The Otherness Comes to the D

[Gerald Rice]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/2949788/detail.html

[Ken Valentine]

http://www.clickondetroit.com/weather/2949788/detail.html


Speaking of the Otherness . . . .

Has George Bush been in the area recently?

Ken V.

[Scott Hajek]

Speaking of the Otherness . . . .

Has George Bush been in the area recently?

Ken V.
Probably not. Otherwise he would have used this event as an excuse to bomb another country.

[Ken Valentine]

Probably not. Otherwise he would have used this event as an excuse to bomb another country.

Oh! Okay. I was thinking that the "W" was upsidedown. That it really was an "M," and stood for MOLASAR.

Ken V. (Still thinking that that may be the case.)

[Biggles]

Probably not. Otherwise he would have used this event as an excuse to bomb another country.

That was cold Scott. At least W didn't bomb an aspirin factory the day Monica (or someone connected with the Oval office antics) was scheduled to testify. I don't always agree with W, but there's something basically decent about him that always allows me to trust his motives. With the previous guy, even when he did the right thing I always suspected it was for the wrong reasons. W may not be Glaeken, or even Jack, but he's not evil either.

[Scott Hajek]

That was cold Scott. At least W didn't bomb an aspirin factory the day Monica (or someone connected with the Oval office antics) was scheduled to testify. I don't always agree with W, but there's something basically decent about him that always allows me to trust his motives. With the previous guy, even when he did the right thing I always suspected it was for the wrong reasons. W may not be Glaeken, or even Jack, but he's not evil either.
There is nothing that I trust about GWB or his administration. Clinton may have a legacy of leaving a stain on a dress, but Bush will have a legacy of staining the dignity of the United States. Whatever the motives of such dissenters as Richard Clarke, the questions they raise are making Bush and the Bushites skittish. If Rice refuses to testify under oath, then what is she trying to hide? This is much like the Cheney excuse with regard to the energy policy that is going before the Supreme Court (and Cheney's hunting buddy, Tony). What is he trying to hide? Why do they all claim "executive privlege?" Each time they do it, more and more reasonable people will question their motivations behind every decision they make.

Again, I personally do not trust GWB or anyone associated with his administration. I question their involvement in Iraq, the war on terror and even the events of 9-11. I do not believe that the public persona of GWB is truthful. I do not believe him to be a man of "faith" except that it has gotten him votes from the far-right, religious conservatives that refuse think for themselves and let others do the same. The beauty of a board like this is that we have many, many different viewpoints and everyone is willing to listen. I do not believe that anyone who has posted to this board falls in the category of the "non-free thinkers." Everyone here has a brain, has made up their own minds and respects each and every individual thought given.

So to you and those that respectfully disagree with me I raise a glass of Guinness, knowing that you will do the same.

[Biggles]

There is nothing that I trust about GWB or his administration. Clinton may have a legacy of leaving a stain on a dress, but Bush will have a legacy of staining the dignity of the United States. Whatever the motives of such dissenters as Richard Clarke, the questions they raise are making Bush and the Bushites skittish. If Rice refuses to testify under oath, then what is she trying to hide? This is much like the Cheney excuse with regard to the energy policy that is going before the Supreme Court (and Cheney's hunting buddy, Tony). What is he trying to hide? Why do they all claim "executive privlege?" Each time they do it, more and more reasonable people will question their motivations behind every decision they make.

Again, I personally do not trust GWB or anyone associated with his administration. I question their involvement in Iraq, the war on terror and even the events of 9-11. I do not believe that the public persona of GWB is truthful. I do not believe him to be a man of "faith" except that it has gotten him votes from the far-right, religious conservatives that refuse think for themselves and let others do the same. The beauty of a board like this is that we have many, many different viewpoints and everyone is willing to listen. I do not believe that anyone who has posted to this board falls in the category of the "non-free thinkers." Everyone here has a brain, has made up their own minds and respects each and every individual thought given.

