You appear to be a pleasant slightly chubby guy Neil. You are the successful uncle that the traditional family loves to have over for Sunday dinner so that the young members can admire you as a positive and informative role model. But in truth, this particular nephew is greatly disappointed with you.

Hopefully, at that dinner table you would communicate with us in plain common sense terms when asked to be informative. You would not hide behind the jargon of your profession i.e., supply and demand, market forces at work, hedging, and so on. You would answer your favorite nephew in the simplest terms that he could understand, and if necessary you would blame things that shouldn’t be so on (bad men doing bad things).

In my years studying economics at Columbia, I emerged becoming aware of certain basic realities. The genuine, unaltered economic conditions can be enumerated on the fingers of one hand. The rest of economics is much of a science as alchemy and the professionals in the field are constantly struggling to be wrong less than half the time. Even those realities on that one little hand can be perverted and negated by industry, governmental, and “economist” interference. One of the most obvious examples is elasticity. We made the butter demand elastic by encouraging the production of margarine. We subsidized the margarine industry. We then subsidized the dairy industry by buying their butter from them. The ironic result was that when the direct federal food surplus was being used for distribution to poorer families in the 60’s, working people who did not need assistance were buying margarine in the markets while the unfortunates were being given free butter. No, cholesterol had nothing to do with it back then.

When we speak on alternate sources of energy, we are talking about the elasticity of petroleum. Again, subsidies, special interests, and the whole host of infernal demons plaguing US government swoop down and interferes with the remaining realities of that one little hand. I won’t bore you with the obvious inanities of producing ethanol from corn or from leaving nuclear energy as the mad relative locked up in the addict. After all, a polite nephew does not want to berate his uncle.

Like alchemists, economists protect themselves from accountability by developing and sharing whole plethora of terms, secrets, and formulas that are purposely not to be understood by anybody but themselves and cover up the fact that the philosopher stone is strictly in their mines or away to leach on the genuinely productive elements of society.
I am afraid that too often your program seems to be a social gathering of alchemist.

But let’s get back to this naïve uninitiated but genuinely concerned nephew of yours:
1. Uncle Neil what does it mean when we lease federal land for exploration and extraction, one of those fingers on that little hand says that there is value given for value received, what value is BP given for drilling for oil on presently leased land in Alaska. What value is received by the United States government and US citizens in return?
2. Underground oil reserves (and they are usually underground) are not unlike huge lakes. Now if you stick a giant straw in any even in the remotest corner of such lakes you are theoretically able to drain the entire lake. Though I understand that specific procedures such as the pumping in of water to push up the actually petroleum may make certain locations additionally desirable the basic principle remains the same. In other words, Uncle Neil if BP sinks its straw in Cuban waters it can drain the so-called American oil reserves in Florida waters. When we are still arguing over drilling off the coastal waters.
3. If international (foreign) oil companies pool their extractions from their many leases – American or otherwise, and go on to the world market, what difference does it make which political territory any of this petroleum is coming from, in other words Neil tell me why the Alaskan oil extracted by BP in Alaska is treated differently than were it to be forthcoming from anywhere else? Hopefully, there is a distinction, otherwise, we are bunch of idiots.

Just tell me how and make your nephew happy.



PS
If government is so completely inept that we can neither explore, extract, nor refine our own petroleum effectively, why is gasoline selling for half of our price in Mexico?

I haven't got the slightest idea. And chances are neither do you. The entire subject of how and who is compensated when a barrel of oil is actually extracted on a US government leased parcel seems to be a subject steeped in the mystery equivalent to a major arcana.

I tried the internet, but apparently most experts refuse to answer questions that are:

Hypothetical
"On Average"
Forthcoming from anyone who is not a lease-holder or other principal

Now, I understand how the terms of the original lease will vary one from the other etc., but not having a lifetime to spend on the internet looking for a Good Samaritan to merely explain how the petroleum affected is likely to get to market, to the refinery, to the gas pump-and for how much, I entreat some TV network to run some kind of informative special on the subject. It is so "au rigeur" to currently take endless hours posing the hypothetical question which is the title of the article, and then additional hours on the so-called "poll results." Frankly this is a lot like limiting oneself to asking canines to rate Alpo and then interpreting the results on the basis on whether they walk towards the food-bowl when they are starving.

To me, understanding even the simplest dynamics is of the utmost importance. How does additional drilling on US Federal lands lower our dependance on "foreign" oil, if it makes no difference whether British Petroleum is getting its oil from Alaska or off the coast of Cuba? Point is, is that the case-or not? If the difference is set in minor technicalities, then we are merely dependent on the world petroleum speculators and where the petroleum may originate from is almost completely immaterial.

The US government may lease the lands on our behalf but it neither extracts nor refines any of the resulting product. What do we get back when BP pumps out a barrel of Alaskan oil? A percentage of the market price when the lease was first arranged-say a percentage of $14/bbl?
A percentage of the world market price?

Do we have the right to ask that that oil go directly to us us to satisfy our needs, or is it it merely pooled in with all of BP's other. Even if it stays here, who arranges to choose how or when it is refined? Basically, does the US government have any special control on said petroleum?

Can we drill ourselves out of the energy crisis? It is bad enough when "experts" declare a range of between 3 and 20 years before any of the benefits of new drilling reach us. Not knowing what those benefits actually would be, in terms we can understand, can only reinforce the original response:

We don't have the slightest idea.

LET"S START DOCUMENTING THE UNDOCUMENTED! WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A GREEN CARD?


As Rudy Giuliani put it in a recent New Hampshire appearance, too often we fail to do anything at all in our impractical and unrealistic commitment to solving a major problem entirely right from the start. Calling it something like a "small window" approach, he expounded the wisdom of doing something about what can be done, and then working up from there. He illustrated how it worked in coping with crime in New York City, and implied that it applied in solving most if not all other major problems.

When it came to the subject of illegal immigration, he informed us that at the time he took office there were probably 400,000 (300?500? Who could say?) illegal aliens residing within the Big Apple. Given that the INS was averaging the repatriation of 1500-2000 illegals annually, were it to have increased its program ten-fold, it would still have left 380,000 "untreated" candidates for deportation the following year, and this assuming there was NO additional influx in the meantime. Hardly a solution to the problem, no matter how one may have perceived it.

The point was more or less that a law that is not enforced may be worse than no law at all. Still, the need to identify the illegals and weeding out those who posed a definite potential threath to society had to be a prime consideration and possibly first on the agenda. This is especially true today with the increased awareness of international terrorism and its choice of America and Americans as one, if not the first of its targets. The question immediately came to my mind, why not "document" them?

