Are they really worthy of praise?

[Serotonin]

Today's conservatives really think they are hot shit. As evidence of this attitude, take a read of this, from this morning's Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/speech-from-the-heart-cements-a-place-in-history/2006/10/04/1159641392678.html

I think Devine has got it wrong when she lauds Reagan, Thatcher et al. for bringing down the end of communism. Communism as a practice is so inherently rotten and contrary to human nature withered trying to keep up with capitalism. Yet we have Howard, Harper, Bush, and co. trying to pose themselves implicitly as saviours and more importantly, feel that their lousy policies and shortcomings are mitigated by the fact that they lead conservative, or non-socialist governments. Ipso facto they already deem themselves pardoned, and can bring in the "giving succour to the terrorists" line when their policies are criticised. I think they need an ego check.

Now I hate communism, am not a socialist, and think the far left is quite silly. Some pundits make a career out of conveying sentiments similar to these, but make the effort of attempting to characterise people who don't warm to conservative governments (or mild urban liberals, which I classify myself as) as having the same mindset as the socialist loonies. World of difference IMO, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

[htb]

I would agree that totalitarian collectivism is inherently unstable, but as per the question -- what ended the Cold War -- and given how Western impuissance in the 1970s encouraged the Soviets, I believe the Anglo-American right manifestly hastened the USSR's demise.

Mikhail Gorbachev often speaks these days like a recidivist, not a reformer. There's something to that.

Edit: Howard is challenging the left on the same unequivocal terms that the left has used against the right for years. It looks wonderful from here.

[Sidewinder]

According to some sources I have read this country is slowing transforming into a communist regime...scary when you really think about it.

[sbw]

the poll results are interesting given the vocal minority of commies around here.

Scott

[Masterofnone]

According to some sources I have read this country is slowing transforming into a communist regime...scary when you really think about it.

well, america stopped being a true capitalistic nation right after the Sherman antitrust act was passed. All we have is large corporate monopolies selling products while small business acts as a curtain to viel what is really happening economically.

[C.J.Woolf]

The foundation for victory in the Cold War was laid in the very beginning with the Marshall Plan. Western Europe became wealthy, Eastern Europe didn't, and Eastern Europeans finally said hey, we want to live like Western Europeans.

The timing of the Cold War's end was generational. The World War II generation of Russians were terrified that Germany would start round 3 of the war that began in 1914 and resumed in 1941. They put up with their crappy police state because they thought it would keep them safe. (Sound familiar to Americans today?) Gorbachev's generation had no personal experience of WW2. They were satisfied that the West had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union. Western Europeans and Americans were too busy enjoying life! Without the security argument the Communist government had no excuse for shutting out the West and keeping Russians poor.

[Dr. Haight]

Both answers are certainly part of the equation as to why the Soviets bowed out of the Cold War. However, the efforts of numerous US Presidents - and their cabinets - played equally, if not bigger roles (regarding Kissinger), then that of Reagan. He simply increased pressure that had initially been applied many years before. Additionally, if it were not for the existence of Gorbachev, this would not even be a topic for debate.

And with regards to the "inherent flaws of Communism," that has more to do with the non-communistic aspects of what was being touted as Marxism, then it did with Soviet Communism. Therefore within Soviet Communism, we would not be speaking about "flaws" if they had won the Cold War.

[Helios]

I'd say they expedited it. I think Gorbachev should get some credit for piloting the crash landing. It could have been VERY ugly.



Regardless, having listened to Tchaikovsky for the past few days, and the 1812 at this very moment. I am absurdly nostalgic for the glories of Imperial Russia.

[bclark619g]

The "he" in the excerpt below is Prime Minister Howard, who gave the speach which is being described in the article (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/speech-from-the-heart-cements-a-place-in-history/2006/10/04/1159641392678.html?page=2)


He charted the morphing of the communist left into a new left counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s that attempted to redefine the Cold War as a struggle in which the sides were morally equivalent.

"It became the height of intellectual sophistication to believe that people in the West were no less oppressed than people under the yoke of communist dictatorship."

It was important, he said, to remember the great ideological struggles were fought and won, not by impersonal forces, but by courageous individuals, "who took up the cause of cultural freedom and the defence of liberal democracy against its enemies".

They were the founders and editors of Quadrant, people such as the Polish immigrant businessman Richard Krygier, the poet James McAuley, Peter Coleman, Bob Santamaria, Heinz Arndt and Frank Knopfelmacher, who took on the communist left and were "part of a noble and moral cause".

And there were the three "towering figures of the late 20th century" whose moral clarity led to the defeat of Soviet communism: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II.

I didn't see President Bush mentioned at all in this article.

I agree that many liberals felt that the Soviet Union was just like us and treated their citizens like the United States did. I have relatives on my wife's side of the family who live in the Ukraine, which was a part of Poland when Hitler invaded. My wife and her mother went back to the Ukraine to the village where her mother grew up. The country is worse off than before WWII. No indoor plumbing in most homes, no electricity on the farms, no social services infrastructure. No way to say that Soviet style communism worked for these people.

When Reagan started building the 600 ship Navy, it was a big deal here in the US. Lots of concern about what would happen. The Soviets tried to keep up and couldn't afford it. No doubt about it, Reagan helped create the policy that ultimately broke the Soviets. Solidarity in Poland helped, too. Of course, Reagan can't be given all the credit because many policy decisions from previous administrations had an effect too. The Soviets' ineptitude and believing their own propaganda about being able to feed themselves, among other things, were a huge cause of their own downfall.

Why did you feel this article represented the conservative claiming victory for all the worlds problems?

Do you feel that the liberals would have achieved the same results had a liberal been the President?

Here are some charts (http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm) illustrating which party, Democratic or Republican, held control of Congress during the last 50 years. It looks like the Democrats had control for all of Nixon's terms and most of Reagan's term. So it looks like the liberals could take some credit too. They must have voted for some of the policies of those Republican presidents. It's a win/win!

[meshou]

I agree that many liberals felt that the Soviet Union was just like us and treated their citizens like the United States did.Not nearly all of them, but this didn't justify the methods of the cold war. Really, for a cold war, there was a lot of bloodshed.

Instead of fighting face to face, anything there was a scuffle anywhere in the world, we took one side, they took the other, and we turned coups that'd maybe be a month long into bloody civil wars.

