BS: Political Thread

Subject: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 12:33 AM

This is a political thread. In this discusion forum, I would like to have a place for the politically minded to speak out on various pet issues that animate us and intrigue the body politics. There is one stipulation that I must request... and another that I will demand, perhaps futilely...

NO ANGRY RETORTS, and NO PREACHING.

OK then! shall I begin?

Why are we so caught up into all this nastiness? The world seems to have been turned into a playground for war toys and recession, and all watch... Are we irresistably pulled to this theatre? What can we do about this change? From whence did this 'axis of evil' come? I'm not referring to GWB's finger pointing projection, but the term does seem apropriate as a discription of the 'big picture' of which the Bush administration is a somewhat significant part... in short, WHAT THE HECK ARE WE DOING HERE?
ttr

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 01:33 AM

The following letter appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 6, 2002 (Joan Ryan is a columnist for this paper):

"Editor - Joan Ryan ask a very good and very prescient question about the drive toward war with Iraq: Why? Why are the Bush administration and the pundits so focused on this, seemingly out of the blue?

What she and most of the rest of the media seem to be missing is that it's not really so much about weapons of mass destruction - it's about mass distraction.

'Pay no attention to that sinking economy, those corporate scandals, those Constitution-shredders behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful W., and if you don't bring me Saddam Hussein's broomstick, you'll never get back to Kansas!'

Whether we actually invade Iraq or not, the scheme is apparently working. It has Americans focused not on the many domestic crises at hand, but on when and how we should best take out a tinhorn dictator that we have helped prop up in the past.

While Bush is busy wagging the dog, the American public is patting its head and offering it a biscuit"

Does that help answer your question?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 01:35 AM

Forgot to add that it was signed "Erik Wilson, San Francisco"

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 02:10 AM

AMEN

Michael

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: BigDaddy
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 02:20 AM

Right on Bev & Jerry!

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 02:43 PM

Surely there's more to be inplied...!

Subject: RE: Political Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 04:29 PM

I totally agree with the letter-writer. I also applaud your intentions with this thread, TtR, good luck.

FWIW, here is another thing we are being distracted from:

BUSH ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO APPOINT "SCANTILY CREDENTIALED" DOCTOR TO INFLUENTIAL FDA PANEL ON WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY

Battle Raging Over Doctor Whose Writings Recommend Scripture Readings and Prayer For Headaches and Premenstrual Syndrome

Will Lead FDA Panel That Looks Into Hormone Replacement Therapy, The Biggest Issue In Women's Health

Sunday, Oct. 06, 2002

New York - A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, Dr. W. David Hager, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy, TIME's Karen Tumulty reports.

Hager is an obstetrician-gynecologist, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, and Stress and the Woman's Body, which he co-authored with his wife Linda. The book Stress puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome, TIME reports.

Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment, TIME reports.

FDA advisory panels often have near-final say over crucial health questions. If Hager becomes chairman of the 11-member Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, he will lead its study of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, one of the biggest controversies in health care. Some conservatives are trying to use doubts about such therapy to discredit the use of birth-control pills, which contain similar compounds. The panel also made the key recommendation in 1996 that led to approval of the "abortion pill," RU-486 a decision that abortion foes are still fighting. Hager assisted the Christian Medical Association last August in a "citizens' petition" calling upon the FDA to reverse itself on RU-486, saying it has endangered the lives and health of women, TIME reports.

Hager was chosen for the post by FDA senior associate commissioner Linda Arey Skladany, a former drug-industry lobbyist with longstanding ties to the Bush family. Skladany rejected at least two nominees proposed by FDA staff members: Donald R. Mattison, former dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, and Michael F. Greene, director of maternal-fetal medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Despite pressure from inside the FDA to make Hager's appointment temporary, sources say, Skladany has insisted that Hager be given a full four-year term. FDA spokesman Bill Pierce called Hager "well qualified," TIME reports.

Online at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:05 PM

Kat! Good work! Yes, this is the kind of remake we seem to have called forth for our new America... and is anyone paying attention? While we are taking swift strides into the dark ages, it would seem that a pointless war must be serving SOME purpose...