For some inexplicable reason, or one that I can only refer to as "channel vision," we insist on equating documentation with the issuance of a green card (permanent residency.)" Documenting everyone in this fashion, or total amnesty if you prefer, would create the paradox of rewarding individuals because of their failings instead of compliance. It amounts to a form of total surrender to chaos and questions the wisdom of even retaining any regulations or requirements regarding achieving permanent (legal) residency. This is not only not very popular to any but the most enlightened (and anarchic) one-worlders, and needless to say the affected illegals themselves, but would also boost the chances of potential terrorists working their way into our society more or less undetected.

The question that hasn't yet been asked is WHY? WHY IS IT THAT DOCUMENTATION HAS TO TAKE THE FORM OF A GREEN CARD?

We can and have the right to create documentation in almost any form we decide to through proper legislative process. Though the national ID card is anathema to many present US citizens, for various reasons there is no need to delve on here, a national ID card turning undocumented aliens into documented ones WITHOUT permanent resident status could be a workable start to the eventual solution to the problem.

Making it mandatory with the proviso that those possessing such card will be "temporarily" exempt from deportation will allow us to immediately deal with the worst dangers posed by the existence of this "underground" population. It will enable us to check for communicable deseases and a past history of criminal activity without turning us into a police state. The card could be called "PENDING IMMIGRATION STATUS" or something similar. Employers would be required to advise their existing illegal employees or proposed hires to apply and receive such a card and further to have the required forms available. They would help to pay for part of the financial costs of the procedure which would be offset by the financial benefit they are receiving from hiring such workers. In the absence of such a form being filed within a determined resonable time, they would be fined, let us say $2000.00 for each applicable case and deprived of that worker's services until compliance. The forms would also be available at all Post Offices, Human Resources Offices, Schools, Police Stations for that matter etc. All the Latino activists out there who happen to speak Spanish could do something useful and help people fill out the forms instead of merely complaining.

What is wrong with giving all the presently technical criminals, employers and workers alike, a choice other than prosecution or non-prosecution? What is wrong in having a data base which can be updated to reflect conduct in this country for all those that have initially qualified for this "temporary" status? We could then concentrate on deporting only those who fail the initial qualification or subsequently get into serious trouble during their residency. The duration of this "PENDING IMMIGRATION STATUS" may be a matter of years, maybe even a decade, but would not responsible, productive conduct for such a probationary period be a prime step directly to citizenship? We start off working on the "small windows" that's all!

Though voluntary registration would be recommended and with a set time period within which to comply, undocumented individuals as they are identified would still be given an opportunity to qualify while held in temporary custody and subjected to a modest monetary fine. This fine can be worked off by doing community service, and upon qualification would not be held prejudicial.

The borders would be made less porous just the same and that would be treated as a separate issue. Meantime we have a need to identify who is here and what their intentions are. I have not heard any of our so-called leaders or statesmen come up with a workable alternative to what I am presenting. Maybe channel vision comes with the political territory. Any comments out there?

As yet another moralist poseur bites the dust it is perfectly reasonable to expect reasonable people not to discredit the message just because the messanger was found at fault. Still, equating Christian right activism as the only proper way to agressively act in defense of family values, cherish human life, instill the precepts of good responsible citizenship etc. is not only simplistic, it is just plain wrong. The right to hold such a belief may be guaranteed by our Constitution and that is why we consider ourselves free and living in a democracy, but it should never be allowed to become the main factor determining who we feel should be governing us.

When we hear certain personalities harp on the "secularization" of American society and blaming any number of undesirable ills or trends on it, some of us are only too willing to nod our heads in agreement merely because we agree with the undesirability of the ills or trends without bothering to think through the validity of the secularization issue. Without a doubt the most liberal, libertine, amoral, disruptive, divisive, and in the final analysis destructive voices in our society may be characterized as "secular" in nature, or being even more specific, atheist. Yet correlating the two factors as unavoidable cause and effect is the epitomy of unjustified profiling. There is a "tendency" for the two to be linked just as it is the case for professional athletes to be linked to steroid usage, but is being an athlete then undesirable? Of course not.

Whether I believe I or someone else may be going straight to hell should be strictly my own personal business and I should keep it as such. Whether I think the kindly, celibate priest in the diocese is molesting children or not should be everyone's business diregarding whether they are Catholic, non-Catholic, Jews, yes, even atheists. Desirable social conduct is an evolutionary cultural thing and goes far beyod whether it involves inscribing one's currency with a trust in (G)od. Funny thing is that with all of our claimed progress in correctness, in some respects we were further ahead fifty years ago. Let us use TV as an example.

Leave to Beaver was used as a vehicle for furthering strong family values and the elements of good citizenship without (to my recollection) ever bringing the issue of (G)od into it. And if it ever did, it did so in a most informal and casual way. Of course there were no minorities represented in those episodes. The mothers didn't work. There was therefore only a single family car. Children usually earned their allowance by doing chores and extra money by cutting other peoples' lawns or delivering newspaper. School officials actually expected a guardian to show up and own up to their potential responsibility when a student got into trouble. Suspension was not a one-day thing and expulsion might mean you had little choice other than signing in the Army (if old enough). So obviously, this program dealt with a mythical la-la land ruled by an intellectually bankrupt paternal President, and has no relevance today. Why?

Because our so much more sophisticated, divided, polarized social elements find the cohesion of the American dream offensive unless they are at the center of the action. How could Amos and Andy be more offensive and demeaning than a lot of the characters and situations depicted in today's black-oriented sit-coms?

Because the so-called Christian right won't come to its defense because they were not given "direct" credit for it. In Andy of Mayberry, Church is an issue usually when brought in in conjunction with baking pies for a fund-raiser or holding a singles dance. Family values and good social behaviour are emphasized on their own merit, but we again look for the fatal flaw. There are no minorities in Mayberry. The primary religion is probably Protestant Christian but it is not given specific credit. So we doom it all to irrelevance.

Sad truth is the values were there just the same. But as the Christian Right took turns alternately championing either the KKK or the Civil Rights movement, it was their momentous role in helping Ronald Regan break the Democratic stranglehold on the South to help them gain the political clout within the Republican party they insist on having constantly recognized. Pushing their litmus tests, alienating many of the "good" secularists into an "independent" camp, threathening, blackmailing, insisting to be pampared, they have become the non-fruit bearing limb of the Grand Old Party. They consume water and nutrients while producing nothing but moralist rethoric delivered by occasionally embarassing messengers.

Only too often the present Republican party has to wipe the egg off its face and start all over again trying to woo increasingly skeptical "secularists" such as myself. The fact that there may be just as many fallen moralist poseurs in the Democratic camp seems to have little bearing on allowing the Republicans to escape the stigma of captive association. The Democrats on the other hand are equal opportunity captives with its many constituencies conveniently ignoring each other as long as there is room left them at the feeding trough.

