Thanks. I really hope so.

'Cause look, I mean, it seems to me, that this concept, oughta play "well" with both the Republicans and the Democrats, yes?

'Cause the Republicans, they're concerned with "national security", and national security is a stewardship concept. It has to do with, preserving the integrity of our nation for future generations.

And the Democrats, they're concerned about "the environment", and envionmental health is a stewardship concept. It has do to with, preserving the integrity of our world for future generations.

And you know, it seems to me, that lining your pockets can be a good thing and a fun thing, but when it starts hurting the "next generation", that's kinda where we oughta take a step back and look at ourselves, yes?

Hmmm... well, I'm gonna "float" this a little for a while, and see how it plays.

I think it ought play, I mean, it "makes" sense to me, from "both" perceptual models, and I mean, you know, "I'm" just an idiot, right? I don't know nothin' from nothin', but I'm kinda hoping that my "evidence" will come out of the "float", right? And I mean, I'm a "scientist", right? I ain't gonna deny "evidence" when it's staring me right in the face.

But I think, it seems to me, that this kinda "focus", this "point of emphasis", might do something helpful, in the way of political "re-conciliation".

'Cause I mean, right now, the Reps and Dems are just trying to clobber each other on the head, right? They're "fighting", not "talking".

So, you know, it seems to me, that this "stewardship" concept, might be kind of like the "Einsteinian model of the universe" - you know, simple and elegant. "Useful", that way. It's gonna get all these people to say, "yep, that makes sense", when otherwise they'd just be fightin' amongst themselves, 'cause I mean right now, neither ONE of 'em has a workable model, right? And I mean, once again, the "evidence" in that regard is staring us right in the face, and we'd be fools to deny it. Yes?

SO, you know, I'm hoping for a result like Einstein got - 'cause suddenly all these brilliant scientists, stopped bickering. And the result of that, was that they suddenly had time for other things, like science.

And so, during the next fifteen or twenty years, what did we see? Atom smashers and particle accelerators, glow-in-the-dark watches, nuclear power, nuclear weapons, "ideas".... "Mr. Fusion home energy reactor", right?

See where I'm tryin' to go with this?

Did your Mother say anything to you about defending yourself? How many times would you stand by and watch your family members be attacked and killed...one by one.... before you acted? After all, we didn't start this war with the Islamic extremists. They've attacked us time and time again----WAY before we got smart and began defending ourselves by going on the offensive against them. Two important themes came out of the 911 Commission.....#1) they were at war with us, but we weren't with them, and #2) we failed to 'connect the dots.'

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

... 'cause that's the exact same logic used to justify every single attack on anyone, ever!

I mean, think about it. From the point of view in someone in the Middle East, we actually did start this war. We're the aggressors and we're the ones that can't be dealt with peacefully. And now we're the people whose government kidnaps folks in the middle of the night and hides them away in a dark fortress somewhere and tortures them. Never mind whether or not that's actually true -- you have to admit that's the way it looks to a lot of people.

Hmm.... you know what this reminds me of? Hatfields and McCoy's.

JP5, please, listen to me very carefully now.

You're trying to tell me, that the "reason" for all those attacks, is that the Islamic extremists "hate us". Correct?

Well, I'm gonna tell you, that this is not the reason for the attacks.

The Islamic extremists don't hate us. That's not what's going on.

See - and this is exactly what makes a guy like George W Bush, a dangerous man, for We the People.

Because, he doesn't see this. He doesn't understand it.

He "sees" this whole thing, as a threat to us.

Well, "us", is not what the Islamists are after. It's not "us".

Man.... you know, that what I keep trying to tell you, JP - and people like Glitch (in a different context, but it's basically the same thing I'm noticing in all you guys' "logic") - it's like, you're "seeing" the wrong thing in this equation, and therefore, you're responding to the wrong thing!

I mean, YES, it's entirely true that there were some barbs pointed in our direction. But there's two things about that you gotta understand:

a) the Islamic world has been trying to "get our attention" for a long time, and
b) in terms of "total capability", those terrorist assaults, were a "measured attack"

I mean, you know, YEAH - RESPOND. Right? But don't respond by engaging the entire nation on a war footing - that, would NOT be commensurate with the "True Nature" of the event that you're responding to.

I mean, you know, you see "dead people", and your mind goes immediately to "national security". In "my" eyes, there are MANY steps, bewteen that point A and point B. I mean, that "logical connection" there, involves a whole sequence of logic, not just the immediate transition from "dead people" to "war on Islam". That latter kind of mentality, I would call, "dangerous". Wouldn't you?

politically appointed attorneys within the white house and justice write opinions to give the president legal cover to authorize torture. cia attorneys give the company authority to destroy the videotapes, in part recognizing the white house absence of a reply whether the tapes could be destroyed. the evidence is now conveniently gone and we are expected to excuse this mistake. comes under the practice of asking forgiveness rather than permission when doing that which might be criminal

__________________
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr Seuss
You should have heard what i meant to say (apologies to Thelonious Monk)
"The police are not here to cause disorder....
...The police are here to preserve disorder."
Hon. Richard J. Daley
Chicago, 1968

Discarding the question of morality on torture aside, does anyone really think torture is effective to solicit true useful information? I would speculate the person you torture would tell you what you want to hear except the truth

__________________
For some political humor, visit the following sites:

http://facethemonkey.com/,
http://facethemonkey.com/1378047C40DF34030E http://facethemonkey.com/1019747CB8F43D9356 http://facethemonkey.com/126347CB90FE5AB44
http://facethemonkey.com/1016547CB9174DC53E

Unless they really knew something

If that's the case why hasn't Al Qaeda attacked Russia? Russia occupied Afghanistan for the sole purpose of taking their opium poppy harvest, many of the peoples sole livelihood. They did this for nine years between 1979 and 1988. We even helped Bin Laden try to toss them out. We were attacked because were perceived as weak, the Soviet Union would NOT be messed with, they don't believe in political correctness and would squash and attackers like so many little bugs and they would do it without excuses and reservations.

If you were in captivity, would you lie to the guys who can easily come back to you when your information proves false?