Comments takes some getting used to (who would have thought I'd miss haloscan! Well, maybe not really . . . ), but welcome. Thanks again for all your work.

No kings,

Robert

In the wake of much of his commentary, I continue to puzzle over why Reynolds enjoys employment at The University of Tennessee College of Law.

Timothy Leary's career as a lecturer at Harvard suffered (though he found other opportunities for his advocacy, certainly) because he supported psycho-chemical experimentation and shared hallucinogenic drugs with students.

But Reynolds is allowed to get away with calls for assassination?

If we're going to become the Roman Empire, can we at least bring back the toga and orgies and, as Eddie Izzard says, "I'm a centurion, toothbrush on the head"?

No kings,

Robert

bobr909,

It's easy to lay all the ills of the administration and the monarchy supporters at the feet of the South, I suppose. I was born and raised in Texas, and have many family members who are true believers in Bush and the louder mouths of the modern authoritarian movement.

Still, it's not all the South's fault, and I say that as someone who has observed southern culture for a long time and frequently found issues with its many mindsets (and they are varied).

If the election numbers are to be believed (and that's a different discussion), then roughly 51% of the nation supported Bush in the last presidential election. They can't all have been in the stretch of the nation from the Carolinas to Texas (you mention Arizona, and having spent some time there, Arizona strikes me as quite distinct from Texas in many ways - perhaps William Timberman can elucidate better than I, if he posts here now).

At any rate, the South has problems, certainly, but so does the rest of the nation, and while I get upset with some things I see as having origin in the South, I would caution against painting with a similar broad brush that leads many monarchists in the country today to call for retributive action against all residents of the Middle East, or all adherents to certain religions, imagining that one label somehow encapsulates the totality of the human content to which it is ascribed.

No kings,

Robert

bobr900,

I incorrectly addressed you in my post as bobr909, instead of the handle you noted as bobr900, and I apologize.

To Yellow Dog, well said, well said.

I clearly need another cup of coffee.

No kings,

Robert

DT wrote: " Loving it as it is, not as it could be."

That's an interesting definition of patriotism. I haven't heard that definition before. Previous definitions of patriotism that I have heard were simply "love of country," without qualifiers.

Could you talk more about the concept of loving a country as it is, not as it could be?

For example, there is an aspect of this country that I love as it is, and that is its magnificent geographic diversity. In the state in which I was born, there are oceanic coasts, mountain ranges, vast prairie, large desert tracts, extensive river systems, lush forests (though, sadly, no rain forests as the definition is generally accepted), urban centers, rural areas, remote canyonlands, hill country, and so forth. And that's just in one state! These are things I love about this country as it is.

But there is also an aspect of this country that I love as it could be, and that's a nation that reaffirms its belief in the rule of law, not the rule of men, as a founding and deep-seated principle of governance.

According to the definition of patriotism you posted, I am not a patriot, and by extension, do not love my country, since from what I understand you to mean, patriotism is only love of a nation's actuality at present instant, not a love of a nation's potential. Can you comment further?

No kings,

Robert

douglas roth wrote: " accuse conservatives and Bush of "illegal acts", although no single incident can be named"

Glenn wrote a book called How Would a Patriot Act? In the book, Glenn outlines several specific illegal acts, including illegal wire-tapping without a FISA warrant (to name one).

I'm not certain where the assertion that "no single incident can be named" comes from. Can you elaborate? Glenn's book, as just one example, cites specific incidents.

No kings,

Robert

DT wrote: " If you think Neocons are our biggest threat, what part of MUSLIMS don't you understand??"

What part of CHINA don't you understand??

No kings,

Robert

In the same post where DT wrote: " If you think Neocons are our biggest threat, what part of MUSLIMS don't you understand??"

Four sentences later, DT wrote: " Why is everyone so afraid?"

A good question.

No kings,

Robert