There will be one Republican highlight after Tuesday's election, possibly one of very few-and that is the re-election of Governor Schwartzenegger. A survivor, it should be noted who has done well without the help of the Christian Right. He, as well as ex-mayor Rudy Giuliani will be the main guns left to the GOP heading into the 2008 Presidentials. The Governor is prevented by birth to be its candidate and the moralists will try to deny Rudy the nomination. Whatever the Christian Right pushes forth will be destined to lose and handily so. The time for smart Republicans to start putting its spoiled brat in its place and to effectively rebuild is now.

The Christian right will go where it thinks is best, following its conscience. But the tail should not wag the dog.
 

Let's go with the joke as Kerry said he intended it. Both he and baby Bush went to Yale. Kerry got his B.A. from Yale in 1966, two years before the Bush-baby got his in 1968. Kerry joined the legendary (?!) Skull and Crossbones Society just like Bush-daddy while there. No populism readily observable there in the man. Since Bush-baby was accorded the same honor, Kerry's claimed joke would indicate this same society was not too selective.

In 1973 Kerry attended the Boston Law School in Newton Mass receiving his Juris Doctorate in 1976. Bush-baby on the other hand settled (?) for an M.B.A. from Harvard in 1975. When Kerry met JFK back in the 60's, they joked about the fact the former had ended up at Yale rather than Harvard (a crime for humble Massachussetts populists). Somehow they managed to make light of it by referring to getting a Harvard education with a Yale degree (Is there another joke there?). JFK soon went on to become a great populist icon but Kerry had to wait while he risked his life in a very popular war JFK was at least partially responsible for getting us into. Of course we can blame it all on LBJ who was not from New England, went to the wrong schools and lifted his dog by the ears. LBJ was also a political thug who evolved a social conscience when ascending to the Presidency.

The drafted browns and blacks and poor and uneducated were put there primarily by the leaders of Democratic Party and their policies, but this did not prevent Kerry from achieving his fame by carving out his future fame in the left wing of this party. The New Englander headed right to the snob humanitarianism of far West San Francisco on the wave of colorful flower children and never looked back. Or did he? Somehow, the joke as he says he intended needs future scrutiny.

Was he implying that Yale did not always admit worthy students? Or that it granted unjustified degrees? Or that an MBA from that Harvard he never got to, could not be compared with his J.D. from BLSNM? Was he saying that famed Ivy League institutions can put out mediocre frauds? How come we have not heard any complaint from these venerable educational icons, if the Kerry joke is what he claimed it to be?

Kerry will certainly fail to be elected even if again nominated. As Shakespeare said "Cassius has a lean and hungry look. . ." As was the case in ancient Rome, though Cassius claimed to fight for the republican values, he was the elitist and Caesar was the populist. It was all about power, and privilege. And though Kerry may have never owned a "pencil boat" (whatever that is), he has not yet condemned his former membership in the Skull and Crossbones Society, methinks he would probably look down at my mere B.A. from Columbia College, and not invite me to the San Francisco soirees, unless I made considerable monetary contributions of course. But that's OK with me.

The last time I was in the "City of Love" I was being constantly panhandled by bug-eyed drug addicts right in the middle of down-town. I actually felt unsafe there. But of course these zombies were not stupid enough to volunteer to join the Armed Forces. Ooops! I almost forgot that was NOT the joke. That may not have been what he claimed it to be either.

Kerry, the joke is quite possibly you.

Making a rare exception I decided to read today's paper, Wednesday's. Generally I Iet the delivered papers pile up, still in their plastic bags, and get to them only to separate the recyclable from the nonrecyclable components before trashing the lot. Maybe those blue bags are recyclable as well and I am wasting my effort. I think I may bother to find out today. I do confess to taking a peek at the sports section, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, but only if UCLA football or Piazza catching may be involved. Old habits I guess. I never went to UCLA and Piazza is definitely in his waning years but I have cheered them longet than any of my marriages. Oh, well!

So I read today's Union Tribune and exposed myself to a somewhat better than average selection of absurdities. A New Orleans High School (the?) is operating at a level expected in an Escape from New York movie (the Mayor himself has just about conceded the whole city is basically in a state of anarchy, so are we surprised?); Republicans are apparently the only ones really interested in voter ID cards (just try to cash a check or rent a car withour proper ID); promiscuity is not related to the prevelance of Aids in Africa (does raping a couple of hundred thousand women in a country constitute promiscuity or do we need a raper/rapee ratio?); etc. And then the "good stuff."

Kerry and Republicans get into a pissing match to whether his latest humanitarian (though elitist) critique implied that lack of a proper education made either our plebeian servicemen cannon fodder or our President an idiot. Though Kerry's intent is rather clear to me, after all the makeup of the grunts in the Iraqi war can hardly be compared to that of the Vietnamese. These are after all volunteers and not draftees and the percentage of ghetto-relocated underprivileged ethnic minorities involved is vastly lower. We're also talking about a lot of individuals drawn from National Guard units (remember Bush Jr. was National Guard?). What is the average education of the individual serving in Iraq compared to the national average for the same age group not in the military? I don't remember reading that statistic anywhere, so if Kerry were relating to them, he would be implying that enlisting in the Armed Forces in general was a sign of stupidity. Since I don't think HE could possibly have been that stupid, I must conclude that he was implying that Bush, our President is stupid. Actually, I may have less trouble with that, but it is worth exploring.

The acumen of an individual leader may never be really determined. More often than not, we tend to judge people over time by the results we associate with them. Ronald Reagan was quite possibly no genius, but even as Governor of California he surrounded himself with enough competent people to be judged successful enough to run for the highest office. Again, as President, though he may have been nodding off in front of a jar of jelly-beans, somehow he managed to take far from the worst advice when the time came to make important decisions. So what about the little Bush? Is he stupid or not?

The intelligence provided him (and Congressmen, and us) regarding Iraq was obviously faulty. Are these intelligence sources characteristically pre-Bush (Clintonesque?), Republican or Democrat? Who was primarily responsible for them; the Pentagon? the State Department? the CIA? the FBI? the National Security whatever? Whatever the sources, we must conclude that on very important matters they turned out to be either treasonous, or at the very least so highly incompetent as to qualify for idiocy. So it is really not a matter of choosing exclusively between our citizen soldiers and our President, is it?

The fact remains that a lot of unpleasant things have taken place on little Bush's shift, and after all the buck must stop somewhere. That is fine, but it doesn't really change anything does it? If the next President, even if it be San Francisco's looniest son, inherits the kind of almost comically substandard cast little Bush is saddled with, we could likely be at war with Bhutan four years from now and Americans may be held hostage in a dozen third world nations around the world.

In a previous article I raised the possibility that deserting Iraqi soldiery may be taking the new weaponry with them and we could be arming the insurgents ourselves. Since then I have read that out of hundreds of thousands of weapons issued Iraqis one way or the other, we seem to have registered only maybe 2% of them. Also I read that assault rifles and machine guns listed never even got where they were supposed to go in the first place.

