Jim

I'm not PCS but I do think that countries that allow economic freedoms (or harnass greed as a certain billionare once said) will succesfully compete over the long term over those that do not. This assumes that it all doesn't dissolve into a puddle of grey goo.

Of course the news out of Seattle gives everyone reason to pause; however, I do not think people are worse today than they once were. After talking to my father and my late grandmother there was something very much lacking in the good ol days. My dad told me there was a girl everyone in the small rural town knew was probably being sexually abused by her father yet no one acted. But, oh yes, they were civil on the surface. Public discourse was not necessarily any better in those days. The glorification of criminals is nothing new. Google the phrase "Jesse James" and you get over 5 million hits today as a result of the press glorifying a villain in the late 19th century. Take a look at this site and you'll see that they do not even name James' first victim. He died doing his job and is nameless while the James brothers are legend. There is a basic urge to think of the past as a better time. I do not believe this is at all the case while undeniably the ability of nut cases to feed their own internal fantasy world has taken a quantum leap. People also live closer together and have more lethal technology available to them when they do go postal. That trend will only increase. We have less chance of knowing in 2006 what the next 50 years will bring than did the inhabitants of 1906. We just don't know what's going to happen. Carpe diem.

You are disputing that Tet was an unmitigated disaster for the enemy in every military sense? The media is just as capable as any other culture of group think. This was particularly dangerous when power was concentrated in the hands of a few networks.

Cronkite was trusted but he wasn't always right. He was part of the media failure after the Tet offensive which turned public support after a major United States victory.

I thought about making that point. We have come full circle now with a medium that has no ethical standards. It is possible to find support for any narrow POV from the multitude of media sources. This is probably still better than the nation gathering at the feet of Walter Cronkite at 6:00 p.m. every night.

I am not a fan of the outright lies that both sides put out through the internet. People send out stuff without making a quick check with urbanlegends.com or snopes.com. It is entirely possible to read nothing but you want to hear these days.

I agree with you PCS. That argument has always seemed obtuse. Of course, there is a difference between Ted Bundy and an unborn child (to the extent it is a "child.")

All of those I listed are well written. I tend to agree with less of their arguments, however.

The classifications have some meaning. I am definitely more "conservative" than Ted Kennedy. As I've said many times, merely because lines are hard to draw doesn't mean that you can't get a sense of relationships and make gross classifications. So, no, I do not think it is "bullshit" to say something like "conservative" magazine National Review or "liberal" magazine "New Republic." So long as people are sensible and understand that any classification is simplistic, I think it is fair on occasion to use labels. My point wasn't that people don't have tendencies but how do we look at those with differing points of view. It's rare that the issue comes into the open so clearly as it did with this study.

Here's the Toronto Star article of the same name. And here's the National Review's rebuttal: I'm posting these articles to frame a question that has been bugging me for a few years. I think I'm something of an aberration to several of my liberal friends. I'm fairly free thinking, likable (I hope!) and kind of non-conformist. I think they view my conservatism, for want of a better word, as a flaw in an otherwise good friend. My conservative friends view my liberal friends as somewhat weak minded. I'm generalizing but I wonder, candidly, how many here would admit to similar feelings about those on the opposite side of the political spectrum?

I'm not sure it would have been that much better if Japan had dominated the globe with the bomb.

Why so emotional? I'm not sure how this subpoint is responsive to my argument but isn't a nuclear bomb a type of technology? My point was that some nation, at some point, would have developed the technology. Had Germany developed nukes (or, if you prefer, the technology for nukes), my 1/32nd Cherokee self wouldn't be here today. As it was, the first country to develop the bomb used it to end a world war. It could have been much much worse.

Are you spoofing us? The more I read your post the more I wonder whether you are just having fun by adopting a persona. If so, I applaud you. In case you are being serious, Oprah was sued for slander. Libel and slander laws originally descended from English defamation law which has ancient roots. The tragedy of the cattlemen's lawsuit is that it brought Dr. Phil to Oprah's attention.

I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer, but my belief was that companies could always seek to avoid pension plan commitments in bankruptcy. This bill was designed to reduce the frequency of companies resorting to that relief. Are you referring to something else?

Ah. I see what you mean and think you have a valid point. I was heartened to see the article on Amr Khaled and was hoping that he was the tip of a moderate islamic ice berg. Maybe I should be satisfied he hasn't been assassinated yet.

Are there many "men like Amr Khaled" or is the LA Times giving him this press precisely because he is so unusual?

It would be like saying the US is at fault for inventing nukes. The species is very fortunate that we did.