I am back from my nice long vacation and have decided to just do one large email to respond to the various emails/articles that have been circulating.
One of the things I have noticed in the emails is that people have a tendency to ignore the problems with our own party. I am going to try and not get into that trap this anymore. I know my party has problems and and I am willing to discuss them.
I will start with the quote:
"[Democrats] are the same people who rediscover poverty every election and promise to cure it. They've cured it so often that they've now made a profession of it. They thrive on failures, on righting wrongs, aiding victims, and so forth. It must be understood that success in those tasks would put them out of business. No matter how many programs are set up and operating, their proponents never claim success for them. To do so would be to say the problems have been solved, meaning the programs are no longer needed. And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being." —Ronald Reagan
The thing about any political quote is that if you change a few words you can make it work for the other side. The Democrats rediscover poverty and the Republicans always seems to have a new boogie man who is coming to get us. Funny thing is the boogie man who actually came to get us (Osama) got his start, in some ways, thanks to Ronald.
As for what I consider to be the best line in the quote: "And the programs, not the problems, are their very reason for being." That too can be applied to both parties. Both the Dems and Reps make their living off the problems. I do not believe there is a single Republican politician thinking "We better hurry up and solve these problems so my county/city/state can stop receiving Federal money and I can stop receiving lobbyist funds." Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are any Democrats thinking that either. It is in the best interest of politicians and the political machine (lobbyists, receivers of pork barrel funds, etc.) for politicians not to solve all of the problems. They just have to make things better than the last guy did, particularly if that guy was from the other party. Please do not act like Republican politicians and their financial supporters only have the best interest of America in mind, you are too smart for that.
If you want in another email we can get into the various pork barrels that Reagan handed out during his time. Remember the S&L debacle. What did that run the country, a couple of trillion? If you remember the son of the then Vice President and the current President's brother did jail time for that. Not to say Dems did not binge on that one as well. They did.
When it comes right down to it, it is not always financially in peoples interest to solve problems. Provide treatments to problems yes. There was recently an article in the NYTimes about how diabetes treatment centers make up to an $11,000 profit per patient on treating diabetes over providing preventative care.
When you are starting or mid-point in your career you tend to not be to pro innovations that will result in your being out of a job.
That brings us to the next topic, the Liberal turned Conservative article Confession of a Crypto-conservative Woman.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5059&search=Bookworm
Both side of the debate have had their converts for various reasons. I had originally considered being a Republican, but then Reagan and his crowd ended that. There is a great quote from Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian conservative who did work with both Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay:
"It's a classic tale of intending to do good - and doing very well, ... The pledge of all these Reagan revolutionaries was to overturnthe iron triangle of Congress, the special interests, and the lobbyists. Instead, they've found themselves comfortable with big government, as long as it cashes in for their clients. I remember all these people as insurgents, revolutionaries to overthrow the establishment. They became the establishment in such a short time in an orgy of moneymaking. They ran the Republican revolution off the rails."
There are great reasons for people from either side to convert. It all depends on your perspective. She refers to the "rebounding American economy". I on the other hand do not see it. Granted I am not an economist but there are a lot of things that say to me things aren't great.
- I am going to loose my job in the next several weeks/months. They have told me I am going but have not yet told me when. Granted that is predominantly related to the industry (Music) but also related to the economy in that sales are down and therefore they are cutting back. (The funny thing is that since they have gutted and restructured HR I could end up being here for a couple of months just waiting for them to get around to the piece of paper with my name on it. The old system we were all specialists. I was the international comp/insurance/pension guy. There was another person who handled all leaves (FMLA, disability, etc.)/terminations/resignations. Now they are all generalists. So today you might be recruiting and tomorrow you might be doing international tax equalizations. The only problem is that now nobody is sure who is doing what at any given moment. So somewhere there is a piece of paper with my name on it, stating that I am to be laid off. The question is how deep into their pile of papers is that piece of paper. I could be here for months. If I get really lucky that person will leave before they lay me off and it could be many more months before the new person gets around to me. I have images of me sitting in some cubicle in the basement and retiring from here in 25 years, before anyone remembers that I am supposed to be laid off. On the other hand if that piece of paper is on top I could be gone next week.)
