MM: 

Boumediene has nothing to do with the actual trial of a suspect.

Here's the way it works:

if you and I are walking down the street tomorrow morning, and a policeman pulls up, throws us in the car, and takes us to the local jail and throws us inside, we are now in a state of pre-trial detention.

The writ of habeaus corpus means that the government has to give us a hearing in court before a real judge really really soon after we are thrown in jail. At the hearing (call it a pre-trial custody hearing), the government must show the judge (and us!) enough evidence that tends to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that

a. we committed certain acts that constitute a crime

b. we cannot be allowed to await our trial from the comfort of our own homes (remember, the trial may happen in 6 months) because we are either a danger to society or it is likely we won't show up for trial 6 months later.

If the government cannot prove this by a preponderance of the evidence, the judge will order us released. There can still be a trial 6 months later (that's a different issue). It just means that between now and then, you and I get to keep walking down the street instead of rotting in a holding cell.

If you name is Hamdi, President Bush's original position was: we can lock you up, never have to show anyone (including you!) what evidence forms the basis for the belief that you committed a crime, never have to even allege what crime was committed, and never have to show or even provide a basis for believing that you are a risk to society or likely to not show up for trial. And you don't know if this limbo will last 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years!

This is just plain scary.At least, the English people thought it was scary when they created the first habeas laws.

The President and Congress was forced to modify this scary scenario by creating the MCA law which means that a cherry-picked military judge in Guantanamo gets to do this review.

The Supremes said - "bullshit!" This review will be done before a real federal judge using real evidence and real due process.

We aren't even talking about the trial which is way down the road. This is simply an issue of the government justifying why the guy is locked up pending his trial.

As for the actual trial, they will be tried by judges, no juries. Most war crimes trials (Nuremberg, the Tokyo trials, the International Criminal Court trials of Milosevic and Taylor, etc.) are judge only trials.

This makes sense - jury selection in a war crimes trial would be an enormously contentious and ultimately dispositive process.

Yes sir, we know in our bones that kuntu dissipates in delayed ways too. NW loses kuntu by bringing Rev. Wright on their stage, so they pull back. Wright is feeling the waters recede. There is nothing more he can do to add to his kuntu, but he is now going to deal with receding tides forever.

By the way, Martha Stewart is having kuntu drain now. You see where she was denied entry to England due to her conviction? Face, kuntu, mojo, - that must have been a dejected ride home.

Rationally, we know that Martha is not a risk of violating British laws. (Unless there is a sweet insider trading deal that comes up over cocktails at Harrah's on a Friday night, right?) But there must be 1,000 different little kuntu deflators that come in the wake of getting turned away from England's green and pleasant shores.

 

 

Thank you for the rundown, Schalk. I appreciate that. That was truly a regressive position the Bush folks had originally. It's hard to imagine that they would be quite that bad. I mean, not even some kangaroo court.

But would these be "war crimes" that these detainess would be tried for, or would the trial be over whether they were still likely to be combatants? Also, does the Supreme Court decision now set the burden of proof for these guys at the same level it would be for a U.S. citizen accused of any other crime, or is that yet to be determined? If the Bush administration had done something more reasonable in the beginning they might have avoided this, but they probably don't know how scary they are to everyone else. Still, I wonder if they kept some bad guys locked up that a Green White House would not have.

 

Martha is now a pariah. Look what they said about her:

A spokesman says, "We continue to oppose the entry to the UK of individuals where we believe their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good or where they have been found guilty of serious criminal offences abroad."

 

How high up the chain of command would that have gone? I would not think too high. I would think that would have been a beaucratic thing. After all, she is an important business woman. Or, maybe it was a form of state-sponsored corporate espionage--something to think about.  :) She was there perhaps to expand her business, perhaps crowding some UK designer.