But the almost unbelievable sloppiness is not limited to the distribution of military ordinance. The graft, corruption, or merely greedy nonsense involved in our Iraqi "reconstruction" effort seems almost impossible to imagine. In one of today's articles I read that state of the art generators were built at taxpayer's expense that ran on "natural gas." Problem is that Iraq HAS NO NATURAL GAS.

Methinks that at the very least little Bush has surrounded himself with a lot of idiots (if not economic criminals). So Kerry's point is not all that much of an issue. It is not a matter of whether it is our President or our fighting men who are idiots. In the final analysis, ask not who the idiots are, because in practice they are us. We who pay the taxes and risk our lives while our leaders, actual or would be, get into these pissing matches over semantics, implied racial slurs, social insensitivities, personal sex orientations and the like. Until we get rid of a whole lot of them, we are never going to get around to fixing the things that really matter.

I hope that the Democrats make overwhelming gains in the days to come. I hope they get to control everything possible imaginable. Then two years from now we will see it will have made no difference. Not in what is really important.

Just as many self-proclaimed humanitarian, enlightened, peace and Earth loving individuals cloak their tyrannically intolerant positions in the "liberal" garb, there are corresponding impostors sporting the "conservative" label who are more than suspect about their true nature. Having finally gotten around to hearing Mike Savage's rantings over a period of some hours on at least three diferent occasions, I have become a bit suspicious about the sincerity and most importantly the motivation of this individual as well.

It would be too much of a chore in trying to define either of the terms "liberal" or "conservative" in order to arrive at some universally agreed upon sacrosanct definition. It would also be impossible. Individuals tend to be either primarily "liberal" or "conservative" on specific issues, and even this as may be fashionably accepted at any given time. The social human need to belong to a group purportedly sharing common views most likely originated through an effort to merely physically survive, but with time philosophically evolved into a need to be reassured of one's less empirically based belief systems. Immortality, as an example, is an empirically abstract concept, reinforced mostly by associating with other individuals who clutch the same bogus map giving directions on how to get there. It is all a treasure hunt of sorts, engaged in mostly as a result of the driving need of many humans to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the lower animals.

Digressing no further, finding enough agreement on a determined number of key points creates, shall we say, "teams." What competitions these "teams" are willing to engage in, and how the final outcome is to be determined is in turn defined by the specifics of a given locus and its tempora et mores. The fact that at least one present "team," and that is the extreme Islamic one, is apparently bent on the total anhilation of all others, does raise considerable cause for concern and may well rank as the main issue of the day. Positioning oneself along liberal and conservative lines on this, an issue of total survival, is actually idiotic. How does being a right-to-lifer, a fiscal conservative, a strict (judicial) constructionist, etc. or any of its opposite counterparts have anything to do with how one stands on the issue of defending ones life and way of life from homicidal Jihad?

I deemed this introduction necessary because of the fields of academic endeavor Mr. Savage sports his advanced degrees in. It has been an attempt on my part to orient the discourse in terms his background should make him at least familiar with if not competent in. I have been critical in the past of other "degreed" gentlemen such as Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan, who nothwithstanding the fact that they usually express opinions I mostly agree with, manage to occasionaly bounce into them from such indefensible depths as to invalidate their over-all credibility. Mr. Savage reached out enough times from said base bases in those few hours I listened to him, to place him at the top of my list in this respect. What seem to be the main problem all the aforementioned gentlemen share?

In dealing with their more strident and irrational opponents they benefit quite frequently from the ignorance of the former. This readily allows them to gain such an upper hand that they will often smother them with a smorgasbord of facts that often contain some real clunkers. Bluntly none of these gentlemen impress me as being meticulous about historical accuracy. We will concentrate on Mr. Savage/Weiner.

The apparent historical distortion of his own nomenclature may be harmless enough. Archibald Leach found it advantageous to be better known as Cary Grant. This was thought to give some sort of advantage or leg up in the entertainment field. Pappalardo a boxing icon, decided to become Willie Pep and this was probably due to a combination of shortening a difficult name and becoming more acceptable to the Anglo-Saxon establishment. Woody Allen may have decided that the name Allen Konigsberg sounded just a bit too German Bundist for post WWI US and he decided on that appellate as opposed to say, Ira Shinglestein though that would played well in the Catskillls. Allen also has a passable Anglo-Saxon association. No harm done. What motivated Mr. Savage/Weiner to play with his name does not really interest me. I claim to be neither his shrink nor his Father Confessor. His absolute fawning over Anglo-Saxon Protestant "culture" however does.

The fact that Mr. S/W sees the Islamic threat to Western Civilization is quite supportable and has my full agreement. His definition of the overall culture being attacked, at least in America, as being almost exclusively Anglo-Saxon Protestant is however historically ignorant and smacks of a puzzling bias.(As a side note I wish to state that Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has my greater respect in spite of considerable disagreement, because of his sound historical foundation and perspective.)

Mr. S/W is apparently satisfied with capitalizing on the obvious historical ignorance of many of his admirers to counterbalance the historical ignorance of many of his detractors. This maybe a good way to maintain a listener base, but usually not one of the best quality. Also, as I will detail later, one that one can only hope WILL NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA.

How one can refer to Western Civilization and more or less ignore both the contribution of Rome and the Renaissance is beyond me. Understanding Max Weber and the Protestant Ethic is undeniably linked to understanding the advantages of the Anglo/American headstart in the Industrial Revolution and how capitalism may have managed to make the U.S. the superpower that it is today, but it also created one of the weakest, not the strongest links, in our present struggle as a civilization. Our dependence on oil is a prime example. Coal and iron used to be coregents of industrial pre-eminenece and were found primarily in those countries that benefited from them. Oil on the other hand is mainly within the confines of nations that have NEVER for practical purposes fully entered the Industrial Revolution. They benefit from the money it brings, what it can buy, and this unfortunately means the Jihad as well. Rewarding the family of a martyr with $25,000 shows some progress in the capitalist direction, wouldn't you say S/W?

The Founding Fathers strove to model the newly emerging nation on their understanding and as an adaptation of the early Roman Republic. They added references to God as a moral principle and because of their own ethnic origins it was primarily an Anglo-Saxon Protestant God. On the other hand, the separation of Church and State safeguarded the new Republic from the potential tyrannies of an official state religion. There wished there to be no Cromwells, roundhats, or Pilgrim governments to screw up the issue of liberty. Keep in mind the overall make-up of relatively nutty and dangerous groups such as those of Waco, Guyana, earlier the KKK, or presently the Aryan Brotherhood. Their membership is not even primarily Teutonic. Do I have to spell out to S/W what mainly characterizes their adherents?

The growing popularity of the term Islamo-Fascism is not in itself harmful, and though validated primariy by simplistic name-calling associated with WWII, as long as it awakens the sleeping potential victims to the danger of Islamic imperialism, it can be seen as a good thing. S/W takes credit for it and I am not the one to rain on his parade, no matter how self-serving. But please, try to be just a bit more responsible when spouting "facts" in supporting your case Herr Savage.

