making a note that emailing kater is a low risk proposition

Well come on, everyone wants to get married. Don't they?

Ok really I was trying to be funny. I thought it was just hilarious.

So I was thinking about this girl I saw. She looked really good, but I hadn't met her yet. Then I decided I'd marry the girl, but first I had to figure out how to introduce myself. Life is so complicated. Did anyone else ever face such a dilemma? You can hardly marry someone you never met, now can you?

Hi Cindy, Whassup. I like that new York kind of look you're sporting.

Just didn't figure out who yet. Maybe I should start with introducing myself first. Hi, I'm Mike.

Better to annex Mexico, those Canadians are much too obstreperous to tolerate such overtures.

Why is it I mainly see Fanta in the other thread, "on your knees for Bush"?

They are forecasting Dean to have the straightest course ever. Frequently hurricanes wander around and usually they hook North and eventually Northeast. This one is heading for Mexico they say. I think it will curve up a little and hit Port Isabel and Padre Island, one week before the start of the Labor Day Regatta for the Ruff Riders Catamaran race. I am wondering how it will effect the race. I had hoped to join the race this year, but alas I haven't managed to make the commitment in time.

The wind there runs about 20 mph average anyway or maybe 25. You can go so fast in a light sailboat there on the smooth waters, you'll have a hard time being satisfied sailing anywhere else.

Once I went zooming around on a jet ski on the Laguna Madre there and saw a guy on a sailboard flying across the laguna. My speed was 65 on the jet ski and he was going at least as fast as I was going.

Sometimes simple things just somehow seem admirable.

You have a subscription? Where do I sign up for one of those? Why would you want to cancel it?

Almost everyone agreed here that the drug tests for welfare people was a good idea so I probably am going to rattle some cages.

First I love the idea about testing congress. On the other hand those guys are most likely all on prescription meds so the issue would be gray rather than black and white.

People here should keep in mind that huge percentages of the population here are on prescription medication, many of them quite heavy. And huge percentages of people are on illegal drugs as well.

It seems to me that in light of the large percentages of people who take mind altering medications that you are wanting to unnecessarily single out some unfortunate few who are unable to manage their own lives.

There are going to be some percentage of people in any society who are just going to be unwilling or unable to work. Some of these will be on drugs, maybe even a large portion of them. Some will be artists with their own pie in the sky that they are reaching towards. Some you will be unable to explain under any circumstances. Remember that a large portion of the rest of the population is on drugs too.

I think you have to give a little for those who fall outside the normal expected and accepted guidelines. If you don't you will be heaping one hardship on top of another. People who need this sort of help are going to need it whether you qualify them or not. But either way, if you don't help them they still need to eat. If you don't mind more beggars on the street and higher crime rates than maybe what you say makes sense. But I propose that the cost of housing them in jail or mental institutions will be quite a bit higher and harder on society as well.

I work almost every day and I pay taxes. I don't take drugs, prescription or illegal.

I'm not actually a Republican. I consider myself more of an Emersonian actually. Some of the points the Reps make are good, some of the points made by the Dems are good. For some issues neither party seems to have a clue and the whole lot of them are media driven so they couldn't focus on a forward thinking idea if it bit them on the foot.

Bush is getting a tough ride because there are some serious smear tactics going on. Buying into those is like living off cotton candy. It might be appealing, but it is ridiculous anyway. He is also getting a tough ride because he does not speak as well as needed, and because history has dealt him a tough hand. I wonder if his speech writers are part of the problem. You know that he has a tendency to stand by those who are on his team even when it is time to let them go. Perhaps he is being overly generous towards them as well.

The national suicide rate is 12 to 15 per 100,000 for that age range.
For 150,000 soldiers that would be around 22 suicides in the normal population. So the rate then is about 4.5 times the national average. Sounds like the war is getting those guys down emotionally.

Suicide rate in Alaska is 23 per 100,000, that would make the normal rate for 150,000 soldiers 35 so the soldiers would be dying of suicide at 3 times the Alaskan average. Did Bush ever visit Alaska?

The only consensus in this thread, as far as I know, is that Fanta should put some pants on.

Miles, Shalom to you too. Do you have that towel a little tight around your head today?

Does anyone remember the Clinton veto of the Republican balanced budget plan in 1996? Clinton's politics were not all about green ecology.