 

I've been meaning to ask you: What do you think about this:

 

 

 

 

Now this may just be me, and I don't mean it too seriously, but my gut reaction to this was . . . 1984. I really don't like it. It just gives me the creeps. It really makes it seem like a cult. Some wierd kuntu going on there, and I don't like it.  :) That screams cult to me. I find that troubling kuntu.

 

monkmonk

 

 

The basic atttitude of the Bush Administration toward enemy combatants is this: nobody gets to dive a civilian airplane into the WTC in NYC killing 3,000 innocent civilians, and also dive a civilian airplane into the Pentagon building. They just don't get to do it! And the only appropriate response if fuck them, fuck their mothers, fuck every piece of shit who even thought to help them or give them the slightest kind word, and fuck the rules. That is what we are living under for the last 7 years.

The only appropriate response is to treat them like the pieces of shit they truly are. And if anyone disagrees with that, they can go fuck themselves too! Get out of the way, because we are going straight up their assholes with high concentrate bleach and we will not come out until the joint is spic and span.

Yeah, I'll bet there are levels upon levels of interesting little dialogues that went into the Martha Stewart turn back. You may be right on - it was a ruse to turn away competition. So we retaliate by busting Boy George. Stewart doesn't get into the UK (Stuart?) and George doesn't get into the US (GWB?) There is real sick humor in the high levels of the right. I have mentioned that one of the first things will give a federal judge an edge up for a nomination is a really weird name, something that is just goofy. This is how the amber boys relieve stress, with harsh little jokes.

That seal - weird. I mentioned awhile back that we are going to see the amber boys on the right ramping up their racist attacks in veiled ways that cannot exactly be pinned on them. So, on this seal we have "Vero Possumus" which means "Long Live the Possums" which is code for "are you seriously considering installing a coon in the White House?" When challenged, the amber boys will say "no, no, a possum is someone who runs from danger. I wasn't think of coons."

We need to keep a log of these instances. I predict that between now and November we are going to see a veritable clinic in how to evoke racial sub-ethnic fears. There are lots and lots of people in this country who appear to be decent, law-abiding, well-mannered tax payers.

Or to put it another way: the Bush Administration is saying to the vast, unidentifiable, coalition of terrorists, supporters, and culpably-passive-in-the-face-of-grounds-to-believe-something-is-going-on:

you want to be treated in accordance with rules?

1. Identify yourselves.

2. Wear uniforms.

3. Adhere to basic international customs of war.

4. Show respect for innocent lives.

5. Make the Great Leap Forward from the 15th Century to the 21st Century.

Until you do that, we will not feel compelled to give you the deluxe package of human rights and due process and modern protections of the law. You will be treated like dogs until you start acting like civilized people started acting say around 1800.

That is the basic theme of what Bush has been operating under. What is the Integral response to this stance?

I think the integral response to this stance is that is how a amber/orange leader deals with a red meme threat.

If you can't have a 2nd tier leader responding to a red meme threat, better to have a amber leader as opposed to a green.  Green seems to be out of touch with the red quite often and doesn't understand it fully.  Amber, being closer in altitude, understands it better.

As for some far earlier comments on Iraq by other posters ( I have not read this entire thread admittedly). I would argue the failure in Iraq was a military one, not a meme related one.  We didn't put enough troops on the ground to secure the country( Rumsfelds blunder).  Disbanding the Iraq Army the way we did created the resistance movement. Not securing the borders let in Al Qaeda.  If we had been smarter about this, we would see an entire different picture today.

Now that security is improving( give McCain and some of the republicans credit for the surge) we will see if the Iraqis are capable of a democracy.  The did vote in high numbers despite the lack of security.

I don't believe two democracies have ever fought a war with each other.  Based on that alone, spreading democracy in a ever increasing Global world is a smart thing to do.  Our economies are now dependent on Global trade, yet we do not have real global security. International law, while a good step, is certainly not perfect. International law also protects the people commiting genocide in Darfur/Rwanda by not letting other countries intervene.

Kaspan:

Your words are straight, true, and welcome.