Why is this such a difficult thing to slow down? It appears to have a tremendous inertia, and many 'supporters' at it's beck and call. I, for one am so sad that I voted for Nader, because I knew what the stakes were, and I did it anyway... GUILT! yes, I am feeling guilt about having voted my conscience... instead of my paranoia... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: khandu
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 08:09 PM

"Let's overturn these tables, disconnect these cables.

This place don't make sense to me no more.

Can you tell me what we're waiting for, Senor?"...Dylan

khandu

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 10:20 PM

Well, TtR, I will unilaterially forgive you for criticizing my poor typing and dexlexia in the past...

And if not mistaken you once referred to me as a pompous ass...

So much for the rhymes...

Hey, meet the "new world order", same as the "old world order"...

Not much has changed except globalization. Now instead of gettin' our working class butts beaten by the old "ruling class", now we have more a larger global *working class* getting their butts beat by a global *ruling class*. Yeah, gives me goose bumps just knowing that the crooks in the US have now hooked up with the other crooks... But bottom line, the working man is getting *screwed* and there's no longer any palces to hide!

Now if that's pompuos, then heck, I'm pompous. But you can go thru every thing I've ever posted and you'll recognize the tune...

And to think that children in America are told that slavery is a thing of the past.

The ruling class throws just enough bones to keep the workers on the assembly line until they drop, much like the horses in "animal Farm".

Don't buy their junk.

Don't borrow their money.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Oct 02 - 10:36 PM

What bothers me about political discussion these days is that it is utterly source oriented reiteration.


That wouldn't be so bad except that neither side seems to see it in themselves and we are therefore the victims of our extremes.

We seem unable to meet on the common ground of what, when really pressed to make our political points on a logical basis only, we find is not nearly so great a distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Peg
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 12:11 AM

don't ever feel guilty about following your conscience. I find it to be cynicism of the highest order, when one votes "strategically" to keep one candidate out, rather than voting for the candidate one truly wants! I thought what made this country great was that we get to vote for who we want to vote for...

As for why we are so focused on this damn war...people are stupid. Not all of them. But the vast majority. Many of our fellow Americans simply don't care to look beyond their own wallets or backyards..much less at a newspaper. People are gullibly and blindly accepting what our fearless leaders tell us...why? Because we really do wish to think them fearless and we ourselves are so full of fear.

Michael Moore's new film "Bowling for Columbine" posits that we are a culture steeped in fear, that the media promulgates it, that we are lulled into a false consciousness that keeps us in a stupor of consumption and shopping and debt, and that in this way we do not realize our full potential and remain fearful of what could happen (terrorists, sniper's bullets, West Nile Virus, etc.) and helpless to do anything to help ourselves, or others.

Peg (yes I voted for Nader too)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 01:29 AM

The advent of television had a great deal to do with the decline of the democratic system. Because TV ads are so expensive, one cannot get elected to any state or federal office without spending a great deal of money. To get the money, one must become beholden to some special interest groups. So it is these special interest groups that are making government policy.

In the present case, W got elected by taking a lot of money from the oil industry. Now he owes them big time. So, we're going after Iraq's oil.

Enron got several laws changed to allow them to do what they did. Senator Phil Gramm was the most responsible for that. The reward? Besides campaign contributions, his wife was made an Enron board member and, get this, head of the audit committee. Could this be why he's not running for office again?

Campaign reform does nothing as long as we attempt to regulate contributions. These guys have lots of lawyers who get paid to figure out how to continue the contributions regardless of any law. Besides, it is these lawyers that are writing the laws. Ken Lay lent W an airplane to use during the campaign. That doesn't count as a contribution.

If we regulated campaign spending, that might remove the need for so much money. What if we outlawed political TV ads or only allowed them during the last two weeks before the election or limited the spending allowed on TV ads or simply made them free?