- I have been looking for a job for a couple of years and have only had two sort of offers and both were for less money and one had a longer commute (it would have been 8 hours a day commute instead of 5). And I have been looking in NYC besides upstate. I am sure some of that is because of the profession I am in (Human Resources), but if jobs are hard to find that is related to the economy. Hopefully getting my Professional in HR certification will help. (Glad I passed that damn test. 4 Months of studying, and 3.5 hours of test - I read crap for a week to thank my brain). Not to say that places have not been interested and thankfully places are honest about the salaries, so I do not waste my time and theirs at an interview for a job that I cannot afford to take.
- My investments are down. If you look at the per share price now vs the same period of Clinton's Presidency, the shares are down. One by 45%. I know that 9/11 screwed the market, but still, I have less money now then I did when Bill was around. Please note that I do not invest in weird things, I am a long term market thinker and invest in staples that people need and I know (hope) that when I need the money years from now the market will be even stronger than when Bill was around.
- Many of my expenses are up. Medical and dental insurance has gone up at work. My real estate taxes are up over 40% from last year. This just means my paycheck, which has not gone up, is stretched a little tighter than before.
- I have a couple of friends who float job-to-job and they are having a tougher time now than before. Some of that is related to their lifestyle, I know that. Still, when your friends are having a tougher time making ends meet then they did under the last President, you have to wonder.
I know, for the 10th straight quarter it says the economy is up. But not in my world.
She speaks of Carter's weak response to terrorists but fails to acknowledge the very direct connection between Reagan's actions in Afghanistan and the creation of al Qaeda and then 9/11. I have to wonder if we kept our nose out of there are all those years ago would we have the problems we do now. Probably not. Different ones though. Would Russia have been the target on 9/11? No one can say for certain. There is a certain irony in Reagan's need to destroy/out-spend Russia because they are the great threat, and that resulting, in some small way, in aiding in the creation of an enemy that actually did attacks us.
Her comment "since government welfare programs began in the 1960s, poverty has become intractable in many African American communities" seems to forget that poverty was already around, that is why the programs were started. It is not like after the end of the Civil War suddenly all of the former slaves were rolling in cash and we screwed them by introducing welfare. There was already a problem, someone stepped up to the plate and tried to fix it. Best solution? Nope. Better then doing nothing though. It's about giving people a hand when they need it. Some people grab on and pick themselves up and dust themselves off and move on. Many don't. Many can't They stay where they are - for a variety of reasons.
I have a friend Rich who works with people coming out of rehab, finding them housing and jobs as well as counseling. In almost 15 years (holy crap have we been out of college that long) doing this one of the thing he frequently complains about is that welfare helps to a certain point. Once you reach that income threshold welfare basically disappears so if his clients run into any sort of financial problem (unexpected medical expenses is a frequent complaint of his) they have to sort of bottom out in order to get aid again. (PLEASE NOTE: I am really freaking simplifying this! Please do not get all anal on the my brief explanation of the systems). He said that after a couple of times of this sometimes people stop trying. They feel stuck and stop trying. It is easier to except then to fight. Some do go on fighting, some give up and some never take up the fight in the first place. Please note this is not a declarative statement on all welfare but an interesting footnote taken from conversations with someone who works with that system.
A cousin of mine nailed a lot of it on the head in his response to her article when talking about how people speak about the other side. Both sides call names, just in different ways. A Liberal will say "I hate you" while a Conservative might counter with "Why do you hate America?". Do I think Bush is "Evil"? NO. The BTK Killer is Evil. Pedophiles are Evil. Do I think he is an "Idiot"? NO (but I think that "A Village in Texas is Missing its Idiot" bumper sticker is funny.) The numb nuts who threw a frozen turkey through the windshield of an oncoming car, in my opinion, are idiots. The woman that ran over a homeless guy, drove home and left him stuck in her windshield in her garage as he spent the next couple of days dieing is a idiot and a decent candidate for evil. Do I think any of the liberals who say they hate Bush truly hate him - no. Do they hate his policies - yep. Does the American populace, in my opinion, have any real reason to think he or any former President is evil or an idiot. NO. On the other hand do I think every American citizen has the right to say they hate Bush and that they think he is an idiot without being called un-American? YES. It is easier/faster just to say he is evil or an idiot or you are anti-American or you are anti-God. The people you are talking too, they're ________ (fill in the blank with your party's name) and they understand what you mean.
