KLB

I found this to be an interesting angle to the issue, but I do not believe that it was the primary motivation. Keep in mind that I do think that Nixon was guilty and that he brought tremendous shame onto the presidency. While watching the ceremonies yesterday I heard one reporter comment that he had been very critical of the pardon, until one evening when former President Ford had invited this reporter into his home some years later and they "war gamed" that decision for a number of hours. This reporter (I think it was on CNN but maybe ABC) said after that evening he was convinced that Ford really had done what was necessary. The anger surrounding the pardon (my mother is still upset by it) is that people think Nixon was let off the hook. The fact is that while he might never have served jail time, Nixon was never truly let off the hook and Watergate and the pardon were a dark cloud that shadowed Nixon for the rest of his life. These will also color his legacy for all times. Maybe in the end those who are still angry over the pardon really wanted political revenge not justice.

I can't make my mind up about his presidency because I question how much it was led by events beyond his control. I often wonder if Carter or anyone else would have faired any better. In regards to Carter the man, I highly respect him. I think he is a man of high integrity who has done so much good in this world. If there were more people who followed his post presidency example this world would be a much better place. Thanks, I sometimes bounce from forum to forum and then back again as things interest me. I had heard various comments about Rumsfeld and Bush being a no show and I wanted to see what was up with that. I find it distressing that Bush thought a vacation was more important.

The Washington Post has an interesting article scorning the lack of attendance by politicians to the ceremonies for President Ford last night: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123001166.html Funny thing is, I was thinking the same thing. I was very disappointed that certain key people (from both sides) did not make time to attend. In particular President Bush and the incoming House leadership owed him a little more respect. For crying out loud Ford was a part of the House of Representatives for so long. They could have shown their own a little more respect. I also question Rumsfeld's no show excuse.

Being a moderate does not mean to be a mindless conformist. Independent thinking or conformist thinking is a trait that is entirely irrelevant to whether one is a moderate or extremist in any direction. One can be a completely mindless follower and be an extremist and one can be exceedingly moderate yet also be an exceedingly independent thinker. When I speak of moderates, I refer to those who are peacefully minded, Tolerant of other beliefs and possess a sincere desire to find a way to allow people of different beliefs, cultures and background to live and work in peace and tranquility together.

Spot on assessment. Considering what Ford had to start with and how he became President it is absolutely amazing that his disapproval rating never topped 50%. By all rights he should have been one of the most unpopular presidents especially given his pardon to Nixon. To me this really does reflect just how decent a person he was. Although I think he was the best public speaker of recent presidents, I've never really understood his popularity. Absolutely. There are still people who hate both presidents. This is probably true for all presidents while there are people alive who remember them. I'll disagree. These are times to honor and remember a former president and to remember a very important thing that makes our country so great. That is that power is always peacefully transfered and that regardless of the political background of the President we recognize the good in the man. While his presidency had its fair share of short comings, I have always believed that Carter has been unfairly vilified by those on the right.

I didn't even mention Iraq and I intentionally picked six year instead of three years. There is a lot more to the shrill voice of politics and the divide in our country than just the Iraq war.

On the other extreme people should make themselves aware of the teachings taught by "Reformed Christians" and "Christian Reconstructionists". Extremism in all its forms is a very dangerous thing that all moderate and peacefully minded people must guard against. --- I've always thought of becoming and extreme moderate.

Only history will tell, but Ford's actions allowed this country to come together and quickly heal from a tragic political event. Bush's actions have fractured this country and have helped turn up the shrill of partisanship (in and out of Congress) that reasonable voices (like Ford's) can not be heard. We almost need another President like Ford to bring this country back together from the events of the past six years.

It is another interesting article. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have as reliable of a friend as Jerald Ford. This is probably why, as I heard attributed to Bob Dole, Ford had no enemies.