So to you and those that respectfully disagree with me I raise a glass of Guinness, knowing that you will do the same.


Hey! Wadaya mean A glass? I figure it would take at least a six pack to discuss all of our differences of opinion, although among friends I never proselytize.

[Ken Valentine]

Hey! Wadaya mean A glass? I figure it would take at least a six pack to discuss all of our differences of opinion, although among friends I never proselytize.

A six pack is a form of group therapy.

Ken V.

[Biggles]

A six pack is a form of group therapy.

Ken V.

For most people, yes. For many of my clients, it's individual therapy (of dubious value).

[Gerald Rice]

That was cold Scott. At least W didn't bomb an aspirin factory the day Monica (or someone connected with the Oval office antics) was scheduled to testify. I don't always agree with W, but there's something basically decent about him that always allows me to trust his motives. With the previous guy, even when he did the right thing I always suspected it was for the wrong reasons. W may not be Glaeken, or even Jack, but he's not evil either.

Just look at how he's raping the first amendment and trying to erode Roe v Wade. Notice how his Clear Channel buddies are the biggest media owners in the country? Did you know they've fired 7 radio DJ's throughout the country for speaking out against Bush? And don't give the indecency rap. Clear Channel has several billboards up in Vegas that have practically nude women. Oh, and try out this website.

http://www.misleader.org/special_reports/

[Biggles]

Just look at how he's raping the first amendment and trying to erode Roe v Wade. Notice how his Clear Channel buddies are the biggest media owners in the country? Did you know they've fired 7 radio DJ's throughout the country for speaking out against Bush? And don't give the indecency rap. Clear Channel has several billboards up in Vegas that have practically nude women. Oh, and try out this website.

http://www.misleader.org/special_reports/

Roe v. Wade was decided based upon the right to privacy (following Griswold v. Connecticut). Griswold held that a state could not prohibit the use of contraceptives because of the right to privacy which is implied by the constitution. I have no problem with Griswold, but Roe ignored the fact that a state DOES have a legitimate interest in protecting life, as opposed to either preventing or requiring the conception thereof. If Roe had been correctly decided, the Court would have denied certiorari and left the issue of criminalization of abortion to the individual states, as it was.

Roe did not advance privacy rights one bit; it just violated states' rights to choose their own public policy.

[Ken Valentine]

For most people, yes. For many of my clients, it's individual therapy (of dubious value).

I guess I didn't say it right . . . I'll try again.

"A" beer is therapy. A six pack is "group" therapy.

Ken V.

[Biggles]

I guess I didn't say it right . . . I'll try again.

"A" beer is therapy. A six pack is "group" therapy.

Ken V.

Ahh! Now I get it.

[Brian Taylor]

I don't always agree with W, but there's something basically decent about him that always allows me to trust his motives. [...] W may not be Glaeken, or even Jack, but he's not evil either.

Invading and conquering a country that had neither attacked nor posed any threat to the U.S.... killing somewhere between 10,000 and 37,000 Iraqi civilians... tens of thousands more Iraqis killed defending their country from a foreign invader... 10,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan directly by U.S. forces, and tens of thousands more by its allies (Northern Alliances)... the Fourth Amendment gutted... the right of habeas corpus effectively destroyed... the right to travel suspended by bureacratic fiat (the no-fly list)... America held in the grip of a growing police state...

What the hell more does Bush have to do to qualify as evil in your book? Become a Democrat?

Bush is creating the kind of tyranny that Clinton could only dream of.

[Jay #1]

While we're on the topic, lets not forget the 10s of thousands of Iraqui civilians who thanked the Americans for coming to their country. Nor should we forget those that condemn the ones who are killing the Americans. Finally, let's take into consideration the fact that most of the ones who have been fighting off the "foreign invader" are probably being handed weapons and explosives by terrorist factions, because the weapons are too expensive for them to buy by themselves. Makes me wonder, where are the weapons coming from. Stockpiles? hmm... and people say that there aren't weopons hidden in Iraq.