Something that people seem to forget is that 90% of all preaching is to the converted. Whether the preacher is a politician, activist or news outlet. They preach to their audience. Do they skip over the holes in their own arguments - yep. But their listeners/audience/readers etc understand. Then the other side spots the hole and says "Look and that giant hole, they're idiots" and then skip over the hole in their own argument. It is part of the game. So we end up becoming more and more divided. We stop thinking about the greater issue and become polarized by the apparent blindness on the other side, and become blind to the legitimate arguments they do have. It is sadly easy to do.
"We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever they enemy supports." - Mao Tse Tung
It reminds me of when pre-invasion Powell came to the UN to show the intelligence about the WMD. A lot of domestic and international media outlets reported that various people (including some former inspectors) said some of the intelligence looked questionable. I remember that at that time one of the FOX news stations was between 2 other stations I watched on cable and I would just surf between the two, catching snippets of FOX as I went back and forth. One evening a reporter was going on-and-on about the liberal media and how the NYTimes was, and I paraphrase, full of shit and that the intelligence was not questionable. Now that Bush has admitted that maybe the intelligence was maybe not so intelligent do you think that reporter said on TV "Wow, turns out the NYTimes was kind of right on that one. My bad." No, I don't think so either.
See, there really is not a giant all powerful liberal media machine anymore. Not that there is a giant all powerful conservative media machine. There is a full spectrum of opinions out there, and that is a good thing. Want to read a newspaper that backs your point of view, it is not hard to find. Don't like Rush on the radio, turn on Air America. Hate the liberals over on CBS, just turn of FOX. We need both sides to keep the other side honest. That is "checks & balances". I hear conservatives complaining about the Liberal Media and I hear Liberals complaining out the White House domination of the media. Where this is bad is that on both sides it seems to be less and less about news and more and more about preaching to their converts. But that makes sense because the more watchers, readers, etc the more money they make.
I am lucky I have two Uncles (who are completely, but wonderfully, wrong about many things) on the other side that send me a lot of great information. By reading both sides of the arguments and trying to avoid both sides gaps in logic an reason I think I am getting closer to what may actually be going on.
Or maybe not. But at least I am trying.
One of the Uncles sent an article bemoaning the Liberal press and all the bad press that Bush is getting and how Clinton did not get so much bad press. The reason is not a Liberal conspiracy. The reason is simple - Americans are dying in a war. Whether or not you think it is right for us to invade, you cannot argue against the fact that Americans are dying. I do not know if it was right for us to invade. A lot of people before the war questioned our need to invade. Even the President admitted that some of the intelligence he worked from before the war, now turns out to be somewhat incorrect. Given that some of the intelligence was wrong, maybe we did not need to go to war when we did, the way we did. And if there is a chance we did not have to go to war when we did then maybe those soldiers did not need to die when they did. So if the President is getting a lot of bad press, while Americans are dying in a war that we might have not had to go to, I am not going to feel bad for him. Not that the war is the only thing he is getting bad press on, deservingly or not, but the war is one of the big ones he gets bad press on right now.
I remember when Libya were the ones who were going to come and get us and how they were making weapons that would get us and that they supported terrorists. We did not invade then. Few bombings and years diplomatic pressure and they copped to their bad behavior and are trying for the straight and narrow. Would that have worked with Saddam? Maybe/maybe not. We will never know now. Would that have worked with his kids - I don't think so. I tend to think we would have had to go over there at some point. I also think that we did not need to go now and not alone. I know "international coalition" but when US private companies are sending more people than other countries are sending troops I don't really get the "international coalition" feeling. A lot of supporters of the war for some reason compare this war to WW2, which I do not understand since Iraq did not attack the US. But if you want to compare it, let's look and the "international coalition". WW2 was an international coalition against the Axis. This, by comparison, is not.
I did not serve in WW2 but I am always kind of offended when people compare WW2 and Iraq. But that is just me.
Interesting that you never hear Liberals comparing favorably Iraq and WW2. Iraq and Vietnam, yes you do hear that. But by mentioning Vietnam I guess that is me being un-American again. Sorry.
