Winston Churchill & FDR weren't clever enough to take on Spain in 1942 instead of invading North Africa & Guadalcanal. After all, the British general who whipped Napoleon started out beating up on the French in Spain.

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

Use Google to check the many Koran translations on-line (I like Yusef Ali?s, but any complete version will do). Look for the instructions on how to deal with non-Muslims (People of the Book & pagans). Note that the instructions are not limited to a particular group at a point in time, but are for all time.

How fortunate we all are, then, that the vast majority of Muslims do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of their own holy book. :shock:

Originally Posted by NickSmoliga

The DC sniper was a convert to Islam. He was also a terrorist. Seems to me that would make him a Islamic Terrorist. He can’t be called a black terrorist, because he’s really mixed race, like most of us here in the USA.

Use Google to check the many Koran translations on-line (I like Yusef Ali’s, but any complete version will do). Look for the instructions on how to deal with non-Muslims (People of the Book & pagans). Note that the instructions are not limited to a particular group at a point in time, but are for all time.

Bush's response to the Islamic terrorists is ineffective, as shown by the lack of attacks here in the US after 9Sep01 and the anthrax letters.

The best way to fight terrorists is to lash out blindly at any country whose population includes terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, like Saudi Arabia. Too bad Winston Churchill & FDR weren't clever enough to take on Spain in 1942 instead of invading North Africa & Guadalcanal. After all, the British general who whipped Napoleon started out beating up on the French in Spain.

I don't know if I'd call Johnny Mohammed an Islamic terrorist, either...I'm not really sure how much his conversion to Islam affected his decision to do what he did. From what I've read, it seems that the D.C. Sniper was a nutcase who lashed out at the Washington area simply because his ex-wife left him and moved there. It goes without saying that he was a terrorist...all serial killers are.

I'd agree with you about the Saudis...it's no coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there, and were trained and financed with Saudi money. However we won't and shouldn't lash out blindly at anyone...when we eventually take out the Saudis it will be very deliberate and shrewdly planned.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

I'd agree with you about the Saudis...it's no coincidence that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from there, and were trained and financed with Saudi money. However we won't and shouldn't lash out blindly at anyone...when we eventually take out the Saudis it will be very deliberate and shrewdly planned.

I understand that the reason why so many of the 911 hijackers were Saudis wasn't because Al Qaeda terrorists were more likely to be Saudis, but rather because it was easier for Saudi would-be terrorists to get visas to travel legally to the US than would-be terrorists from other countries.

Socially, I see little change since 9/11
My generation is still holding down jobs that can barely support them, hording together in mini "urban families" or settling down with girlfriends or spouses to make ends meet.
The culture wars are still raging. Bush's main topic this week - constitutional ban on gay marriage. This is the issue that grips our country
Meanwhile the conservatives still hate liberals, and the liberals don't think too highly of conservatives.
The nation is electorally polarized 48%, 48%
Baby Boomers are eyeing retirement more seriously - the oldest (aged 61) moving into condominiums etc.
But in general - socially, things are pretty much the same, if not more extreme.
The end.
We still be 3T.

Chris Seamans:
This Crisis was preceded by a freak "election day" blizzard. Defining whether this "blizzard" started an early winter or whether it was a late autumn storm is like debating whether a certain stone is the world's largest pebble or smallest boulder. I originally leaned toward the first, now I favor the second.