It was a nice crescendo as he enumerated Portugal, Spain, Croatia, and various other countries that could be identified as Fascist in some way prior or during WWII, but Belgium was NOT one of them.

It was a nice tirade when he enumerated all the Third World countries that contributed waves of recent immigrants eager to come over and benefit from "Anglo-Saxon Protestant" values while hating them and trying to destroy them, but Argentina is NOT one of them. I doubt that he knows very many Argentinans residing in this country legally, or illegally. The only Argentinan of any consequence I have heard of who may have taken an Anti-American stance is Che Guevara and a lot of people still mistakenly think he was Cuban.

The entire Anglo-Saxon admiration thing smacks so much of blatant pandering. Why the Anglo-Saxon tradition is not even recognized to be as prominent in the motherland by United Kingdom historians as S/W would have us believe it is in the United States. Except for some crude body-painting and later weird language spellings, the Romans, Danes and Normans had a greater influence on the English culture then the Savage favorites.

Until 1971, 1900 years after Roman conquest, the British still used the symbol "d" for denarius in referring to their penny. To this day their major unit, the pound is symbolized by an "L" for libra. Richard the Lion Hearted spoke almost exclusively French and spent very little time in England. George III from whom the American colonists won their independence I believe spoke only German. The whole Arthurian legend as we came to know it is a French courtesan creation. What Anglo-Saxon culture is S/W talking about? The English language is related as it is named to the "Angles" but its vocabulary, especially when it comes to abstract, legal, philosophical or for that matter any aspects of "modern civilization" hardly ever is. (Only five words or so in the entire preceding sentence may be called Anglo-Saxon in origin.)

Unfortunately, some of us listeners are not as ignorant as S/W would like us to be and we cannot fully ignore his many errors. I previously stated that it was to be hoped that those listeners who accepted his diatribes hook, line and sinker WOULD NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA. Here's why.

Mr. S/W speaks of Fascist precedents, so I will speak of another kind. There was one other individual who created some confusion with his name. There was one other cultural champion who set forth standards as ideals he himself hardly met. There was one other orator who relied on impetuous agreeement to overcome closer inspection of his premises and their validity. It was the true savage that ultimately gave Fascism its present bad name and whose blind followers would give today's Jihadists a run for the money. His name was Hitler and his followers were called Nazis. MAY THEY NEVER TAKE POWER IN AMERICA.

Like the literary Dr. Frankenstein I suspect that Mr. Savage/ Weiner would also end up being destroyed by his own creation. Liberal or conservatives is not what the choice is about and the choice between Islamic Nazism and Anglo-Saxon Nazism may be no choice at all.

The images of Iraqi and Iranian leaders seen together, amicable, almost chummy should be the basis for future hope, one would think. After all, the past war between their two countries had been the biggest thing to hit the Middle East since Rommel. The war had been fought purportedly over disputed territory and access to the sea. It is said it caused one million casualties and served as an inspiration for the issuance of those plastic keys to heaven on the part of Iran. There is no question it was also about prestige. The Baathist seculars on one hand, the fundamentalist ayatollahs on the other.

Why a so-called democratic government in Iraq would be more palatable to Iran than Saddam's is puzzling. After all we have heard much talk about Iranian sponsorship of unrest in their neighbor and considering that both countries are primarily Shiite, this would indicate their differences have been over how the country is run more so than on who runs it. The recent indications given by Iranian leadership that the nuclear issue may after all be negotiable would help reinforce the impression that they are not that inflexible and intolerant after all. Somehow it just doesn't wash. Things deserve a closer look.

For one thing it is not too clear how the Iraqi leadership could have lent itself to these public gestures in conjunction with Iran without having first consulted, or possibly also been encouraged to by the US. The whole thing smacks of a three-way arragement and for a shared benefit. Let us start with the US and its administration.

With the decline in world oil prices (was Iran co-operative in that too?), the Democrat party has been left with only one major sail to propel them into the forthcoming elections-Iraq. Were the present US leadership to anticipate and announce a major change in military strategy, deployments etc. bringing at least a portion of the servicemen home right before these elections, it would take considerable wind out of that sail. The worsening situation in Afghanistan is re-emphasizing the al-Qaida and Taliban issue. Recent 9/11 observance and publicity have help shift the emphasis as well. Also, let us not forget that the official involvement of NATO in Afghanistan makes it appear less of a unilateral effort than the one in Iraq. The impending resignation of Tony Blair and a potential redefinition of British policy in Iraq will only focus the spotlight on the de-facto singularity of American commitment. If the Iranians were to be given advance indication of a US change in strategy, they might be willing to play the new cards dealt.

What about the Civil War prospects in Iraq given additional credibility by not too-subtle statements by some major military players very recently? Add to this the Iraqi government statement that the country is more or less going down the drain on its present course? Is a Shiite/Sunni boodbath really unavoidable? Maybe not. All it needs is a scapegoat, something to efficiently re-direct all this violent tostesterone. To a point, American servicemen have served this purpose. If a new modus vivendi is arranged, the pressure will have to be taken off them somewhat in order for the American administration to get its benefit. Let's see what else the Iraqis and Iranians have in common in addition to being mainly Shiite and blessed with oil. Why, a Kurd minority of course! The terrorism in Turkey recently has been attributed to its own problem with Kurds and not to any fundamentalist or Shiite initiative. The Turks are after all Sunni, and one would assume they shouldn't be overly receptive to an impending Sunni slaughter in Iraq. The Kurds? That is another story and it is one of the things that all three Moslem players mentioned have in common as a potential enemy.

Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed the sudden appearance of Kurdish "Thank You America" ads on TV. It is a nice gesture on their part considering all the negative feedback we have been receiving from other sources. But is it just a gesture? I cannot avoid having a slight suspicion that they may have gotten wind of an American/Iraqi/Iranian/Turkish arrangement that may potentially hang them out to dry. Again. Remember what happened after Iraqi War I? With all of our talk about democracy and freedom and self-determination, are they going to be the sacrificial lamb?

An alternative solution to the Iraqi quagmire would have been to allow it to restructure itself into three separate political entities. Allowing the civil war to fully occur would clear the air and our own soldiers would more or less get out of the way by concentrating on protecting the major oil-fields, the port(s) and some airfields. I believe the majority of Americans would shed few tears as long as the Iraqis concentrated almost exclusively on killing each other. And where would our haven be? Where would we base our co-ordinating command? Where are we possibly genuinely liked? In Iraqi Kurdistan of course! We would then be committed to its defense in conjunction with protecting our own. The non-Kurdish Sunni and Shiites in Iraq, would hardly like that, but what could they do about it? The population of the country has already been reported as resorting itself along factional lines. People tend to move out of mixed areas and relocate in places where they feel safer among their own. This is not ethnic cleansing, it is a common sense effort to increase one's chances of survival. Now both Iran and Turkey simultaneously come into play.