I also received a copy of an article by the New Patriot and I found it refreshing for many reasons. First it was well written, and good writing is always a pleasure to read. The second is that they very nicely reminded us that there are people risking their lives for all of us back home. Not just in Iraq, but anywhere the US Military needs to be. And yes I do believe you can support the troops without supporting the war. Here at work we sent boxes just about monthly to a co-worker called up for the reserves. He sent us a list of stuff he and the other soldiers in his platoon could use and we sent them. Now that he is back we are gearing up to send stuff to the others soldiers in other platoons. We are not forgetting them now that he is back. The third think I found refreshing, is that they identified who they are. In the fourth paragraph they describe themselves as "an advocate for federalism, constitutional constructionism, free-market capitalism and social conservatism". It was nice that they put right upfront this is who we are and this is what we stand for in a very clear way. As I am not amongst their converted, it was an instant guidepost for a new reader. So many times people just say "as a (liberal or conservative) it is clear that . . .". But there are all sorts of Liberals and Conservatives, and under each group there is a wide range of viewpoints.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why people stay within their reading/watching/listening habits, because they do not know where the other person is coming from. Should people have to explain their positions or classify themselves all the time? No. But it will help get others to read them. Will I read stuff from the New Patriot again? If it is all that well written - Yes. Do I agree with their viewpoints - No.
The last thing I liked about it was that within their viewpoint they did not feel the need to name call at the other side. Oh there were a couple of things that would piss some people off. But within their stance of being "an advocate for federalism, constitutional constructionism, free-market capitalism and social conservatism" they did not say anything that was out of line, in my opinion. If it were just some Conservative who did not identify his position there were a couple of things I would have felt the need to say "screw you" to. But having a better understanding where they were coming from I got why they said it. Again, they did not feel the need to go after anybody to bolster their position. Good for them for being confident enough in their position that they just said what they wanted to say without slinging. It makes their overall statement more powerful.
Wow this is freaky long. And I am not done yet.
The last article I am going to comment on is "It's the Demography Stupid" by Mark Steyn.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
Interesting article. Boy does this guy like to go on and on and on . . . er, oops. Look I am going to be honest up front, he has some really good points and some holes in his argument you could drive a bus through. I am not going to go through every single thing, point by point that he missed. Just the bigger issues.
Before we get to that, I do think that it is interesting that he lists faith as a primary impulse but makes no mention of education as either a primary or secondary impulse.
I work from a very text book definition of "multiculturalism", being that it pertains to societies being made up of and including multiple cultures. There are probably four reasons I have this definition.
- The way I was raised. My dad who I swear used to make up racial epitaphs for groups just to freak my brother and me out, NEVER said them as an insult. My dad never said he was Polish, he always said he was a Pollock. And even though he used all sorts of colorful language my dad had more friends from more ethnic groups than anyone else I have ever known. He treated them all the same. They were people. Just people. He served in WW2 in the South Pacific and lost a lot of friends there and he made a point of telling me and my brother that he does not hate the Japs, and if he doesn't hate them after what they did to his friends we are not allowed to hate any group of people. Even after his step mom, my grandmother was murdered by a black man, he made a point of pointing out that she was murdered by a man, who just happened to be black.
- I work in HR and there is that whole HR speak. But if you want to hear offensive jokes put a couple of beers in someone from HR. We get all the best offensive jokes.
- The nature of my job requires me to be in daily contact with people all over the world. I do not think there is a major cultural groups that I do not deal with regularly. That made me realize that we are all really the same. People with jobs trying to get by.
- And I tend to think this is the BIG and MAIN reason - I grew up in New York City and have lived and/or worked my entire life in New York. Even now I commute 2.5 hours a day to get to my job in Manhattan. I deal with more people from more ethnic groups on the subway than most people in the mid-west encounter their entire lives. That is not a dis. Just pointing out the difference in lifestyle. As a New Yorker there are really only three "groups" that I acknowledge:
They are:
- People in my way
- Tourists.