Afganistan, for example is called "The Soviet's Viet Nam" They went in, and were confronted by an amazingly well trained guerilla force, led by a passionate young man.... who we directly trained. They lost.

Osama Bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family, the richest one outside of the royals. He had a degree in structural engineering, and was bright and charasmatic, and probably one of his father's favorites. He got religion, and like most converts, he out-religioned them all. He also came to the opinion that the Saudi royal family was opressing his people. His dad, friends with the royals, disowned him, and he was chased out of the country, and went to Afganistan.

He had the same feeling there too, and being charasmatic, was one of the lead voices. We, with the conservitive notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," funded and trained him in guerilla warfare.

He used his training to churn out the most effective terrorists in the world. We taught him that. He used it to come up with plans for 9-11.

This is not an isolated instance. Our tactic in the cold war was to create people who could effectively fight hulking giants of countries, and continue to shower them with praise and money out of hopes they'd stay loyal. They pretty much don't.

Even if these tactics were unavoidable, we are still responsible for them. This isn't "guilt" this is facing the concequences of our actions. Conservatives lack integrity when it comes to doing that.

[htb]

A few corrections, Meshou. First, "scuffles" were actually acts of sedition or overthrow or invasion, almost always supported or directed by Moscow. Second, bin Laden was one of the Arab mujahadeen who entered Afghanistan without invitation; he had no direct contact with the United States and was never in any other position than one antagonistic (and by corollary, modern terrorist methods have been most extensively developed and distributed by Islamist terrorists and their state supporters, not Washington). Third, bin Laden settled in the Sudan first following his exile from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

And your response to Blclark's statement is for want of a point: American leaders often acted pragmatically to check and minimize Soviet expansion. Given a world with even fewer democratic countries or pluralist societies than today, Washington could only chose to a) tolerate the spread of communism, b) proscribe any kind of alliance with an illiberal state, or perhaps c) do that and, too, assume cold war postures against all such states and societies and attempt to take on half of the globe, or d) avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good and make alliances of necessity, or e) wish for a magic wand that would dispel all troubles from the world.

Or did you write what you did in an appeal for the history of the United States to transform into a person and, hat in hand, apologize to you?

[bclark619g]

Meshou,

Most politicians lack integrity when it comes to the consequences of their actions.

I agree that the US didn't take the best approaches to combatting communism. Many dictators were tolerated and supported by the US, like the Shah of Iran, Noriega, and others. Part of this came from the fear of direct confrontation with Communist countries. For example, General MacArthur, during the Korean conflict, wanted to attack the Communist Chinese forces that were coming to assist the North Koreans. Truman's administration refused to allow this and thereby helped create a monster, in my view, because every time the US does something that shows restraint, the rest of the world thinks we are weak. Subsequently, they take advantage of us. That is why North Korea still exists today.

Sometimes a peaceful nation has to go to war to show that it is a peaceful nation.

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I agree.

[htb]

"Walk softly and carry a big stick."Roosevelt resolved to speak softly and carry a big stick. The modern misquotation lends itself to interpretation as a suggestion for complaisance or even appeasement; the authentic remark was a summary of Roosevelt's broadening of American interests, and is more reflective of what you've written here.

[meshou]

Or did you write what you did in an appeal for the history of the United States to transform into a person and, hat in hand, apologize to you?Yes, this is exactly it. There are no long lasting concequences to any of our actions, and we don't keep repeating the same fucking mistakes over and over again. Priceless.

As I say, this is a stupidity of conservatives in particular. It's in my poltical science textbooks, for God's sake. They not only resist change, but once the beginning of a change is made they say "Well, all better, now, let's just pretent the concequences of our actions don't exist, or that they totally occured in a vaccuum!"

They didn't. Whether we had no choice or not, we're still responsible for what we did. YOU can't wave a magic wand and make that go away either, but that doesn't stop conservatives from acting like they had.

"Poor, uneducated black people?? Don't they know we started letting them go to school thirty years ago? Lazy assholes!"

"Fundamental societal inequality? Bah, societie's not the government's job to manage! Except if people are jacking off or buying alcahol on sundays or guys are kissing guys!"

"Wait, we paid for these people to be carpetbombed and now their kids don't like us? Preposterous! When we kill your family, it's totally for the good of the world! You should be thanking us!"

[bclark619g]

As I say, this is a stupidity of conservatives in particular. It's in my poltical science textbooks, for God's sake. They not only resist change, but once the beginning of a change is made they say "Well, all better, now, let's just pretent the concequences of our actions don't exist, or that they totally occured in a vaccuum!"


Just because it is in print, doesn't mean it is true nor that it was written objectively.

What does your textbook say about the Democratic-controlled Congress' actions? Were they the fair-haired ones? What about Lyndon Johnson or John F. Kennedy? Did the conservatives do the Bay of Pigs? What about our Viet Nam?

You are never going to get perfection from a politician or political party. Unless you have an example, you'd like to share?

[C.J.Woolf]

Part of this came from the fear of direct confrontation with Communist countries. For example, General MacArthur, during the Korean conflict, wanted to attack the Communist Chinese forces that were coming to assist the North Koreans. Truman's administration refused to allow this and thereby helped create a monster, in my view, because every time the US does something that shows restraint, the rest of the world thinks we are weak. Subsequently, they take advantage of us. That is why North Korea still exists today.
Do you think "resolve" is enough?

I wouldn't be hard on Truman. If MacArthur had been allowed to escalate the Korean War into a China War it would most likely have been Vietnam 15 years earlier. China is too big for the US to defeat through invasion and "regime change", and she was willing to lose a lot of Chinese to prop up North Korea. The Chinese were bound to outlast us because they were more willing to die to maintain a stalemate than we were.

I think there is no shame in saying that. It's the flip side of having a country which gives people so much to live for. The cause has to be that much more important for Americans to want to die for it.

[meshou]

Just because it is in print, doesn't mean it is true nor that it was written objectively.I have no reason to disbelieve it whatsoever. It fits observation.


What does your textbook say about the Democratic-controlled Congress' actions? Where they the fair-haired ones? What about Lyndon Johnson or John F. Kennedy? Did the conservatives do the Bay of Pigs? What about our Viet Nam?They say conservative =/= Republican and liberal =/= Democrat.

