<
Hey Dude!

SDAI, I have to thank you for the shocking revelation, yet I admit is does tend to humanize our president.


>"Bush just got in a quickie for Hillary......."

Note I didn't say with Hillary but for Hillary. Yes, Hillary was scowling her trademark scowl and hating every minute of it - yet it was wonderful having her as a captive audience - and not hearing her speak!


Wow! Will there be pictures with the news at 11:00.

>" Republicans are not good at self flagellation (surely you know they are just sadists and not masochists - every liberal knows that ;-)"

Ooops, guess I slipped up again by not knowing what every liberal knows. I keep getting strange mental images of that champion of the conservative cause--J. Edgar Hoover--running around in a dress. It tends to confuse me. Mea culpa.

Well there are degrees of liberalism. The vast majority of liberals are folks who have their politics spoon fed to them like infants by the mainstream media who will tell them what to think, when something is important and comfort them that the vast majority of sensible people hold that position and view.

At that point the sheep gene embedded in human DNA seems to kick in and they accept what they have seen, heard or read with the "As seen on TV" type of gullibility that made mail order types rich.

Having a family of educators/liberals/politicians to draw from I can discern the subtle difference.

The man-on-the-street liberal is a far cry from the liberal educator - whose liberalism comes from a historic tradition of liberalism and believe they know more history, politics, or what have you than the general public and of the evil deeds of Hoover, Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush or whichever republican administration you care to dredge up.

There are also knee-jerk conservatives who instinctively rebel against these types of know-it-alls and simply align themselves in opposition.

Then there are politicians - who are the least likely to be as educated as the liberal educators and are generally opportunists and posturers - almost devoid of real views other than the views necessary to keep them in office and on the public payroll.

All political views are seldom politicians' views - but were the common peoples. These views are taken, absorbed and mimicked by politicians to best possible advantage.

As for J. Edgar Hoover and his sexual deviations, they probably appear tame in comparison to the practices of ancient Greece, Sparta or Rome. I could list off a number from the other side of the political spectrum and also point out that statistically, those with similar peculiarities declared Clinton their savior who would cure AIDS and advance their causes and vote almost exclusively Democratic - for fear of some 1950s style oppression and condemnation of their lifestyle.

>"And compared to the evil eighties where everyone was wealthier (thanks to Reagan...God Bless him!)"


I assume you reference the Japanese population and the Japanese auto industry here.

No, they blessed the Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency's CAFE standard... also Greenpeace, Nader and the folks in OPEC.

>"All while our military was downsized ......"


You know what? You just reminded me, I am still looking for my promised "peace dividend" that was supposed to accompany Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

Perhaps if Nixon had not resigned it would have panned out ;-) He needed the Clinton constitution. The peace dividend was probably a small tax cut from the budget otherwise used for the war effort.

>"Bush just pointed out what anyone with a brain already knew - America had chose hedonistic materialism over character and youth over experience."


The association of Bush with anyone with a brain throws me off track. When I have composed myself from my excessive mirth, I shall continue. Yeah right. I didn't know if you were making reference to the hedonism of Aristippus or Epicurus. Epicurus looked for Ataraxia: tranquility of body, mind, and spirit. Frankly, that sounds pretty good to me, and I am glad my fellow americans have chosen such a path. In the view of Epicurus the highest good is the absence of pain and any pleasures that bring pain or discomfort as their consequence. If, in your interpretation---and Dubya's--this is bad, then I opt for bad.

Epicurus also attempted to do away with the dualism of mind / matter. He believed that for something to exist it must be felt. "All that exists is corporeal - the intangible is non-existent"

This is an excuse for the worst forms of debauchery and violence. Because morality is a creation of the mind as is the principles of right and wrong. So hedonism of this nature really just puts man back down to the animal level.

Sex? Feels good. Do it.
Food? Want some. Eat it.
Something trying to hurt me? Kill it.

A society that rejects its higher nature - its inspired guidance - is a society which can be personified by the latter days of Rome. Epicurus should have been deified alongside Bacchus for his contributions to the 'feels good - do it' culture and his obsession with 'sensation'.

Indeed much of the Epicurean philosophy seems to be composed by someone hellbent upon constant orgastic delight.

Consequences or repercussions of actions are another 'intangible' which Epicurus did not wish to confront. Basically Epicurus philosophy was escapist of the first order - the philosophy of a child who wants only the good, pleasurable things and not those that challenge his mind and spur mental growth.

Epicurus must have known that his philosophy was contradictory to logic and reason and he himself must have feared the larceny his philosophy might spawn when he uttered, "We cannot live pleasantly without also living wisely and nobly and righteously."

Yet living wisely, nobly and righteously means not seeking pleasure for pleasure's sake - or ignoring the intangibles - or the highest insights of the mind.

There are folks who have the accumulated knowledge of the library of Congress under their belts - yet can't make up their mind when deciding what's for dinner. These folks are also believe they need no advice and have little use for advisors who would exceed or compete with their own intelligence.

Then there are folks who have a much more limited recall of facts and data yet have decisive decision skills and are quick to ask for help and seek out folks who clearly have a greater data set and/or experience to work with.

Unfortunately, in the folks who run for political office, seldom do these two types mix. In a President one needs a decisive leader - one who does not lead by polls or by going with the flow of events. These leaders even with the wealth of data and knowledge at their immediate disposal are of limited use.

The decisive leader makes decisions which are riskier and have the greater opportunity for great benefits. In that regard Bush can make significant differences in policy which in four years time accomplish more than anyone expects. In fact, more will be accomplished at the end of this term than occurred in the last 12 years.

Yes, the senior Bush was plagued by too much data and the appearance of elitism. His son does not carry the same baggage - and America will be much stronger and safer for it.

The administration of Bush is far sharper than the previous administration and work like a fast moving, precision tool when compared to a president who is in love with himself and surrounds himself with yes-men and pollsters and has the fact-spewing, know-it-all, folks of 'type number one' around him in abundance.

>"We all have paid a heavy price for that decision - and not all the roosters have come home on this one either."


No, I think they have followed the chickens to KFC.

LOL

Or they have been kidnapped and are fighting in the streets of south Florida.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1