Wait, the issue here was extremists vs moderates. Fanta and Miles seem to want to be the final word on who is extremist in the American Government. Well Miles, that good ol' boy rhetoric is just peachy. Now try opening your mind a little bit, otherwise who cares what you have to say. Fanta, it is pretty darn seldom I see someone so highly partisan as you. I don't think you could see a good act in a Republican if they were helping your own mother across the street. If a Democrat pushed her in front of a bus I think you would not fail to excuse or even praise them. It is simply pathetic, your inability to take an independent perspective on things.

Good job Search.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, moderates vs extremists, I think it would be to everyone's advantage to foster support for the moderates in highly volatile regions of the world where extremists are presently in control of large amounts of wealth and military might. This is not a cry for hatred towards Republicans. How you can construe it as such is mind-boggling.

Fanta, pants. Pants. Put on some damn pants.

Suing Imus is her right. The guy defamed her needlessly. Radio and TV mouthpieces should have a little caution about who they malign. Its a free ride for the girl suing him. He slanders her, she has proof, she can sue. If you don't like it, tough luck. That's the law. Personally I don't think he had malice in his heart and was simply having callous disregard in his pursuit of humor. Nevertheless, its her personally that he made comments about.

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice" so said Lyndon Johnson at one time. Rather a Machiavellian perspective I think. Personally I have some problems with this sort of behavior too.

I'm not interested in promoting guerrilla activities to promote our personal agenda as a country. I am going to make the observation though that many times other countries do take such action. Iran's Revolutionary Guard was just declared to be a terrorist group, and labeled as extremist. So apparently I'm not the only one with the opinion that other countries are complicit in such activities.

I am interested in promoting action to prevent or deter such activities by others, particularly extremists, when necessary to help the moderates of the region where such trouble is occurring to maintain some semblance of balance and authority.

As to how to grade or qualify groups as extremist or moderate, I suppose that is rather subjective. I'm not in the loop. Better to ask others.

I see your point Voil regarding extremist action by moderates still being extreme. A rose by any other name...

I still have not had a chance to review the references mentioned by Redy early in the thread, but I thought they looked interesting. If I can only get a little more time I'd like to have a look.

The first time I flew as a kid I wanted to know where the parachutes were kept. Surely they would have parachutes if we were going to be miles in the air.

Of course not, I was told, if the airplane crashes it will happen too fast for anybody to use parachutes anyway.

Ok, well if they won't do any good I suppose we don't need them. So instead they provide flotation devices, in case youland inthe water. Hmmmm. OK.

Pan Am Flight 103 near Long Island crashed into the ocean, but nobody god much use out of the flotation devices. Nobody got any use out of them.

The plane with a damaged hydraulic system might be in the air for an hour or more while the pilot makes arrangements to try to crash land the airplane at some location. It seems to me that it might be nice to have a few parachutes on board in a case like that.

So when the pilot comes on the intercom and says, "be calm, we are having a minor problem and the landing gear fell off and the rudder is inop, but we will attempt to land in 30 minutes in a controlled belly down fashion. Please tuck your head up your a-ss while we attempt this maneuver", I'm going to be saying, "No thanks, I'll take my parachute now".

Voileazur,
Looks to me like you are only looking at one side of the issue, which, as I see it, includes two sides. You seem to ignore that there are other countries with underground agendas. Overlooking that fact is complicit support for the covert activities of other countries. So complain as you want about the topic, but the reality is that there has to be a balance in things if you want the world to have a chance at moderation.

So essentially you see the United States as extremist if it acts to see to its own interests and the interests of a free, fair world managed with moderate views. You do not seem to have the same opinion of other countries when you are evaluating other countries with the same criteria. This indicates to me that either you are only critical of the United States, which I would take exception to, or that you honestly feel that all the other countries have clean hands in this respect, which I would consider ignorant.

As I have said I feel like there are some balances in our system, including a very active press which help to manage the extremists here. Many of these balances are missing in other countries.

You also read into my words that supporting moderation is intolerant of extremists which is therefore extremist. How convoluted is that? As far as I can tell, supporting moderation is not a genocidal philosophy. Take a breath and consider things from a moderate perspective.

Painting things in a good/bad light only is too simple. If you want to only consider things from that perspective the only person you are qualified to speak with is Bush. Good luck with that.

Take a few minutes to read the book "The Bell Curve" and apply the considerations there to international politics. That is the sort of perspective I am trying to suggest here. To me this is simply a matter of free thinking, ranging over a number of international issues.