They have a whole section on liberal weaknesses, but sinced the cold war WAS mostly run by conservatives (regarless of party), their weaknesses are not extremely relevant to the topic at hand, except for you to pull in "LIBERALS SUCK JUST AS MUCH THEREFORE NO ONE NEEDS TO FIX ANYTHING EVER."


You are never going to get perfection from a politician or political party. Unless you have an example, you'd like to share?I don't epect people to be perfect either, but I expect everyone to take resposibility for their actions and to not repeat known mistakes.

[bclark619g]

They have a whole section on liberal weaknesses, but sinced the cold war WAS mostly run by conservatives (regarless of party), their weaknesses are not extremely relevant to the topic at hand, except for you to pull in "LIBERALS SUCK JUST AS MUCH THEREFORE NO ONE NEEDS TO FIX ANYTHING EVER."

The Cold War covers roughly 50 years. If memory serves, it started right after WWII, so that was 8 years of Truman (Democrat), 8 years of Eisenhower (Republican), 8 years Kennedy/Johnson (Democrat), 8 years Nixon/Ford, 4 years Carter (Democrat), and 8 years Reagan (Republican). So 20 years of Democratic presidents and 24 years of Republican presidents. And from that observation, you say that conservatives controlled the Cold War?


I don't epect people to be perfect either, but I expect everyone to take resposibility for their actions and to not repeat known mistakes.

So do I.

[Serotonin]

Edit: Howard is challenging the left on the same unequivocal terms that the left has used against the right for years.

....which IMO really is lowering himself to their level.

[meshou]

And from that observation, you say that conservatives controlled the Cold War?Yep. Conservative's goals are to either maintain the status quo, or, if they do want change, they want to go back the the way things once were.

In that way, the entire cold war effort on the part of the US was a conservative effort. The tactics were also based on conservative philosophy-- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," or, in kinder terms "It is the duty of a nation to come to the aid of its allies so they do not become her enemies."

Conservative efforts are by no means entirely bad. The American Revolution, for example, was a conservative revolution (although the views the founders esposed were, at the time, liberal).

I don't object to conservatisim as a whole. The only appropriate response to the radical liberalsim of the Soviets had to be conservatism. I DO object to totally disowning the concequences of that fight. If a thing was worth doing, it is also worth taking responsibility for-- the bad results as well as the good ones.

[Serotonin]

I didn't see President Bush mentioned at all in this article.

If you want links I'll find them, but I doubt that Bush would anything but support the historical revisionism that is being touted by Howard here.


Why did you feel this article represented the conservative claiming victory for all the worlds problems?

Miranda Devine is a well known Australian conservative pundit. The reason why I frame this question more largely is that I see these attempts by her, Gerard Henderson, Tim Blair, Mark Steyn etc. attempting to elevate the cultural esteem of Reagan, Thatcher etc. in their misty-eyed reminiscing. The end goal is really nothing but conservative party lobbying... to put the idea in people's minds that conservative governments really are more trustworthy, more honest, more able, more successful, less duplicitous, and all in all more deserving of yours or my vote in the next election, whatever country we live in.


Do you feel that the liberals would have achieved the same results had a liberal been the President?

I honestly don't know. There are too many variables to make an estimate that I would be confident about.

[htb]

There are no long lasting consequences to any of our actionsBut of course there are. For the most relevant one, the foreign policy ideal behind the Cold War's alliances of necessity -- stability through the retention of mutually countervailing regional powers, dictatorial or not -- allowed, particularly, the independent Near East to pass into the terminal stage of its socialist-Arabist era, affording cultural and political opportunities for Islamist fascism. With limited choices, American administrations and congresses chose to invest in the theory of the benign dictator, a theory whose practice has proven all gains from it insidious.

I would hope we could agree on that. Where we diverge, however, is on what to do now, and the policy you seem to be advocating is, in relativity, a conservative one: rather than accept the inevitability of contact with regional powers in the address of foreign affairs, and the unintended consequences of simply dealing with the local sovereign and leaving at close of business; and thus resolve to, whenever and wherever possible, support or exhort or impel liberal reform; you suggest, apparently based on a suspicion of presidential motive and trans-generational sincerity, that the United States not do much of anything, which in practice means a reversion to policies preceding 2001.


...which IMO really is lowering himself to their level.How else is one to debate than to destroy his opponents' arguments?

[meshou]

United States not do much of anything, which in practice means a reversion to policies preceding 2001.I think you mean "preceeding the Spanish American War." Preceeding 2001, we've had eighty years history fucking around in the middle east, and more if you consider us the spiritual successors of the British Empire.

I actually don't advocate not doing much of anything. I do advocate a huge re-evaluation of how it's been done, and how we handle the concequences, and all around accontability. I don't see that happening.

I'm not sure if it's liberal or conservative to revert back to a foreign policy not held since 1880, or if it's liberal since my want for it is reactionary. I'm not sure it matters in this context.

I absolutely feel that if we can't take responsibilty for our actions, we shouldn't take action in the first place. I feel that about everyone and everything. What, exactly, is wrong with this standard?

[htb]

We're talking about the Cold War forward. Reaching back to the Monroe Doctrine stretches collective blame well beyond the breaking point.


I do advocate a huge re-evaluation of how it's been done, and how we handle the consequences, and all around accuontability.Elaborate. We're both advocating policies generally formulated by others, so references are useful here.


I absolutely feel that if we can't take responsibilty for our actions, we shouldn't take action in the first place.Well, in the first this isn't representative, as George Bush is prominent in repudiating Cold War policies -- "to purchase stability at the price of liberty." Believe him if you wish, but a neutral observer wouldn't conclude that he is an apologist for realpolitik. Second, isolationism would involve a comprehensive retraction of commitments, and consequences thereof. Third, isolationism does bring one rather close to the resigned reactionism of Buchananites.

[bclark619g]

Meshou, your standard is an excellent one. The implementation of it will be very difficult. It is the nature of politics to disown your bad mistakes and unfortunately, due to the way or process of diplomacy as it is exercised by nations, we, the citizens, don't get access to all the information, that was available at the time decisions were made, for 50 to 100 years afterward. Some of the records have been sealed for this long to protect either the country proposing a settlement or the country accepting the settlement. I apologize for not having an example of this to use, but I know this has occured before.

Who should be acknowledging this responsibility?

The label conservative as you have defined it is cutting a very wide swath.

