Hoft
That is a rediculous analogy. However, after that reasoning it is apparent any further discussion is futile.
Yes, I agree with the second part of your last statement, especially since the first part proves it.
Have a good day.
We essentially have one party rule now, at least for the next two years. Some may like that; others not. We shall all soon find out how it works. Worked well in Germany, for a while anyway.
I heard something the other day to the effect that the Republicans might try to change the Senate rules to allow for judicial confirmations by majority rather than 2/3 vote? This would essentially wipe out the last trace of checks and balances.
to paraphrase Mr. Bush : A dictatorship would be easier / work better. Of course, I would have to be dictator. he-he-he-he.
Oh and, speaking of democracy in action, wasn't it Tom Delay who got through that redistricting stuff in Texas in five districts, after only five years, something usually done every ten years, resulting in Republican winners in all five districts?
And wasn't the guy who owns and/or is the CEO of that company (Diebold, I think) that made the new electronic voting machines which were installed in Florida and Ohio, wasn't he the same guy who was the Campaign Chairman of the Bush re-election committee in Ohio? and the very same guy who promised, six months before the election, to "deliver" Ohio to Bush?
And isn't it just a bit curious that for the first time in modern election history, there was a much larger than usual discrepancy between the exit poll numbers (which favored Kerry all day) and the "actual" election results?
Ah yes, democracy is so alive and so well.
About majority rule. We live in a representative republic, as opposed to a democracy. The founding fathers planned it that way precisely to allow for the judgment of (hopefully) educated, reasonable, measured people to be able to supercede (as necessary) the occasional stupidity of "the masses", as in "the earth is flat", "black and white people can't drink from the same water fountains because, well, what if it's contageous?", "two same-sex adults wanting to unite in a long term, love-based commitment threaten civil marriage", etc. And when all else fails, of course, the courts are there to protect the rights of minorities according to the defining principles of our constitution. Those darn courts do tend to care about civil right and freedom and such, don't they. Hmmm. Let's see if we can't get them to march somewhat more in lock-step with what is "right".
Democracy is not alive and well, Larry, but nothing I say here could make you believe it. I know that. And I accept it. Things will apparently need to get a whole lot worse before Bush supporters recognize how dangerous and damaging he is. To all the good old boys and girls in red states who voted for Bush to ban gay marriage and abortion, I do hope that will bring you comfort as you continue to lose your jobs, your health care, your own civil rights, and most tragically, your sons and daughters fighting to feed Halliburton and Bush's ego.
I actually would not blame John Kerry if he had made his decision not to pursue a recount because of disgust with the entire current situation. He has earned the respect of all thinking people in this country and the world. Let Mr. Bush now attempt to clean up his own mess. He's up to the task, don't you think? Unless those nasty Democrats try to keep his extremist agenda from getting through Congress. No, wait, they can't.
As far as "coming together" goes, Mr. Bush has made it clear that a pre-requisite for coming together is rigid theocratic conformoty. There will be no coming together in this country. Nor should there be. Mr. Bush had his chance to bring this country together after the 2000 election, and again after 911. He purposefully chose to divide us. He rode to re-election on the backs of people struggling for equality. He divided us along every line possible. The divisions are deep, and the bitterness is visceral. Let him live with that. Let him fix the mess he has created here and abroad. And, BTW, I hope "Old Europe" spits in his face when he goes looking for troop support for the quagmire that is Iraq. And don't you dare accuse me of not supporting our troops. I support them with all mu heart. If Bush really gave a damn about them, he would admit that he was wrong about invading Iraq, admit he should have waited, apologize to our allies, turn over complete control of Iraq to a governing body not staffed with hand-picked US shills but rather with people who have Iraq's interests at heart, and back off completely from any involvement with oil and rebuilding. Yeah, call me when hell freezes over. How foolish of me to think someone who believes he has been "chosen by God" could ever admit he is wrong.
As I said, I offered these thoughts as just that: thoughts. I harbor no expectations of changing anyone's mind. Nor will you change my mind on anything I have said. Which is why one of those line by line disections would be a waste of time.
So, don't bother.
The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004
Evanston, Ill.
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
au1929 wrote:The Day the Enlightenment Went Out
By GARRY WILLS
Published: November 4, 2004
Evanston, Ill.
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
Garry Wills, an adjunct professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of "St. Augustine's Conversion."
So, according to Wills there are 59+ million people in America that are part of the religious right, oppose abortion, gay marriage, believe in evolution and the virgin birth?
I happen to have voted for Bush. I do not like NASCAR, I do not drink budweiser, I am not Christian.
I think Wills may be a bit full of himself as well as fecal matter.
Idaho - of course there's nothing in either the Constitution or in Senate rules requiring a 2/3 vote for judicial appointments, but in deference to the wishes of the poster you quote no facts should disturb her slumbers.
Their assorted mythologies fascinate me, personally, and I confess to, if not actively encouraging them in their delusions, at least not interfering with them - it's the only way to ensure the voters will surprise them every time <G>
