It's Liberal Vs. Skunk In A Texas Cage #%^^&*!

Articles

It's Liberal Vs. Skunk In A Texas Cage #%^^&*!

By Keith Ian Middleton
Oct. 30, 2005

The following conversation may or may not have transpired, you decide.

The impetus came from a couple of my recent articles. In the beginning I did run the thing through a spell check, after a while I gave up, as no spell check in the world can make a liberal sound any smarter.

The liberal wrote:

Hi, I enjoyed your article about Halloween, and was in total agreement until you blamed this fake, daylight, commercialized nonsense we have these days on the ACLU and Liberals. I have quite a different take on the matter. First, I'm an atheist, and what I see, and notice, and pick out of the media, are evangelical Christian groups using their own method of "cleaning" Halloween, by attacking anything related to skeletons, witches, and all of the "scary" stuff that makes, or, used to make, Halloween fun. They even attack Harry Potter books! And unlike the ACLU in regards to Christmas, these loons seem to have ever growing support. As to the needles in apples and so forth, please, don't blame this on the left! "do gooders" come from both sides - people will gladly trade not just their sense of fun and adventure, but also their liberties, to feel "safer" - and I think we both know this is true and it's people in general. As for "real" crime, and real needles and real poison, etc., we can either keep doing what we are doing, what the Right keeps telling us, "tough on crime! tough on crime!" and keep locking higher and higher percentages of our population into jail, or, we can try some liberal ideas that work, right now, very well, in the real world, in all of our rich, modern, allies. A good deal of our most serious crime originates, thanks in large part, to the Right's "war on drugs". They are the doo-gooders here, trying to legislate morality. And, like the anti-Harry Potter Christians, unfortunately, the war on drugs as it is now, in it's flawed form, has wide support. Selling cocaine garners a 17,000% profit - not even Jesus himself could stop people from selling this stuff... I may use some of the above to write a short article. It seems we agree about the problem, just not the cause.

Signed,

Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Thanks for writing.

First, I point no fingers at any particular group, the fact is that I think people just suck in general. I don't care for the holier than thou Evangels any more than I do anyone else, I consider them, as well as any other group of zealots regardless of what they happen to name their god or gods, to be nothing more than a front for the biggest bunch of hypocrites that ever walked the face of the earth. I know all about religion, being raised Catholic. Fortunately my mother had sense enough to allow me and my siblings to make up their own minds about it at age 14; none of us went back.

I even considered myself an atheist for a number of years and to this day have to wonder at times why in the #%&& I am still here. Read my article about suicide, I am very familiar with the subject. To this very moment I can not say for sure whether I will see the next dawn with my seat in the upright and locked position. That's just the way it is. I have walked through #%$$ wearing a gasoline jogging suit, yet some how survived thus far. I am not at all religious, but I do have to think that there is a higher power. Yeah, that comes straight out of the AA Big Book, been there, done that too.

I use the ACLU as an example because they happen to have the biggest mouths and most ludicrous ideals of anyone I have ever looked into. Want a 'fer in-stance?' We are currently being invaded across our southern border. There is no other name to hang on it that makes any sense. It is an invasion in every fashion of the word. The ACLU in their infinite wisdom thinks that situation is just hunky-dory and in fact encourages it. And our faithful servants in DC. seem to share the opinion. That is my money that is paying for all of the social services that they are overloading, and by that I mean public schooling, health care and everything else our taxes go for.

Now, I have nothing against Hispanic people, I worked closely with hundreds of them over the years. As a group they are fine people and I am proud to number a lot of them as friends. But the fact remains that they are not only coming in droves and overloading the system, they are also sending billions upon billions of dollars out of this country, that is money that you will never see again my friend. Yet the ACLU thinks that is not a bad situation. Granted, their basic ideals are admirable, but by the time it is distilled into the real world something is definitely lost in the translation. The second a non-citizen steps across that fence they become a criminal in this country. We are not talking coolie laws here, at the cost of our society we are raising the standard of living of an entire country. Sorry, but I am not OK with that. Not when there are a multitude of American citizens that can put to good use every bit of help that they can get and are refused because there are no funds available.

Another thing is that I did not blame anything on anyone in particular. It is the human race that is going to #%$$ in a hand basket. The ACLU and the radical liberals just happen to be so touchy-feely that they think that anything goes, to the point where they abandon principals all together and rush to the aid of the likes of child molesters, screaming 'civil rights' at the top of their lungs. Again a high calling, but what about the rights of the people whose lives are shattered by the same animals they habitually set free because a cop didn't say, "Mother may I?"

Again, don't get me wrong. The idea is commendable and I support it, in principal. It is in the execution that I find fault. Sometimes you just have to step back and say, "Hey, you know, that is just plain wrong."

Now how you got from rumors of miss doings (needles and blades in the treats) to my blaming that on anyone is simply beyond my comprehension. You will have to detail that one for me, if I didn't abhor the practice I would be obliged to label you a reactionary and overly defensive, thus becoming the self-same type of person in the process. Like I say, I hate that.

And just where did you dig up the 'real crime/war on drugs, the Right is the Devils advocate in disguise’ angle from? I am afraid that you may be reading a lot more into what I say than is in fact there. I have been known to write in a fashion that contains a fair proportion of smoke and mirrors, but my articles are neither the time or place. I reserve that work for paying gigs. What you see is what you get. I don't pull any punches and I say exactly what I mean. Some of your reactions come from so far out in left field that I have to wonder if you are even playing the same ball game.

Turn your reaction meter off and read the article again. Don't editorialize on every little thing, just read it for what it is. The whole world is in dire straits; it is no one groups fault anymore than another's. You seem to have missed the fact that I was an active member of the counter culture and have in my time subscribed to a number of different and diverse ideals. A few years ago I decided that I was tired of being told what to think about this or that and started being critical of everyone, especially myself. Standing at the edge and looking down at your reflection will do that to a man. Once you have gone eyeball to eyeball with death and death blinked there just isn't a #%$$ of a lot left to care about in the world, least of all what someone might think of me.

Try reading with an open mind and a slightly better understanding of the person that wrote it. I am not out to impress anyone or start a crusade, if someone strikes me as a jackass that is precisely what I will call him and I don't give a fat rat’s &^^ what he or she believes in.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

Hi, Yeah, I guess maybe I do get a bit reactionary, but UK is a very conservative biased place, and we have lots of articles that make a lot of sense, and that I can identify with, until the liberals are made the scapegoats. That "counter culture" period was important in US history. The other countries in the world that are comparable to us dealt with those issues as well. They are all "more liberal" than the USA, but have many less problems than we do along those very lines - that's all I was saying. Clearly, it's not liberal philosophy in and of itself that accounts for our problems. I don't think the world is going down the tubes, I really don't. Actually, I think it's about the best it's ever been. So many more countries are wealthy, so many more people are free-er, so many people are living longer. There have always been wars and crime and all of the "bad" stuff - now, we just have so many more people that when something "bad" happens, that many more are affected, but I think all in all, it's a good thing. Most humans (3/5, I think) are Indians from India or Chinese, and those countries are improving and have possibly, bright futures. My point about needles might have been from left field, point taken, and I apologize. I was simply saying that much of the crime in America today isn't a result of 60s drug culture, but of the efforts since to combat a threat that really wasn't a threat to begin with. The war on drugs is directly responsible for most of the serious crime, especially that related to minorities in the inner city slums. If that doesn't really relate to your piece, I'm sorry for grandstanding. I've read some of your other pieces, and you write good stuff - I don't always agree, but I appreciate your contribution to the useless-knowledge chaos,

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative Wrote:

Thank you for writing and not 'flying off the handle' with me, as is so often the case when I write a rebuttal. Your rational response paints you as a man of intelligence and one that I am glad to make the acquaintance of.

There are, in my experience and to hit it with a broad brush, two types of people that I have dealt with in this media: the sound thinking, level headed who can respond in a coherent manner, and those that can not fully comprehend a thoughtful argument and subsequently resort to name calling and character assassination. I am glad you are the former, I don't generally waste much time with the latter type, they typically lack the cognitive ability to fully appreciate what I have to say in the first place. Though tearing them down by illustrating their weakness in a manner that can not be mistaken for anything but what it is can be highly entertaining, it is, in the end, quite pointless, as they just don't 'get it' and are not likely to any time soon.

I was not aware that you are English, fully half of my ancestry is English, as you no doubt surmised by my sir name. Being not of this land leads me to question whether you are as 'up' on things here as a native might be. I doubt, unless of course you have just scads of time to sift through the content of the Web, that you know all that transpires in this country.

A typical case in point is the Natalie Holloway incident. The attention lavished on that story borders on the ridiculous. The question begs to be asked and has been, how much coverage it would garner were the girl a poor, lower middle class brunet with average looks? The mere fact that her family has the time to take up permanent residence in Aruba while chasing that rainbow screams out the fact that they have more money than they know what to do with. The standards that the American people and in particular the American press, who after all would not be covering the case without an audience, place on human life are, for lack of a better term, disgusting. People have been disappearing in that region of the world for hundreds of years, why is this one girl so important?

If you read my piece on Darwin you'll know that I subscribe to the theory of evolution and this is a classic example. If you will pardon my crassness, that dumb *^$@# got drunk, hooked up with some locals and got in over her head, then paid the price. Period. Simple as that. Happens all the time to folks that don't have good sense. If you really want to know what I think I'd say the world's gene pool is probably up graded a notch or two with the absence of her contribution. It's a very nasty place, this rock we call home, if you don't know the rules you had better stay out of the game or you will quite simply wind up very dead.

I have been accused of being cold hearted and uncaring, guilty as charged on the first count Your Honor, but I am anything aside from uncaring. If I didn't care I would not speak up and open myself to criticism. I deal in reality. I have been really dead on 3 occasions and have attempted to take my own life on 3 others. That will, trust me on this one, strip away all pretenses and expose the world and it's inhabitants for what they really are. This place would be completely unrecognizable if everyone had been where I have and seen what I have seen.

I do not think like most people, that much is probably clear. I look at things from an angle that few can even imagine. My aim is to provoke people into stepping outside the accepted lines, to peer at that man behind the curtain, to at last open their eyes and exclaim, "Hey! The

Emperor's naked!"

I do not claim to be on the side of any faction, be it liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle. I support things and ideals that make sense to me and could careless about the origin.

I point out the 'hippie movement' not as the source of the state our society is in, but rather as a case of coincidence that things started to go downhill from that point going forward. There is a lot more to it than simply a generation changing their way of thinking. Not a small amount can be attributed to the technological changes that have swept the world. It changed us, it changed our children and it changes our grandchildren. Each change is piled atop the last. It's nothing new; the difference is in the pace. Somewhere we turned down a dead-end street and have yet to muster the wherewithal to reverse course before the pavement runs out.

I personally could give not one wit whether anyone agrees with me; this is not my crusade and certainly not what I am about. If I can just get someone to look from a different vantagepoint, however briefly, I am satisfied. If someone says, "Hey, that guy might be on to something." So much the better.

If you look closely at the numbers you will find that there is in fact less crime per capita now than anytime in the last several centuries. The difference is in the enforcement and coverage. With communications as they are now, as compared to any time in the past, everyone can or does know everything. Literally. It is there; all you have to do is be literate and willing to invest the time. It is the perception of crime, not the incidence.