A fully independent American supported Kurdish state in the former Iraq would put pressure on both Iran and Turkey to allow their Kurdish minorities located in somewhat adjacent areas to become part of a new unified state. The Azerbaijani state would be encouraged to put further pressure on Iran. The Iraqis may not want to give up the oil involved, but in the case of Iran and Turkey, it may be more of a matter of principle rather than of economic greed. Being fully Macchiavellian, encouraging greater division among Moslem countries based primarily on principle, religious or otherwise, is in the American interest. As long as we are not unifying target caught in the middle, that is.

Methinks I smell a rat here and until I hear some statement from the present administration clearly defining its position on the Kurdish issue, I will remain cynical rather than hopeful. Do we stand for democracy and self-determination or not? Or is it all about the elections?

On August 30, John Hawkins fired the entire conservative "litmus" arsenal at the former mayor of New York. Interspersing occasional compliments in an attempt to give the article some semblance of objectivity, Mr. Hawkins spelled out, at least to his own satisfaction, why Mr. Giuliani is completely unacceptable as the Republican standard bearer in 2008.

I will not endeavor to rebut the details of the article. It is all pretty much old hat, predictable, and focuses mostly on issues I have already relegated to one of the fringes of American politics. The article in its entirety can be found at:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16762

I will just limit myself to saying that ideologues tend to deal in inflexible absolutes while pragmatists force themselves to deal with realities. Moreover, as Mayor it would have and should have been Giuliani's obligation and not merely his choice, to support those individuals who best met or supported the interests of his constituency. A Mayor's job is executive and as such he is more or less the sheepherder of his flock. Were he to place its safety or well-being secondary to some official, conventional party line would amount to betrayal of his trust. Making the transition to the national level, it would be the hope rather than the fear that such an individual would apply himself likewise to represent and protect the interests of the greater flock.

The bit about keeping the pants on, was just National Enquirer stuff. Except for intimate liasons potentially threathening national security as may have been the case with JFK, our presidents' activities in the bedroom have rarely had any bearing on their performance as Chief Executives.

I would have been more interested in hearing how Mr. Hawkins felt Giuliani harmonized, or failed to do so, with the eleven points outlined by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Those maybe found at:

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3547

Though the "American Eleven" that the former speaker refers to are the points and issues that, if endorsed, should help Republican fortunes in the upcoming elections, with only slight modification they will very likely be the same ones that will play a crucial role in 2008. It would not be presumptive to say that a face to face meeting between Newt and Rudy on some reputable talk show where their agreement or disagreement on the truly important, mainstream issues can come to light, would prove to be a lot more enlightening than Mr. Hawkins' transparent attempt to demonize the former mayor. All that we learn from Mr. Hawkins is which side his toast is buttered on. That is not really what should interest Americans.

In a previous article I wrote about the center, looking for it, representing it. If it does not coincide with the more vocal and strident voices in our main political parties, this should be their curse, not ours.

Even beginners in the game of chess learn early on that a first elementary strategy is to control the center. In elective process that center would coincide with the positions the majority of the electorate holds on what it perceives to be the most important issues. At least one would think so. Somehow that just doesn't happen to be the case in this country.

Though it is true that if a political party is to represent or stand for something with any consistency, it cannot or should not mirror the fluctuating and sometimes volatile center as reflected in public opinion polls at any given moment, even if they were 99% accurate. The public tends to be moody and one of the main virtues associated with effective political, as well as other leadership since ancient times, is the ability to be persuasive. This means being able to affect or alter the perception and maybe even the priorities of the masses. One of the problems with the American system is that its main political parties have a tendency to be in a constant process of creating Presidential champions, and if they lose, grinding them up and then spitting them out. Even the winners are usually relegated to irrelevancy soon after they have served. This may be to the credit of the republican principle but it is also to the detriment of any kind of continuity in declaring an established national purpose.

Participation in either the Legislative and Judicial branches of government offers a potential lifetime usually far exceeding that of any President or Presidential standard-bearer. Almost invariably, the candidate for the highest office in the land has to cajole, negotiate and compromise with the more permanent elements that constitute his party. Bluntly, he often has to convince them not so much that he can win, but rather that he will remain more or less harmless to their interests, win or lose. Unfortunately, those interests only too often do not represent the center. Viable and variable though it may be, the center is something our political parties have become accustomed to "lean toward" if, as, and when it is convenient, and often only for the duration of the Presidential campaigns. The rest of the time they are busy selling the public on their differences, sometimes in priority areas that are relatively marginal.

The resulting phenomenon is that the main parties often end up being defined by their extremes, which in turn are of secondary importance to the national interest. They constanty fuel the fires of polarization and perpetuate litmus tests to accentuate the distinction, to make people feel they have a real choice. But do they? The people that is. Maybe not in what really matters to them.

For decades the Republican party has been equated with the party of big business, small government, and the rich and famous. The Democrats on the other hand have hung on to their assumed role as champions of the unions, of big, generous (sometimes intrusive) government, and of the poor working and non-working classes in general. In the 30's FDR managed to ride the support of an ethnic coalition (Jews, Italians, other non-Wasps, Blacks) that his party hoped would last forever. It thereby also became the champion party of the minorities. Unfortunately, it has been writing checks on that account without making sufficient deposits for too many years and may soon have this account closed.

Back to the Republicans. Their financial elitist position is rather faded and worn. There are probably more rich and richer Democrats in Congress then there are Republicans. The rich and famous tend to be fashionable liberals and more often than not, far-left Democrats. The most effective Republican presidential leadership in recent times has come from populists (Nixon and Reagan), who if they did not outright distrust and despise the privileged Republican Old Guard, at the very least managed to do without them. Most Republican voters will not make the $39 an hour wage my step-son started on as a unionized iron worker at the age of 22, in their lifetime. They will also be less likely to land middle class jobs based solely on patronage and identification with minority status. The account they still attempt to write checks on as been more or less closed for some time now.

The political parties have both fallen into the tragic trap of defining themselves by litmus tests, and insisting further that the electorate accept these tests in making their own choices as well. They seem to ignore the fact that this division and polarization may result in mandate only when this mandate is either one resulting in the oppression of one group by another, or a mandate of rejection leading to possibly unforeseen results. The Abortion, Guns, Prayers in School, Gay Marriages, Black, and other so called "litmus tests" cannot be the primary basis determining one's vote for the Executive leader of the most powerful country in the world, even though his relevancy may be relatively short.

1. Abortion. Is there agreement as to what constitutes life, viable life, constitutionally protected life? Is this not at present a matter left to the discretion of the individual states? Is this not also primarily a religious issue? Why should the Federal Government have a policy on this when many of the citizens having the strongest feelings on the subject are often also the strongest advocates of separation of Church and State and States' Rights?