Invading and conquering a country that had neither attacked nor posed any threat to the U.S.... killing somewhere between 10,000 and 37,000 Iraqi civilians... tens of thousands more Iraqis killed defending their country from a foreign invader... 10,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan directly by U.S. forces, and tens of thousands more by its allies (Northern Alliances)... the Fourth Amendment gutted... the right of habeas corpus effectively destroyed... the right to travel suspended by bureacratic fiat (the no-fly list)... America held in the grip of a growing police state...

What the hell more does Bush have to do to qualify as evil in your book? Become a Democrat?

Bush is creating the kind of tyranny that Clinton could only dream of.

[Scott Hajek]

I think the argument can be summed up that "the ends clearly do NOT justify the means." There is quite a bit still hidden, but I believe it isn't weapons of mass destruction, but mass "distraction." What is the Bush administration trying to hide? Why did the US invade another country? How much money is Cheney going to make off this "project"? The only way he isn't going back to Haliburton after his term is up, is if he leaves Washington because of a heart attack first.

Iraqis praising the US for getting rid of Saddam is not enough to say this war was good.

[Jay #1]

No war is good. Now let's look at something I just picked up randomly on the internet. It's a section from a Catholic complaining about us going to war with Hitler in WWII. After reading this, I realize that the people against the war in Iraq are just repeating what their predessors have done. Beating a dead horse. WWII was justified. Our actions in trying to bring a better government in Iraq would be justified too, except nobody wants to listen. *shrug* and people wonder why I don't watch the news anymore. Cancelled cable 3 years ago, buy dvds of the tv shows I want to watch, and read the weird news section on Netscape. I mean, heck, I hear enough news everyday from people who want to spout it off.

How do you defend the Allied assault on continental Europe during World War II? Oh sure, you will say that Europe was occupied territory dominated by a foreign power, but does that really justify the sorts of atrocities, civilian deaths, and often racism that characterized so much Allied activity? I mean, just look at the fire bombing of Dresden. Just look at our neglect to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz. Just look at our neglect of the Warsaw Uprising Reprisals. Just look at the mass slaughter of innocent people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only that, we hypocritically entered into an alliance with Stalin, one of the greatest butchers in history, to press our "just war" effort against Hitler. So obviously, there is no way at all to justify the so-called "Allied Cause." The whole thing must have been an entirely self-serving hypocritical effort with a thin veneer of "God and country" painted over it to give it a semblance of piety.



After reading this, I realize that the people against the war in Iraq are just repeating what their predessors have done. I mean, just read it. It's in the same format as everyone else complaining about our presence in Iraq. Beating a dead horse. WWII was justified. Our actions in trying to bring a better government in Iraq would be justified too, except nobody wants to listen. *shrug* and people wonder why I don't watch the news anymore. Cancelled cable 3 years ago, buy dvds of the tv shows I want to watch, and read the weird news section on Netscape. I mean, heck, I hear enough news everyday from people who want to spout it off. With that note, I'm slapping myself upside the head and going to drink tea and relax with a book. If I've ticked off anyone.... well, I can only live once and I can't make all the people in the world happy all the time. Until next time.




I think the argument can be summed up that "the ends clearly do NOT justify the means." There is quite a bit still hidden, but I believe it isn't weapons of mass destruction, but mass "distraction." What is the Bush administration trying to hide? Why did the US invade another country? How much money is Cheney going to make off this "project"? The only way he isn't going back to Haliburton after his term is up, is if he leaves Washington because of a heart attack first.

Iraqis praising the US for getting rid of Saddam is not enough to say this war was good.

[Jay #1]

For some odd reason, parts of my post duplicated. Sorry about that.

[jimbow8]

For some odd reason, parts of my post duplicated. Sorry about that.
The joy of it is that you can, on this new board, go in and edit the post after the fact.