[Serotonin]

How else is one to debate than to destroy his opponents' arguments?

Wait and see the reality bearing out, which Howard had ample opportunity to do and be vindicated by it. Instead, his attempt to colour history seemingly gives the impression that he's weak and paranoid. To me, at least.


It is the nature of politics to disown your bad mistakes and unfortunately, due to the way or process of diplomacy as it is exercised by nations, we, the citizens, don't get access to all the information, that was available at the time decisions were made, for 50 to 100 years afterward.

Are you implicitly saying that the citizens have no choice but to accept what the government says at face value? That pragmatically, we should trust them?

[htb]

Wait and see the reality bearing out, which Howard had ample opportunity to do and be vindicated by it.Were Howard to do that he would be the only one. If you insist, at least cc your advice to The Age.

[meshou]

Elaborate. We're both advocating policies generally formulated by others, so references are useful here.I'd need to know a whole lot more than I do now to know exactly what's being done and the reasons behind it. I'd need to litterally devote full time to coming up with more than a general philosophy of action. Right now, all I can see is the results, and infer they're most likely not the result of a philosophy I agree with.


Well, in the first this isn't representative, as George Bush is prominent in repudiating Cold War policies -- "to purchase stability at the price of liberty." Believe him if you wish, but a neutral observer wouldn't conclude that he is an apologist for realpolitik.I don't exactly trust the Bushes.
Second, isolationism would involve a comprehensive retraction of commitments, and consequences thereof. Third, isolationism does bring one rather close to the resigned reactionism of Buchananites.I don't advocate total isolationism, but being the fucking world police just isn't working out well. We can't invade every dangerous country under the sun (merely LOGISTICALLY we can't, we're too stretched out losing Iraq and Afganistan to take care of real threats right now without a draft) and we shouldn't insist on using the Monroe doctrine to strangle South America.

We should not fund coups, and should only back revolutions (and not revolt FOR them) if the leaders of that revolution are commited to self-determination and equality, and even then support should be limited to medics and money, and the new government shouldn't have to have OWING us written into their constitution. We should do it 'cause it's right and not for political power. We should forgive all South American debt (at a rate that wouldn't fuck either of our economies, of course).

I don't know anyone who actually advocates these things in politics.

[bclark619g]

Are you implicitly saying that the citizens have no choice but to accept what the government says at face value? That pragmatically, we should trust them?

It is the responsibility of citizens to be a check on their governments. I'm not saying to accept what the government says at face value nor to trust them in all things.

I think determining the intent of the government is important. To me, the strong should protect the weak and so going into Afghanistan and throwing out the Taliban was something which the US needed to do. Now if the Afghanis ever re-elect the Taliban back into power with a fair election, then we walk away. Same thing goes in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to elect Saddam back into power with free elections that are sanctioned by Jimmy Carter, that is okay with me. But as human beings we couldn't just sit back and tolerate this inhumanity.

I thought the Serbian thing should have been stopped way more aggressively too. According to War in a Time of Peace by David Halberstam, General Colin Powell kept telling Congress that 100,000 troops would be killed trying to stop the genocide. That to me is a bunch of hooey. You just start cleaning these areas up, one by one, just like was done with the American Indians. I know it is a bad thing that was done to the Native Americans, but purely from a military solution standpoint, this is how you deal with guerilla forces. The Apache Indian is still considered one of the best guerilla fighters of all time and the Army beat them.

Meshou is correct in saying that we are stretched militarily, but I don't think the draft will be instituted. It is way too unpopular and the volunteer forces are much better than drafted forces. But we must continue to fight smarter in Iraq and give the commanders in the field the opportunity to get the job done properly.

Taking responsibility for our actions means staying in Iraq until it is a peaceful place for the citizens to live in. Just like we did in Germany after WWII. It will take time and we must root out the terrorists. We can't give up just because it didn't work like a video game.

[meshou]

The US government has no public criteria for success in Iraq. All we have is Henry "Viet Nam" Kissenger telling us to throw men at it.

We can't leave. We can't train them well enough to defend against themselves, WE'RE LOSING, and we're the biggest military in the world. Furthermore, even if we could train them well enough, they're just going to end up mowing down the Sunnis in accordance with this thousand year feud.

Getting rid of insurgents (or terrorists, depending on if you want to use the wrong word for them) is not possible. You can not do it. We will be there forever if we insist on it. If the goal of war is to win, that is a losing strategy.

There is no meaningful victory possible. We are there, just like we were in Viet Nam, because pulling out would be more embarassing than just throwing men at it. We need to come up with a five year plan to focus on strengthening the government, and pull out on that date regardless.

[bclark619g]

Here is my solution, make Iraq the 51st state. Now the war turns into a police action and we can win that. Look what happened to the Branch Davidians!

You can get rid of the terrorists, it just takes time and lots of small Special Forces teams. Plus you need to provide for the middle class to start to establish itself with good jobs and good schools. Then the populace will turn against the terrorists.

Thinking that success means everyone agrees with what is to be done is insanity. Look at the operation of INTPc for an example of how even a small group of people in charge can't agree on very much.

Some of your comments, "I don't trust the Bushes.", Kissinger is telling Bush what to do and then implying that Bush is only listening to him, get tiresome. You seem to think that the Presidency is a dicatatorship without any oppositon at all. Don't believe everything you see on the news. Try to apply some thinking to what you see going on around you. Follow the money. Look at who benefits from their positions on things. Politics is all about compromise.

Listen to your professor and try to learn her/his agenda. What is the professor's bias? Your point of view will change over your lifetime or maybe it won't. I'm not telling you your point of view is wrong, I'm just suggesting be more aware of other viewpoints.

I appreciate your interest in these topics and encourage you to keep learning because it is important for you and your generation to pay attention to these things. I, too, still have much to learn and I can learn from you, too.


P.S. I apologize if you think I sound condescending. I respect your being who you are and trying on the knowledge you are gaining in college. The beauty of this interchange is that you are speaking up and challenging the situation. You are being proactive and this will help you in your life. For too much of my life, I've lacked confidence in my own thinking and judgement and have kept quiet when I should have been fighting for my position. So, keep on posting!