Lord how I do go on and on. I thank you for the exchange and welcome more if you are so inclined.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

Thanks for you very well written response. I'm not actually English, I live in Indiana and my parents are German and Polish - I think I must have abbreviated useless-knowledge to UK ;) Don't give me that much credit - I tend to "fly off the handle" - there are few folks at UK (useless-knowledge) that do it to me on a regular basis. Reading Ken Hughe's endless, "liberals are liars...you can't trust anything that comes out of them mouth of a democrat...the USA is guided by the hand of God". Yeah, those spelling mistakes are intentional, it illustrates his writing style in general ;) And that latter bit about God wasn't thrown in merely for punch, he really believes that. Anyway, I'm usually not nice when I respond to that guy ;) The Holloway bit is silly, I agree, but you know what? I barely know the details. I just don't care - like you, of course it bothers me that someone went missing, etc., but it's just not that important to me. "The media" always gets attacked by UK writers. My advice? Change your media sources. My main sources these days are NPR and PBS. I usually watch the News hour every night during dinner, and listen to NPR, whenever I can, during the day on the radio and sometimes via streaming on my computer. Their websites archives 100% of the their shows. Both barely mention Hollaway. Most of the rest of the news I get is niche news - web based news feeds that watch sci-tech happenings, or, secular happenings - laws passes against evolution or the attempts thereof and that kind of thing. You are right about crime, it's getting better. Let me ask you, then, besides the news, if crime is getting better, what exactly bothers you so much about the world, and why you feel it's getting worse? Make no mistake, I haven't had your experiences with near death and suicide, but I'm rather cynical - I know that most people are selfish most of the time. I've been through enough to be a cup-half-empty-kind-of-guy. I think the 60s corrected some long-standing problems, and exposed others. Women are generally equals, so naturally, they should be able to enjoy sex, first off, leave their husbands if they choose, and so on. A woman should have the right to these things, but I won't deny that this threatens the nuclear family. But, what the hell is the nuclear family?! A very modern, Western, invention. For most of human history, it was the 'extended family'. The shift to the nuclear family also caused problems. Old folks can now no longer depend on their children to be their support system, for example. For every change, there are negative and positive side effects. Likewise, families are changing right now. Most marriages end in divorce, and many families as a result are full of half siblings and the like. It's a change that will have good and bad consequences. Globalization is probably the biggest change going on in the world right now...but it's no bigger than industrialization was... As for science and technology, I have a very different take, I think, on this than you. Back when people first learned how to melt down soft metal and make better tools, they entered the bronze age. Of course there were people that wanted to stay in the stone age. You can get hurt with a bronze sword. You can use it to slice up your enemies. It's always a double-edged sword, isn't it? Survival is our most basic instinct, and technology is the only thing that will save is in the end. Science has already tripled the life span of humankind - how's that for immortality? Some Christians tell us that we will live forever...but not until AFTER we die ;) Eventually the sun will turn into a red giant, and long before that, a comet or an asteroid will hit the Earth, again, and wipe out a good 75% of all life. It will happen. Science and technology is the only thing that can save us in the long run. If we use it to extinguish ourselves first, then we don't deserve to survive - sorry, that's how I feel, but we have the right and the need to try.

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Well said!

Pardon my ignorance i.e. the English reference. Useless-Knowledge never even occurred to me. Actually I discovered the site quite by accident a couple of months ago while researching a novel. I saw that they accept articles pretty much no questions asked (I surmise that this is not necessarily a good thing) and started writing. I only have time to do one or two a week and to be quite honest about it, I have yet to read anything from the site.

I like listening to NPR and prefer it to anything else when I can get it. I enjoy the music and a great many of the talk segments. My only *^&$# is that they tend to be a little selective about their news coverage. On the other hand I don't tune in for the news in the first place. As far as TV is concerned, 99% of it is garbage and less than worthy of my time. I watch football, baseball and hockey. If none of them are available its the History Channel.

You know there are extremist of every genre out there. Pick a subject and someone is bound to go overboard about it. It’s kinda like E-bay. There are many, many things that I am passionate about, but I don't as a rule attempt to force my viewpoint on anyone. Folks like that impress me as @$$%^*&!$ first and foremost. Another rule I have is to never waste my time listening to @$$%^*&!$. It takes productive time from other, important things and makes the @$$%^*&!$ think that they actually have something meaningful to say.

What I see wrong is the desolution of any sort of value system. People with no values do not care about you or what happens to anyone but themselves. The generations hatched since about 1980 are perfect examples. Everything is me, me, me. And don't even think that they might be willing to work for anything, the vast majority of them think that the world owes them a living. That probably bugs me so much because I have never had one single thing given to me in my entire life. At one time I had it all, the house, family, job and toys. I worked my @$$ off for every bit of it. I also lost every bit of it. But, that's my cross to bear. The point is that people who never expend any effort, other than whining, have no idea the value of things, down to and including the value of people. Everyone's first priority is them self. Throw a crowd into the North Atlantic and give them just one piece of wood to float on and you'll see what I mean. The trouble starts when people are not taught a second priority. That's why it is me, me, me and not me, me, me, you.

The other thing that burns my bacon is the way the world is perfectly content to bash the US at every possible opportunity, but let them come under attack, or suffer some kind of disaster and we are the first there with aid and offer more than anyone else can even dream of. Let the event die a natural death however or a calamity befall us (for example Katrina) and all bets are off.

Now granted, we do not need the help, never have and are not likely to in the future. And the people that we pick to make the big decisions do have a propensity for sticking our collective noses into business that is better left alone. But for reasons that continue to elude me, we have been appointed the de facto cop of the world. And as in real law enforcement, the cop is the target of ridicule and disdain, right up to and occasionally including the moment he is needed to save someone's @$$.

A prime example is France. Due to our involvement, us and us alone, France is a free nation today. They could not stave off the Germans, they didn't even give it a very good try, and the English were dumb enough to hang around until they got there @$$#$ slaughtered at Dunkirk, where the Germans finally kicked them off of the continent and told them to stay out. Were it not for FDR they would be singing dunkashain in downtown Paris right now. In my opinion WWII was the worst mistake of the 20th. century and the reason why the rest of the world thinks that the US can duck into a nearby phone booth and emerge with a big red S on it's chest.

Not only did we give a country back to its people, we didn't even make them payback the billions of dollars they borrowed as they were going down the tubes. In 2 wars.

But go to France and let it be known that you are an American and observe the treatment you receive. Or ask for their support in anything. Not men or materials, just a good ‘we're behind ya buddy’ You'll get the air in no uncertain terms.

My life's experience has been a lot like the way this country has traveled through time. On more than one occasion people that I counted as my friends have attempted to kill me. No %&**$#!*, they tried to take the only thing I brought into the world with me. The only thing a man can truly call his own.

I have seen how bad people can get and how much regard they have for me. I do not like people in general and tend to spend most of my time alone. And I am OK with that. I have always been a loner, just like people have continuously tried to give me the old high hard one, starting with my parents.

I do not consider myself the high and mighty, I have perpetrated more than my share of deeds that I do not brag on. But I do know right from wrong, and when I see something wrong and can pile a bunch of words around it, I am going to say something about it.

So to answer your question, I see the world and its highest life form as bad because that has been my experience. If you ask a person who has never been hurt, never mind on a continuous basis, they are likely to see the world and life in general as just wonderful. Good for them, I am beside myself with joy for their happiness. But it just ain't that way, not for me.

Yes, indeed, a lot of good things came out of the 60's and to a certain extent the 70's. A more 'enlightened society' pretty much sums it up in a couple of words. On the other hand, we lost a war for the first and only (to date) time. Now there are millions upon millions of words to be said both for and against Viet Nam. This is not the time and I really don't care to get into it. It happened, get over it. BUT>>>were it not for that war the 60's and first half of the 70's would never have happened and we would not have had the rallying point that brought people together for one of the few times in history. So in the end we can thank that war and every last thing associated with it for the country we have now, for better or worse.

Now you can argue democrat vs. republican until you are blue in the face. I don't care, I am simply an observer. One observation that is crystal clear to me is that there has been a democrat in office for every major conflict this country became involved in during the 20th. century. Again, I could care less, its just a statement of fact, take it for what its worth. Personally I think war is a good thing. Just a little more chlorine in the gene pool. If you are stupid enough to stand out there and kill one another I think its just dandy, I will in fact help you and the other side.

Yes, there are good and bad sides to every issue. When they are balanced it becomes a debate, when its all good it is a non-issue and when its all bad 9 times out of 10 it turns into a war.

I didn't make this world, I don't even care much for staying in it. But once in a while I will comment on it and like you said about the news, if someone doesn’t like what I have to say they don't have to listen. Kinda like my attitude toward @$$#*&%^, I will call them an @$$#*&%, but I refuse to debate the point with them. I have far better things to do with my time.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

Just read your piece about people living in danger zones - in part, I agree... But, again, lol, I couldn't help but notice that you basically bashed liberals in at least two places, the first in your bit about California, the second was more of an implication - "people blame Bush for Katrina". Who would blame Bush for Katrina, the Liberals, naturally. ;)

I'm Liberal, and I don't know any other liberal that blames Bush for Katrina... What smart folk blame, however, is the cuts in funding for those levies. Yes, New Orleans is a low-lying area, but with strong enough levies, the city could hold out even with a class five heading directly for them, as opposed to a class four veering off a bit. Don't forget that the Netherlands is something like 30% under sea level. It's doable. I don't think of it in "cosmic" terms, "those silly humans trying to beat nature". I think of it as building codes and water management. Did you know that even strong mobile homes can take a tornado? Did you know that the WTC was designed to withstand a direct impact from a Boeing 707? Too bad they used a 747 instead... Anyway, what happened was no surprise, it was entirely predicted, however, the chances were deemed "low". So, the powers that be thought this was a nice place to cut funding and they gambled wrong and people died as a result. Further, there is evidence that hotter gulf-water increases the strength of hurricanes in that region, and we all know that Bush is opposed to Global Warming. Actually, he finally agrees with the scientists in his own administration that the planet really is getting hotter, he just thinks the "free market" can handle it on the problem on its own. So, it's not that Bush created Katrina, but there is certainly some culpability there - perhaps not in a legal sense but in a moral sense. Finally, we can't forget that Bush was given a free political ride - we wanted him to make us safer after 911. If we can't manage a hurricane, something that was 100% predicted, how can we manage a nuke going off in Oshkosh Wisconsin?

Maybe next time you can bash the "real" loons? Please? Just for me, lol? There are several groups, religious groups, that blamed Katrina on the sinful nature of the city and, of course, on homosexuality. Again, it's the real loons on the Right that are fruitcakes, not the "fake" loons on the Left. I'm a skeptic - if the liberal policies that I support wouldn't work, I wouldn't support them. If this sounds like an unreasonable rant or over reaction, forgive me - I'm a liberal that writes for a severely conservative slanted website.

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Thanks for writing.

Once again I find myself having to repeat the mantra - I call 'um as I see 'um - if that happens to make someone appear to be of liberal bent, or conservative for that matter, I can't help it.

I refuse to change my views or alter my comments, my life has never been a popularity contest, I see no benefit in starting one now.

I also see little to gain in debating New Orleans. It was and continues to be a stupid situation. If you knowingly put yourself at risk, do not come to me with crocodile tears. You made your choice, now deal with it. And the quicker you do the better, as then you will have ample time to get over it.

My opinion stands. You claim to be a believer in Dawin's theory, if so then surely you can see it at work every day.

I find it amusing how so many people vocally stand behind an ideal until it comes to life in living color. Yeah, it’s a big, fat game and great fun is had by all until someone loses an eye.

You want liberal? How's this...I believe that a human life does not begin until it can sustain itself outside of the Mother's body, by that I mean breath on its own etc. Defects don't count, if a kid needs a respirator OK, no biggy. I think you know what I mean. Prior to that it is as much a part of the Mother as her heart or lungs. She should have the right to do whatever she deems best for her. Period.

I also believe that a person has the right to die in dignity. If their wish was not to be sustained like a potted plant while the care givers get fat on the money it takes to do that, plus a 'modest' profit naturally, then someone needs to step up and pull the damn plug. Re: Terry Schivo (sorry, it is not important enough to me to determine the correct spelling.) I think that it is insane and criminal to waste my money on a government to decide whether a woman that can carry on a conversation at about the same level as a sugar beet should live or die. People actually came running from their beloved vacations to jump on that touchy-feely bandwagon, lead by none other than George Bush. Every one of them, IMHO, is an idiot.