End of rant.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 09:54 AM

cartoon politics.

my side is good the other side is evil.

black helicopters.
military indutrial complex
tri-lateral commission
one world government
oil corporations
shrub

We understand we are more or less powerless in real political terms so we buy into scenarios however incredible to help us deal with our impotence --- though we know logically that the likelihood of such huge conspiracies are unlikely if not impossible. It helps us to rationalize our general, individual, political meaninglessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Pied Piper
Date: 09 Oct 02 - 10:06 AM

Tis all a chequer board of nights and days
Where destiny with men for pieces plays
Hither and thither moves and mates and slays
And one by one back in the closet lays

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 12:36 PM

Thursday October 10, 2002
The Guardian

President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses little threat to America now, a US invasion could push him into retaliating with chemical or biological weapons.

The unusually detailed public statement, in the form of a letter from the CIA director, George Tenet, to Congress, comes at a highly sensitive moment, potentially damaging Mr Bush's attempt to rally an overwhelming congressional mandate for the use of force against Iraq.

In a chilling excerpt, Mr Tenet warned that if Saddam was personally threatened he might seize "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him".

The risk of such an attack, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction, would rise from "low" to "pretty high" were Saddam to feel cornered by US military might.

Such a stark judgment seems likely to increase public anxiety about the prospect of a new war. There is still majority backing for military action, but that support appears to be fading despite a concerted public relations campaign by the administration to put its case.

Approval for military action has fallen from 57% last month to 53% this week, according to a US Gallup poll.

The CIA letter was seized on by Democrat opponents of military action, at the height of the congressional debate on a resolution authorising an invasion if and when the president deems it necessary.

Donald Payne, a House Democrat, said that Mr Tenet's letter showed that the Bush administration's aggressive strategy "could trigger the very things that our president has said that he is trying to prevent: the use of chemical or biological weapons. In view of this report, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome."

Mr Tenet's letter came in response to a congressional request to declassify segments of CIA briefings on Iraq over the past few days. He said: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States."

This assessment is reinforced by testimony given to Congress last week by an unnamed senior intelligence officer, which Mr Tenet allowed to be declassified.

The officer said: "My judgment would be that the probability of [Saddam] initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."

Asked about the likelihood of an Iraqi chemical or biological attack on the US in response to an invasion, the intelligence officer said: "Pretty high, in my view."

Mr Tenet emphasised the same point in his own words. "Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions," he wrote.

He added that Saddam might work with Islamist terrorists to carry out an attack.

It is unusual for the CIA to put such details of its intelligence assessments into a public document. The letter was produced after intense pressure from senators.

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.

"You have to ask yourself the question, since Tenet is part of the team, why now?" said Fred Hitz, a former CIA inspector general. "You have to go back to the Vietnam era to find a time when the judgment of the intelligence community was in the public eye on such a current affairs basis."

The White House last night denied that the CIA analysis undermined Mr Bush's message on the urgency of confronting Baghdad.

Mr Tenet "did not say we're OK," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. "If Saddam Hussein holds a gun to someone's head, while he denies he even owns a gun, do you really want to take a chance that he'll never use it."

In a bid to dampen the controversy, Mr Tenet later put out a statement insisting: "There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed in [Bush's] speech.

"Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack at this moment are low, in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD, there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the US or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build."

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 01:36 PM

Better we sit back and wait for Saddam to lob WMD over into Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Iran, even the U. S. before we act, right kat? For someone who confesses to be sorely concerned about civilian loss of life, does that mean you are only concerned about the loss of Iraqi lives? I don't think so.

I find the last paragraph (which is in quotes so if he is quoted correctly it is Tenent's remarks) particularly ridiculous. The first sentence in that paragraph makes no sense at all, I think. If he has WMD, and uses them, everyone would obviously know he has them. If he has them, and uses them, our knowing about them has little to do with it, it seems to me. If he has them and uses them, there obviously will be retaliation. The difference being he would have used them first.