[meshou]

Some of your comments, "I don't trust the Bushes.",I don't! Why would I? Trust is earned and lost based on what you do! At the very best, he's made several political mistakes that have severly damaged his goodwill with the American people.
Kissinger is telling Bush what to do and then implying that Bush is only listening to him, get tiresome.YOU don't know if that's all he's listeneing to either. He's not telling anyone! All we CAN know is what we hear he's been advised, and see if it seems to match up, since he's refusing to justify his decisions anymore.


You seem to think that the Presidency is a dicatatorship without any oppositon at all.Where did you get that from? I don't trust the house and the senate at the moment, either! It is just that Bush, as the commander in chief, is in charge of this war.
Don't believe everything you see on the news.You've made inccorrect assumptions about my beliefs. I've never once said I primarily blame Bush, I just said, in response to your comment about him, that I didn't trust him, not that he is all powerful and in contol of everything.
Try to apply some thinking to what you see going on around you. Follow the money. Look at who benefits from their positions on things. Politics is all about compromise.Follow the money? Hmmm...

George HW Bush founds an oil company.

Oil company goes under a merger, becomes Enron.

George W runs with former Enron CEO, gives no-bid, high contract to Enron.

Not saying the war was over oil, but you can look where the money goes and conclude many, many things.


Listen to your professor and try to learn her/his agenda. What is the professor's bias?She's a moderate with some liberal bias, she says, and voted for Bush twice.
Your point of view will change over your lifetime or maybe it won't. I'm not telling you your point of view is wrong, I'm just suggesting be more aware of other viewpoints.I think I'm pretty aware.


P.S. I apologize if you think I sound condescending. I respect your being who you are and trying on the knowledge you are gaining in college. The beauty of this interchange is that you are speaking up and challenging the situation. You are being proactive and this will help you in your life. For too much of my life, I've lacked confidence in my own thinking and judgement and have kept quiet when I should have been fighting for my position. So, keep on posting!Thank you.

[Stoic]

Today's conservatives really think they are hot shit. As evidence of this attitude, take a read of this, from this morning's Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/speech-from-the-heart-cements-a-place-in-history/2006/10/04/1159641392678.html

I think Devine has got it wrong when she lauds Reagan, Thatcher et al. for bringing down the end of communism. Communism as a practice is so inherently rotten and contrary to human nature withered trying to keep up with capitalism. Yet we have Howard, Harper, Bush, and co. trying to pose themselves implicitly as saviours and more importantly, feel that their lousy policies and shortcomings are mitigated by the fact that they lead conservative, or non-socialist governments. Ipso facto they already deem themselves pardoned, and can bring in the "giving succour to the terrorists" line when their policies are criticised. I think they need an ego check.

Now I hate communism, am not a socialist, and think the far left is quite silly. Some pundits make a career out of conveying sentiments similar to these, but make the effort of attempting to characterise people who don't warm to conservative governments (or mild urban liberals, which I classify myself as) as having the same mindset as the socialist loonies. World of difference IMO, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.


"socialist loonies", you sound like O'Reilly. Do you really believe that? On what basis?

[MasterMerk]

It's not hard to figure out that Reagan was a muppet. Sure, the guy had personality - but he was a former movie star, so he knew how to read a speech from a teleprompter and lap up sympathy from the press after that nutjob put a bullet in him. But he obviously wasn't fit for office. What else did he do besides surround himself with the thugs and bullies of the religious right and let them run wild? And let's not forget how much of a dumbass he proved to be under the heat of the Iran-Contra scandal.

I don't like this type of ass-licking attitude that conservatives seem to constantly have for their leaders as if their shit doesn't stink. To be honest, I don't like it anyone else, either, whether they be idolising FDR, Marx, Kennedy or fucking Che Guevara.

Communism as the soviets knew it was destined to fall, with or without the Republican's overly-aggressive and reckless strategies.

[htb]

We should not fund coups, and should only back revolutions (and not revolt FOR them) if the leaders of that revolution are commited to self-determination and equality, and even then support should be limited to medics and money, and the new government shouldn't have to have OWING us written into their constitution. We should do it 'cause it's right and not for political power.You would find common ground, then, with Iranian democratists, who ask foreigners to support their cause and condemn Tehran's Khomeinist leadership; and insist that they themselves overthrow the theocrats.


I don't know anyone who actually advocates these things in politics.Michael Ledeen does, generally, as does the NGO Freedom House.

[omnirook]

Today's conservatives really think they are hot shit. As evidence of this attitude, take a read of this, from this morning's Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/speech-from-the-heart-cements-a-place-in-history/2006/10/04/1159641392678.html

I think Devine has got it wrong when she lauds Reagan, Thatcher et al. for bringing down the end of communism. Communism as a practice is so inherently rotten and contrary to human nature withered trying to keep up with capitalism. Yet we have Howard, Harper, Bush, and co. trying to pose themselves implicitly as saviours and more importantly, feel that their lousy policies and shortcomings are mitigated by the fact that they lead conservative, or non-socialist governments. Ipso facto they already deem themselves pardoned, and can bring in the "giving succour to the terrorists" line when their policies are criticised. I think they need an ego check.

Now I hate communism, am not a socialist, and think the far left is quite silly. Some pundits make a career out of conveying sentiments similar to these, but make the effort of attempting to characterise people who don't warm to conservative governments (or mild urban liberals, which I classify myself as) as having the same mindset as the socialist loonies. World of difference IMO, but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

You're wrong! Now put your head down and go stand in the corner. =))

Capitalism is no more "inherent" and agrees no more closely w/human nature than communism - or any other -ism.

The human being is a pack animal that forms hierarchical societies, wherein the only necessary element is the hierarchy itself.

The method or methods of economic exchange are only ever means to help establish, support, and maintain the hierarchy: no matter the human society that one takes a look at, the hierarchy is present - there is a "pecking order," and all the members of the society spend their lives jockeying for position.

The success of capitalism has nothing to do w/its "natural" superiority over communism. Too many examples of successful communistic arrangements are available among other social animals for anyone to make a viable claim that Nature itself prefers capitalism: Nature couldn't care less! The human ruling elite prefer capitalism, and, wonder of wonders, the whole world (very nearly) is a capitalistic, corporate theme park wherein those who have can fuck those who do not have w/o mercy. "Oh, but, see, capitalism works!" Yes - it does, but it does NOT work in any way that you and most humans have been trained to believe that it works. Get over it! There is not, has never been, and never will be a "free market" wherein those who are diligent and energetic and hardworking can really get ahead.