2. Guns. Accidental death caused by guns is a reality. So are accidental deaths caused by falling off ladders. This is a primarily a matter of being careful. What percentage of crimes are committed by perps wielding registered guns? Then of course why would a regular citizen need to own a machine gun? Unless it is a war trophy and has been rendered inoperative, and for sentimental reasons only. The most effective weapon in home (your home that is) security is still a shotgun. Ask people who rob houses for a living. Just allow sawed-off shotguns for home protection. Chances are firing a machine gun in your home will probably just tear up the furniture, the plumbing and the electrical. Gangs using these automatic weapons on each other seem to be primarily hitting bystanders.

3. Prayers, silence, what's the difference? Allow for one minute of "reflection." One can reflect on God, the girl or boy sitting next to you, or what one is going to have for lunch. This is why this is supposed to be a free country. Stop disrupting our classes and jockeying around our teachers on this issue. It has nothing to do with education.

4. Gay Marriages. OK all you wise, credentialed, sociologists, activists, ministers, and politicians in general, I've got some real crushing news for all of you! Marriage in not merely a "concept," it is also a "THING!" In possibly every country in the world, or at least in every country in the world that has a dictionary, "marriage" is defined as the intimate union of members of opposite sexes. Even in a culture that may encourage polygamy or harems, the husband may be married to many wives, BUT THE WIVES ARE NOT MARRIED TO EACH OTHER! Let me explain it another way for some of you that just can't grasp this:

If a sandwich is described as something other than bread contained between slices of bread, one slice of salami between six slices of bread, or six slices of salami between two slices of bread are sandwiches. Three slices of bread are not. If you really want to get technical, one slice of salami on one slice of bread would be an "open sandwich." Or, ethnically speaking, two tortillas do not make a taco.

You want to grant same sex couples the same rights as mixed sex couples? It's called a "domestic contract" and doesn't need either a mainstream maverick minister nor a correspondence fringe-person to make it work. It is usually up to the individual states to make sure these contracts get the same civil, financial and other considerations as marriage certificates. There is also nothing to stop friends from throwing rice at a same sex couple outside city hall or their lawyer's office. This is not a Federal issue. Get on to something else.

5. Blacks? They seem to be a political football continuously kicked in the same direction. I think enough genuinely concerned Blacks are finally starting to speak out. That is good and I have nothing to add.

Let's get to this center.

1. War, death and sacrifice, where and with what results? What plan?

2. Security, safety. Crime. Now add terrorism.

3. Energy. The economy. Why isn't goverment actually involved? Why is it starting to look like the UN observers that have been in Lebanon? Have we no "terms of engagement" to supplant International Oil interests? If global warming is a reality, then this is tied into Energy issue more than anything else. Kill one bird with one stone. Quit talking about it and propose to actually do something.

4. Illegal immigration. It isn't so much the principle, it's the sheer volume. If we are not Mexicans, do we want our children to be confined to "gringo ghettos" in a future Los Angeles? Where else? Can we eventually be denied everyday jobs because we don't speak Spanish?

The first item relies very much on intelligence and the ability to acquire accurate same. It may not be within the reach of any political party or individual to convincingly reassure us on that point. Unfortunately it has become more of a "we capitalist whites are decimating non-capitalist non-whites" thing. Someone please ask the Iraqi and Iranians to take a poll as to whether they are white or not. Maybe we can cut down a bit on the noise while we try to figure things out. The Palestinians and the Arabs are not Anti-Semitic by the way. They are Semites and merely anti-Israel. The Nazis were anti-Jewish and actually kissed up to the Arabs. It was a Mogen David on those holocaust uniforms.

The last three items, constitute the mandatory center to be addressed in order for our next President to have a real mandate. If we allow the candidates to be nominated on any other bases, whoever we may elect may not really make much difference. It will be business as usual, with recriminations to follow.

My prediction that gas prices at the pump could easily be driven to $5.00 a gallon by the forthcoming holiday apparently is not going to come true. An actual decrease in the price has been the chosen strategy of the powers that be, at least for a while. Let us not be fooled into thinking that is indicative of market forces at work, as the oil companies claim. Rather, it is only further proof that manipulation and price-fixing is the general rule.

Let us take all those TV ads placed by somewhat unfamiliar, or at least not so well known oil company names in the past few months. Without actually specifying whether the companies were refineries, producers, suppliers, a combination of these, and most importantly whether or not they were subsidiaries of more familiar big fish, they presented themselves as kinder, gentler, cleaner, and most of all concerned about our plight. Bollocks!

This obviously concerted and coordinated public relations campaign at a time when gasoline prices were going up, smacks of a unified war-fund. More importantly, when seen in light of subsequent developments it gives me the impression that the oil industry decided to play "good cop/bad cop" with us. Consider the following:

1. The Lebanese crisis did not really raise our prices as much as we could have feared. Why? Neither Lebanon nor Israel produces any oil to speak of. Syrian production is relatively small. Iran decided it was not a good time to lower its present oil revenues with the possibility of forthcoming sanctions. Theoretically we have some (uncertain what) control on Iraqi oil. We were afraid, then we had reason to be grateful.

2. BP, remaining "British" petroleum in stealth, suddenly announces its monopoly of our Alaskan oil fields is faced with shutting down while they make "repairs." We are afraid. Then they announce only part of it has to be shut down. We are grateful. How long did they know about these "needed" repairs anyhow?

3. The price of a barrel of oil goes up when a potential hurricane possibly hitting the gulf area is identified. We are afraid. Then the storm decides to go to Florida instead and we are grateful. The price of a barrel of oil goes back down. Thank the Lord we don't fill up our gas tanks with orange juice.

4. Iran rejects everything proposed at the UN deadline. Fearing it will retaliate to proposed sanctions by shorting its oil production, we rumor $100 a barrel oil and are afraid. Then suddenly rumors are spread that gasoline prices will actually continue to fall, maybe as low as $2.20 a gallon? We are grateful. But what is going on here?

Who is spreading the initial rumors about the price drops, the gasoline station owners? Is there a drop in world demand foreseen? We all knew that if anything we were "oversupplied" WHILE PRICES WERE RISING. Why use it as an explanation for prices dropping now? Maybe it is about fall after all. The fall elections.

Until the elections are over it is advisable to protect some of our incumbents on the oil take with this "good cop" routine. And when the elections are over, then maybe we'll see "bad cop" again. $5.00 a gallon gasoline is still there just waiting to be staged. The free market at work? One must be kidding.

We are familiar with the practice of Islamic terrorists using human shields in their quest for world domination and a personal early trip to Paradise. The fact that they also make this early Paradise choice for many innocents who do not always share their zeal or urgency, does not seem to evoke strong protests in the Muslim world. Nothing at the very least that might compare to say the rumor some infidel theathened to flush the Quran down the toilet. Why? we ask. If Islam is the religion of love and tolerance, how is this consistent with it?