Oftentimes, the very same people who wrap themselves in the American flag, preach "American values" and vocally scorn any who would dare tread close to the second amendment of the Constitution fall silent when it comes to protecting the first amendment rights of others. The Christian conservative movement would have us believe that this country was founded as a "Christian nation" and that the first Amendment's freedom of religion only pertains to Christian religions. Yet the Constitution never mentions the word Christian and Article VI is very clear about there being no religious test to serve in congress. Further more the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which was signed in Tripoli in 1796 and ratified by the Senate (full of founding fathers) and President John Adams (a founding father) in 1797 states in article XI (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm): As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslim],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. If anyone knew the principles upon which this nation was founded it would have been our founding fathers and ratifying a treaty with this wording is a very explicit statement of their intentions in the form of a legal document. Going through the debates in regards to ratifying the First Amendment it is very clear that those involved with ratifying the First Amendment understood what it meant for example: From Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention for the First Amendment of the Constitution 30 July 1788 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.htm): Governor Johnston:It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans [Muslims], pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Mr. Iredell: Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn. Mr. Spaight: No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest. Another problem with this issue is that some Christian denominations actively preach how evil and violent Islam is and that it is a false religion. This leads to stereotyping of Muslims in a very negative way, an exceedingly distorted view of Islam and islamaphobia (since long before 9/11). I got embroiled in a debate in another forum on this issue where the venom against Islam is so hateful that it is nearly a blind rage and even suggesting tolerance is attacked with scorn and pointing out what the Constitution states and what our founding fathers wrote is attacked as hiding behind the Constitution. Some people really believe that Muslims deserve no protections under our Constitution and that they should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and deported. Some of this anger and hatred reminds me very much of what we saw focused against another religion in another country 60 - 70 years ago. An extremely scary example of this can be found at http://www.reformed.com/pub/polytheism.htm. Among other things they espouse (and I'll quote): In a Christian nation people are not forced to go to church or to believe in Christ, but, the open practice of idolatry is forbidden. It is a capital offense. This is a very serious threat to everyone. Who would definition of idolatry or "open practice"? Where would it end? Here are some other choice comments from their manifesto: Civil authorities are to use their power for the welfare of the Church. This was the common, standard Protestant interpretation. Calvin wrote, “He compares ‘kings’ to hired men who bring up the children of others, and ‘queens’ to ‘nurses’, who give out their labor for hire. Why so? Because ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ shall supply everything that is necessary for nourishing the offspring of the Church. .... .... a covenantal nation would require church membership in a Trinitarian orthodox Christian church for all judges and office holders. .... ..... This passage no more forbids the use of sword by a Christian magistrate to punish idolatry, than it forbids a stick to Christian parents to spank their disobedient children. What is really scary is that this 20,000 word manifesto is on a website for a congregation of Reformed Presbyterians. So we aren't talking about some racist nut case website, we are talking about a school of thought that is infiltrating conservative Christian denominations. Now granted it is a minority of Christian denominations that preach such hateful teachings, but their numbers are growing and if people do not stand up to this kind of hateful teachings and islamaphobia we could see a repeat of what we saw during WWII just against a different religion. Here are some really good quotes by Thomas Jefferson on this issue: All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. [http://london.usembassy.gov/ukamb/tuttle033.html, http://www.uis.edu/journal/2k6mar8/opinion.html] ..... Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. [http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1475.htm]

Ford was probably the most reasonably minded President in the last forty years. It is amazing that what is considered some of his best decisions in retrospect were so heavily criticized by all at the time. Too bad other subsequent Presidents didn't follow more in Ford's footsteps of civility and decency. I did find his comments about the Iraq war very interesting and I wonder if he spoke more on this subject in the interviews.

As some Internet posting CNN just referenced on TV it can't be WWIII because France hasn't surrendered yet.

If I were Blair, I wouldn't know how to take the second sentence of that comment. Was Bush saying Blair has really bad tastes in sweaters?

I found the way they talk in "private" to be more interesting than the subject of the discussion.

For those who ever wanted to be a fly on the wall at some major event like a G-8 summit, nows your chance. During a "photo opt", Bush Blair and others were caught talking candidly amongst themselves about the Israeli situation. CNN has been playing the recordings today and I'm sure the other news networks are doing the same. Very interesting.

That was totally wild. I have seen cases where people "mature" physically at the proper rate, but age at an accelerated rate. This just seems to be the opposite. Aging at the proper rate but not physically maturing. DNA testing could really be insightful.

I think the answer is that animals aren't doing it because they are thinking they need to reproduce. They are doing it because they get a pleasure response from it (e.g. chemical reinforcement). So yes I think animals have sex or at least the males of most species force themselves on the females because it makes them feel good. The reproduction just happens to be the result. Evolutionarily speaking, nature had to make sex pleasurable to make sure species would try to reproduce. Those individuals of a species without a strong sex drive (e.g. didn't find it pleasurable) weren't as likely to pass on their genes.