Unless you are among the tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of people who truly benefit from the capitalist system, you will spend your life more or less running in place, every now and then lurching forward a bit, so that the carrot which is dangling before you almost touches your lips - you can smell and almost taste the fucking thing - but you'll never get it into your mouth. Yes, yes, there are people who go from nothing to something - Bill Gates is a good example - but becoming a Bill Gates is rather like winning the lottery - just calm down, take a look at the odds, and accept that they verge on the impossible.

The real odds are that you'll have happen what happened to one of my sister's co-workers: 64 years-old, 32 of them on the job, a few months from retirement, then suddenly redundant and laid off - just before he would be eligible for 2 things: one, his full pension; now he will never get that; and, two, the right to put in a complaint about being discriminated against as a senior citizen - and to make such a claim really futile, the company laid off a young man the same day for the same reason.

Coming and going - be prepared to be robbed, raped, and shit on in both directions.

Society's "game" has never changed - and it never will change. Why? Because that - The Game - is the only system that truly suits the human being - and it does not matter whether the economy is set up on a capitalist or a communist model - that's like the difference between a pc and a mac: not much! In the end, it boils down, reduces to the same thing: who's on top, who can do what to whom, and who has to take it - or else!

You can change the "clothes" that society wears an infinite number of times: in the end, society remains society, and it always operates in the same, fundamental - immutable! - way.

[Serotonin]

"socialist loonies", you sound like O'Reilly. Do you really believe that? On what basis?

I'm just trying to bridge the gap, you know. The whole walking a mile in their shoes?

I think that the right tries to brand every Democrat or Labo(u)r or Green voter as having some kind of delusion or mental incapacity. In the fact that every time someone voices their support for a particular policy advocated by these parties, some pundit will zero in on the statement, link to another statement that the person has made, more often than not take the second statement out of context and brand the person as "fringe". It's in this way that the right has been able to shift their agenda from being right to appearing "centrist", by repetition, aggressive countering and generally talking 100 times more than listening. In this way many of these pundits aren't so much true conservatives as they are out-and-out barrackers for the conservative party of their nation. I see the same strategy being applied by O'Reilly, Steyn, Coulter, Blair, Hannity, Malkin etc etc. That's not to say it doesn't work on most of their audience, it does. Just unfortunately not on me.

[Serotonin]

You're wrong! Now put your head down and go stand in the corner. =))

Capitalism is no more "inherent" and agrees no more closely w/human nature than communism - or any other -ism.

It has the advantage of at least levelling the playing field a bit more in terms of curbing human venality...... "at least pit them against each other". And I prefer PCs.

[Serotonin]

Were Howard to do that he would be the only one.

True. Still he's the only prime minister whose ever been in power while I've been of voting age, and it's him who has to woo my vote, which he hasn't done yet.



If you insist, at least cc your advice to The Age.

:D Which would make me as guilty as him and the lefties.

[Dr. Haight]

Nice work Mr. omnirook. I typically prefer less gravy on my meat, but the underlying point is very close to the target.

[omnirook]

It has the advantage of at least levelling the playing field a bit more in terms of curbing human venality...... "at least pit them against each other". And I prefer PCs.

Levelling the playing field - how so? That's nonsense. Here's your "playing field" - You (= ordinary person w/ordinary means and abilities and a powerful desire "to do good") versus - oh, what the hell, she's my favorite bugaboo - Paris Hilton. Ready, on your mark - go! Wow! Ms Hilton moved her toe one one hundredth of a millioneth of an inch, and she crossed the Finish Line ahead of you, even though you gave it your all to come from billions of "miles" (dollars) from behind her - wow! - what a competition! She really worked up a sweat! Poor thing was standing right on top the Finish Line, and she still beat you - wow! That's amazing. You lazy bum!

[omnirook]

Reagan was a hood ornament, a watch bob, a feather in the cap - I can't take this poll seriously. At least Margaret Thatcher was (is) intelligent and politically savvy. Reagan? Just look at Dubya's cabinet - most of them were in Reagan's administration - somewhere, if not in the cabinet itself. If you want to give somebody "credit" for - not much - give it to "Senior" and Cheney and Rumsfeld - and let's not forget Rove, the arch-spin devil himself ... Reagan? He was cute - and reminded everyone of his/her doddering, 1/2 senile grandpa who goes on and on and on about the good old days.

"Good old days?! When was that? I was there! Don't tell me about no good old days!" - Moms Mabley

[Serotonin]

Levelling the playing field - how so? That's nonsense. Here's your "playing field" - You (= ordinary person w/ordinary means and abilities and a powerful desire "to do good") versus - oh, what the hell, she's my favorite bugaboo - Paris Hilton. Ready, on your mark - go! Wow! Ms Hilton moved her toe one one hundredth of a millioneth of an inch, and she crossed the Finish Line ahead of you, even though you gave it your all to come from billions of "miles" (dollars) from behind her - wow! - what a competition! She really worked up a sweat! Poor thing was standing right on top the Finish Line, and she still beat you - wow! That's amazing. You lazy bum!

Heheheh....... you kind of remind me of the character of Bernard from Stoppard's Arcadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_%28play%29).

look, Omnirook, the truth is I agree with most of what you've said, but you should reread what I said... namely


bit more in terms of curbing human venality

which at least pits Paris against Lindsay Lohan and various vacuous airheads.... as opposed to Paris being the apparatchik-appointed airhead (and only her goddamnit!, any imitators will get a nice visit from the CHEKA) of the state.

Capitalism isn't fair, only fairer than communism.

[htb]

Still he's the only prime minister whose ever been in power while I've been of voting age, and it's him who has to woo my vote, which he hasn't done yet.Yes. But if Howard is ideologically consistent, however hard he is on the left, then there's an element of earnestness which should be of some value.



Which would make me as guilty as him and the lefties.See? A united Commonwealth!



Leveling the playing field - how so?Paris Hilton's trust fund prevents no one from achieving financial success.

[Serotonin]

Yes. But if Howard is ideologically consistent, however hard he is on the left, then there's an element of earnestness which should be of some value.

Interesting. I don't see ideological consistency as holding any special value. I wouldn't hold it against a politician for the fact that he was on the other side of politics in his personal history. In fact, I'd see it as a bonus, considering he'd seen both sides. If I was hypothetically American, I would happily become a GOP supporter if I saw the evidence that they really are the better party for leading the U.S.