I do not believe, if the U. N. approves of the U. S. and it's allies to launch an attack if Saddam does not allow unfettered weapons inspections, we or our allies would include the use of WMD in that attack.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 02:47 PM

Since Saddam has CBWs (or at least had them in the past), why hasn't he used them? It's because we'd invade Iraq if he did. This policy of deterence worked with the Soviet Union for about 50 years.

If we are going to invade anyway, the deterence is gone. In that case we'll find out for sure what weapons he has.

Of course all this assumes that Saddam is rational and that may not be true.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 03:04 PM

Doug, I am trying to stick to the request by ThomastR, who started this thread, and not getting into angry retorts etc. Also, trying not to get personal. I simply posted what I received with no editorialising or comments of my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 03:19 PM

That's being a good Kat...

As fir the angry retorts, I'm not really too angry with anyone here. A little miffed with all those redneckjs that have somehow gotten themselves elected into the House of Reps perhaps, but not too many folks here.

I would point out that those folks who are are beating the drums the war are doing so on nothin' more that guess work, suppostion and prejudges. But, hey, look at Texas "death row" and you'll find that this is the way it's done down there.

Problem is, there is a great potential to get thousands of folks killed before America wakes up and realizes that in their anger from 9-11, they fell into a trap laid out very nicely by those who would very much like to see the US do what is seems ready to do. Guess who those folks are?

Guess again.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: DougR
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:06 PM

Guess so, kat, but I doubt you would have posted the article at all if it did not reflect your POV. Personal remarks really aren't necessary to express oneself, if the article does it for you. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:35 PM

Instead of bitching, Doug, why don't you post something? Ever heard of civil and factual point - counterpoint?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 07:48 PM

Now, Now... DougR!... Bobert!... you both are starting to blow things out of proportion (again), and getting personal under such circumstances is not allowed here... remember? Provocation is NOT a sign of correctness or understanding... I would appreciate it if you need to Provoke, Prod, and Preach (PPP)... not here O.K?

Please present your input here, and read the others... Keep your reactions simple and kind...

I am finding it curious how much we can talk about war... like it was some legitimate menu item... Let's seeeee... um... I think I'll have the Shish-kabob, and a free fill up at the gas pump while I'm at it...

The home 'front' has made us so tight and nervous that we seem to need distraction... Now... which came first? Our need for distraction, or the ready distribution of it? Why are we so suseptible to distraction, and so blind to the manipulative quality of it? I remember, vaguely, some quote referring to the Russians being different from us because most of them recognise Propaganda, and are suspicious of much of the 'government line'... while Americans, on the other hand, don't seem to have any reluctance to believing it at all...ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 09:21 PM

Personally, I work very hard at seeing through manipulation. I haveupset more salespeople becaus eof it than i can count -- but that's the risk they take when they set out being two faced. It shows up at every level, from political hidden agendae to smarmy promo from companies big and small. The rare chance to do business with someone who is both honest and cheerful is much to rare in any of these areas!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 09:34 PM

Well, Amos, you come to my town and rent a car from my little independent car rental company and you'll get the same treatment as everyone which is the red carpet, a joke, a smile and a good deal.

Ahhh, sorry TR, but Dougie wouldn't recognize me if I didn't jab him a little. Heck, it's half playfull. Ain't it Doug?

But really, how ya' gonna have a "political thread" on a day when the US has just taken a majot step toward a lot of folks dieing to protect a hand full of folks egos and keep it on a level of "sugar with you tea, sir?"

Nevermind. Should have left this door unopened...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 09:54 PM

Bobert, fighting and learning are counter opposed sometimes. When you make challenging remarks, you often indimidate the few who could help enlighten you. A new way of thinking/relating (ala "Mindwalk") is obviously needed, and I am sad that you seem to insist on using war tools for making peace... In other words, Bobert, Make love, not war!

...and he fired the first shot for peace! -absurd, isn't it!

There is so much confusion...

If we all did our homework, and convened somewhere, (even here) and shared and listened, and reserved our hostility (which is just an ego-trip anyway...), and share our angles... we could in some small way sidestep this grotesque media monster, and actually get somewhere... And to think we'd never make the evening news... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:19 PM

When the folks are out there beating the big drums for war, you won't get into the game with little ones. Peace is something that unfortunately sometimes has to be fought for very loudly. No, make that no-war... that you have to fight very loudly and if you can get the attention of those who are beating the drums for war then, and only then, do you have a chance toward peace.