Here is an interesting article on Yahoo News directly related to my comments above: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060707/ts_csm/ahazmat

Trying to define an issue as devisive down party lines when almost 2/3 of the senators have not yet publically stated a position is very premature. I think what we are seeing are a lot of Senators not staking out a position until they are forced to (e.g. time to vote on an issue). The only ones staking out a position early in this matter are those who see a political advantage in doing so. For instance it could please their base or it could be a political favor (e.g. to lobbiests or other senators for other considerations). An example would be Senator Stevens (R - Alaska). All he really cares about is getting ANWAR opened to oil exploration all other issues are negotiable to him and he will support any cause that he thinks will gain later poltical favors for his pet cause. Once we start to see half of the Senate start to stake out a position on this matter then we can start to look for trends in regards to party lines. But right now it is too early to draw conclusions.

I think your statement is a little misleading. Not every Senator has announced a position on the matter. In fact a quick count I did indicated that there are 64 senators who have not announced a position on this matter. One Republican that hasn't announced a position but I suspect supports network neutrality is Susan Collins of Maine. This is because the other Maine senator Olympia Snow who is also a Republican cosponsored network neutrality legislation and the two senators tend to work very closely together. It is not uncommon for Senator Susan Collins to not annouce any position on votes until the very last moment as it tends to give her maximum leverage as she is known as part of the group of 14 moderate/swing Senators. Susan Collins and Olympia Snow frequently buck party lines and vote against the Republican leadership.

Actually, even many of the super rich are actively supporting network neutrality including Bill Gates (Microsoft), Sergey Brin and Larry Page (Google), Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com), etc. Just about the only ones against network neutrality are the the really big telecoms who stand to gain the most from being able to rape everyone else.

Actually it was a very interesting discussion and you helped sharpen my stance on this issue the next time I end up in a real world discussion on this. I may have gotten annoyed, but I'll get over it. I never hold grudges from stuff like this. I do agree that we are going in circles, which is probably whay we are all getting fustrated. It also goes to show how there is no middle ground to be had on this subject. If anybody comes across a complete list or at least an extended list of chemicals in cigarette smoke I'd be interested in seeing it.