[htb]

I don't see ideological consistency as holding any special value. I wouldn't hold it against a politician for the fact that he was on the other side of politics in his personal history. In fact, I'd see it as a bonus, considering he'd seen both sides.Sorry -- I wasn't clear. Consistency as I meant it is for the short term, so in contrast to partisanship or temporizing. And it's true, deliberated conversions can make for some very sound theses; at the very least, interesting biographies.


If I was hypothetically American, I would happily become a GOP supporter if I saw the evidence that they really are the better party for leading the U.S.I've said the same of the Democratic Party and its universalist-interventionist foreign policy of the middle of the last century.

[Serotonin]

Sorry -- I wasn't clear. Consistency as I meant it is for the short term, so in contrast to partisanship or temporizing.

Oh I see, well in that context then yes absolutely. Howard is certainly unlike your typical American conservative: pro gun-control comes to mind, hardly uses religious allusions in his speech and unlike some on his front bench isn't particularly concerned with restricting access to abortion. His stance on Iraq, industrial relations, perceived threats to social cohesion (banning single women from IVF, anti gay-marriage, anti-euthanasia) adherence to the laughable "pragmatic reconciliation" on indigenous issues and corset-tight border security put him in the conservative mould in his own Australian way though. It's a pity I differ from him in most, if not all issues there.

[omnirook]

Heheheh....... you kind of remind me of the character of Bernard from Stoppard's Arcadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_%28play%29).

look, Omnirook, the truth is I agree with most of what you've said, but you should reread what I said... namely



which at least pits Paris against Lindsay Lohan and various vacuous airheads.... as opposed to Paris being the apparatchik-appointed airhead (and only her goddamnit!, any imitators will get a nice visit from the CHEKA) of the state.

Capitalism isn't fair, only fairer than communism.

Capitalism's "fairness" lies in its quality as a diversion - "Oh, the lights, the pretty, pretty lights!"

People at the middle level of the pack are kept diverted - kept going! - by the false sense of wealth and prosperity that having - I'll not say "owning" - no, it's all on credit - having tons of - crap provides. Useless, meaningless CRAP - rooms and attics and basements and garages and nowadays rented storage rooms full of it. That stuff - it's balls and chains - not joy, not freedom, not fulfillment, not even satisfaction. It's crap - and not even as "delightful and utterly un-satisfying" as Oscar Wilde claimed his beloved cigarettes were. But people keep buying. Why? Shopping is the new religion, and the "cathedrals" of the 21st Century are the malls. People can go there and get the same uplifting, uplifted, serene feeling that Medieval people got out of the Church's stone piles - and come away w/pretty much the same "fix" to carry them through another 5 days of the grind. Just look at people at the malls, pushing about their carts full of - crap! Debt that will burden them and keep them going in to work to pay their bills - and coming back to get into more debt because they are addicted to the peace, love, and joy that only the clean, shinning, brightly lit mall can provide.

[omnirook]

Yes. But if Howard is ideologically consistent, however hard he is on the left, then there's an element of earnestness which should be of some value.


See? A united Commonwealth!


Paris Hilton's trust fund prevents no one from achieving financial success.

I've achieved financial success - know what? Big fucking deal! I'm still sitting here, loaded up w/the same questions, worries, and fears that ate at me when I was poor-ish (never really poor, no poverty, but pretty broke). Capitalists pretend that having money and things is the key to happiness - and that's BULLSHIT. You want to be happy? Find something that you love to do and do it, even if you can barely make a living doing it; keep educating yourself - autodidacts rule! :rocker: - and make meaningful connections w/PEOPLE. Fuck the rest of it - the rest is FOOL'S GOLD.

[meshou]

Capitalists pretend that having money and things is the key to happiness - and that's BULLSHIT.List of things Meshou wants:

College
Children
Lung transplant for boyfriend
Dowry (we agreed we'd get engaged when I could buy my weight in silver without going broke-- it'd require financial stability, drive, and competence; we'll make a small statue of it to sit in the hearth instead of exchanging expensive rings)

Obstacles:
Money
Money (we'd need fertility and genetic counciling)
Money
Money

Money doesn't make you happy, but it HELPS. God, it helps.

[omnirook]

List of things Meshou wants:

College
Children
Lung transplant for boyfriend
Dowry (we agreed we'd get engaged when I could buy my weight in silver without going broke-- it'd require financial stability, drive, and competence; we'll make a small statue of it to sit in the hearth instead of exchanging expensive rings)

Obstacles:
Money
Money (we'd need fertility and genetic counciling)
Money
Money

Money doesn't make you happy, but it HELPS. God, it helps.

It does - to an extent. Yes, it's very nice to be able to solve most problems by reaching into your pocket and coming out w/the money to pay for making the problems go away. Money, like modern medicine, is great in an emergency - the best that medicine can do is to be found in the emergency room. It's the long-term, chronic "illnesses" that neither medicine nor money can cure.

College is a waste of time. Sorry, but it is - you've bought the big bomb of the education racket. Bomb as in fart - a college "education" is a big bag of fart; it's sole value lies in the degree - the "piece of paper." Unless your goal is to work in the law, medicine, the sciences, or teaching - you can do WITHOUT college; you've just got to work harder - be more creative and a good deal more aggressive. For the law, for medicine, for the sciences, for teaching - college, well, it's what's called "hazing." In all of those fields, you will learn all of what is worth knowing [I]on the job[I]. People w/o college educations come to America all the time and prosper. Why? Because they are not walking about, convinced that they need a stamped piece of parchment to do so. "Oh, but I want to work in an office!" Why not just go to the funeral home and buy yourself a casket and climb in? Office workers are dead; they just haven't fallen down yet.

If your love needs a lung transplant, I am very sorry to read about that, and I wish the pair of you all the luck and all the best.

[sbw]

College is a waste of time. Sorry, but it is....Unless your goal is to work in the law, medicine, the sciences, or teaching

:wub: (I've been telling everybody this for quite a while)

I thought of you yesterday when I was watching The Depahhhhted in the theater--jack had a little monologue at the beginning, something about the only universal rule being that you gotta go and take it because nobody is gonna give it to you.

