The fundamental underlying mind-set of conservatives today is fear. In the 70's, there was nothing to fear but the Soviet Union; all we had to do was be stronger than the Russians and we were okay. Today's challenges are much more complex, founded in economics rather than who's-the-toughest-guy-on-the-block. Thus, the fear is harder to confront and like someone in a dark cave hearing bats all around, the conservative neocons are lashing out in every direction in terror. Little brown and yellow people are gnawing away at our God-given right to supremacy and that scares the shit out of them. Sorry, folks, we're only as strong as our institutions and our willingness to work hard; we can beat up other people only so long before the reality -- that we cannot continue to be the world's biggest consumer, living in luxury and security beyond the dreams of most of the rest of the people on this planet unless we earn that luxury through hard work -- starts to crumble. They do not accept this reality and will hasten our decline in their desire to fend it off by any means they can muster.

How revealing, that Fox considers a foul mouth and nasty temperament to be the equivalent of "political expertise."

Tell you what. YOU piss off. In a country that elected George W. Bush TWICE, you damn bet I'm gonna worry about Marsden, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of the idiots who STILL think he's a good president.

"I'd rather be blown up than live in the nightmare the PNACers are dreaming about." -- Prines

Yes. Exactly. It's not how long we live -- which won't be long in any case -- it's how we live.

How is it that a nation can be made so fearful of something that a) isn't likely to happen, i.e. they'll be blown up by a terrorist and b) is going to happen anyway, eventually, i.e. they'll join their ancestors in the grave?

I'm put in mind of the guy who drives off a bridge because he's swatting at a bee that got into his car. Would the sting really have been that bad, even if the bee were actually interested in stinging him?

Sigh...

That was your quote.

Is that the ugly, stupid person has the same rights the smart, handsome one has. No one said anything about opportunities.

I'm not sure why, but I will try to answer your deep and meaningful question. We have rights, and we have laws. Laws attempt to provide benefits and protections to society without impinging upon the freedoms of our citizen more than absolutely necessary. At least, that's the idea. Things which are deemed NOT to be in society's best interests are discouraged through laws. Of course you can kill yourself, but you're breaking a law because people don't see it as an acceptable way to solve your problems. You can screw your sister even if she doesn't mind, but it's against the law because people just never have gone for that kind of shit. Some things are just not considered an inalienable right. Let's face it, people invented god, so of course they also invented everything he conferred on us.

A law could, and perhaps should, be passed that allows terminally ill people a way out -- with lots of safeguards and protections against misuse. That could happen. Doesn't make it a right.

The rights we have are of our own making. They're the Golden Rule in one form or another. God was invented in order to give them weight and force. Oh, yes, and also in order to give a class of people the 'right' not to have calluses on their holy hands.

Great -- if infuriating -- article.

I sure would like to know how and where the money is being spent. If they're going to borrow from training, procurement, etc...where does that money go? Halliburton?