- Everyone else
As a New Yorker other than those three groups I really do not care who the other person is. Not that that is the only way I classify people. When I was single I grouped people by:
- Men
- Women - Yes
- Women - maybe
- Women - No
New York is arguably the most multicultural city in the world and we have nailed it. Multiculturalism at it's best is not feeling good about other cultures or the whole "I love you, you love me" shtick. It is not caring about what culture that person is from. "So you're a transsexual Pilipino wican? Great, good for you but I don't care. Now get me a beer." As I write this I think about all the different people that I deal with daily and all the people from when my wife and I lived in the West Village. I never though about the guys selling me my Lotto tickets being what ever the fuck they are. They were and will always be the guys who used to sell me Lotto tickets. I am thinking back to a night of fun from when I was single. We went to a Chinese restaurant, a tapas bar then a topless bar. That night our waiter was Chinese, our bartender was Spanish, the stripper Russian and the cabbie Hindu - and you know what I never really thought about what nationality they were until know. They were to me the waiter, bartender, stripper, and cabbie. That is multiculturalism at it's best. It does not mean you have to embrace every culture out there, just respect that other people are from other cultures and respect the people and ignore the rest. If you are smart you will even find the stuff about the other culture that you like and ignore the rest. I love Thai food, does not mean I want to live there. Not seeing other people as a group/culture and excepting them as whoever they are. You can get dinner in Little India, drinks in Little Italy and desert in China town and the whole thing might run you 2 hours.
New York City is made up of and includes other cultures and New Yorkers just move amongst them, not judging them, because there is no reason too. They are just other New Yorkers too.
That is not to say that there are idiots who don't take multiculturalism to stupid absurdities. Of course there are. There was also a time when people were so un-multicultural people would hang a man because of the color of his skin. Now some people might say well that is Racism and not un-multicultural. True, but they both stem from the same thing - a bias against someone else because they are different in some fairly superficial way. So as a multicultural person I can respect some guy from Burma (my sushi guy is from Burma), like the guy, like the food and the art without having to go live there. In all honesty I think of him a Sushi guy not as Burmese Sushi Guy. Of course I think of him as Sushi Guy because I cannot pronounce his name. Which is cool because he cannot pronounce my name either. He calls me "Man".
So some politicians visited Mosques after 9/11. Big deal. Damn rather they do that than what we did the last time there was an attack on US soil. Lock American citizens up in camps, just because they also happened to be Japanese as well.
I do not know that much about the case of Khadr in Canada. Based on what Steyn wrote in his article I tend to think the politician was being an ass and should have put them on a plane and sent them back to Peshawar. But I also think Steyn left out some facts, like why wasn't the boy already in a prison hospital. If he wasn't there must have been a reason. What was it?
But he is right that people take things to far. This goes back to what I was saying about preaching to the converted. You yell "They are not being multicultural, let's get them" So they push it to an extreme just to prove a point. But then the other side instead of saying "Hey look multiculturalism has some really good points, but let's not go overboard" says things like "Multiculturalism is killing America".
(Funny sidebar - last late summer Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) explained to TV interviewer Barry Nolan that America's "entire culture" was focused on something that was "harming America". Santorum boasted his knowledge of the "founding documents" before he hit upon the precise phrase to describe what is harming America - "The pursuit of happiness.")
So we once again polarize and argue instead of working towards a real solution. But then again if opinion columnists did not preach to the converted of their readership they might not have a readership.
I love it when people say that America is worrying about the wrong things and what you really worry about what I tell you. He says not to worry about environmental doomsday. Well it is precisely because somebody does worry about it that we might never face it. One Uncle recently expounded on why forestry should not be handed over to privatization. As a forestry person he was able to give a strong concise argument against privatization in this case. He worried that they could not do the job properly. By worrying about it and acting on it he helps prevent a problem down the road. Remember acid rain? Some people worried about it getting worse and worked on solutions to fix the problem.
As for krill levels in the Antarctic I am not even close to any sort of expert to venture a judgment on that topic. I doubt Mr. Steyn as a theater reviewer has any specialized degree in that field to be able to make a reliable call on that one. Maybe there is something to it, maybe not. Is it in the best interest of the experts who study krill for us to give them more money to fix the problem? Yep. Does that mean that it is therefore totally not a problem and something that we can completely ignore? I do not know. My suggestion is get other people who are not making money on krill research but are well trained in the area to review the material.
Should we worry about things that will affect the future? Yes, be it declining populations or the environment. What we should not do is run around like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling because of _________ (insert your favorite worry here).
Why the hell did he waste any time discussing Cameron Diaz's opinions? I have never considered her, or really any celebrity a source of political wisdom. Remember actors and actress, even though they make a lot of money and are famous are people who make a living pretending to be other people. That does not make them any smarter or dumber than you. They are entitled to their opinions as an American just like you are. Just people are willing to let them blather on on TV. So why waste the time on her opinions? Because he is preaching to his converted. They like to make fun of Liberal celebrities who talk politics and he is pandering to his audience. Though he did unwittingly tell his audience something very important about himself.