Here's another - I believe the war in Iraq is the biggest waste of time, money and human life since Viet Nam. The powers that be in DC hoodwinked the American people and we now have 2000 corpses to prove it. The only wars that ever came to a definitive conclusion within a 1500-mile radius of that stinking hole were the ones the Europeans held there amongst themselves. White people have been trying to civilize that region for thousands of years, witness the Crusades. As soon as everyone goes home those ignorant &%$^@*#$ are right back at each others throats. The Jews will never see peace there. Outside of its natural resources the entire area is about as useful as a hotdog with pistachio pudding for relish. The people aren't even worth that much. Let 'um have the %@&^ sand. If they hold our feet to the fire over oil prices get used to 5 dollar a gallon gas. Then get over it.

Now, is that liberal enough for you? I see little use in repeating what you already know about me. Call me and/or my views anything you'd like, it is anatomically impossible for me to give less of a $#!^.

You know what's wrong with this world? I mean just one thing, I don't have the next 6 years to devote to the subject. Nothing is anyone's fault. People live in a hole below sea level, their feet get wet. Not their fault. People live on a known active fault line, a devastating earthquake strikes, not their fault. People allow the population of their country to run rampant, disease breaks out, not their fault. Someone buys hot coffee and spills it on their lap because they were trying to operate a motor vehicle while drinking said coffee, not their fault. Someone jumps through the government hoops to buy a gun, gets drunk and kills somebody. Whose fault? The guy that made the gun. Not the guy that made the beer, or the guy that made the ammo, or the doctor that said the perp was fine, everyone hears voices once in a while.

I could go on and on and on ad nauseam. I have made some catastrophic decisions in my life and have paid dearly for them, in fact I am paying for one of the biggest right now. Whose fault? Mine. I own it lock, stock and barrel. People of this rock need to quit whining, stand up and take their friggin medicine.

Can I be any clearer for you?

This is fun, thank you (I mean that)

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

Indeed you are liberal - thank you, I approve! Just kidding, really. Thanks for an honest response. Like I said, I get a little overly-sensitive and reactionary to all of the constant, non-stop, liberal bashing at UK. I actually think we should finish the war in Iraq, and I think we need about 300 new nuclear power plants in the country. Further, I think that once the baby develops some of the uniquely human brain structures, that abortion should be blocked. How's that for conservative? ;) My issue is that the liberal position isn't taken as a serious, viable, position, especially at UK. Like you, I have different opinions on various topics; policy differs from philosophy. My philosophy tends to be liberal, but policy is sometimes a different matter... As for New Orleans, I see what you mean, my take is just different. The first job of government - a job that conservatives and liberals and even libertarians all agree on is, is to protect its people. Everyone knew New Orleans was in a dangerous state. They already had levies, because, again, they knew about the flooding danger. It was modeled extensively, and it was known exactly what the problem was, what needed to be done, what the cost would be, what the damage would be and on and on. Yet, funding to correct the problem was. As we clearly know right now, it would have been far cheaper to prevent the issue by attacking the flooding problem, than by evacuating and relocating the whole city. Any city on any ocean or large body of water is at risk - but these cities started long ago - back when we really needed to have cities on large bodies of water. It's not as if these things are planned, they just evolve. When I look at the layout of my own town I cringe - if I could clear it all off and redesign it, it might be a model of clarity instead of the chaos we have now. It makes no sense! There are streets which change name if you stay on them long enough, and a river runs through the whole mess that throws everything off kilter. I know you don't want to debate New Orleans, and, that's fine. I don't need or want a debate per se, but I do want to take this back to Bush. For every New Orleans, there are 1000 other such potential places when you consider terrorism. The Hoover Dam, for example - what happens to low lying areas in the area if that thing gets blown up? Bush won by promising us "safety" and security, and in that department, at least, he's utterly and completely failed. We are a weak, wide open, easy to devastate, country. What happened there was predicted with 99% certainty, yet, we still couldn't do better? Come on, I just can't accept that.

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

You know in my view the problem with liberals is that they seem incapable of simply taking a statement for what it is worth, accept it, analyze it, take the source into consideration and move on. Most (now remember that word) feel compelled to go off half cocked, take things out of context and immediately scream ‘liberal bashing.’

Now, react to that and prove my point for me.

It is not wise to have things totally one way or the other. A case in point would be the wild fires in the west, in particular one a number of years ago that decimated one of our national parks. Before you even say a word know that I am totally against clear cutting under most conditions. It is not sound management for the most part, and scars the land for at least a full generation.

However, if you want your cake and eat it too some selective cutting is essential. If man does not effectively manage the forest, nature will do it for him via blight, disease and fire.

A mature forest with a closed canopy accumulates organic material on its floor at a tremendous rate. Little if any sunlight penetrates the canopy, therefore herbaceous growth below approximately 30 feet from the crown is simply nonexistent. Take a walk in a mature stand and you will see exactly what I mean. With nothing to recycle that material back into living cells the accumulation continues unabated. Bacteria, fungus and other such organisms can not keep up, if they could it would be a non-issue.

Select cutting removes a portion of the mature specimens before they die, fall and add to the biomass on the floor. At the same time 'less desirable' species can be removed. There are pros and cons to that also. My opinion is that everything is there for a reason, until no good reason for its existence can be proven it is best to leave things be in order to maintain diversity in the stand.

What select cutting also does is open the canopy and allow light to penetrate all the way to ground level. With that the forest floor virtually explodes in new growth, effectively consuming the stored energy on the floor.

When cutting is halted the canopy closes, new growth stops and a cycle of a different nature begins. All of that material is energy waiting for something to come along to release it. Lightning strikes are a common source of ignition. That layer quite often exceeds 4 feet in depth and once started is extremely difficult to control. It may look controlled on the surface, but continues to burn at a subterranean level and can or will resurface literally anywhere. Any smokejumper will verify that.

You see forestry is not just some lummox with a chainsaw tearing down the woods. It is, when done properly, a very scientific and complex matter.

The problem is that the large paper companies took the most expedient path to their bottom lines before anyone had sense enough to see that it was wrong. Then, in a knee jerk reaction, the 'greens' got all harvest stopped. A few decades later nature took things into her own hands and burned the woods down.

Make no mistake about it, change is excruciatingly slow in coming out in the woods. It can and very often does take a lifetime or even several with the slower growth species. But it happens.

The effects of anything we do to the forest will in most cases not materialize until a great many of us are no longer around to appreciate it. Select cutting is one of the very few operations where the effect is almost immediate and positive.

Now, the point of that rather long-winded dissertation is not to sell you on modern forestry practices. If you happen to be one of the 'green' people you are not likely to heed a word of it anyway. The point is that rarely can the answer to anything be found at one extreme or the other. The best course of action is almost exclusively found somewhere in the middle.

The consumers of wood cellulose fiber favor clear cutting and will claim that they can not maintain a margin any other way without raising the cost to the end user. The environmental people favor a forest as it was 1000 years ago. Both have valid points, most of which are selfish and self-serving. The paper people don't like it when they are told that they can no longer pick the money tree at x-dollars a ton and that their raw material costs are going to triple. That is economics at its most basic form and from a money standpoint makes a lot of sense. The environmentalist quite literally can not see the forest for the trees.

Neither side is correct, neither will concede a point to the other. Paper companies typically rotate their crop on a twenty-year cycle on the lands that they control. It is nothing but pure, unadulterated agriculture. It’s cheap and it works. They plant rapid growing coniferous species, when they reach approximately 6 inches DBH (diameter breast height,) which takes 20 years, they go in with a machine and snip the stems off at ground level. They can generally clear 10 acres a day with one harvesting machine. On many sites you may not be able to even find a chainsaw. It is just like growing corn, just slower.

The 'green' people would be happiest were there not even the impression of a sneaker tread in the woods floor, just like it was several hundred years ago. Their fault is in failing to see that if you want a pristine, natural forest a very large part of that biological mass consists of disease and/or fire. The disease usually comes first and adds even more fuel. Then when the inevitable occurs they stand around with their hands in their pockets, wondering what the #%!! happened.

Bush, though not completely without fault by any means, is not solely responsible for everything that ails the world. Everyone has made their contribution, be it good, bad or otherwise. The democrats eliminated the deficit. They also bankrupted the government in the process. Good program, highly commendable.

I don't care who you put in that position, to most people he will not be worth a &@^^. That is just the way it is. People seem to forget that the President does not have absolute power.

Our Presidents have been and will continue to be little more than our nationally and internationally recognized scapegoat. No matter what goes wrong, or the genera of the particular man in office at the time, it will be his fault. Period, end of story, D.S. al coda.

Do I rah, rah, rah for Bush? Hardly, I think he is an idiot. The mere fact that he willingly pursued, yea even lusted after that job tells me that he is a fool. As is anyone that would like that position. The people that have and will fill that slot do it for one reason and one reason only, to satisfy their own egocentrical drive to be the sole object in the spot light. It’s not to change the world, or even social reform. The man that thinks that can be accomplished through that office is an even bigger fool and usually does not get elected.

Now, do I support Bush? Yes, absolutely. Without support the President, any President, is reduced to a mockery of the entire nation and the laughing stock of the world. Want an example? How about Gerald R. Ford?

You sir, are addressing a student of war. I find everything about it fascinating. I have paid particular attention the WWII. All over but the show? Hmm, I would be willing to wager that the survivors of the thousands of men who died on the beaches in Operation Overlord would take umbrage with that. Show or no show those men are just as dead. Thousands upon thousands of them. British, Canadian and Americans, but precious few French.

The French resistance was a noble effort, as was the Dutch, the Belgian and a number of other organizations. However they were of little more consequence than a flea on a dog's back. That is just the way it was. Do not assign more to it than history warrants.

Hitler could not 'stay friendly' with the Russians, no more than anyone has ever been able. He and Stalin signed a pact that neither had any intentions of honoring. It was a stalling tactic for both parties. Hitler's attack on Russia was a brilliant strategic move, he struck first before the reds could fully prepare and he very nearly succeeded. However, like many men of his ilk he failed to learn from history and was therefore doomed to repeat it. He fell into the same trap that got Napoleon. Stalin did not defeat Hitler, Hitler beat himself by thinking his neighbors to the east would roll up like the Poles and Slaves. It didn't work and he was too pigheaded to admit it.

And I have a news flash for you, every nation involved with that war has a standing army today, and has had one for a very long time. That agreement was of limited duration, as soon as time expired they were back in business.

And you can keep telling yourself that we are the 'sole super power.' In fact you can keep saying it right up until the Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, or any number of interests both public and private, send an ICBM down your chimney. Here's another eye opener for ya, the age of nuclear fusion has effectively eliminated the biggest guy with the biggest mouth from being boss of the block. Any high school physics kid can assemble a nuclear device, and with the backing can acquire the material to do it with. The notion of a super power went away when the genie was let out of the bottle. Get used to it.

Your premise that we are the sole super power left, therefore ipso-facto the planet's big brother doesn't hold much water either. I can illustrate that with just 3 words: Korea, Viet Nam. Those wars were not at all about the freedom of any particular people. That was super powers slugging it out in their neighbor’s yard. Ask a vet. flyer from the Korean conflict how many Caucasians he saw in MIG 15's or about the intercepts heard in Russian over the radio.

Oh yeah, here's another revelation: Europe has had its standing army since the 1950's. Its called NATO. Everyone contributes men and material, everyone adheres to the standards and everyone plays by the rules.