Yes in some examples people with extreme views are right. I imagine the big fans of Nietzsche will argue that till hell freezes over that he is right. There is broad-based support for many extremist perspectives. But I would suggest that in spite of Nietzsche being right on some matters, it is easy to dislike both the man and the philosophy he suggests and you might not want him running your country. A little moderation goes a long ways.

I especially like the term you used "affairs of sovereign nations". You use the term as if there were not a lot of power hungry zealots trying to manage global dominance of natural resources and religion by means or terrorism and military expansion.

This is the point where I expect you would most likely say that the United States is the biggest example. If so, look back to a previous paragraph because you missed the point about ignorance. If you criticize the United States in this regard only and do not apportion a fair amount to other countries then you are promoting a self-serving propaganda. You could be a salesman, but I'm not buying. To whom is your loyalty?

Things are complicated and difficult in international relations. Consider the years of effort by Henry Kissinger and the tiny measure of progress he made. There were more forces at work there than just Kissinger trying to find peace agreements. If everybody wanted peace things would be easier. That's not the way things are.

There are moderates in every part of the world. They make up large percentages of the populations. If they manage things in general things could be quite a lot better. It is just an opinion anyway. Ignore it if you don't like it.

Tropical depression in the eastern Atlantic is the first of its sort, forming near the African coast and aiming towards the Caribbean. Seems like a slow start to the season. I wonder what is in store. Bush could have done something about it but he didn't. I don't know what he could have done, but he could have done something.

If it comes here to Houston I am definitely going to blame it on Bush. Or I could blame it on Rove, last chance to kick him around for a while. I suppose it could be Cheney's fault, but I haven't got solid proof yet.

The worst thing is that it is possible that the new Orleans refugees might have to evacuate again, maybe even go back to New Orleans.

Ok, I'm kidding. I like it when we have big winds here. You can lean over at a 45 degree angle and not fall over. Its kind of cool. Besides it breaks up the unbearable heat. I don't like the big waves that hit the shorelines though. My brother's house was destroyed by Katrina. Not like New Orleans destroyed, like Biloxi, MS destroyed, with 25 feet of water in the living room, if you can imagine such a thing. He was half a block form the beach and his house was gone from under his roof, which was sitting on the ground until the Corp of Engineers finally broke it up and hauled off the pieces. Makes you want to run out and buy some beach front property doesn't it.

Thank you Gardenforge

Redykeulous, I'll need a little more time to consider your comments before I can reply. I think I was making the point that there are crowds of people who work together to form the policy of this country. And my view is that there are moderates helping to manage the extremists. Working together there are some leveling effects. I am not speaking of checks and balances as that has a specific connotation.

Fanta, what the hell did your comments have to do with this topic, and put some pants on.

I was writing with limited time this morning and didn't really make it through the essence of the matter I was discussing so I'll give you something else to think about, to get you closer to the crux of the matter.

The extremists in a country always try to push their agenda. They publish and promote their causes and condemn the causes of others, often belittling slandering the good works and efforts of much more accomplished individuals and groups. Now when these extremists are in power, they set the policy as well as set the tome of rhetoric. When they are out of power, they continue with their efforts but they are less effective. They are not necessarily less noisy, but they are less effective. You can change the leadership of a government but you can not eliminate the extremists.

The point is this. If you take steps to change the regime in Iraq, as we have done, the extremists remain. They have less power but they are still there. If you take some steps to change the ruling party in Iran, or N. Koroea, or in many other areas around the world, the extremists will remain.

Now you can say that if you bring about changes that it will make it worse, because you will drive the extremists into the limelight and they will create more trouble and hatred. But I am saying that the extremists will basically remain the same, but they will be less effective because they are no longer in power.

You can think of this as a form of bell-curve theory if you want, but basically a certain measure of the people are going to be extremists no matter what you do, and a certain measure are going to support moderation. So I think the question then is what can be done to keep the extremists from holding the positions of power. History tells us that extremists are most likely to hold positions of power.

Not to end this on a patriotic note, but if you all look back to the things you were taught in history regarding our country and its form of government you will see that most of the characteristics of our government were created for the express purpose of keeping the extremists out of control. For the most part it has functioned well. There are issues, but I do not see other forms of government standing up to the same challenges. More likely they simply fold up and bow down to zealots.