Anyway, I think it is hypocritical to compare Hussein to Hitler. What about the attrocities in Saudi Arabia, China, and in Africa, to name a few, that we conveniently overlook. And what about the erosion of civil right in our own country in the name of "patriotism" ? The shit that this government has gotten away with by invoking the words "September 11th" and "national security" make me sick.

[Scott Hajek]

No war is good.

After reading this, I realize that the people against the war in Iraq are just repeating what their predessors have done. I mean, just read it. It's in the same format as everyone else complaining about our presence in Iraq. Beating a dead horse. WWII was justified. Our actions in trying to bring a better government in Iraq would be justified too, except nobody wants to listen. *shrug* and people wonder why I don't watch the news anymore. Cancelled cable 3 years ago, buy dvds of the tv shows I want to watch, and read the weird news section on Netscape. I mean, heck, I hear enough news everyday from people who want to spout it off. With that note, I'm slapping myself upside the head and going to drink tea and relax with a book. If I've ticked off anyone.... well, I can only live once and I can't make all the people in the world happy all the time. Until next time.
Actually, no war is great and all wars are bad. Yet, a "war" that is justified by outright falsehoods and a blatant invocation of "patriotism" and "fear" is an absolue crime.

The majority of people that I know who are against the war in Iraq are not Hussein supporters. They are people that are glad he is gone, but the means implemented to remove him from power are criminal in nature considering all that has been said and all that has NOT been found.

Keep one thing clear, if we had a Democratic Congress, Bush would be facing impeachment right now. What he has done by perpetuating the lies that led Americans to believe this war was justified... what he has done goes way beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors," especially in light of what Clinton did to be impeached by a Republican Congress.

History shows that Saddam Hussein was indeed a criminal. History, however, will show that George W. Bush was also a criminal. Hopefully, much sooner than later.

[Biggles]

Actually, no war is great and all wars are bad. Yet, a "war" that is justified by outright falsehoods and a blatant invocation of "patriotism" and "fear" is an absolue crime.

The majority of people that I know who are against the war in Iraq are not Hussein supporters. They are people that are glad he is gone, but the means implemented to remove him from power are criminal in nature considering all that has been said and all that has NOT been found.

Keep one thing clear, if we had a Democratic Congress, Bush would be facing impeachment right now. What he has done by perpetuating the lies that led Americans to believe this war was justified... what he has done goes way beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors," especially in light of what Clinton did to be impeached by a Republican Congress.

History shows that Saddam Hussein was indeed a criminal. History, however, will show that George W. Bush was also a criminal. Hopefully, much sooner than later.

Scott,

Here's my take on other presidents and their wars: Polk in 1846, Lincoln in 1861, McKinley in 1898, Wilson in 1917, and Roosevelt in 1941 all deceived us into war. I'll exclude from consideration presidents since 1955 (my year of birth) since Vietnam is too fresh a wound. Of all of those wars, only WWII was one we probably were destined to join at some point. I disagree with your assessment of GWB, and would counter with Clinton's outrageous behavior in getting us into the Balkans not once, but twice. But let's face it, nothing in politics is new or unprecedented.

[jimbow8]

I disagree with your assessment of GWB, and would counter with Clinton's outrageous behavior in getting us into the Balkans not once, but twice. But let's face it, nothing in politics is new or unprecedented.
OK, this is one of the things that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that any time a "liberal" says something bad about Bush, a "conservative" will counter with "well, Clinton did X"? What does that have to do with anything. I disagree with almost everything GWB does, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything Clinton did. I could give a crap about what Clinton did. It has nothing to do with it. It is certainly not a valid argument for supporting Bush. This is the problem I have with partisan politics; it has nothing to do with the issues but only has to do with disagreeing with the other guy. Hell, this administration seems to do things sometimes exclusively because it is the opposite of what Clinton did. Sometimes it seems to be their only tangible policy.