Other than that I completely agree with you.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

For the sake of brevity, let’s say that we aren't the sole super power as you say. Besides nukes and rapidly growing economies in the East, religion is a weapon as well. You mentioned you are a History channel fan? Me too. We both know that most wars are not religious wars, but that in many wars, religion is a great motivator. Where am I going with this? useless-knowledge does, overwhelmingly, bash liberals. In the "real world", Liberal bashing amounts to little, both sides bash each other, and if those specific liberal policies I support lacked credence, I wouldn't support them. I'm a skeptic. Anyway, the common perception at useless-knowledge seems to be - and you get this sense if you read many articles there over a long period of time as well as correspond with the regular writers - that both sides have loons, but the loons on the left are the "bigger" loons. When I think of left-loons, I think of the American Communist party and maybe the anarchists. Neither have representation in the Democratic party. When I think of the loons on the Right, I think of James Dobson and Pat Robertson, loons that want to redefine science, for example, and mandate Biblical pre-ordained roles for women. Yes, they really want these "extreme" policies, and yes, they have very real representation in the Republican party. Bush himself may just be a shrewd politician, but others are the "real deal". Religion is the most dangerous force known to mankind, not love, not even nuclear fission can trump it. Any sane person ought to be very worried about any line-blurring here. Any sane man can also deduce that this dangerous mix helped Bush in a very big way get into office. I will not and cannot support Bush or anyone in that party for this reason in and of itself. Call me a partisan hack if you like, but until the Republican party rethinks its "deal with the devil", I can't support any Republican in any office higher than mayor. At least not when Congress is so split; in this kind of environment, party is everything and although individuals matter, there are bigger fish to fry. America is a center of science and innovation, yet Bush ignores the scientists on his own staff - this is very dangerous. Signs abound that we are in danger of losing our technological edge. So, given the above frame and context, maybe you can understand why I would be, what's the word, Anxious, perhaps? That another writer, and a good one at that, writes articles for useless-knowledge, takes the occasional pot shots at the left and those crazy liberals, but downplays the very real loons with political power on the right. As for being "green", I'm an environmentalist, yes. A "real" environmentalist, one that relies on science and skepticism. Don't think of me as a tree hugger, but rather, an "Earth-conservative". Call it a bias, but I tend to like the animals and plants we currently have. Forests and fuel and the like are interesting problems, but for me, global warming and species extinction are the real concerns.

And, as with New Orleans, I think man can and should and will be able to control nature. Not only would New Orleans have been fine with proper levies, not only can the Netherlands function, but we should be living on the moon and Mars - environments 100 times more dangerous than either of the former. That's sort of a middle position - it depends on how you frame it. If you zoom in to particular issues, sometimes, one side is clearly right, and another is clearly wrong and the middle is a bad and untenable compromise. It just depends. On the issue of whether or not the middle is good, I'm in the middle! It's all how you frame it my friend. I can agree that the clash between Hitler and Russia was inevitable, sure. I think and hope I've covered everything... Oh, I wanted to say, that "knee jerk reactions" and non-rational, sentimental, responses in my experience also come from the Right. Recall when "they" renamed French Fries to Freedom Fries? Recall when Frist called Democrats atheists because they didn't support some of Bush's choices [although they did support the vast majority of them]? Recall that when Bush's approval ratings were sky-high, any liberal that spoke was a "traitor"? To blab on about one more point, another very potent force going on here is the "slippery slope". Many "greens" don't want to lose ANY political ground on environmental issues, even if that particular issue is reasonable, as you explained above. The NRA is the classic Right-wing example of this. They oppose ANY and all gun related legislation, no matter how delicate, or practical, for very similar reasons. Besides being ok with nuclear power [many "real" environmentalists want more nuclear power], I'm also ok with the second amendment, many liberals are. Howard Dean, for example, is endorsed by the NRA because of his record on the issue.

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Ya know, there's one thing that I am having trouble getting a handle on (well, OK if you insist there are a lot of things that I don't 'get.') That is the manner in which you insist upon making a liberal vs. conservative issue out of everything, when it is (to me at least) clear that I could not possibly care less either way.

I see what I see and comment as I see fit when I feel like letting my opinion be known. If that makes me something that you can paste a label on, whoopee! I am happy for you.

See this is another thing that I feel is going wrong. Yes, the government is first and foremost here for the protection of the people. Protection from a number of things, such as invasion (getting bad marks on that one right now, and for the last 20 years if you want to chase it down that far) or unscrupulous practices from a variety of sources (medical, business, yada, yada, yada) and in particular from the government itself. But I believe that there comes a time and place when a man must step up and be a man. Running to the government for every little thing not only diminishes a person’s sense of self worth, it smacks of socialism. Maybe I just watched too many John Wayne or Clint Eastwood flicks, but I say that if you make a stupid mistake, for example choosing to live in a hole in the ground, then further compound that mistake by refusing to get yourself out of harm's way after being told in no uncertain terms what is coming for dinner, then you should be man enough to stand up and say, at least to yourself, "%@^*, I sure &@^$!* up that time!"

But no, in this age where no one is culpable for anything it has to be the government's fault. And the bonehead politicians who are so afraid of losing their comfortable little niche have no better sense than to agree.

I lost everything that I had including my wife and child due to mental illness. It wasn't the fault of the people that failed to diagnose me when it might have actually done some good. It wasn't the fault of the beer manufactures for the product I poured into myself in copious quantities for almost 40 years. It wasn't the fault of my father or mother, who failed to recognize my illnesses that have plagued me since birth, even though my mother was an RN. It wasn't even my ex wife's fault when she deserted me rather than grab me by the collar and scream, "Wake up @$$#*!%^!"

It was me, all me.

A little over a year ago a motorcycle and I had a parting of ways at a very inopportune moment. When I hit the guardrail both of my legs were just the tiniest fraction from being removed in an extremely abrupt and quite rude a manner.

It wasn't Honda's fault the rear brake line popped after 25 years. It wasn't Armco's fault for creating galvanized guardrails. And it was not the fault of the small town where I live for putting the rail there, or failing to straighten the curve in the first place.

It was my fault. Mine and mine alone. Not the government's, or the armed services, or the guy's that invented the blacktop that enabled me to reach the speed that I was traveling at.

Mine.

If I seem to pick on the liberals in a disproportionate ratio, the only thing I can say is that they apparently say and do more stupid things in a like ratio. And I don't especially care what you or anyone else calls you, if you perpetrate a moronic act, like living below sea level, I am going to call you on it. And I will be particularly harsh if you refuse to accept responsibility for your actions. If you do something stupid, then say, "Gee, that was stupid." I will likely agree, perhaps briefly illustrate your stupidity to you or better yet, passers by, then shake your hand for stepping up into the shoes of Homo Erectus, and move on.

However, if you refuse to take responsibility for your asinine behavior, or worse yet, try and blame it on an inanimate object, such as the government, then the adjectives and combinations there of that I will use to describe you have not yet been invented , but rest assured I will start on the problem forthwith.

If your aim is to convert, reform or enlighten me you are wasting my time as well as your own. I am far too jaded, bitter, &!$$#% off and disappointed. My life has been a continuous series of calamities. When misfortune has left me to my own devices long enough I have successfully created my own bad luck. My biography totals 613 pages, 309,123 words, it should, in a much striped down version I'm sure, hit the bookstores within the coming year. I have a novel behind that, and another after that, and I am certain before they are finished I'll have 2 or 3 more in the works. I have had way too much $#!^ happen to me in my life. It has been bad enough that my biography has been mistaken by several people in the publishing business as a work of fiction. I am tired and I want to go home, but attempts at that have also failed me to date. The last thing I need is someone preaching to me about the bad rap the liberals get. See if this will sink in one last time: I do not give a !%@^.

Lively debate I am OK with, whining I am not so cool about.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

PS. You may want to archive these correspondence, I of course have no idea, but they may well be worth something one day.

The liberal wrote:

Surely if the poor, stubborn and/or infirm can't be seen too in a time of crisis, the terrorists will have easy pickings in most any location. I still believe that living in New Orleans is just fine - computer models predicted what happened to an extremely high margin but the politicians dropped the ball. Quite simply if a few expensive measures had been taken, it would have been able to withstand a category 5 storm, and they don't get any bigger. The fact that it's under sea level means little if there are clear ways to safeguard the place. It would have been expensive to secure it, but far cheaper than what we are spending on it now after the fact. If I lived on the other side of Hoover Dam, I'd certainly hope that those receiving my tax money were watching for cracks and planning for the worst...if you add up all of the cities that live on the coast which face storm and tsunami dangers, all of the cities that lie on or near fault lines, the cities that are in within reach of wild fires of active volcanoes, I think you'd have significant percentage of the USA. Of course I agree that the bozos that were told to leave but didn't have no one to blame - however, the government planners must surely have thought about the fact that many would be _unable_ to leave on their own. Government protects people, not just people that can afford it. Now, I understand your hesitance to turn everything into a liberal vs. conservative issue, but if I were go to go on about New Orleans, we'd very soon be unable to avoid it, as it would crash head on into core philosophies about responsibilities and such at the heart of the two, basic, large, political underpinnings to American politics. LOL, no, I'm not trying to "convert" you, but if you want to call my emails to you an attempt at enlightenment, sure, why not? I don't mind when someone tries to enlighten me - I don't know everything there is to know yet. I know that might sound like sentimental claptrap, but there it is. I'm giving you my opinion, the same as you do when you respond and when you write your articles. We'll likely have to disagree about New Orleans in any case. I see nothing wrong with folks living there, and I hope it returns to something of its former charm, but maybe without some of the corruption, etc. Further, here's hoping they fix the levies this time...

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Now that's better.

Don't be an imbecile, of course I have no quarrel with the sick and/or infirm. I happen to be disabled myself and would find it difficult at best to 'run like #%!! if instructed to do so.

You know very well who my beef is with; the several hundred thousand morons that could/should have gotten out when the opportunity presented itself. Not only did they fail to heed sound advice, a fair percentage of them obviously stayed for no other reason than to sack the city at first chance.

So wrapped up in their greed were these people, that they went as far as to open fire on the very personnel there to help them. As if that were not enough, even a large number of the police got in on the booty.

Now there is well paying work for any able bodied person that wants it, but most of those 'people' are having so much fun with my money elsewhere that going home is the last thing on their minds.

Computer modeling, yeah, uh huh. The computers said that 3 men should not burn up on a launch pad during a routine test session. The computers said 3 men would not risk being stranded in space not long after the afore mentioned incident. The computers said we would be in and out of Iraq in 6 months. It is now approaching 3 years and the 2000th. US soldier just died there. The computers said 3-Mile Island was safe. Need I go on? I can, almost indefinitely.

Let me tell you something about computers, in case you are still in the dark about it. A computer can only repeat back to you what you have told it. Given a series of numbers it can extrapolate likely outcomes, or analyze trends. It cannot, as of today, take a number of random thoughts and choose the correct theory unless you tell it which is correct in the first place. Computers work on binary logic, a string of 0's or 1's that mean either yes or no. It is cold and unforgiving. Switch 2 bits, or even get one incorrect, and the computer will be wrong.

It is binary logic, not cognitive thought. Computers do not have what is often referred to as 'common sense.' Evidently neither do a large number of our population. They will continue to be fallible until real artificial intelligence is invented, and even then they will not be completely trusty worthy, as it will take a human to make the %@&* thing work in the first place and people make mistakes.

As far as New Orleans is concerned, you might want to follow the money and see what the crooked bureaucrats and contractors have done with the millions they have already been given for the much vaunted levies, prior to there being a crisis.

Have you ever been to N.O? I have, several times. It was never by choice, especially after the first trip. The city itself is, or perhaps more correctly was, a money printing press. That was before the casinos opened all over. The tax revenue generated there is, or again was, astounding. They had more than enough cash to do whatever they deemed fit with those levies. But they didn't do it. They, as a group, much preferred skimming off that money and hoping Uncle Sam would bail them out. They didn't even bother to maintain their pumping stations.

Uncle Sam, to his credit, told them to go get stuffed. That is until the whole thing flew all to %^!!. Then of course it was the government's fault.

Quite frankly, IMHO that was one toilet long overdue for a good flushing. And am not talking religious ideology here, I am talking about plain old common morals.

