slothrop

Arafat wasn't really on the scene in 1948... but the guy who could have accepted the offer of a Palestinian state out-Arafated-Arafat and refused it. The deal on the table back then was much sweeter than it has been ever since.

Jake, you make a good point. A lot of people apparently want the government to step in and legislate morality. Why it's OK to legislate morality, but not to control gun purchases, levy taxes, or regulate business, is what confuses me about the Republican platform. But let's assume that a lot of people ignored those other issues (cuz they did) and voted for Bush so he'd put some morals back into our degenerating society. So why is government better at enforcing morality than churches and families? That seems to be the assumption. I don't think that's the government's job. To me, government is for protecting the public welfare and religion and family are for teaching moral values. As for Bush himself being a beacon of moral values... sure he was born again, quit knocking back a fifth of JD every weekend, and is not sexy whatsoever. But he certainly has one major moral failing, one that damages his credibility as a leader: he refuses to admit to mistakes or accept responsibility for failures or missteps. To me, that is immoral and weak. I lose respect for a person who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. A leader bears an even heavier burden, since he must take responsibility for his subordinates, too. Time and time again, Bush has failed to show courage and take the heat.

Unfortunately, Bush and his allies immediately label anyone (journalist, foreign leader, elected official, voter) who questions the war or its success as dangerous/meddling in our affairs/politically motivated/unpatriotic. So your statement is a tautology. It's a very effective ploy.

Rad. glacier's is my favorite so far.

PP, in his ever-so-oblique fashion, is suggesting that all we have to do lay siege to every city in Iraq until the entire populace renounces their IED-explodin' ways and spontaneously votes a Republican into office. Optimistic, yes... there is literally nothing but optimism in this assessment. The fundamental problem with fighting against a guerilla force under occupation is that the units do not identify themselves until they are firing RPGs at you. They can melt in and out of the populace and migrate from battlefield to battlefield, resupplying from numerous "base areas" as they move. When is the last time the invading force won a prolonged guerilla war without resorting to genocide? I'm seriously looking for historical examples here. Why did we do so well in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq? There's seems to be a huge fundamental difference: the people in Afghanistan never turned against their occupier with such fury and determination. The warlords never could unite against the US invader. Why did we fight for so long in Vietnam, but still never manage to close off the North's "base areas"? Why are we still unable to do it in Iraq?

There's a long and fascinating obituary in the New York Times that goes into some detail about the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The thesis is that Arafat just could not pull it together strategically and missed several huge opportunities to do right by his people. He struggled to keep his own group relevant and independent while steadily losing power to more militant organizations. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth quite a lot, but for all his tactical maneuvering, he never got the job done. http://nytimes.com/2004/11/11/international/middleeast/arafatobit.html I didn't even realize that Arafat had ordered the murders of the Israeli athletes in Munich. Disgusting. Unfortunately, the guy didn't bother to name a successor. Let's hope someone reasonable takes over and is ready to deal with Sharon.

It's all relative. Warfare is clearly more humane these days than when the only way to win was to kill or enslave all the men and rape the women. Civilian (and some military) leaders have also spewed their fair share of "smart bombs are humane, safe, and clean" rhetoric, which puts people off just the same because it's clearly mendacious.

I worry that Bush's decision-making is based on a sense of moral clarity that keeps him from examining any contradictory evidence, or even being interested in such evidence. Once he's decided on something, no matter if it's patently false, he sticks with the idea. This kind of faith-based decision-making is a bad idea. I wouldn't want the guy playing navigator on a cross-country road trip, much less leading a nation.

Those improvements have only been made as a direct result of heightened public awareness of the costs of war (i.e., the "whining" that many here like to... uh... whine about). It's obviously much more efficient and cheap to level an entire neighborhood with a few daisy cutters than gather enough intelligence to accurately target a few houses with expensive smart bombs.

Why not? It is the stated goal of many conservative elected officials and interest groups that Roe v. Wade be overturned and abortion be made illegal nationwide. Now the Bush administration will soon be in the position to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, if not more. Arlen Specter is getting no support, from Bush or from fellow Republican Senators, for suggesting that a "litmus test" on Roe v. Wade is not an acceptable criterion for selecting a new Justice. In fact, conservatives have dogpiled Sen. Specter, demanding angrily that he be denied the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, for which he is next in line. Bush's insistence that he won't use a "litmus test" rings hollow. All of this adds up to a real threat to Roe v. Wade. Saying "it won't happen" makes it seem like you're ignoring the news.

Well, in 1945 she'd have written something like: "Aaaiiiieeee! I'm on fire and incendiary bombs just obliterated my entire neighborhood!"

That same Senator wants to give doctors the death penalty for performing abortions.