[Biggles]

OK, this is one of the things that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that any time a "liberal" says something bad about Bush, a "conservative" will counter with "well, Clinton did X"? What does that have to do with anything. I disagree with almost everything GWB does, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything Clinton did. I could give a crap about what Clinton did. It has nothing to do with it. It is certainly not a valid argument for supporting Bush. This is the problem I have with partisan politics; it has nothing to do with the issues but only has to do with disagreeing with the other guy. Hell, this administration seems to do things sometimes exclusively because it is the opposite of what Clinton did. Sometimes it seems to be their only tangible policy.

This might surprise you, but I agree with much of what you wrote disagreeing with me. I think most of our presidents (of various parties) have been pathetic. Jefferson is the closest I've seen to perfection, and aside from his "wall of separation" approach to the Establishment Clause, I agree with just about everything he believed. Lincoln and FDR (one a Republican and the other a Democrat) whom many historians consider "great", did more damage to our freedoms, and our economy, than all other presidents combined. I have tremendous affection for Washington, even though I'm still pissed about him calling out the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, although I guess he had little choice after we tarred and feathered the revenuers. Washington's greatness lay more in what he did not do than what he did. As father of our country, he could have accepted nearly dictatorial powers from a willing populace. Unlike Julius Caesar, he rejected absolute power.

Ironically, Lincoln, who said: "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely", is the best historical proof of his own axiom.

TR (Republican) was an imperialist tyrant. Wilson(Democrat) foolishly got us involved in WWI. McKinley(Republican) and Polk(Whig, I believe) got us into wars just to expand our borders. At least Jefferson had the decency to PAY for the land we wanted.

[jimbow8]

I'm not really that surprised. :D I wasn't disagreeing with you so much as stating that something you said is a pet peeve of mine.

I am not nearly the presidential scholar (well, I was in high school, but that's different) that some of you seem to be, especially regarding your views of Lincoln, but from what I have read Washington was by and large the unanimous choice for 1st President and possibly the only one strong enough to hold the infant country together at such a critical time. John Adams always seemed good to me, too.


For anyone interested, here's a little tidbit of anti-Bush from someone who knows firsthand about White House corruption:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Gerald...how is Bush "raping" the 1st Amendment? Isn't the fact that you're posting the question ample evidence that free speech is alive and well? As far as Roe vs. Wade goes, =I= consider abortion to be murder as soon as an egg is fertilized. But I know there are differing views... so let's talk. That's what our board is all about. No one here pretends to be God. (Well, maybe Ken V. once in awhile :D .) Know what I'm sayin'? We ain't here for business, Gerald, we're only here for fun.

[Ken Valentine]

Gerald...how is Bush "raping" the 1st Amendment? Isn't the fact that you're posting the question ample evidence that free speech is alive and well? As far as Roe vs. Wade goes, =I= consider abortion to be murder as soon as an egg is fertilized. But I know there are differing views... so let's talk. That's what our board is all about. No one here pretends to be God. (Well, maybe Ken V. once in awhile :D .) Know what I'm sayin'? We ain't here for business, Gerald, we're only here for fun.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, ONCE IN A WHILE?
Always partner . . . always. :D

Shrubya isn't solely to blame, but the "buck" has to stop somewhere.

CONgress passed the McCain/Fiengold Incumbents Protection Act, which forbids freedom of political speech, and Bush signed it into law. A clear violation of the first amendment.

God . . . er, Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Actually, Biggles, it was a British nobleman (Lord Acton?), who quipped,"Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely." But, as Spider Robinson saw, how can that be? If you have =absolute= power, what more do you need? What more do you want? What could possibly threaten you?

