Susan, I really appreciate your reply and think your viewpoints and questions are perfectly open-minded and reasonable.
I read up a bit more on the Patriot Act and it seems that most of the provisions were already law in the past, but this act tightens them up a bit more and seems almost like gilding the lily byour government representatives in a time of urgency and perhaps fear on their parts immediately after 9/11. The other side of the coin is that we obviously had gotten way too egregiously lax over the years in several sectors of our national security and immigration agencies so this is kind of like going from one extreme to the other. That's not to say I support everything blindly - I feel caught up in the middle of it all as do probably a lot of people and again, perfect clarity is probably not optimal. Historically, such as in WWII, many draconian security measures and total abridgment of many citizens' civil liberties were instituted. I don't know if this will make anyone feel better, but everything I've read on the right hand side of the political fence is vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act and thinks it is totally fascist. With such a cross-section of opposition, there should be enough voices to keep it in check, or have it modified or amended. > And finaly Bush's very first judicial apointee >has sparked huge concerns as far as "civil > liberties" are concerned - and reproductive >rights. Aren't judges supposed to be >unbiased? They are supposed to be unbiased in their rulings and following the law, absolutely. I have not had a chance to look at Pickering's record so am not familiar with the controversy. However, Bush has put forth other judicial appointees at the federal level since he has been in office who have also been hotly contested. One is a woman I worked with a few years ago who went on to become a local judge. The only reason she was being objected to is because she was a conservative Republican, that and nothing more. Her judicial record of rulings over the years showed absolutely no bias politically. She always upheld the law based on the law and not her personal political beliefs. So why was she arbitrarily objected to? If she had no record of bias, it seems very chilling that she would be denied a judicial appointment purely on political party affiliation. Such precedents cut both ways. > Where is, not compromise but common >sense and sympathy and understadning of > the other side? We have a Cold War going >on right here in our own country right now! Right on, right on!! I read a lot of opinion after 9/11 which seemed to think that the moderates would emerge as the majority voice. I have hope that they will. > I could not agree more Kakki. But >admittedly, I have slung those arrows myself, >in the heat of debate. Especially towards >Buchannan followers. . Not to worry - I'm with you on Buchanan - he has always repulsed me! Re: - drugs and terrorism - there have been a lot of reports that Bin Laden/Al Queda/Taliban terrorist groups have funded a lot of their activities through the opium poppy trade in Afghanistan. This is undisputed. However, it is way over the top to say if someone smokes pot or buys diamonds they should feel like they are funding terrorism. I have no perfect answers for the dependence on oil. My simplistic reaction for a long time is to get completely the hell out of the middle east for starters. I am very much for reducing our dependence and for going towards alternative energy sources. We should have been more diligent in doing so long ago. It IS very expensive to convert over to alternatives. Part of the reason for the huge finanical debt California is in right now is because of the mandate for alternative energy sources. You can't just snap your fingers and wish it and all will be O.K. There is a huge price to pay. However, I'm sure with all the talent in the U.S. some people could come up with some good ideas. Toyota now has the part gas/part electric car on the market at a reasonable price. I'm glad to see that at least start to happen. > Well I getting this vibe that you do not >appreciate this guy from the L.A. Times. But >the news seems to be that there is some >accuracy to this story. Bush and Powell have >both been in the news responding to it. I'm sure there is a lot of accuracy to it. But I don't like the idea of it being leaked and being interpreted by some commentator. What I don't understand is people's surprise to it. The U.S. has had the policy of nuclear deterence "if you nuke us, we will retalitate" for as long as I've been alive. I don't think it's fair to portray it as something that suddenly originated with Bush. > You are correct from everything I have >heard/read, the Russians did develop the >"suitcase nukes" as I recall. Not only those suitcase nukes, but also these so-called "small tactical nukes" which are another animal. As for Bush throwing around threats, he did not do that - he and Congress reviewed that Pentagon report to *discuss* all their weaponry options but there have been no reports that everyone privy to it had agreed or voted on nuking a number of countries ad hoc. Once the discussion was leaked, what was he supposed to say, other than "if you nuke us, we will leave our options open" which has been the policy of all the administrations I can remember. That said, most of us here have thankfully lived our lives without the deployment of a nuclear weapon. Let's pray that continues. Kakki