He watches Oprah.
But now on to the main points of his article and the biggest hole in his article. He is correct in that populations are declining in certain countries in the world and increasing in other countries. As an HR guy who does a lot of work in international pensions I have done a fair amount of research into population shifts in Europe. Even given a couple of presentations on the topic. Not an expert, but I probably know a little more about it than the Mr. Steyn. He is also correct that Muslims is the fastest growing religion in the world. If he is correct about population shifts and Muslims increasing in number where is the hole in his argument? Simple, he does not ask why is there a decline in population and why there is an increase in Muslims. What is going on that makes people decide not to have as many children? Based on Mr. Steyn's article it is not a lack of free time on the part of the Europeans. I think it is a more subtle shift in thinking about ourselves, each other and work. I know people that only have one child because they feel they cannot afford to have two. On the other hand I know three families with 6 kids each and they figure "We always find a way." I am not a sociologist, so I freely admit I do not have the answer. But he did not even ask the question. Why?
Muslims are not increasing in number only because of birth rates. They also have the highest rate of conversion these days. Why? I have no idea. Why do statistically more Muslims really embrace their religion and attend services than any other religion? Again no idea. But I think that is a hell of a lot more important question than if they are having more kids.
See something is going on here. People are motivated by a religion and others are less interested in having kids. These are issues that if we can answer will really help change the situation.
Why did he not ask the obvious questions about the reasons for populations shifts? Why do some people chose not to try use welfare to get off welfare? For the same reason people call each other names. It is easy.
Whether feeling like "well this is the system, and I am stuck in it so I might as well accept it" or "they don't know what they are talking about so I do not have to listen to what they are saying". It is easier to listen to the rants then to critically listen to both sides. And if people listen to the rants enough then sometimes they believe them. Then they spread party PR as if it were truth. Both sides do it, again it is part of the game.
I think one of the reasons people join religions in the first place is because it makes life easier. If they except a religion, really except it, then certain issues are then resolved without critical thinking. Societal norms are set and even better they are set by God, so anyone who differs from you is a sinner. Plus since God set the rules, you do not have to question them nor ever budge on anything. "Why? Because God said so." You instantly have a community. Things go wrong when the priest says "Abortion and homosexuality is a sin" or the cleric says "America is the great Satan" and some damn fool of a follower decides to do something about it and forgets other things the priest/cleric says like "do unto others" or "murder is a sin". In an area under as much unrest as the middle east, with as much poverty this might help explain some of the conversions.
In other parts of the world if you look at who is being converted to Muslim or Christianity the areas that have the highest unemployment and poverty levels typically have the higher rates of conversion. Feelings of disenfranchisement from the establishment, helplessness, etc. Similar reasons people join cults, gangs etc.
Look religion has its place and can do amazingly positive things. It can also do amazingly horrible things.
To critically think about one's religion or politics requires not only listening to what is being said by BOTH sides, and I mean really listening, but also the ability to look inside one's self and think about what you think about what they are saying. Not just looking for holes in the argument, but how do you feel about the logic. Not a knee jerk reaction, but asking yourself why did you knee jerk that way. This is something I am going to try and be better at this year.
Of course you cannot have a population with the ability to critical think without a decent educational system, but that is a rant for another day.
OK, this has gone on long enough. I will stop here, for now. But I am sending along two articles and a few quotes. Both are articles from Mother Jones - a very liberal magazine. But that does not mean they do not do accurate reporting or make points that should be dismissed because of their viewpoint - you just take it into consideration while reading.
The first has some big holes in it, the guy really does not like Bush, but when you get away from the commentary and look and the information about Europe and the EU, it is something to take into consideration when thinking about Europe.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/11/continental_divide.html
The second is an article, the last article, by Steven Vincent, a murdered foreign correspondent. He wrote about the beginnings of democracy in Iraq. If you read his work it makes you wonder what kind of democracy are we setting up over there.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/11/assassins.html
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct." - Thomas Jefferson
"Politics have no relation to morals." - Niccolo Machiavelli
"Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt Jr.
"If the government wants us to respect the law it should set a better example." - Anon.
