[snip of tolerance bit]

You can quote Jefferson all day. But those quotes aren't in our Declaration of Independence.

DT,

Sure. And, as has already been noted to you in this thread, the Declaration of Independence is not a part of the law of the United States of America.

It's common practice, when discussing what ideas and beliefs may have been held by an author, to include a survey of a representative variety of that author's writings. It is particularly germane to such a discussion to include material written by the author precisely for the purpose of clarifying the ideas and beliefs being discussed.

Kudos for this one:

I'm not surprised that the GOP 'don't believe' in evolution. After all, they've had only limited participation in it.

Or the graphic novel, if you prefer, though I must admit I've not read it.

Does anyone recall the scene where the cops shot a child engaged in a bit of graffiti with a can of spray paint while wearing the V costume? Finally, the "just go along and get along" crowd has their ire raised enough to fight back against the overused, overpowerful, and overeager authority.

Thank the cycle of life for its gift to all of us of the young. Whether due to naivete or arrogance that has not yet been beaten into submission, they still have the irrational bravery to at least take potshots at the establishment from time to time. Sometimes they even succeed in making us old farts realize that it only *has* to be this way if we let it.

Was anyone else disturbed by Turner's (R, OH) assertion that the Blackwater contractors are "on our side?" Are they? Always and without fail? What assurance does the US government or anyone else have that this is the case? Would they still be "on our side" if the State Department stopped paying them? Whose side are they on in situations when other governments pay them?

I just posted about that assertion in the comments thread on the ties to Bush article. Aren't these guys essentially on the side of whoever happens to be paying them? And couldn't someone else be paying them at any given point in time?

And now Westmoreland (R-GA) is saying that all of the Democrats are simply opposed to companies who make profit. From that, I infer that he sees this as the only reason Waxman is holding the hearings -- to punish Blackwater for making a profit. He sees no responsibility, as far as I can tell, to those of us who are paying HIS salary to ensure that our tax dollars are being spent appropriately and/or wisely.

Well, for those to whom profit is the only measure of worth and value in the world, I suppose that makes sense. How can someone with that worldview possibly appreciate the idea of bringing motives other than profit to the party?

Interesting to see all these comments on the presidential races in one place. Given the diversity of America, it seems to me that getting elected to national office can't help but force candidates to mince their words. The bad part for us is that we can rarely be certain when they're telling us what we want to hear, and when they're telling us what they actually believe. That seems to me to be the real reason why we spend so much time studying their so-called character.

Doing so is a bit like reading tea leaves, though, and if you make a mistake -- GWB being as good an example as any -- the price can be very high.

I'd prefer a full and frank discussion of the issues, and candidates prepared to lose if the people reject their positions. Given the amount of ambition it takes to run for President, though, could we ever realistically expect that to happen? Even if the electoral process itself weren't as corrupt as it is, such expectations would seem somehow naive, even selfish.

I read Obama's first book after he caught my ear with his convention speech, and then the second one after it came out. He's an impressive speaker for sure; that's what first got my attention. But what has kept my attention is that I feel like he, more than others, actually "walks his talk." Maybe I'm too swayed by his rhetoric -- after all the books are part of that too, right? -- but he strikes me as someone who really wants a better world and has long been trying to do his part to make it one.

Of course one president who had that "I want to make the world a better place" quality is the one nabbledygook thinks should be shot, so there you go. Perhaps I am one of the "naive, even selfish" in holding onto my idealism at such a late date.

Oh, and P.S. to William: I think I'll get in line, too, though it seems like an awfully LONG line today. The "drilling holes in the bottom" metaphor alone is worth a proposal. But I don't think I'm the marrying kind any more, so perhaps we could just date? ;-)

I may not be the marrying kind, having "been there, done that, lost the t-shirt" etc., but it still cheers my heart to see others make that tremendous expression of hope and joy in all that is the best in humanity.

Lest we get too unpolitically mushy here, perhaps Obama's appeal is primarily emotional to me these days in a similar vein. Every time I've felt so jaded that I couldn't imagine this administration could possibly suck any more hope out of my political soul, they've managed to suck even harder (pun intended). I don't want to be forcefed pablum about how electing the right person can turn it around over night, but Obama's rhetoric of hope is undeniably appealing.

Congratulations again, Arne. I send a virtual toast your way.