Sorry, Rhymer, I'll stay out of your tent. I'd hate to disturb all those peaceful transcedendalists meditation sessions while the rest of us are taking to the streets in an attempt to stop your brothers and sisters from experiencing the horror being shot to death...

Lastly, this ain't a political thread but a trap. Say anything that might be constued as a positive step toward defending sanctity of life and you get branded "doesn't play well with others".

Hmmmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Troll
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 10:44 PM

I rather wonder what this thread would be like if, all other things being the same, the President in question was Al Gore.
Hmmmmmm?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 10 Oct 02 - 11:53 PM

Bobert. Have fun! See ya! If you can't follow a simple set of rules set out to make at least one thought provoking thread that does not wish to make fights out of disagreements, then you will probably have a tough time understanding that I agree with much of your analysis... I would like to hear what others have to say, appreciate thier fact finding, and in the end, follow the reasoning they have! Care to get off yer high horse and speak with me over tea? ... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: GUEST,prof
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 01:16 PM

I like the idea of a thread where people commit to being polite about things where politeness isn't always the norm. So I have a question that could be trollish, but I'd like people to believe it's asked in good faith. One of my students asked me why it is that, in general, the more educated people are, the more they tend to be a little leftish? She reports feeling silenced, overwhelmed before she speaks. I thought it was a good question, though I'm not sure its perceptions are entirely accurate. And what about folkies? I've seen a person posting really very moderate right-of-center views here get tomped on pretty solidly. BTW, insofar as I have a political identity, it's midly socialist (unfortunately not always a team-player on particular issues).

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 01:53 PM

troll, all things would not be the same if Al Gore were president, so it seems a pointless question.:-)

prof, right off the top of my head, I'd say some of it is due to the more educated a person is the more they tend to think for themselves, though that can both far right and far left, esp. it seems, among the truly brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: John Hardly
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 02:16 PM

"One of my students asked me why it is that, in general, the more educated people are, the more they tend to be a little leftish?"

Well, one reason (among many -- I think it's a good and valuable question BTW) is because those who are in education/academia have remained there throughout their lives and therefore rarely, if ever, are faced with, or are involved with the pragmatic realities that often turn others to more practical economic considerations and realities that push one to more right-leaning ideas. For instance, a person in acedemia has a certain disconnect from concerns like productivity.

They are salaried and they don't have such income altering considerations as quotas. They get their pay on a more collective basis than most of the rest of the economy -- most have long since tied their earning power to the least capable in their discipline in order that all may achieve some sense of security.

Also, academia is a bit inscestuous in this regard. Time ran a recent article pointing out that, though they represent the extreme of the statistic, Ivy League schools have a professorship that votes 95% Democrat. Now, if the schools held in highest esteem in our country have that kind of imbalance, all the others who look to them for documentation on what they wish to refer to a "scholarship", they to are going to show the same leanings.

More educated people are more inclined to feel empathy -- that is, they are more able to put themselves into the feelings of others. (perhaps) sadly, this doesn't mean they are any more capable of discerning if that empathy is leading them toward solutions that may seem hard on their surface.

Just some guesses on my part.

(by the way, I am among a growing number that feels as though the older definitions of conservative and liberal are becoming useless -- must liberals I know (except for a very few holdouts) believe and understand market realties and understand that, in order to exist, most social programs will ultimately be very dependent upon the health of those market realities....
...and most conservatives I know (except for a very few holdouts) believe there are social programs that the government does do well.

It is usually the need for politicians to get elected -- and our failure to hold our own guys feet to the fire of truth that allows the extremes to define the middle -- for instance, those that hate Limbaugh, don't mind the same kind of inaccurate, emotionally volitile rhetoric from Michael Moore and vice versa.)