Now I am just as perverted as the next guy, possibly more so. But that place was disgusting.

FYI I lived in North Carolina for 15 years. I lived through 2 full blown hurricanes; Fran and Floyd. The eye of Fran passed directly over my house. A very interesting experience. Oh and by the way, when those storms hit we did not go running through the streets, stealing everything that wasn't built into a building. We lost power for a week with each storm. At one point I did not know if I would be able to go home from work, as talk was that the last bridge over the Neuse river was going to be closed due to high water.

With Fran I was prepared, few others could make that claim. Due to other weather related circumstances I had a generator, Coleman stove, lantern and a number of other useful items. Every one of them sat in mothballs for 5 years before I needed them. On the morning after Fran I was eating hot eggs and bacon, had running water and watched the coverage on satellite TV.

Just to illustrate to you the depths to which your wonderful people will sink to, a number of enterprising fellows loaded up tractor trailers full of generators up north and brought them into the state. A humanitarian effort? Hardly, they asked for and often received 3 or 4 times common retail for them on the street corners. When you take into account the volume discounts they undoubted got the profit margins range in the hundreds percent. Yes, it is a free enterprise system, that is not the point. I shouldn't think that I have to spell it out for you, but let me know if you don't get it.

I covered my @$$. Did the government give me that stuff? #%!! no, I went out and dropped over a thousand of my dollars. Would it be the government's fault if their computer models said I should have emergency equipment and I declined to lay out the cash? #%!! no.

This is an every man for himself, dog eat dog world. To the people that persist in their moronic behavior I say, "Tough titty said the kitty, but the milks still fresh." It is not the government's fault that you are an idiot. Your lack of intelligence is further illustrated by your propensity for running to the government every time you have a runny nose. A government that, oh by the way, is run by more idiots.

If you Google the term, "The blind leading the blind," you will get back a .GIF file. In it is a picture of a line of jackasses from Louisiana, all standing in front of the White House with their hands out. It comes up third on the list, directly following Amazon.com and, "Find blind leading the blind items on E-bay."

Sure, they'll fix the levies this time. With my money. But mark my words - If someone whose scruples are not thoroughly vetted isn't watching that place like a hawk, when the next hundred-year storm comes along it will be a repeat performance.

Oh yeah, chew on this a minute. In a recent study the Netherlands were found to be one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. Funny how these thing work out. They were in the top 3 if I recall. In case you are wondering Iceland was first, Chad the worst. We came in at 17th. I am so proud that we are not the worst, aren't you?

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a might irked at humanity - just kidding ;) It's not imbecilic to realize that the infirm were in the same city with those that were told to leave and refuse and with those that were told to leave and did. But lets step back for a second. If I built a house there, with my own money and had it destroyed, even with insurance, I'd be mighty pissed. Photos, pets - whatever else I would have lost would leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'm just a tax paying schmuck. Living in a bowl isn't any worse than living on the San Andreas fault. They do have earthquake contingencies, don't they? You better hope they do, or they'll be spending quite a bit more of your money when the big one hits...

I majored in computer science. One of my projects was actually to write a simple computer model that simulated one small part of a nuclear reaction. I know how a computer works from the chip level up. A computer is no more intelligent than a bicycle or a door hinge. Computers have zero intelligence. AI in video games is a series of pre-constructed, door-hinges, millions of them. But that's not how computer models work. Computers don't need to have brains to make forecasts, they only need to do calculations. If you had a crew of enough humans, with incredible management, you could also make forecasts and models - not in anything approaching a reasonable time, let alone real time. A simple example is flipping a coin. You could enter the math for the coin - its weight, dimensions and so on, as well as air resistance, etc., and do simple math, along with some randomness. Run the model 1 million times, each time for 1 million cycles, and you'll get something pretty close to what would happen in the real world. Models are a combination of physics and random number generators. The model I had to do was extremely simple - no physics were involved, only random numbers. We were told such and such a radioactive material had such and such a percentage of its mass given off as particles in such and such a time frame and so forth. New Orleans is much more complex, you have lots of water-volume physics, pressure, etc., to factor in. Nevertheless, what happened was predicted and expected. It was known, and there's really no disagreement that it was known. Put the blame where you want, but what happened was no shock. Ordinary people can buy generators and leave when they are told, sure. But were they told to leave and never come back because your city is a toxic puddle? Heads need to roll - and other city planners, mayors and even Bush need to be on notice. About Iraq - well, people are infinitely more difficult to model. The original estimates called for 500,000 troops if I recall. Garbage in, garbage out - you've heard that, I'm sure? If I tell my coin-flip-model that the chances of a coin hitting either side are actually 80/20, what will my model spit out? As you said, computers can't think. Iraq is a bit more complex than just calculating how much water pressure it would take to topple a known quantity like a levy... I'm with you, anyway, I think Iraq was a sham. I think we should stick it out now that we're there, but that's different... I'm not sure where you were going with mentioning the Netherlands - I'm well aware that European countries beat the shit out of us in many ways, be it literacy, to public education. Call me an imbecile if you will, call me a partisan hack, but those countries that beat the shit out of us have liberal policies in play. Norway is king of the world right now - folks there live better, period. Folks in human history have never, ever, had it as good as the Norwegians do right now. They aren't lazy or stupid, yet, Norway could be a called a "welfare state". I mean, come on, men get to take a month off of work - with pay, with a job to return too promised, when their wife has a baby. You can say that folks in Norway run to their government when they get a runny nose, but I don't look at it like that. What I see is a bunch of people investing in each other and reaping the benefits. You hate Sam paying for New Orleans, I bet you really hate welfare moms that have more kids to collect more money and avoid work. The solution is yet another liberal policy! Subsidized daycare! Just think about it for a moment - such a big investment in people would have a dramatic return. Welfare moms could no longer refuse work - their kids would have a place - we could mandate work in exchange for welfare - which, btw, most European countries do. Think of the savings, think of how the culture of welfare could be broken! Now, you can say that, on principle, these people should find their own babysitters - fine, ok, I can see the validity of that, really I can, but who the frell cares? Human nature is what it is. Do we want a working government, or do we want to assume that humans will just be "good" and do the right thing?

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

Liberal, you never fail to amaze me with your apparently ceaseless variations on a fairly narrow range of topics, most of which have little or nothing to do with anything I have had to say, other than speaking in completely general terms.

What you preach my friend is socialism. Other than the infringement on my personal freedom, I rail against that because some of the pigs invariably end up more equal than the others. I sir, am an American. Are these words familiar to you, or does the mention of God cause you to cringe like a vampire in the daylight?-----"And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands....." Not "And to the socialist state" or "And to the communist party" not even "And to the Democracy..." Republic. You might want to Google that word.

And I don't want to hear about any crap concerning. "Well you'll never be equal to the politicians/big business moguls." Or what have you. A great many of those folks started with nothing.

The ones that are @$$#0!^$ and generally stink up the place are old money, like your hero Ted Kennedy. Ever wonder exactly how much Joe paid for the White House? Or how about Chappaquiddick, that's a bit closer to home, eh? I'd wager there were several million dollars trading bank account numbers before that was over. Let's see...when was the last time I heard about a conservative republican killing a young woman and getting away with it? Hmmm...ya know, the only word that comes to mind right now is NEVER!

The ideal behind this country is that with diligence, hard work and a lucky break once in a while, almost any idiot can make it big here.

Big, by the way, is a matter of perspective. Big to the millions of Hispanics pouring over our southern border right now is 10 bucks an hour and plumbing that works.

Tell me something, if all of these other places are so hunky-dory what in the #&!! are you doing hanging out here?

OK, you want to go there, lets go. Who were the people or persons on the ground with the play by play when N.O. went down? Go on...take a guess. Ah, no more calls please, we have a winner.

That's right, numero uno was the Mayor. OK, so he is an idiot, that much is plainly evident from the footage on CNN. So who's next? Bingo again Bunkie, the Governor. And what did she do? Come on, I know you know in your heart of hearts, repressing the memory is not good for you, you know. That's right, I do believe we are making progress here. She promptly stuck her head in her @$$ and said that she needed no help. She didn't even call out the National Guard until not only had all the cows gotten out, those thieving %@$^@&*$ stole all the hay too!

Hmmm, now I just wonder which political philosophy those two mental midgets subscribe to??? Care to take a guess? Yeah, that's what I thought.

You can't keep running back to DC every time the wind shifts and blows smoke in your eyes as you watch this country burn to the ground my friend. Someone has got to have an independent thought and it had best not be long in coming, or we will all be standing neck deep in $#!^, with a turd sliding down our throats, just like that bunch of cross dressing, no swimming, crab infested, bucktoothed ^0(#*%&^@*#^$ down in N.O.

You evidently either don't read well, do not retain knowledge, are prone to plagiarism or are dyslectic. Possibly all 4. I presented a 'fer instance' in my piece about N.O. that had me build my house down by the river, and speculating upon who's fault it would be when it flooded. Ring any bells? That's right, doing that and trying to put the blame on someone or thing else would make me an idiot.

Now, one more time for those of you in the back of the room who were apparently asleep the first 3 times...If you live below sea level, do not be surprised if one day you awake to find the ocean snoring away beside you in your bed.

If you happened to be dreaming about living on a big rock candy mountain for the second part, I will restate it for you here once more. Now be sure and take notes this time, as there will be a pop quiz later...If you tried something and it failed...are you with me so far? Failed didn't throw you did it? I know that's a lot of letters, but just try, for me? pretty please...and you try it again without modification and it fails...WHAT THE #^@) MAKES YOU THINK IT WILL WORK THE THIRD TIME?

Ya know, I am beginning to think the only reason you keep this conversation going is to hear some more of my biting wit and satirical humor.

See if you can stay on the subject this time, I know you like to chip away at the sides whenever possible, but I got news for you, this is one iceberg that thumbs it's nose at "global warming." Oh Yeah, you are Mister Science, so tell me Mr. Science, what happened to the popularly accepted theory when I was in my formative years, that the earth was still emerging from the last Ice Age? Gee, if that's so it would only seem logical that the world WOULD BE GETTING #^@&!^+ WARMER! And save your carbon dioxide dither. I read Popular Science too. By the time there is any appreciable effect both yours and my rotting carcasses will be contributing to the problem, and quite frankly I didn't care much for the place while I was here, I damn sure ain't gonna give a %^@= when I'm gone.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The Conservative wrote:

I've been meaning to send this to you, but it just keeps slipping my mind. You like George Carlin, right? I mean he's a pretty liberal guy and all, so what's not to like, right? Take a look at what he has to say about New Orleans:

