I'm no lover of Washington, DC, but if you do get a neutron bomb please be sure Trent Lott is there when it goes off. What an oily jerk. I'm glad he's on their side, 'cause I'd dislike him even if he were right-thinking. That is, correct-thinking. Thinking rationally.

And, if people are going to live together as closely as we do, as interdependent as we are, there have to be rules, and not just banking regulations (laws protecting capital). I don't trust human nature enough to go Libertarian - without legal consequences other folks may not stop at my nose, or property line.

Now, in my opinion, all government is good for, Republican, Democrat, Communist, or whatever, is raising and spending money. That's it. It's the spending priorities that folks can't agree upon. I think that people deserve something just because they are citizens as long as it is there. I hate to see an accident of birth deprive anyone of health care, for instance, or make them beg for it.

Anyway, I agree that there is not too much any particular administration can do to influence the larger economic cycles. I do believe that Clinton going to the mat with Republicans over the budget did instill some confidence in the economy, and I don't like, at all, the Republican propensity to take from all and give to the rich, whether it's individuals or corporations.

I just couldn't help but comment on the dichotomy which seems to be prevalent on these pages, that EVERYTHING about Clinton was bad, and Republicans are all that's pure. For instance, I seem to recall something about CO2 and lead that were campaign promises rapidly abandoned by GW as soon as the election was over.

So, it's fun to disagree with you. It would be a bit easier if you didn't document things so well - what do you use for a search engine? As I said about Thomas Lee Elifritz (a pseudonym, I pray), there are a few folks around whose RAM is a bit on the R side.

Arf