Why aren't I a waiter anymore? Hmm.... Lets think about this for a moment. Maybe its because that was about 15 years ago, I was finally able to get a better education that allowed me to get better jobs and I really sucked as a waiter. This fact does not invalidate my argument that for some people they really don't have a real choice whether or not to wait tables. It doesn't matter whether or not they wait tables for a short period of their life like I did or never get a better education and were stuck in such a job for their career, the fact of the matter is that for many people they don't have a real choice whether or not to wait tables, they are simply thankful to have a job. You are so full of your self on your "ideological trip" and as for your "educational opportunities" this is wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the warm and fuzzy everyone has an opportunity to better themselves, there is a harsh reality that large segments of our society will never have any means of getting a better education and the primary education system failed them. Try being a white male in your mid twenties and try to find scholarships to go back to college. Oh, gee I'm sorry you're not a preferred group for scholarships. Try being a poor single mother of three, whose father ran out and left them. Oh, I'm sorry you're too busy trying to put food on the table and helping your children their homework to get a better education. Oh and if you're that poor mother, the odds are you're car is a piece of crap and couldn't get you very far on that wonderful interstate, and once you do get there, what are you going to do? Wait tables because that is the only skill you have. Look Pangloss I'm very sarcastic with you on this one because I've known too many people who live in "ivory" houses and refuse to acknowledge that many people in this country have none of the great opportunities this country supposedly affords through no fault of their own. Very often in life people end up in spending their life in jobs like waiting tables at their local dinner because there really are no other realistic opportunities for them in life. They can be very good hard working people who simply did not have an opportunity to get a higher education. Also your unemployement percentages don't take into account regional disparties. Now, beyond the discussion of whether or not people have a choice to take these jobs; earlier I shattered your whole "they knew the risks and could do something else" argument with my asbestos and shipyard workers comparison, which you never replied to. Might I remind you that you stated: Then smoking should be banned in all public settings because smokers infringe on people's right to breathe clean air. I will state again people DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RIGHT TO SMOKE and in the process cause harm to others. No right... none... nada... In fact by every measure we use for any other consumer product, smoking and the production of cigarettes in general should be completely banned by the CPSC, the FDA, OSHA and the EPA. The CPSC should ban cigarettes because they are the only consumer product on the market that if used as intended result in the death of the consumer. OSHA should ban cigarettes in all places of employment because cigarette smoke has been proven to cause lung disease and lung cancer and thus poses a severe occupational risk. The EPA should ban the burning of cigarettes because the burning of cigarettes release between 2,000 – 4,000 hazardous chemicals into the air, some of which are radioactive, others that are known marine pollutants and 60 some are known carcinogens. The FDA should regulate cigarettes as a drug and require them to go through the same drug safety testing standards as all prescription drugs because cigarettes were engineered by the tobacco companies to be highly addictive. Of course the FDA would then be forced to ban cigarettes because their health risks way out weighs any potential benefits. Get over the PC BS. This is nothing more than a diversion from the real issue and it bears absolutely no relevance to the discussion of banning cigarette smoking in public places. Again, NO ONE has the right to partake in an activity in a public setting that has been proven to cause physical harm to those around them. The only ideologues in this thread are those who are trying to claim they have some kind of right to smoke in public settings even though such activity would cause physical harm to those around them and those who keep trying to label people who are support a ban on public smoking as liberals and socialists. Honestly.... I look at kids trapped in the home of smokers and would like to say that cigarettes should be banned entirely. I just realize that right now this is not realistic as there are just too many people addicted to tobacco and we need to give them some means of addressing that addiction otherwise we'll have a bigger mess on our hands (ala illegal drugs). I do think smoking should be banned in "members only" clubs as well but am willing to concede this point as long as the majority of the entire membership votes to support smoking. I'd stipulate that any club that does allow smoking would have to vote no less than once a year via secret ballet as to continue to allow smoking or not. As far as employees go, I think from an occupational health and safety issue, it is pretty clear that they couldn't allow smoking and have employees in positions that required them to come into contact with cigarette smoke. The private club exemption to the smoking ban should not be designed to protect large membership clubs that need employees (e.g. country clubs); it should be used to protect small clubs that rely on the membership to provide their own services. From a political standpoint, I look at it being easier to pass public smoking bans if there is an exception for private member's only clubs. Agreed. Actually many of these chemicals are very heavily regulated in the work environment. Look at the chemicals I provided links to. Most of that data I provide for each chemical is regulatory data. Of particular interest for this discussion are the NIOSH Guide entries. Like I keep saying if we simply regulated cigarette smoke using the same exposure limit criteria we apply to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, cigarette smoking would have been completely banned in all places that employed people by now. When one looks at it this way, it really doesn't make sense why OSHA hasn't stepped in and forced this issue years ago. Nice idea but the tobacco companies couldn't figure out how to make a safe cigarette and they had the greatest incentive to accomplish this task. While one might be able to address the pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use issue while growing the crops, the fact remains that there will still be harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke and there is no way to make a safe cigarette. Really if we want to help smokers then we need to give them a nicotine delivery replacement for cigarettes as it is really the nicotine smokers are addicted to. It is kind of hard to care about someone's health when they don't care enough about their own health to try and make an effort to quit. For those who do try to quit, I think we should do what we can as individuals and a society should try to help them succeed with this effort. The .GOV links to federal and state websites as well are a much better source of information on this than Wikipedia. For me the issue of smokers is a very frustrating issue. I can understand that older smokers may have been drawn into smoking blindly and I understand that children of smokers are very likely to smoke. What I don't understand is when young people who should know better take up smoking. This is just willful ignorance and a willful lack of concern for one's own health. Of course one could argue that if parents hadn't lied to them about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc.; kids might have believed them when parents told them that smoking was harmful to their health. I've never smoked in my life, well except for second hand smoke. So I can not appreciate how hard it is to quit, but I do think this really is the only way to overcome the health risks associated with smoking. Really we need to have an objective of becoming a completely non-smoking society within the next few decades. We should also work on making current smokers the last generations of people that smoke. I don't know that this can be legislated, but becoming smoke free society is a good objective.