CARLIN ON HURRICANE KATRINA

George Carlin on Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans "Well, for me this pretty much sums it all up: Been sitting here, wanting to speak out about the stuff going on in New Orleans. For the people of New Orleans... First we would like to say, Sorry for your loss. With that said, Let's go through a few hurricane rules: (Unlike an earthquake, we know it's coming) #1. A mandatory evacuation means just that...Get the heck out. Don't blame the Government after they tell you to go. If they hadn't said anything, I can see the argument. They said get out... if you didn't, it's your fault, not theirs. (We don't want to hear it, even if you don't have a car, you can get out. You have feet; you have a thumb; and there were buses that came and no one rode out Duh! Doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this one out. #2. If there is an emergency and you plan not to evacuate, stock up on water and non-perishables (and rubber rafts). If you didn't do this, it's not the Government's fault you're starving and wet. #2a. If you run out of food and water, find a store that has some. (Remember, shoes, TV's, DVD's and CD's are not edible. Leave them alone.) #2b. If the local store has been looted of food or water, leave your neighbor's TV and stereo alone. (See #2a) They worked hard to get their stuff. Just because they were smart enough to leave during a mandatory evacuation, doesn't give you the right to take their stuff...it's theirs, not yours. #2c. If you're one of those negligent humans who subjected this disaster to their children by staying in New Orleans, putting what you wanted to do before their safety, then you need to be prosecuted for endangering their lives. If you are a person who stole non-edible items in front of your children then you should be prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of minors. And if your child was hurt, became ill due to the conditions or died during this disaster, then you should be executed. #3. If someone comes in to help you, don't shoot at them and then complain no one is helping you. I'm not getting shot to help save some dummy who didn't leave when told to do so. #4. If you are in your house that is completely under water, your belongings are probably too far gone for anyone to want them, so that reason for staying put doesn't hold much water (pardon the pun). If someone does want them, let them have them and hopefully they'll die in the filth. Just leave! (It's New Orleans, for goodness sake - find a voodoo warrior and put a curse on them.) #5. My tax money should not pay to rebuild a 2 million dollar house, a sports stadium or a floating casino. Also, my tax money shouldn't go to rebuild a city that is under sea level. You wouldn't build your house on quicksand would you? You want to live below sea-level, do your country some good and join the Navy. #6. Regardless of what the Poverty Pimps Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton want you to believe, The US Government didn't create the Hurricane as a way to eradicate the black people of New Orleans; (Neither did Russia as a way to destroy America). The US Government didn't cause global warming that caused the hurricane (We've been coming out of an ice age for over a million years). #7. The government isn't responsible for giving you anything. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but you gotta work for what you want. McDonalds and Wal-Mart are always hiring, get a stinkin job and stop spooning off the people who are actually working for a living. President Kennedy said it best..."Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." #8. This situation was the fault of your state's power-hungry Governor (dumb woman didn't want to admit she wasn't in control and hand things over to FEMA and National Guard) and your proud, but innately ignorant, minority Mayor. The year after he was elected Nagy took all the $4.5 Million in emergency funds allocated to assist New Orleans' residents in just this type disaster and used them to teach minority kids to play sports. So if you're up to your waist in muck and starving, ask a kid with a basketball for some assistance because he got your funds. Thank you for allowing me to rant."

The liberal wrote:

Hi, I replied to your email in pieces, I've put dashed lines and plenty of white space around my responses, it should be easy to follow.

Liberal, you never fail to amaze me with your apparently ceaseless variations on a fairly narrow range of topics, most of which have little or nothing to do with anything I have had to say, other than speaking in completely general terms. – Come on, Conservative, that's not very civil. We are covering a range of topics, and I merely point out when the conversation heads in to territory you address, but don't want to label. And this response is no exception – you have a typical, conservative, bias. Which is just fine, I have a "typical" liberal bias, at least from the point of view of the typical conservative. See, like you, I also call the shots as I see them, but I also understand that there are two main parties at work here, so we can debate whatever we want, but for any of it to become concrete as a matter of policy, we need to look towards the two controlling parties. I'm not going out of my way turn the topic towards politics, that just happens to be there it's going. I'm also not going to lie and steer clear. If it looks like a conservative, and quacks like a conservative, it's a conservative ;) -- What you preach my friend is socialisim. Other than the infringement on my personal freedom, I rail against that because some of the pigs invariably end up more equal than the others. I sir, am an American. Are these words familiar to you, or does the mention of God cause you to cringe like a vampire in the daylight?-----"And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands....." Not "And to the socialist state" or "And to the communist party" not even "And to the Democracy..." Republic. You might want to Google that word. – What we already have in this country, my friend, is a good mix of socialism – it's called a "mixed economy" [bailing our failed airlines, paying farmers not to plan, Amtrak, welfare, social security, subsidized utilities – the list goes on and on and on]. I think you might have a few things mixed up there – a Republic doesn't have to be democratic. Having said that, all of the countries in Western Europe [and a few rich countries in Asia and Australia] are democracies, and republics, with equal rights, freedoms, people vote, etc. They all also have mixed economies, like we do. And the ones with arguably some of the most left-leaning policies are doing the best. I'm a skeptic, remember? I don't give a croc if apple pie is supposed to be better than crescent rolls, or if baseball is supposed to be a better sport than "fussball" [soccer]. I go with what works. True equality is fiction, I agree, but we have quite a widening gap in this country at this time between the rich and the poor, and that ain't a good trend. People are just as free "there", and live longer, read more, have much less crime, less pregnant teens, and have better education to boot. Sounds like a win-win to a skeptic like myself. As for "under God" – that was thrown in by Eisenhower to differentiate America from the communists, did you know that? The founders certainly didn't add that... The founder's motto was, "out of many, one", not, "one nation, under God". The founders didn't even put God on money – that was added much, much later as a bone to the religious fundamentalists. See, at one point, they wanted to add God to the constitution – did you know that God isn't mentioned in the constitution? Anyway, they wanted to make the constitution a non-secular document, and got God on money as a consolation prize. -- And I don't want to hear about any crap concerning "well you'll never be equal to the politicians/big business moguls" or what have you. A great many of those folks started with nothing. – I don't disagree that people can make it big – Clinton sure did; he started with nothing. According a recent study, however, Americans are less upwardly mobile; more of us stay in the class into which we are born. Europeans, however, "socialists" or not, are MORE upwardly mobile right now. Again, I'm a skeptic – I don't care that "socialism" is misused and lobbed as an insult by the likes of O'Reilly, I know better. -- Tell me something, if all of these other places are so hunky-dory what in the hell are you doing hanging out here? – That's one I hear all the time, Keith. You've just attacked Kennedy and used an oft used conservative statement. For the record, lol, it wasn't I that took this right back into partisan politics ;) Why don't you want to leave or do you? I want to live here the same as everybody else. This is my country too – don't hate me, I'm just the messenger – it's not my fault that Europeans live longer and better, my friend... -- OK, you want to go there, lets go. Who were the people or persons on the ground with the play by play when N.O. went down? Go on...take a guess. Ah, no more calls please, we have a winner. That's right, numero uno was the Mayor. OK, so he is an idiot, that much is plainly evident from the footage on CNN. So who's next? Bingo again Bunkie, the Governor. And what did she do? Come on, I know you know in your heart of hearts, repressing the memory is not good for you, you know. That's right, I do believe we are making progress here. She promptly stuck her head in her ass and said that she needed no help. She didn't even call out the National Guard until not only had all the cows gotten out, those thieving %@$+@&)$ stole all the hay too! Hmmm, now I just wonder which political philosophy those two mental midgets subscribe to??? Care to take a guess? Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't keep running back to DC every time the wind shifts and blows smoke in your eyes as you watch this country burn to the ground my friend. Someone has got to have an independent thought and it had best not be long in coming, or we will all be standing neck deep in $#!+, with a turd sliding down our throats, just like that bunch of cross dressing, no swimming, crab infested, bucktoothed ^0+#@%#^@)#&$ down in N.O. You evidently either don't read well, do not retain knowledge, are prone to plagiarism or are dyslectic. Possibly all 4. I presented a 'fer instance' in my piece about N.O. that had me build my house down by the river, and speculating upon who's fault it would be when it flooded. Ring any bells? That's right, doing that and trying to put the blame on someone or thing else would make me an idiot. Now, one more time for those of you in the back of the room who were apparently asleep the first 3 times...If you live below sea level, do not be surprised if one day you awake to find the ocean snoring away beside you in your bed. If you happened to be dreaming about living on a big rock candy mountain for the second part, I will restate it for you here once more. Now be sure and take notes this time, as there will be a pop quiz later...If you tried something and it failed...are you with me so far? Failed didn't throw you did it? I know that's a lot of letters, but just try, for me? pretty please...and you try it again without modification and it fails...WHAT THE %^@) MAKES YOU THINK IT WILL WORK THE THIRD TIME? Ya know, I am beginning to think the only reason you keep this conversation going is to hear somemore of my biting wit and satirical humor. See if you can stay on the subject this time, I know you like to chip away at the sides whenever possible, but I got news for you, this is one iceburg that thumbs it's nose at "globel warming." Oh Yeah, you are Mister Science, so tell me Mr. Science, what happened to the popularly accepted theory when I was in my formative years, that the earth was still emerging from the last Ice Age? Gee, if that's so it would only seem logical that the world WOULD BE GETTING #^@(!^& WARMER! And save your carbon dioxide dither. I read Popular Science too. By the time there is any appreciable effect both yours and my rotting carcasses will be contributing to the problem, and quite frankly I didn't care much for the place while I was here, I damn sure ain't gonna give a #^@* when I'm gone. – I like someone that expresses emotion in their writing, it makes it more fun to read and more interesting. Really, trust me, this isn't sarcasm on my part – I often write "mad" at UK. I'm not patronizing you are trying to be funny. I really mean what I say. I wouldn't care if New Orleans was 500 feet more under sea-level. And I don't care that people live on Hawaii, near an active volcano. I also don't care that most major cities in the world are near large bodies of water, very dangerous places – we can't all move to the plains and even if we did, there'd still be tornadoes. Had those levies been fixed, had the barrier islands off shore been fixed and had the wetlands not been turned into anything besides wetlands, New Orleans would have flooded a tad and had some wind damage. This is an inescapable fact. They knew that covering the plastic bowl with saran wrap could withstand the dropping of a wet plumb, yet they covered the bowl with paper towels and as predicted, the plumb fell through. The Bush administration is directly responsible for cutting funding. Of course the mayor of New Orleans is a fool! So is the governor of that lovely state! There's blame to go around, but most of the "lag, wtf took FEMA so long" stuff is all _after_ the fact...my issue is, why did it happen in the first place?!? As for global warming it was under the Bush administration, ironically, that we had the first ever consensus of US scientists that: * Global Warming is real * Mankind is at least partially responsible Oddly, the person in charge of the EPA at the time "resigned". She even wrote a book called, "It's my party too" - her name is Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican moderate that I respect. A global consensus of scientists supports this. If you think the ice age thing from your earlier years is wacked, try this one on for size – there is good evidence that global warming could make another ice come much sooner than it otherwise wood. Yes, an ice age is one possible negative effect of global warming. Again, don't hate the messenger but please realize, most of science is not intuitive – much of it goes against common sense. Did you know that a science-censor worked for the Bush administration? He sugar coated documents released by real Bush admin scientists. He was caught and "let go". He went back to work for an oil company. I'm not making this up, I wrote an article for UK when I heard about it, and what's even more fun is that at the time, I searched for a Fox "News" link to the article. See, the conservative crowd at UK loves Fox, so I figured my article would be more credible in their eyes if I could link a Fox-source. Guess what? Fox didn't cover it! Every other major online news source that I checked had the story. For many, it wasn't front page news, but a simple site-search revealed it. Fox was the only exception!! -- Liberal media, reactionary liberals, liberals as "traitors", global warming a myth, Fox "News" non-biased – I've heard it all, and I know better. Most of the "media" apologized if you recall, for not being "more liberal" and ruthless pre-Iraqi war. They weren't critical and they gave Bush a free pass. Signed,

A. Liberal

The liberal wrote:

Hi, Lol, thanks, I liked it and you are right, I like Carlin. Wal-mart pulled his last book from their shelves and Wal-mart is so big that in many areas, it's literally the only access people to some forms of media...the strange thing is, I don't remember voting to give that behemoth such power? Oh well, that's another topic ;) Carlin is correct, but, and this is a big butt, all of that happened after government allowed the levies to fail. I cannot escape that fact. When the freeways collapsed during the last big Earthquake in California, someone was responsible, and, it sure as hell wasn't the folks driving on the freeway in an Earthquake prone area, it was the freeway makers and their contractees, who were supposed to make them Earthquake proof after the last set of freeways collapsed. Human nature is what it is, people are stupid, we are in full agreement there. Knowing this, government needs to adjust its methods.

Signed,

A. Liberal

The Conservative wrote:

The style in which you choose to respond only indicates (to me) that you apparently cannot retain anything long enough to complete a coherent sentence. Therefore you find it necessary to keep everything in front of you. Yet you still fail to

1. make sense

2. offer a valid point or

3.directly address a single point I have made.

