Mav - I don't think you're ignorant and I do appreciate your subtle humor. You keep the dialogue lively. Unfortunately, (and I know I've said this before,but you just don't seem to get it) you undercut your own points when you throw around unnecessary epithets.

I'll just try to illustrate this once more and then let it go. If you think Jackson is a "hypocrite" and you say it, I have no argument; you're working from the facts. If you say he's a "crook", you're reaching; you will need to provide proof of some criminal conviction or you will need to retract. If you say he's a "moron", you're telling me nothing about him and a lot about you; what I see is that you have something against the guy, and would not like him (Sam I am) regardless of his behavior.

Skeptic - Yeah, Jesse Jackson has put himself up there on the pedestal and deserves whatever you want to sling at him. He has been a disappointment as a human being. But that still shouldn't negate the good that he's done.

My point above, to state it plainly, is "What should we realistically expect of our leaders?" How do you measure a person's achievements, given his/her humanity? Does that blindfolded lady use her scale to weigh the good against the bad? Does one sin discredit a man or woman forever? Do Two? Three? How do you judge Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon? Is there a statute of limitations on dishonor? How about Tom Jefferson? Is the ownership of slaves and a black mistress his legacy?

I have to go
Bart