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Oh, Scott, for Christ's sake..."If we had a Democratic Congress...?" I don't believe that only a majority party member can introduce an article of impeachment. Or is so sadly a broken-down bluesman wrong on this elementary parliamentary fact? Don't let your animus towards the president stop you from thinking clearly here.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

OK, this is one of the things that bugs the hell out of me. Why is it that any time a "liberal" says something bad about Bush, a "conservative" will counter with "well, Clinton did X"? What does that have to do with anything. I disagree with almost everything GWB does, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything Clinton did. I could give a crap about what Clinton did. It has nothing to do with it. It is certainly not a valid argument for supporting Bush. This is the problem I have with partisan politics; it has nothing to do with the issues but only has to do with disagreeing with the other guy. Hell, this administration seems to do things sometimes exclusively because it is the opposite of what Clinton did. Sometimes it seems to be their only tangible policy.
This is actually Bluesman Mike's buddy, not Bluesman . . . so blame me, not him: I'd like to quote your political saavy, in your own words: "I disagree with almost everything GWB does" . . . . followed by this criticism of others: "it has nothing to do with the issues but only has to do with disagreeing with the other guy". At least no one could accuse you of lacking political introspection!

[jimbow8]

This is actually Bluesman Mike's buddy, not Bluesman . . . so blame me, not him: I'd like to quote your political saavy, in your own words: "I disagree with almost everything GWB does" . . . . followed by this criticism of others: "it has nothing to do with the issues but only has to do with disagreeing with the other guy". At least no one could accuse you of lacking political introspection!

Don't beat around the bush (no pun intended), say straight out what you mean. By "the other guy" I was referring to the other party, not a particular person. I disagree with Bush because of what he does, not because he is a Republican't (I just thought that one up, Ken V :D). I loathe both parties equally for the most part. If congressman and other officials would actually vote their conscience (if they had any), instead of whatever is in their own or their party's best political interest, we would all be better off. Bush's agenda is to gain a second term and advance the power of the Republican party, not the best interest of the country.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

I agree 100% on that point.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Excellent rap, Russ. But I can't see Hitler as having had =absolute= power. His generals--sworn to him--tried to kill him. And Stalin?--why would an hombre with =absolute= power over his slaves have been so paranoid a wreck? I gotta go with Spider on this. Perhaps what Acton meant was the =quest= for power corrupts, and the =quest= for absolute power corrupts on an asymptotic curve.

[Biggles]

Actually, Biggles, it was a British nobleman (Lord Acton?), who quipped,"Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely." But, as Spider Robinson saw, how can that be? If you have =absolute= power, what more do you need? What more do you want? What could possibly threaten you?

So Lincoln stole that line? Or am I totally wrong and Lincoln never said it at all?

[Biggles]

I loathe both parties equally for the most part.

I'll second that emotion. I say let's harvest some of Jefferson's DNA, clone him, and bring back the Republican Party (the true Republican Party founded by Jefferson). Wouldn't it be great to live in a republic?

[Scott Hajek]

Excellent rap, Russ. But I can't see Hitler as having had =absolute= power. His generals--sworn to him--tried to kill him. And Stalin?--why would an hombre with =absolute= power over his slaves have been so paranoid a wreck? I gotta go with Spider on this. Perhaps what Acton meant was the =quest= for power corrupts, and the =quest= for absolute power corrupts on an asymptotic curve.
If you want to read a great book regarding Hitler and Stalin, try The Berkut by Joseph Heywood. Hitler survives and it just goes from there.

[Jay #1]

That's generally how I feel whenever I go overboard and take an argument seriously. *grin* For the most part I'm just happy annoying the other side.

I have no respect for _any_one who believes he or she has a right to force me to act according to his/her judgment rather than my own. Their sanctimony, their arrogance, their ignorance is appalling and degrading.


Russ Madden

[Ken Valentine]

Ironically, Lincoln, who said: "Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely", is the best historical proof of his own axiom.


That was Lord Acton, Biggles.

Lincoln was the opposite in my mind. Only the absolutely corrupt seek absolute power.

Ken V.

[Ken Valentine]

So Lincoln stole that line? Or am I totally wrong and Lincoln never said it at all?

Lord Acton did say it. Whether Lincoln said it as well, I don't know, but I doubt it.
I believe the accurate quote is, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So many quotes have become modified and/or misquoted over the years.