I even sent you a piece about New Orleans that has been widely circulated on the net, by a famous comedian known for his liberal views. Did you dispute a single point he made? No, that’s just not your style is it? You cannot argue with the truth. What did you do in response? You attacked Wal-Mart! Is that something they teach you in liberal clown college? Always pick on the guy that’s not around to defend himself?

Good job, well done. You carry on in the highest tradition of your genre in a grand fashion. Take a gold star out of petty cash on your way out.

No matter what I bring up, it all seems to come back to something being Bush’s fault (with you). And I gave you credit for having more imagination than that, silly me. Put the gold star back.

Let’s see…Bush is responsible for:

1.Global warming

2.Hurricane Katrina

3.The corruption in New Orleans

4.The fact that that city has either squandered or stolen every last cent it had to ‘fix’ its levee system over the last several hundred years

5.Earthquakes

6.Volcanoes

7.The growing socialism in this country

8.Bird flu

9.The Yankee’s losing the pennant race

10.The price of gas

11.The ‘Saints’ sucking canal water as usual

12.The discovery that the moon is not in fact made of cheese

13.The systematic destruction of America’s wetlands…And…

14. the asteroid that hit and killed the dinosaurs

My, my, ol’ George has been a busy boy.

First, global warming. I was not being funny in the least with my prior remark about the Ice Age. That has been a popular theory for a very long time. It also makes good sense. The planet started to warm one #%!! of a long time before man started to burn fossil fuels, that sir is a fact. Yes, it has increased, exponentially so, since Spindle Top (look it up). So has the world’s population. So Mr. Science, when we exhale what gas do you suppose comes out? Hmm, go ahead, take as long as you like. I am certain that in the end you will find some cockamamie manner in which to make that Bush’s fault also. Is people respirating the cause of global warming? Not hardly, on the other hand it has to be a contributing factor, not to mention all of our pets. It seems funny to me that the same people that preached the last Ice Age concept, jumped on the global warming bandwagon just as soon as it became a popular movement. If they were wrong before what in the #%!! makes you think they’re right this time? The fact is that the mean average temperature of this rock has been steadily increasing since the last glaciers receded from the continents as we know them. Scientists starting squawking about global warming back in the 60’s and beyond. Care to take a stab at which party controlled the government for 4/5’s of that decade?

Yeah, I am amazed at they sweeping changes that took place. All JFK ever seemed to be capable of was chasing any skirt that wasn’t attached to his wife, and involving us in a war we could not win. Highly commendable. Give him that gold star you lost. His successor, after someone finally put the country out of its misery, wasn’t happy with the little action as it was. He had to escalate it to the point where 50,000 young Americans between the approximate ages of 16 and 30 lost their lives trying to prove him right. Put the gold star back again, and your petty cash privileges are hereby suspended. Nixon, for all his faults, got us out of that quagmire. In disgrace. By that time honor was beyond hope. If those people wanted a war so friggen bad they should have

Picked a winnable situation, and Not pussyfooted around like a bunch of #@%%0+$ and fought it like a war is suppose to be fought. The concept of a ‘limited engagement’ in any fight is pure &^!!$#!+ that only gets people killed. Case closed…NEXT! Hurricane Katrina. Hmm, OK, tell me this, when was New Orleans founded? Never mind, its not important and I doubt that even you can make it Bush’s fault. It was in the 1700’s That’s close enough. And where was the original settlement? NO, that’s not Bush’s fault either so I’ll just tell you. It was in the French Quarter. What’s so special about the French Quarter you ask? It’s the only place within several miles radius that is above sea level. Hmm, imagine that.

You see, people have been putting themselves in harm’s way down there since the days when a Bush was something you took a dump behind. Everybody knew it would happen one day. Storms like that typically come along about once ever hundred years.

Do you know what happened to the Island of Galveston, TX around the turn of the century? Hurry now, put your thinking cap on…That’s right! The need for mapping the area was very nearly terminated. Take 2 gold stars out of petty case and give one to Nixon for finally fixing the democrats #^@& up. At least 6000 people died, and estimates run as high as 10,000.

What is the relevance? See if you can follow along, I won’t tell anyone your lips move when you read, really I won’t. The people of Galveston raised the entire island 17 feet and built a sea wall to keep the ocean in its rightful place. Not the Federal Government, not the State of Texas. Galveston did that, because its people wanted to continue living there.

But when it happens to New Orleans its Bush’s fault. Never mind that the situation had existed for several hundred years and that Katrina was not by any stretch the first storm to hit that place. They (the people of New Orleans) should be thankful that they got away with as much as they did for as long as they did. Did those idiots learn anything from Galveston? Not a chance. It’s like they flung the doors open and propped up a sign saying "Morons, whores and prostitutes welcome."

That city is populated by idiots, and you sir are an idiot for the ignorant and groundless arguments you use in defending them. A noble calling, but that does not reduce the idiot factor for them OR you. If you intend to make an intelligent argument in the future I would suggest basing it in fact. Put your gold star back and take a black jellybean. Don’t eat it, just balance it on your nose like a seal and clap your hands. There you go, you know, that’s a good look on you.

So tell me, is there anything that you will not blame on the government? Do you have children? Are they Bush’s fault too? It’s a shame Viagra hadn’t been invented when your wife was still fertile and on speaking terms with you.

And congratulations on keeping up with the democratic Jones’ by running for cover at the slightest mention of Chappaquiddick. You did not even have the nads to reproduce the remark in your reply. I suppose that was Bush’s fault too. What did he do this time, tell you not to cut and paste? Or more to the point, perhaps it was Bush that put the water in that creek when he failed to drain the only wetland left in the state? I know, it was Bush that made the alcohol that your boy Ted got smashed on before attempting to get in the poor girls pants. See? If you weren’t so narrow minded you would think of these things.

Here’s one – Why don’t you make the case that Teddy isn’t the only Killer Kennedy? Lots of Kennedy’s have killed woman, most of them have also gotten away with it. So why should I pick on dear old Ted? If they are all driven to murder things that a weaker than themselves, well, that’s just the way they are. They are Kennedy’s, therefore all is forgiven. That’s why the State Bird of Massachusetts is the paraplegic, triple amputee housefly. And since they are liberals and you are a liberal, it’s all good, right?

Just for giggles I Googled ‘Kennedy+murder.’ I got back 6 million hits. No $#!+, try it yourself. 6 million hits. And that was Google, if you tried an engine like Mamma I’d bet that it would break 10 easily. Now that just leads a thinking man to wonder exactly what those 2 seemingly unrelated words are doing co-habitating on so many web pages? Care to take a wild guess Mr. Socialist? I know, its Bush’s fault, right? The World Wide Web is all a big Rightwing conspiracy designed to discredit the liberals, right? But wait…what’s this???? How can that be??? Wasn’t it Al Gore that invented the Internet? Well, that’s what he said, right, RIGHT?

Yes its true, the sad fact of the matter is that when FDR let the genie out of his liberal bottle with his ‘new deal’ it was just about impossible to get the cork back in. Why? Because everyone wants something for nothing. It’s simple human nature. FDR could sit back in his wheelchair and dream up those touchy-feely programs in supreme comfort, knowing that he personally never had to work a day in his life, and never would. Even at that his stupid socialist/communist ideas were not enough to pull this country out of the Great Depression. In typical democratic fashion he had to get us involved in the biggest conflict the world has ever known. And don’t even think of lecturing me on WWII. Let me remind you that I am a student of war. I know more about that little party than Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and Douglas MacArthur combined. The Japs made the mistake of their collective lives when they "Woke the sleeping giant." To use Yamamoto’s words. Everything would have been just peachy-keen if we had simply minded our own business. Germany could not touch us, neither could Japan. No one could get to us directly. The closest Japan got was the Aleutians. Other than a few Inuits (that’s ‘Eskimo’s’ to you troglodytes,) who the hell cares about the Aleutians?

But noooo……FDR had to save the world. A world that, oh by the way, didn’t give a %@=^ whether it was saved or not, and in fact still acts rather %!$$#) off about the whole affair. This despite the fact that they have never paid us back for debts incurred not only in that war, but the one before it as well.

You know, if I could sit back and do nothing and maintain my life style like FDR that would be just great. But I can’t. The fact is that I have not been able to walk for over a year, but the government has yet to figure out that the ability to walk just might be a prerequisite for the work I have done for the last 30 years.

So don’t you even think about whining to me about those poor souls down on the Gulf Coast. I have bigger fish to personally fry, like how I am going to heat my house this winter?

One more time……follow the bouncing ball……everyone now, with feeling……… I don’t give a #^@=.

Why do I stay here? Simple you pea brain, the same reason the overwhelming majority of people stay put, anywhere. I don’t know any better, and it could be worse. At least I can directly attack a subject and give a straight up, honest answer. Something that you failed again to do with that very easy question. As usual you answered a question with a question, re-aimed all of your mirrors and cranked up the smoke machine.

I do suppose there is something to be said for consistency. If you spent as much time getting to an issue as you do getting around one this conversation might actually be meaningful, unfortunately all you have done so far is talk out the side of your neck at me. You can put all the who-do spin you’d like on that, but I have the complete transcript, I would send to you for review, but somehow I get the feeling that it would end up being Bush’s fault, and he evidently has a lot of irons in the fire already.

Earthquakes and highways, gee ya know, I am so glad you brought that up. Did you know "computer modeling" said those highways could take a quake at 8.0 on the scale? Wait, wait, I know, Bush programmed that computer, right? Uh huh.

Chew on this a while – When Mount Saint Hellens blew twenty-five years ago, who got killed? Easy now, not too fast, I don’t want to see your hair catch fire or anything. Right, the people that did not leave the area. And what happened to the surrounding area? Think larger than you perfect little world, like more than a mile out. There you go, it was covered in volcanic ash. And what do you suppose the people in Oregon and Washington (state) did about it? A group of people I might add, that could out liberal Boy George. That’s right, they cleaned up the mess and went about their business. I was out in Lake Oswego a number of years ago and asked about it. Folks told me that there was upwards of 6 inches of dust accumulated on their vehicles. Want to hear something odd? And you can blow this up to any proportions you’d care to, I’ll just blame my opinion on Bush (hey, it works for you, right?) –there are very few "minorities" to be found in that area and no one ran screaming in the night: Bush did it! Bush did it!

Now you already know how I feel about Bush and every other politician that has ever come down the pike. They are all idiots. So save your lily livered, fresh out of the can, liberal &^!!$%!+. Give me your address, I’ll send you a quarter so you can call all of your friends that give a %@*^.

Your biggest discovery seems to be that FOX News is a conservative leaning bureau. WOW! I guess that puts you right up there with Columbus, Cortez, Balboa (no sonny, not Rocky) and Madame friggen Currie.

FOX is conservative, %@*^, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Well let’s just examine that for a moment, shall we? Now who would FOX have as major competition? Lets see…there’s only ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HNN, PBS (who, by the way, have been forced to offer opposing view points to their liberal agenda, or lose their public funding. I’m sure that’s just killing you clowns.) CBC, BBC, DTV (undoubtedly your favorite, don’t tell me…you try to pattern yourself after Goofy, right?) Discovery, MTV, and let me think a minute…well, I’m sure that I left someone out, unlike you I am not perfect and don’t mind saying it in public.

All of them liberal leaning (to put it mildly) media. And that’s not to mention almost every major metropolitan newspaper, the majority of magazines and other printed material, 95% of the movies coming out in the last 40 years and most non-talk radio. Do you know why conservatives are so popular on talk radio? No, it’s not Bush’s fault, guess again. It’s because working people listen to the radio. Working people. I know that’s a foreign concept to you, look it up.

So I guess that makes FOX a pretty potent entity, eh? One little old network against all that. You know what that tells me? No, it’s not anything that Bush did or didn’t do. That tells me that not only is well over half of this country of a conservative mind, we also don’t need the propaganda slung at us from every conceivable direction. We only need to hear our propaganda once, we "get it." Ya’ll’s crap is so far off the wall that even you don’t believe it until you’ve heard it 20 times from 10 different sources.