Amber understands red/amber and is not deluded about what it is capable of. Red/amber terrorists may have green-emergents among them, but the other 99 are not even amber emergents.

Speak green and the best you can hope for is that your message will be cross-interpreted as benevolent red/amber. And you better keep this going, because the minute your message is interpreted as malevolent red/amber you will get a red/amber airliner smashing into a skyscraper. And we thought our message was green!!!

They see exactly what they are developmentally capable of seeing and nothing more!

More boots on the ground, a taste of democracy in local elections, and the corner has been turned. Who said it would be easy?

International law was developed by benevolent and advanced countries that .... attained their standing to speak and legislate through means equivalent to the meme governing those they brought light to. International law did not create international law!!! Higher development plus victory brought international law.

Higher development minus victory brings grievances and axes to grind.  

The trouble with Amber is it just doesn't discriminate well. It always tends to jail some good with the bad, kind of like those commercial fisherman that fish with huge nets and pick up dolphin as well as tuna, everything. We need to throw the dolphin back in, but keep the tuna.

Do you think the Bush administration's tactics have prevented another attack since 9/11? I think it's possible. I think anyone would be suprised if on 9/12 you told them 7 years would pass without another terrorist attack. Might things be different with a Green president, even Gore? Might terrorists be trying to get to the U.S. rather than Iraq?

 

 

 

This seal comes from the Obama campaign, and "Vero Possumus" roughly translates as "Yes, we can." They think it's going to help Obama get elected, but some people feel triggered by it.

 

 

I think it triggers people because it personalizes the Presidential Seal. It's like saying, "We're not going to call it the White House anymore--we're going to call it the Obama House. Not Air Force One--Obama Air! Camp David? Not anymore--it's Camp Michelle from now on. The Oval Office--it's now going to be called Barack's Office."

I think it messes with imagery that people feel is important, that may actually symbolize something, an important Orange symbol. The Presidential Seal means that the office of the presidency is bigger than any one person. The Obama Seal personalizes it--it's no longer the presidency, it's the Obamacy. The Presidential Seal means the president will leave after 8 years at the most, but if it's the Obama Seal he won't have to leave if he doesn't want to. I'm just wondering if the whole thing affects people on pre-rational levels. It messes with an important symbol, a symbol that actually means something. Presidents like to associate themselves with symbols of America, so they stand in front of a bunch of flags--this is like putting a big "O" for each state instead of stars.

Either they are being very clever with this, as the Nazis were clever with symbols, or they are making a rookie mistake.

Of course the Magenta in there is with the eagle, right? Mess with us and we'll claw your eyes out.

But how about this: they replace the shield, which has an American flag on it, with an "O" for Obama. What does that say? And is the "O" not more feminine than the shield?

 

mm

MM:

Greetings.

You spoke blue, I speak red:

The trouble with Amber is it just doesn't discriminate well. It always tends to jail some good with the bad, kind of like those commercial fisherman that fish with huge nets and pick up dolphin as well as tuna, everything. We need to throw the dolphin back in, but keep the tuna.

Yes, that is right. Amber is very undifferentiated. It has one radar screen - "fer us and agin us." Once those two sides have been sorted out, cognition basically shuts down.

Hard-core amber is literally very stupid. I don't mean that in the sense of unworthy of respect. It is just thick and dumb and not only does it kill a lot of dolphins while catching tuna, but it laughs about it.

Do you think there is any articulable way that one can plant an orange seed in an amber mind?

I was out this AM with my boy and we passed a yard where one guy was yelling to his neighbor "the Supreme Court made guns legal." For many amber men, patriotism and essential worth are tied to having a gun. So, there is cheering in the streets today with the amber boys.

Do you think the Bush administration's tactics have prevented another attack since 9/11? I think it's possible. I think anyone would be suprised if on 9/12 you told them 7 years would pass without another terrorist attack. Might things be different with a Green president, even Gore? Might terrorists be trying to get to the U.S. rather than Iraq?