Here's one that has been quoted out of context. It effectively says, when you are in the thrall of an all powerful government, it's best to resist (at first) with words rather than deeds:

"Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword."

Richelieu: or The Conspiracy, Act 2, Scene 2, by Edward George Bulwer-Litton.

Ken V.

[Ken Valentine]

I'll second that emotion. I say let's harvest some of Jefferson's DNA, clone him, and bring back the Republican Party (the true Republican Party founded by Jefferson). Wouldn't it be great to live in a republic?

As I recall it was the Democratic Republican party.

Although Jefferson wasn't a bad president, I do have problems with his violation of the fourth and fifth amendments during the embargo of Britain in his second term.

As far as "best" presidents are concerned, I tend to lean toward Martin VanBuren and Grover Cleveland. The worst in my book was Lincoln, followed by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.

Republic? I'd be willing to settle for a Constitutional government.

Ken V.

SHAMELESS PLUG!
"Starts off like street level Heinlein and then leaps into an alternate America that boggles the mind. There's action, adventure, and a host of interesting characters, but it's the ideas that count." -- F. Paul Wilson on The Probability Broach, by L. Neil Smith

[Biggles]

As I recall it was the Democratic Republican party.

Although Jefferson wasn't a bad president, I do have problems with his violation of the fourth and fifth amendments during the embargo of Britain in his second term.

As far as "best" presidents are concerned, I tend to lean toward Martin VanBuren and Grover Cleveland. The worst in my book was Lincoln, followed by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.

Republic? I'd be willing to settle for a Constitutional government.

Ken V.

SHAMELESS PLUG!
"Starts off like street level Heinlein and then leaps into an alternate America that boggles the mind. There's action, adventure, and a host of interesting characters, but it's the ideas that count." -- F. Paul Wilson on The Probability Broach, by L. Neil Smith

Your list of worst presidents is quite similar to mine.

Jefferson's Party is usually referred to as the "Jeffersonian Republicans" in order to avoid confusion with the present, statist, Republican Party. My foggy recollection from my college studies is that the name was changed to Democratic-Republican before finally becoming just Democratic. Although there is an unbroken line between Jefferson's Party and the present Democratic Party, BOTH major parties today are a disgrace to his memory, as neither party since the Civil War has stood for the federal (and republican) system of government our Framers (other than Hamilton) wanted.

Here's an alternate history idea: What if Hamilton had been killed in the Revolution? Would our society be freer today?

[jimbow8]

Who said this?

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

[Biggles]

Who said this?

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

Adolf Hitler?

[Biggles]

SHAMELESS PLUG!
"Starts off like street level Heinlein and then leaps into an alternate America that boggles the mind. There's action, adventure, and a host of interesting characters, but it's the ideas that count." -- F. Paul Wilson on The Probability Broach, by L. Neil Smith

I found and bought this book on eBay just now. I thought it was interesting that it supposes that the Whiskey Rebellion had succeeded. If I had been born in 1755 rather than 1955, I would have been among those tarring and feathering the revenuers. David Bradford was one of my childhood heroes (leader of the Whiskey Rebellion in my hometown).

[Ken Valentine]

Here's an alternate history idea: What if Hamilton had been killed in the Revolution? Would our society be freer today?


SPOILER:
In The Probability Broach, the Whisky Rebels won, and Hamilton fled the country.

Biggles, you really have to read this book . . . I'm not kidding, you'd love it!

Ken V.

[Ken Valentine]

Your list of worst presidents is quite similar to mine.

Jefferson's Party is usually referred to as the "Jeffersonian Republicans" in order to avoid confusion with the present, statist, Republican Party. My foggy recollection from my college studies is that the name was changed to Democratic-Republican before finally becoming just Democratic. Although there is an unbroken line between Jefferson's Party and the present Democratic Party, BOTH major parties today are a disgrace to his memory, as neither party since the Civil War has stood for the federal (and republican) system of government our Framers (other than Hamilton) wanted.