I interviewed with a software company in 2000, right at the tail end of the Internet Golden Years. This company was a real boilerroom-type operation: 100-hour weeks, sleep in your office, party hard. Not my kind of scene, but hey, they flew me out on their dime. They took us out for a fancy dinner the night before the interviews. I had a $14 glass of wine and ogled the escorts decorating the bar. This was followed by bar-hopping in downtown Austin and a quick nap (6 hours?) before five straight hours of interviews. I did OK in the first four, but I was slightly hung over and didn't fit in with the culture. The last interview was a humiliating sufferfest. I think I was borderline, so they threw me to the most condescending interviewer to see if I would pass the test. Nope. They still flew me back home the next day, though. Worst interview, most fun.

I woke up today to some Republican asshole on NPR going on about how the "condescending" liberals pissed off voters with their elitist attitude. I can't believe that they can get away with such bullshit... it's yet another of the fallacies that gets repeated so many times in the media that it becomes the new truth. Concrete examples of local Republican condescension, from Dino Rossi: - Let's put unwed mothers into group homes, because they and their families can't take care of themselves. - "...does it make sense that every insurance plan is required to cover acupuncture? I think most reasonable people would say no." My girlfriend flies into a rage whenever she hears Rossi talk about either of those things.

Start with local candidates for sure. The top-two primary will not help, it'll just consolidate two-party power because no one's gonna vote for a third-party candidate when there is a big rival party threatening to take the second spot on the ballot. Instant runoff could give third-party candidates more votes, but would probably help Libertarians (who would draw Dems and Repubs) more than Greens (who would only get Dems). If state legislatures or local councils (say, King County) converted to a parliamentary-style system, third parties would get much more visibility, which they could eventually carry into the national arena. This would all take a lot of work and lots of time, but it'd be effective and lasting instead of annoying and fleeting like Nader and Perot. All the Democrats have to do, though, is genetically engineer a candidate from Bill Clinton's, John McCain's, and Howard Dean's DNA. I'm sure Bill would readily consent to giving a "sample". Then you raise the clone in a medium-sized Southern city, have him go to church and travel the world, all the while feeding him a steady diet of liberal thought. We'll have a winner in 2050!

Yeah, more money in Austin and San Antonio, but only Travis County went for Kerry. Basically, it looks like only Austin, El Paso, border counties, and Beaumont went for Kerry.

That southern blue area in Texas is nowhere near San Antonio or Austin. San Antonio is pretty conservative, as indicated by the red splotch in Bexar County. My only guess about the blue areas in Texas (other than liberal Austin--Travis County) is that they contain a lot of Hispanics.

I betcha Gary can write a program that will take those images and spit out the correlation.

klenke, you're taking this debate to a new low.

It's too bad that neither j_b or JayB is willing to end this bitter War of the Homonyms by getting a new avatar. It's a hogwash arms race!

Dude, I said "not just" and then went on to say that the USSR suppressed Christianity, Judaism, etc.

I'd support harsher penalties for deadbeat dads, but it's not really a man's choice in the end, is it? Women need to have the choice to get an abortion if all the social pressures and contraceptives have failed to keep her from getting pregnant when she didn't want to. You have to approach the problem of unwanted pregnancies from all directions without removing personal freedoms. The murder example was just to point out that "abortion = murder" is not a concept that everyone agrees on, so there is room for compromise.

I don't think progress will ever stop, since the world is always changing. There will always be issues that need to be addressed along the way, and progressives are the force for change. Conservatives are, by definition, the force of the status quo. There is too much work to be done every day, far more than can successfully be completed. Corruption, misuse of power, oppression, and hate have always been here and always will, since they're the dark side of human nature. Progressives fight against those things, so they must always be there, too.

Scott, conservatives have to come together with liberals on the abortion issue. Everyone agrees that beating your wife to death is murder. No one will say otherwise. But there are a lot of people who say that abortion is not murder, but a way to avoid unwanted children who would otherwise be destined to live under the shadow of resentment, poverty, incest, or rape. Both "sides" of the issue are taking moral positions, but the difference with the progressive side is that progressives support individual freedom. Atheism is not the same as not supporting one religion over another. And the USSR did not just embody atheism in government, it actively suppressed religion. I don't know too many people who want to deny someone else's right to worship. For you to suggest that liberals want to do so is ridiculous. This country was founded on religious freedom and it will stay that way. I have heard people say they see God acting through Bush and they wanted such a "vessel of God" in power. That sounds like theocracy to me.

No, the last thing we need is someone who stoops to the level of hardcore hatemongers. There is a middle ground to be found, but it does not involve pandering with hateful slogans. People are afraid, of terrorism, endless war, economic problems, etc. They turn to religion, but for some reason, they find their personal relationship with God to be lacking the power to assuage their fears, so they try to put God in government. This is absolutely the wrong way for the country to go. Someone with a progressive outlook has to turn this fear and weakness into a positive force.