How can millions of more moderate Muslims detach themselves from the criminal savage acts committed in the name of Allah merely by shrugging and saying: "That's not us." For those who claim to be dedicated to the path of righteousness, it would seem that their responsibility should go further than that. I did a little primitive research and may have found some clues.

Apparently disagreement is accepted or tolerated within Islam, though discouraged somewhat. The ideal choice when faced with doubt or disagreement is always "surrender" to the will of Allah. Unfortunately this still means surrendering to someone's interpretation of it, and that is why there was a disagreement in the first place. There is also a potential caveat to all this. As long as one accepts Allah, apparently he or she can never be totally wrong. Those that may be on the true side are blessed twice, and those on the false side blessed once, even after you murder them in their mosque. The infidel apparently is never in the ball game and what is done to or about him is fair game. How convenient!

It would not appear to be all that difficult if understanding Islam would be limited to trying to understand the Quran and its potential interpretations. Unfortunately that is not it at all. Apparently, if mass murder or genocide is contemplated it is more likely to be because of Hadith and not the Quran.

Hadith is written down oral tradition. I had at initially thought that examining this tradition would be a challenge of sorts but not an impossibility. I was expected it to fall on the same charts as say Catholic oral tradition, or the Talmud. What I discovered was the absolute absurdity of both the volume and the nature of the subject. It is to say the very least mind-boggling, and not having a couple of lifetimes left I had to settle to a mere couple of facts placing them in perspective, without allowing myself the luxury of either identifying or commenting on any single one.

Muhammad al-Bukhari (810-870 C.E.) is traditionally considered the great scholar on the subject. Possessing a photographic memory he is said to have memorized 70,000 of these Hadiths verbatim, with commentaries. by the age of 10! Turning to serious study (?!) in his teens he learned 600,000 (SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND, .6 MILLION, I want to be clear on this) of these written oral traditions from over 1,000 sources. I didn't have the time to delve into his whole biography but apparently he or someone established there were 7,275 "tested" ones out of the lot. This chosen group is referred to as a whole as the "Jannah al-Firdhaus."

The existence of the Jannah al-Firdhaus would be expected to make things a bit more orderly, but that is not necessarily the case. Our friend al-Bukhari was born in Persia but happened to be Sunni. Unfortunately present day Iran is Shiite. The Shiites actually intensely dislike the great scholar, whom I assume they only think is going to be blessed only once. I therefore suspect they have their own list of "tested" Hadiths, and apparently the 72 virgins in Paradise must be one of them, as well as the bit about the plastic keys. In any case any Ayatollah may decide to revive or re-interpret or just plain invent a new Hadith to fit his particular agenda. What are the favorite Shiite Hadiths? Are there more or less than 7275 of these "tested" ones as well? And just what does "tested" mean? I am sure I could find out more, but frankly I just don't have time for all this nonsense, even though this nonsense may be killing innocent people all over the world.

Just from the above, one may conclude the following:

1. Islamic accounts are prone to great exaggerations, or many people are committed to contributing absolutely nothing to society spending their entire life trying to sort through what they really believe.

2. A lot of Muslims frankly don't know what most others believe except for Allah, the Quran and the Prophet. They either don't care, or don't have time because they are busy trying to make a living.

3. If an Imam were to authoritatively state that the great Western Satan would be smitten by a huge chicken neck that came down from the sky, we probably would have to run the computers round the clock to verify the source. Bluntly, any Islamic holy man can make up just about any nonsense he wants.

4. If you're a Moslem you can be dead wrong about something, but it still better than not being a Moslem. You'll be blessed eventually. If a copy of the Quran gets destroyed in a mosque of some alternate group or sect, or in the glove compartment of a schoolbus filled with little Moslems, I guess it is OK. There must be an Hadith covering that.

5. The ongoing secterian strifes, the threath to Israel's existence, and the survival of Western Civilization, all may hinge on some real or imaginary anactedote. In truth, we may all be "Hadithed" to death.

The whole thing would be ludicrous, if it were not potentially fatal to mankind.
"Uh! Uh! Not me! That's not us!" No wonder.

Meantime we wonder why a force committed to the extinction of Israel is refraining from hitting its major city with a rocket. Is it possibly because they don't want to be flattened prior to developing their own nuclear capabilities? And what has happened in Lebanon may be almost too simple. Hazbollah had representation and the militias but no claim to legitimacy to govern. Iran encouraged the violations expecting Israel to react, maybe overeact, but leaving Iran itself alone nonetheless. The Lebanese army does not exist. Hazbollah become the undeniable defenders of the nation. The so-called democratic government of Lebanon is already calling them just that.

If there is a cease-fire and Hazbollah takes over as the official Lebanese government. Iran doesn't have to worry about a 15-20 mile no man's land. Like Cuba, Lebanon under Hezbollah can be the base for much longer range and possibly nuclear weapons. Then Tel Aviv will really be in danger. And when the mushroom clouds are seen rising, I am sure there will be an Hadith to cover the disaster.

It is never too early to accept the fact that there may be many loyal and dedicated Republicans who just don't like Bush-any one of the three Bushes for that matter. It is unfortunate that in focusing on the forthcoming November elections, many Republican strategists have made the Bush defense mandatory as a litmus test of sorts. Truth as I see it, is that the progress, or lack of it, in Iraq, the state of the economy, of energy and illegal immigration, and other main issues will determine the Republican fortunes, and not the President's personal polularity ratings.

True, his popularity rating may reflect successes and/or failures in the areas Americans may feel are most important, but that is merely a case of the dog properly wagging the tail. In his years in office, GWB has amazingly managed to have become both controversial and irrelevant at the same time. In contrast to a Reagan who possessed a wonderful sense of timing in addition to his ability to make us feel comfortable and genuinely cared for, or to a Nixon whose raw competence and understanding (except for Watergate) were undeniable, the second Bush remains to this day an unknown and easily maligned quantity.

This is the man who took his first photo ops in front of the Pentagon after 9/11, instead of in New York City. He allowed Hillary Clinton to beat him to the punch and be the one we remember standing next to Rudy Giuliani at ground zero of possibly the greatest single disaster in US history. Was he a coward, or a fool, or were his advisers? But then I also remember Bush Sr. giving his interviews at the height of Desert Storm, out of his golf cart! As I said, it is not too difficult for some of us Republicans not to be overly enthusiastic with this entire family and its Maine/Texas/Saudi connections.

The danger lies in that we are heading in the direction of  making President Bush a litmus test for the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate(s), in addition to those running in 2006. If the man presently given the best chance to stomp whoever his Democratic opponent, that is Rudy Giuliani, is denied the nomination for failing such a test, in addition to the right to life etc., we risk a succesful third party candidacy. A candidacy that could gridlock the electoral college and throw us into a constitutional crisis.