Here's how I remember it:

Federalists not being able to get elected any more infiltrated Jefferson's Democratic Republican party. And within twenty years enacted the entire Federalist program: high military expenditures, a central bank, a protective tariff, direct federal taxes, and public works. Horrified at the results, Jefferson retired from politics, went back to Monticello and brooded. He was visited by a couple of young politicians -- Martin Van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton -- whom he inspired to start a new party (the Democratic party) and take America back from the new Federalism. When Van Buren and Benton latched onto Andrew Jackson, the new Democratic party was born.

The plan was to be eight years of Jackson, followed by eight years of Van Buren, and eight years of Benton. And it was not an idle dream, as the democratic party quickly became the normal majority party in the country.

Jackson had his eight years, which destroyed the central bank and retired the public debt, and Van Buren had four which seperated the federal government from the banking system. But the 1840 election was an anomoly, as Van Buren was defeated by an incredibly demagogic campaign engineered by the first great modern campaign chairman, Thurlow Weed, who pioneered all the modern campaign frills -- catchy slogans, buttons, songs, parades, and so on. The election put into office the egregious Whig, General William Henry Harrison.

The Democrats prepared to counter this in 1844 when a fatefull event occurred. The Democratic party was split in the critical issue of slavery. Or rather the expansion of slavery into a new territory. Specifically, the admission to the Union of the republic of Texas as a slave state; Van Buren was opposed, Jackson was in favor.

With a weakened Democraric party, the statist Whigs -- which was in effect a resurgence of the Federalist party -- were able to elect another president . . . Zachary Taylor. When Taylor died in office, his position was filled by Millard Fillmore. When the Whigs began to get a -- deservedly -- bad reputation, they evolved into the Republican party.

Abraham Lincoln was able to manipulate southern secession from his taxing program into a war in which the Republicams were able to consolidate federal power . . . and we haven't been able to escape from it yet!

It's a little simplistic, but as far as political party evolution is concerned, here is how I see it:

The Federalists infiltrated the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans, the Jeffersonians started a new party called the Democratic party, the statists who were left in the Democratic Republican party evolved into the Whig party, and then into the Republican party. In the 1930's the Socialists took over the Democratic party. And here we are today, with poison for food, and poison for the antidote.

Ken V.

[Ken Valentine]

I found and bought this book on eBay just now. I thought it was interesting that it supposes that the Whiskey Rebellion had succeeded. If I had been born in 1755 rather than 1955, I would have been among those tarring and feathering the revenuers. David Bradford was one of my childhood heroes (leader of the Whiskey Rebellion in my hometown).

Man, you got me there. I remember Bradford made a rousing speech at Mingo Creek, but that's about all. Oh, I remember the basics, and some of the names, and places, -- Hugh Henry Brackenridge, John Neville, "Tom the Tinker," Braddocks field . . . but I have forgotten soooo much.

Going to have to dig out and reread Thomas Slaughter's book, The Whiskey Rebellion.

After you read TPB, you might want to get the sequels:

The Venus Belt.

The Nagasaki vector -- aside from being one of the funniest books I have read, it sets up --

The Gallatin Divergence -- which is where the characters go back in time and participate in the Whisky Rebellion.

Then read:

Their Majesty's Bucketeers -- another funny one about an alien "Sherlock Holmes," which in turn sets up --

Tom Paine Maru

Unfortunately, all these are out of print, but are available used at abebooks.com

(Aside) One of Neil's quirks is that he uses names of real people in his books, but rearranges the letters . . . just as FPW has done with Rasalom. For example, the villainess in Nagasaki Vector is named Edna Janof . . . (Jane Fonda.) :D Love it!

Ken V.

[Bluesman Mike Lindner]

Have you read Spider's "Rah, Rah, RAH!" ? He defends Heinlein's (and, by extension, every writer's) right...in fact, =duty=, to engage in political/philosophical analysis. (For the record, I've read all of Spider's novels and collections, and like them all except for the harebrained NIGHT OF POWER.)