I don't see you pointing very many instances where we agree. What I see is you simply shifting your argument to try and attack public smoking bans from new positions. The one point of common ground I think I have seen you acknowledge is that if second hand smoke has been proven to be a health hazard then maybe it should be banned in public buildings. In turn; however, you seemed to doubt that the evidence provided to you constituted proof. There is little place for compromise when it comes to banning smoking in public buildings or even claiming that one has some kind of inherent right to smoke in public places. Either smoking is banned in public buildings or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground on this issue. Maine's model for banning smoking in public buildings may be one of the better model for the next decade or so. Basically smoking is banned in all public buildings and businesses with there being an exception for recognized private clubs where the membership can vote whether to allow smoking or not. Smoking is also banned on the school grounds of elementary, middle and high schools and is banned in many children's play grounds. Smoking can not be banned entirely because there are so many people who are addicted to it. The practice of smoking itself, however, can be limited in public spaces to where it will have little to no impact on the health of non-smoking bystanders. Maybe in time as the percentage of the population that smokes declines because of smokers dying off and young people not picking up the addiction, smoking will become a non-issue. For now, however, it is time for non-smokers to take a stand and declare that they are no longer going to put up with being subjected to second hand smoke in any public buildings. For those who think that non-smokers can avoid cigarette smoke think about this. For most of my life I have been subjected to cigarette smoke in public places against my will. Even today I have to hold my breath for that last fifty feet from the parking lot to the front doors of malls, restaurants and bars because of a throng of smokers blatantly ignoring signs placed by business owners asking patrons not to smoke within fifty feet of their entrance.

This is not the way you made your post sound your post was worded as a straw man because I was talking about employees of bars and you shifted it to office workers. If everyone understood the dangers of cigarette smoke, we would not be having this discussion because cigarettes would be regulated as would any dangerous drug. In many places, the primary industry is the service industry and in these types of industries the only jobs that pay a decent living wage are those involving tips such as waiting tables and bar tending. Saying people have a choice not to do these jobs is like saying they have a choice not to eat. It is a red herring argument. If you have a family and are unemployed, and the only jobs available to you given your skill set is waiting tables in a restaurant, you are going to take that job because you have to feed your family. You ignored my coal miner comparison and it was a very apt comparison because the air quality issue. You were the one that brought up this being a liberal vs. conservative issue. It was you who painted this as a liberal political correctness issue. I'm simply pointing out that it has been conservative Republican administrations have done a great deal to push this issue forward thus it is not a left vs. right political issue. It is a matter of public health and it is an issue that crosses political boundaries. Do you deny making the following statement? With this statement you painted this as a liberal cause. I'm simply providing evidence that refutes this claim by pointing out which administrations have furthered the cause of banning public smoking. This is a line of garbage designed to divert the issue. There is no ideological baggage with the effort to ban public smoking. The liberals don't have a monopoly on this cause. It is equally being pushed forward by conservatives as I have been pointing out. It is you who are trying to turn this into an ideological issue of the left vs. the right. I've been simply trying to debunk this falsehood by pointing out the political orientation of the administrations that have brought forth reports on the public health risk second hand smoke poses. There are regulations regarding the exposure of employees to asbestos and the health hazards of asbestos have been known all the way back to early Roman times (http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/asbestoshistory2004.html). By your line of reasoning asbestos should not be regulated because 1) the health risks are well known and 2) ship yard workers could simply refuse to take jobs that expose them to asbestos. This is patently an obscene and indefensible argument. I never said what your political persuasion was; I have simply made efforts to refute your claims that the effort to ban public smoking is an leftist act of political correctness. So we should subject the majority to the tyranny of the minority by forcing the majority to accept the public health risks of second hand smoke or become complete hermits completely isolated from the rest of society simply so we can protect ourselves from the proven health risks associated with second hand smoke. Your argument laughable and affront to the true minorities who have been subjected to true tyranny over the centuries For once and for all; this is not an issue of political agendas. This is a mater of public health policy. For those who want to doubt the surgeon general, here are more reports on the health effects of second hand smoke: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cancer http://www.epa.gov/asthma/shs.html http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/factsheets/secondhand_smoke_factsheet.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ETS_Toolkit/index.htm http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/environmental/etsrel.htm (shows how unavoidable second hand smoke is unless one totally withdraws from society) http://www.smokefree.gov/Docs2/SecondhandSmoke_Q&A.pdf Interesting article debunking the economic impact of restaurants going smoke free: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2005_news/05-009.htm