oops
that was supposed to go directly to Keith. Please ignore
B
--- Bosco Bosco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Keith
>
> I am sure that I am probably just missing something here. I didnt
> really understand your response and I wanted to make sure I had not
> caused offense.
>
> thanks
>
> B
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > yes, dad! :)
> >
> > thanks, seriously, though
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: Astromancer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Ditto, Keith...What are you waiting for???
> >
> >
> > Bosco Bosco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Damn Keith. You're a hell of a good writer. I love your insights
> > and
> > the skill with which you present them. Have you ever considered
> > pursuing it further? If so, have you written anything I could
> see?
> >
> > Bravo!!!
> >
> > Bosco
> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > well, that's the balancing act of being a leader of any kind:
> > > weighing what you think is right versus what those you serve
> > think.
> > > Always keep only your own counsel, and you're an autocrat,
> > harmful
> > > to the people. Do whatever is popular, and you're a weakling,
> not
> > > helping the people to see what's best for them in times when
> they
> > > don't know it themselves.
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm a cynic, maybe I distrust authority. But I always
> think
> > > of those times in history when the majority (or the most vocal
> > and
> > > influential minority) of the population wanted something that
> > > wasn't right or moral, or simply efficacious in the long run:
> > when
> > > whites wanted slavery, then later, Jim Crow. When men didn't
> want
> > > women to vote. When Germans actively wanted--or passively
> agreed
> > > with--the subjugation of the Jews. When white South Africans
> > wanted
> > > their colored countrymen to remain as second class citizens. A
> > > century from now, perhaps some will look back on a society that
> > > taxed gays but refused to let them serve in the military
> equally,
> > > or enjoy the same domestic rights as the rest of us, and say
> "If
> > > only there had been a leader who'd done what was right instead
> of
> > > what was popular". After 9-11, this country wanted
> > blood--anyone's
> > > blood. I always liken America's mood then to that of a crazed
> dog
> > > that snaps at and attacks whomever happens to be near. Bush and
> > his
> > > gang poin
> > > ted us in that direction, then said "This is what they want".
> And
> > > all of our leaders--almost every dang one of them with a few
> > > notable exceptions--went along with that fevered fervor, afraid
> > to
> > > buck the will of the people. Well, that's why I have a leader:
> to
> > > see things more clearly in times when perhaps I can't, to make
> > > decisions based on more information and considered thought than
> I
> > > have.
> > >
> > > If I'm going to have someone lead me, it's because he or she
> has
> > > the capacity sometimes to make me better, to see the bigger
> > picture
> > > in ways I can't always do. That requires someone with certain
> > > convictions and basic principles that will guide him or her,
> that
> > > won't change with the times or the whim of the public. A leader
> > > should be a rudder for a ship in a storm (lots of metaphors I
> > > know!) that can guide us in the right direction. Yes, sometimes
> > > sticking to a set of beliefs stubbornly can be wrong. Bush is
> > proof
> > > of that in the way he's singlemindedly pursued a disastrous
> > foreign
> > > policy. But you know, at least I know where Bush stands, and
> > > that's a good thing because i can then decide that he's not
> right
> > > for the job and get him out. I know who and what he is, and
> I've
> > > decided he's not right for me. There's a certain honesty and
> > > courage in his stance, that allows me to see him for what he is
> > and
> > > then--fire him. And that's the point: a leader leads by trying
> to
> > > get us to go in cert
> > > ain ways, based on what we want and what he or she thinks is
> best
> > > for us. If those two views differ greatly, then perhaps that
> > leader
> > > will be sent packing. Look at how McCain is hated for
> > > ultra-conservatives because he wants a more reasoned approach
> to
> > > illegal immigration, and the Bush tax cuts. But despite what
> it's
> > > costing him, he still holds to those views. yet at the same
> time,
> > > he's trying to modify them somewhat to go along with the
> people.
> > A
> > > balancing act.
> > >
> > > But with someone like Romney, who keeps changing to meet the
> mood
> > > of the day, how can we ever know whether he's ultimately good
> or
> > > bad for us? How will I know that in that one moment when I am
> > > wrong, and I need him to be right, he won't do the popular
> thing
> > > instead of the right thing?
> > >
> > > A
> > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > From: "maidmarian_thepoet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I may be stepping into it...but what exactly is wrong with a
> > public
> > > official supporting the wishes of his constituents? I wish that
> > my
> > > officials here really supported my beliefs instead of catering
> to
> > > the
> > > religious right. Of course, you can say that they are
> supporting
> > > them---but that's my point. Wasn't he being a true
> representative
> > > of
> > > Mass. voters at that time? Now he is claiming that he could be
> a
> > > true
> > > representative of conservative voters. Isn't that his job?
> > >
> > > I am still recalling listening to a "This American Life"
> episode
> > in
> > > which a guy who was pro-choice supported Bush because he didn't
> > > flip-flop on issues. He admitted that he didn't like any of
> > Bush's
> > > stances on issuses, but he voted for him because he didn't
> > > flip-flop.
> > > Why on earth should I vote for someone who won't vote my way?
> > He's
> > > my
> > > representative, not a representative of his own convictions. If
> > he
> > > can
> > > change my mind because he believes me wrong, that's one thing.
> > But
> > > he
> > > shouldn't be voting his convictions whilly-nilly.
> > >
> > > Ok, I will get off my soapbox now. :-)
> > >
> > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Like i said, an opportunistic flip-flopper. He was
> pro-choice,
> > > pro
> > > immigration (in terms of working something out instead of
> > sounding
> > > like
> > > a Klansman), not averse to taxes as needed (which he calls
> > "fees",
> > > but
> > > same difference). I heard a speech he gave just a few years
> back
> > > where
> > > he explicitly said he didn't want to try and recreate the
> Reagan
> > > days.
> > > Now he's a rabid ultr-conservative nut who evokes Reagan more
> > than
> > > some
> > > of us call on God!
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead.
I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said.
You know these things that happen,
That's just the way it's supposed to be.
And I can't help but wonder,
Don't ya know it coulda been me.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