And I’ve got news for ya ‘sport,’ I rarely ‘write mad.’ People seldom do their clearest thinking when disturbed, you apparently are proof of that by your own admission. If I was mad your CPU would probable explode. And no, if it did it would not be Bush’s fault.

And here’s another Sky5 bulletin for you chum::: Conservative Central Command to Liberal somewhere in space with an urgent message to follow…………I am not a nice person, get over it. I have lived and or worked in over a dozen states, one constant has become abundantly clear: People will #^@* you at the drop of a hat, some will even try to kill you. Several times. No matter where you go in this tidy little world it’s the same old story. The moral is……don’t drop the soap under any circumstances. And if you do, get used to being dirty.

You can live in Candyland or Fantasy Island or wherever it is you liberal tweedy birds fly off to whenever confronted by reality. But I live here in the real world, where things run both hot and cold, and people are just as apt to be mean to you as they are to be nice. I am the real thing. It does not get any better. Anyone that mistakes me for anything but exactly what I am is an idiot. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I will tell you exactly what is on my mind. And I could care less about you fragile little liberal feelings. I have been knocked down in the dirt, drug through the mud, kicked, slapped, beaten, gouged, scratched, scraped, stomped and spit on my entire life. If you’d like I can tell you precisely, in minute detail, what this world is like when you have never had a &@=^ thing given to you in your entire life.

You’re a college boy, congratulations, I’d feel for ya but I can’t reach it. Tell ya what, put the jellybean back and get’ca a peanut. There you go, that’s an even better look. I barely got out of high school. The work was boring and my parents didn’t give a $#!+. Does that make me stupid? Hardly. My IQ has tested at 140+, what’s yours genius? I never had a chance. I made my way through life the old fashioned way……I lived it.

I try to be nice, but people (as you are) that are evasive, self-promoting, or won’t look you in the eye when they talk get little mercy from me. They are usually backstabbing, sniveling nosed, egg sucking twits. I am (believe it or not) still being nice. It can get a lot worse. Want proof? I’ll give you my ex-wife’s e-mail. She knew me for 20 years, If anyone can tell you about the good, the bad and the ugly she can.

If you think that you might possibly hold up your end of an intelligent conversation I welcome the exchange.

But if all you have to offer is more of the same limp wristed, rump ranging, dope smoking, butt-hole surfing, bucktoothed liberal #0%$#$#!+ that I’ve seen so far, save it.

You want something more productive to do? Go out, find the nearest alley and run up and down it yelling FISH! FISH! FISH! No, it won’t get you anywhere, but you will make more sense, and someone might actually pay attention to you. And no, no matter how much you’d like it to be so, it will not be Bush’s fault.

Stand up, act like you really do have pubic hair and that both of your testicles have descended. Go to E-bay and buy yourself some vertebra. Take some personal responsibility for your actions, and stop trying to turn the government into "Big Brother." Orwell is dead and his work was fictional, not at all unlike your dream world.

In other words, Be A Man fer Christ’s sake.

Sincerely,

A. Conservative

The liberal wrote:

Wowsers – you are quite the writer. But you have demonstrated that it was a good idea for me to send you my initial emails. Indeed you are a somewhat typical conservative, that holds mostly conservative ideals, and thinks the liberal position on most everything is a bunch of ____. Hey, you are entitled to your opinion. I've read enough political opinion to pick them out. I've also been in enough email debates to adhere to a certain code – some rules I've gleamed, you might say – advice I give to myself and follow. First, the "emotional" stuff. At the end you asked me to be a "real man", well I got news for you buddy, a real man only gets worried if his positions are wrong in these kinds of things, thus far, I'm not worried and therefore, not mad. My skin is pretty thick, you might say. Even though you've slowly gone from making points, to attacking my writing style and myself, I'm not mad. There was a time when I used to say, "that means I'm winning!", but I've been around this stuff long enough to realize that there are no winners. At the end of this, we will each know much more exactly what the other stands for, and that will be that. The topics I bring up, the style of my writing and so forth are irrelevant in other words – even this very paragraph is waste of words, so let me stop this thought. Of course I'm not going to respond to every point you made – I'm long past the "last word wins!", or, "you have to out-email the other guy!" stage. I used to try for both and it took too much time away. So, I'll cherry pick what I want to respond too, and you can either refuse to respond, or, you can give me a concise list of items you want to know about. Remember, no one is forcing you to respond. I do it because I enjoy it – but responding to 60 small points would be more enjoyable if I had the time, anyway, 'nuff said! You bring this back to liberal vs conservative as much as I do, even though you began this with the O'Reilly mantra, "I'm not a conservative! [I just look, talk, feel, and act like one]. This is why I brought up Wal-mart when you brought up Carlin. What happened in New Orleans was predicted, and, in theory, all lives could have been saved. There were plans on the books for many years to fix the problem, and Bush is partially responsible as commander in chief on three, big, unavoidable, in your face, fronts: One, he cut funding for the levy program – you claim maybe New Orleans should have paid for that on their own? Maybe so – this doesn't change that his cuts directly cost lives. Two, his pick for FEMA was obviously a crony – now, I know that the governor didn't want federal help at first, fine. That doesn't change the fact that his FEMA pick was utterly incompetent and dropped the ball whenever he was finally given a ball to play with. Three, in a more general sense, we were told that a focus would be put on homeland security. Given this utter failure, if a bomb goes off anywhere, can we expect the same? Bush won over soccer moms and independents by his "Be scared, Pappa Bush will make you feel safe" baloney. Doh! Now, in general, we can blame the conservative movement over the last generation or so for choosing against sane environmental causes, a series of which helped make this storm so strong. Dilapidated barrier islands, just for starters. I don't blame Bush for everything as you said in your, if I may be so bold, typical, right-wing, reactionary, response. He's only at fault for that which he's at fault for, and Katrina is part of that. Now, again, when I say "Katrina", I don't mean he made the hurricane, and I think any sane person realizes this. After the ____ hit the fan, republicans accused democrats of accusing Bush of starting a hurricane. What response can I possibly provide to that except to roll my eyes? One upon a time, the republican party was considered the "smart" party, them days are long over my friend... Finally, Mount Saint Helens was not stoppable – it was not in our power to call on Superman to drop a giant boulder or iceberg down its mouth. New Orleans was 100% avoidable, and I will not be nice and quit reminding anyone and everyone that it was an utter failing of specific conservative policies in favor of liberal policies, down the line, that lead to the failure. Ok, enough about natural disasters. On to man made disasters waiting to happen! In the late 60s and early 70s, it wasn't yet called "global warming", it was called the "Greenhouse effect", which is the engine of the warning. Contrary to conservative myth, this wasn't a plan by American socialists to shut down American business, it was an attempt to understand Venus. Yup, you heard right. Venus is closer to the Earth than Mars in terms of size and makeup, and we wanted to know why Venus was the hottest place in the Solar System besides the Sun, even hotter than Mercury which is of course closer to the Sun. The answer for Venus was the greenhouse effect. Even back then, conservatives thought the idea was "silly". Now, the "global warming" consensus has, over the years, faced every type of opposition you can think of, I don't mean from politics, I mean from science. The most recent at just a few years ago is solar cycles. The sun gets hotter and cooler, and this change had to be taken into consideration. The idea passed that obstacle, and now, a global consensus of scientists, even those in the USA, even those in the Bush administration, agree on the two major findings: Earth is warming up, humans are partially responsible. I've heard all of the BS! Yes, there will be another ice age, yes cities are hotter than the country and this affects the averages, yes it was hot before, yes it will get hot again after the next ice age, even if we aren't here. None of this changes the finding that right now, mankind is drastically altering the environment, this makes Earth-conservatives like me nervous, and groups, like, oh say, the PENTAGON anxious. You heard right, google it my friend. The Pentagon thinks that global warming is a direct threat on it and on the USA in the coming years... This is not fringe, hippy, lunacy – it's a gradual body of work spanning over 30 years. So, pardon me if I side with that work instead of a few conservative pundits. Ignoring science is dumb and we should punish those politicians that do. It doesn't matter what other politicians did in the past in relation to the environment, etc., etc., we have this issue in front of us right now, and the movement you most identify with politically is dropping the ball big time. Finally, an unemotional look at the social stats in similar countries around the world suggests that we need to throw out the outdated "conservative mantras" and try a widdle sumthin' different... The New Deal was a good deal, and now we need a new, New Deal that includes worker retraining allowances and portable health care. Google Friedman's book, "The World is Flat". Globalism is the new challenge, and America, with its ____ public education system and crumbling infrastructure just can't make it. Anyway, like I said above, these romantic notions of "if everyone would only save and watch their own back!" are worthless – I'm far more interested in making government function. Did I give you the Hamburg subway system example yet? No turn styles, no people to take your ticket. If you ride without a ticket and get caught, it costs you 60DM – about 60 times the cost of the ticket – of course now, instead of DM, it would be Euros. Anyway, something like 20% cheat and ride free. Ya know what? Who gives a flying ____! The system makes money and it's far easier for everyone to get on. Actually, by catching the occasional cheater and not paying for booth attendants and rent-a-cops, the system makes far more money than it would otherwise...How very un-Christian of the German government to knowingly allow cheaters to ride on tax payer money! Horrors! ;) I don't care if a million people cheat and collected food stamps when they don't need them, as long as problems are solved overall. Their cheating moral actions are of no consequence to me as long as it works overall. If cheating is expected, like it should be, then cheating needs to be "budgeted" in at the get-go, that way, no money is "lost". Of course Fox is conservative, I was just pleased to find my own personal evidence, and then gloat about it in public, and GLOAT I did! Fox and many conservative assholes will deny this as if their lives depended on it. PBS was asked to balance out their coverage because congress funds them and congress is now conservative. It was ________, and I can go into lengthy detail about why. Bill Moyers is a liberal, and he had a show. Guess what? He's off the air, and was before this became an issue. Those _______ – why mention him, but not that other bloke, his name escapes me now, a father of the current national conservative movement, the founder of the National Review, he had a conservative talk show on PBS for 20 years! Do you want to know what "their" other complaint was? A cartoon show called, "Postcards from Buster". Buster's dad has a plane and they visit other families in America and have a show about it. He's visited Mormon families, native Americans and, gulp, a family with a lesbian mother! Yes, that single episode was the focus of their complaint about the show. There really ARE lesbian mothers – to purposely avoid them is slanted, in my opinion, but I don't care, the show isn't that great, and, like Moyers, it's ALREADY canceled and was during their little "debate" about PBS. The crown jewel of PBS news is the Newshour, the most balanced news show on TV, BAR-NONE. Two, yes, TWO, Newshour anchors were used to moderate the Presidential/VP debates, Jim Leher and Gwen Eiffel – no other network had two picked from it's ranks, and both sides must agree about whom to pick. PBS = biased is, once again, a bunch of right-wing ________. I believe that no one from the Fox network moderated... The Discovery channel is liberal? Come on, that's truly funny – let me guess, because they assume evolution to be a fact like most of the rest of humanity!? You are free to repeat what Rush and other baboons from the Right say, but I know better. "You can live in Candyland or Fantasy Island or wherever it is you liberal tweedy birds fly off to whenever confronted by reality. But I live here in the real world, where things run both hot and cold, and people are just as apt to be mean to you as they are to be nice." I live in America, but I've visited, and read about, European countries where you can walk down a dark street at night without getting mugged and if you do get mugged, go to an ER without pawning your car to pay for it. Ditto for Japan – pick the "worst" neighborhood in Japan. Walk down the worst street, on an overcast night with the street lights out and you are still quite safe. And while you are walking, enjoy the nicely funded and maintained streets that people happily pay taxes for [VERY high taxes for, and they LOVE what they get in return, THANK YOU VERY MUCH] and go