Scott

[htb]

Capitalists pretend that having money and things is the key to happinessYou've conflated capitalism, which reserves for the individual the license to invest and risk for dividends and profit, with avarice; which (fraudulently) presents wealth as a means to contentment. No wonder you're unhappy!


[Howard has put himself] in the conservative mould in his own Australian way though. It's a pity I differ from him in most, if not all issues there.If he or any other statesman advocates a position most important to you, however, you may find yourself taking differences in stride.

The presidential prospects of Rudy Giuliani -- leftward on most social issues and with nothing like a quotidian personal history -- will be a comprehensive test of the Republican Party's breadth, something like what you seem to be tentatively applying to Howard. Giuliani is not reflective of the base and shows no general electoral guarantees, yet his resonance on a few matters, particularly foreign policy, makes him enormously popular.

[meshou]

College is a waste of time. Sorry, but it is - you've bought the big bomb of the education racket. Bomb as in fart - a college "education" is a big bag of fart; it's sole value lies in the degree - the "piece of paper." Unless your goal is to work in the law, medicine, the sciences, or teaching - you can do WITHOUT college; you've just got to work harder - be more creative and a good deal more aggressive.I want to be a Librarian (which REQUIRES a masters) and I want to have kids before I'm thirty, then eventually go back for a doctorate in psychology. Dying boyfriend, yadda yadda, time and lack of education is not a luxury I have. I want to be making very solid money within five years.

I am currently working at a non-college job that would eventually pay more money than most make, but man doesn't live on bread alone.


For the law, for medicine, for the sciences, for teaching - college, well, it's what's called "hazing." Nonsense. I've interned at a libarary. I absolutely need to get a degree or equivalent to have as much expertise as I'd need to, say, build a comprehensive catalogue. Some expertise is just more efficiently gained at college. Doctors are irresponsible enough WITH six years of higher education before they practice on people, we don't need them with less!


In all of those fields, you will learn all of what is worth knowing [I]on the job[I].There is still very often a (sometimes very, very vast)pool of expected common knowledge. A new doctor shouldn't have to ask what a gram negative bacteria is in the middle of treating a paitent.
People w/o college educations come to America all the time and prosper. Why? Because they are not walking about, convinced that they need a stamped piece of parchment to do so.Huh? We usually don't legally let anyone in without one! Really, we're bitches about legal immigration right now.
"Oh, but I want to work in an office!" Why not just go to the funeral home and buy yourself a casket and climb in? Office workers are dead; they just haven't fallen down yet.What? There is plenty of rewarding office work. Why are you so concerned with telling me what ought to make me happy?

Work is the stupid shit you do so you can afford the real world. If you enjoy it, that's a bonus. Honestly, your casket remark applies equally to "Wasting ten years of my life getting somewhere I don't want to be when I could have been someplace I do want to be in a year and a half if I just get a peice of paper."

I want college. You don't. You can tell me what I should want. You'll be wrong, though. :)

[omnirook]

You've conflated capitalism, which reserves for the individual the license to invest and risk for dividends and profit, with avarice; which (fraudulently) presents wealth as a means to contentment. No wonder you're unhappy!

If he or any other statesman advocates a position most important to you, however, you may find yourself taking differences in stride.

The presidential prospects of Rudy Giuliani -- leftward on most social issues and with nothing like a quotidian personal history -- will be a comprehensive test of the Republican Party's breadth, something like what you seem to be tentatively applying to Howard. Giuliani is not reflective of the base and shows no general electoral guarantees, yet his resonance on a few matters, particularly foreign policy, makes him enormously popular.

I'm not unhappy - and I'm not happy. That's the true human condition - and I am quite human. Happiness and sadness come and go; they alternate, unless one is depressed - and depression is perhaps the worst of all human afflictions. And, yes, I mean that seriously. Being unable to experience the world in real time - and that is what depression is! - is being dead while still breathing. A person who is riddled w/cancer, in physical agony, but who is not depressed, who can, therefore, experience his torment in real time is better off than a person who is deeply depressed: the value of life lies not in quantity but quality. Depression is an inability to appreciate quality.

Rudy Giuliani is an average-height pile of shit - a miserable, mean-spirited, nasty, cold-hearted, viscous, pedantic, narrow-minded, shallow-minded baboon of a man who did more damage to New York than 50 9/11's could ever do. I would not allow Rudy to watch a room full of freshly rounded-up sewer rats, let alone vote for him for any office.

[omnirook]

I want to be a Librarian (which REQUIRES a masters) and I want to have kids before I'm thirty, then eventually go back for a doctorate in psychology. Dying boyfriend, yadda yadda, time and lack of education is not a luxury I have. I want to be making very solid money within five years.

I am currently working at a non-college job that would eventually pay more money than most make, but man doesn't live on bread alone.

Nonsense. I've interned at a libarary. I absolutely need to get a degree or equivalent to have as much expertise as I'd need to, say, build a comprehensive catalogue. Some expertise is just more efficiently gained at college. Doctors are irresponsible enough WITH six years of higher education before they practice on people, we don't need them with less!

There is still very often a (sometimes very, very vast)pool of expected common knowledge. A new doctor shouldn't have to ask what a gram negative bacteria is in the middle of treating a paitent. Huh? We usually don't legally let anyone in without one! Really, we're bitches about legal immigration right now.What? There is plenty of rewarding office work. Why are you so concerned with telling me what ought to make me happy?

Work is the stupid shit you do so you can afford the real world. If you enjoy it, that's a bonus. Honestly, your casket remark applies equally to "Wasting ten years of my life getting somewhere I don't want to be when I could have been someplace I do want to be in a year and a half if I just get a peice of paper."

I want college. You don't. You can tell me what I should want. You'll be wrong, though. :)
Sorry, but I've got to go in a few minutes, so I'll just say one thing - you can lump librian w/teaching - I do not see a need to separate the 2. Yes, to be a librarian, you do need a degree - and it would be one of the few degrees that are handed out that actually means something, so good luck w/getting what you want!

[omnirook]

:wub: (I've been telling everybody this for quite a while)

I thought of you yesterday when I was watching The Depahhhhted in the theater--jack had a little monologue at the beginning, something about the only universal rule being that you gotta go and take it because nobody is gonna give it to you.

Scott

:devil:

You've got to take - and hold onto it. The hard part is holding on.