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: NicoleC
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 02:56 PM

Prof,

I doubt that that premise is true. I persoanlly know of no evidence that educated = liberal. It's kind of like the argument that smarter people are more liberal -- people in the minority tend to think for themselves more often, so it gives that impression, while following the crowd is more of a mixed bag of sheep plus equally intelligent thinkers who happen to agree with the majority. If being moderate was the minority, we'd be discussing why moderate thinkers are so much smarter/more educated/etc. :)

There's a difference between "educated" and "academia." For academia, John's remarks hold a ring of truth, although it's not a lack of reality so much as a different one. Productivity is a major issue on campus, but it's judged in ideas and research, not physical goods and economic markets.

The process of education almost always involves being exposed to ideas. Ideas can be darned uncomfortable. If your world exists entirely of what your papa and mama did and what you see on TV, you are much more likely to keep your thinking within what is comfortable in your environment. This is true in the Bible Belt or the inner city. If you are exposed to other ideas and required to debate their merit, you may very well end up thinking in a way that isn't synonomous with the way you grew up. The more ideas you encounter, the wider the range of possibilities you may agree with.

Education, formal or otherwise, also provides you with the tools to think and judge issues better, instead of merely repeating the opinions of someone else. (Some people have been educated but don't bother to use those tools, which is another issue altogether.)

So I guess I understand her preception, but I think it's more about her having dissenting ideas when dissent is very unpopular (as it is right now), more than a matter of her education.

It's funny, though, I encounter a lot of situations where bothering to educate yourself and discuss issues from a knowledgable standpoint is not just ignored, it's criticized and pooh-poohed. This attitude never comes from people who merely disagree for their own reasons, but from the sheep of the world, who think that if it's on TV or a politician says it, it must be true, and who are we to question?

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 03:29 PM

T the R'er and others: Ahhhh, sorry for 'going off" last night. After two days of listening to C-Span and the vote in the House my wored out Wes Vinny butt wasn't too good company. But ,hey, handfull of Prozac and I'm back to my charming "pompous" self...

So if it's okay, I'd just like to weigh in on the edgy-macation issue.

I agree that academians tend to be more liberal and I think it has a lot to do with the fact that can't *stop thinking*. Their students challenge them daily and their piers challenge them daily and I think this creates a situation where for the purposes of survival they must be able to think well on their feet. Well, same with folks on the more progressive side of the spectrum. They deal with situaitons and try to find creative solutions.

It has been my experience that the less progressives tend to revisit solutions that have worked in the past. (In the box thinking). I have been a businessman for the last twenty some years and have rubbed elbows with others who are in business and what I see is a lot of imitation and learning from each other but very little that is progresive. Yes, the inventors are creative, and the pproduction folks at tad less creative and the further toward the top of the stucture the less progressive folks get. Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are exceptions, but few, compared to the academic world.

*new and improved* Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 10:12 PM

Nice to have ya back Bobert! Yep, now why don t'cha pull up a rock and settle in there next to the fire... the evening's calm and the smoke slowly rises straight up into the cool autumn night sky, and we're just tryin to listen up to the folks who don't usually talk much 'cause people like you and me usually cut 'em off at the pass... So, what'll it be there Bobby boy? One lump or two? ;-]

So the pres got his vote, and the strangest presidency rolls on and on... How many people in Iraq are going to die? None I hope... Maybe this will be some kind of Humanitarian mission! "Make it so, #1!" ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Political Thread
From: GUEST,Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 02 - 10:37 PM

Well, T the R'er, my *new and improved* calm self says... none. (But the *old and unimproved* says, ahhh, lots...)I'm rootin' for the new Bobert but very fearful that the old Bobert might be seein' the thing for what it *may* be: a blood bath.

But, hey, being the "new and Improved" me, there's got to be a positive side to blood baths. Right? But it is so comforting to know that it will be other folks blood.

(See, Bobert, how calm you can be? Hey, it ain't like real blood. It's like cyber-blood.) Oh, well that's just peachy...

Hmmmmmmmm?

The "new and improved" , yet "old and unimproved" in some ways....

Bobert