I know a lot of people in military and government who feel that the world makes perfect sense now in a way it hasn't made sense since say 1955. We have a clear enemy, our government is primarily concerned with defending us, and the degree to which you demonstrate loyalty to homeland security is the degree to which you feel like you are a patriot.

Re: the Seal. This is a bad or like you said, "a rookie mistake." This is the essential problem with Obama. The sheer chutzpah is unmistakeable.

"Audacity ... of Hope." That means hoping what others do not dare to hope for. 4 years from the State legislature and you are President? You create your own Seal before you are even elected? Imagine what we will see after the election. Tear down the White House and build a castle? The stability of the nation comes from genuflecting to traditions.

There is a lot of enthusiasm for the sake of enthusiasm. I to this day have still not seen or heard anything of substance that makes Obama the right choice. Can this be sustained?

Obama's chutzpah is growing. This is not going to be good for his campaign.

It is now being announced that he intends to travel to Europe and the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan this summer.

His ostensible purpose is to meet with leaders and "assess" the situations.

It is obvious that his purpose is to tap into the very large base of public support abroad for his campaign. There will be significant displays of public enthusiasm for him in Europe especially. And there will be an attempt to demonstrate that his presence can soothe some of the extremist wounds in the Middle East.

This is going to back fire so badly for him.

First of all, it is quite arrogant for a junior senator to travel abroad and seek to arouse the public support of a ... foreign people.

This will be perceived as going across the street and getting your neighbor and his wife to support a proposal that you want to sell to your wife. An amber notion to be sure.

He overestimates the degree to which Americans are ashamed of their purported public image abroad. He thinks that when we see the foreigners ready to love us again after we elect him, we will elect him.

He is going to get mauled for this. Who are the idiots that are working for him? This is going to give the amber right no end of weapons in their campaign.

The basic mood in America right now is - the economic justices are skewed, there is something not quite right. At the same time, it is unfortunate that we are not loved abroad. But, the same people who did not love us before are the people who have never been willing to do the hard work to accomplish what was necessary before. Same old same old.

This is going to be a massively interesting stretch from July to November. I think the gloves will be coming off and the true mood of the land will be revealed as our intolerance of "audacity" becomes more clear.

American needs only one kind of audacity. That is humble but firm recognition of immorality and injustice - all done without concern for a cult of personality.

I am still waiting by the way - has anyone come up with one single thing that Obama intends to do that absolutely needs to be done and that he has tried before and failed to accomplish as a Senator?

 

If that's what he's planning on doing, then I agree that's stupid, but it's far from obvious that that's the goal. Going to Europe to demonstrate international support might be heaven on earth for liberals, but he enjoys massive popularity with them already. So there's almost no advantage to doing that, but a huge downside, as you point out. He's still fighting the "unamerican" label, so if anything, the plan is the exact opposite of what you describe: he wants to burnish is foreign policy credentials and appear presidential by meeting with foreign heads of state. But the domestic audience will be the Sean Hannity-"America is #1" crowd, so expect wall-to-wall American flags and lapel pin every time a camera is turned on.

Schalk in Red; mm in Navy. Hi Mr. Teacup.

 

Do you think there is any articulable way that one can plant an orange seed in an amber mind?

This is a very interesting question. Some will answer, "There is nothing you can do. It will take 5 years to move them into Orange, or more. So don't do anything." But I'm not sure the correct, evolutionary response is always to do absolutely nothing in terms of moving them into Orange. Often nothing will be the correct response because they will be just so far from Orange the only thing you can do is to help them be good Amber, which might be just what they need. They might still be fighting Red, so Orange is really a long way off.

The other thing is that rationality can make them very frustrated, which leads to anger and more confusion. It's like what you said earlier about higher structures worrying or frightening people. If you're speaking in some gibberish they don't understand but think is higher it could provoke all sorts of emotional responses. Or they could just think you're Red, perhaps. (Green is the same way, only they will think you're Amber/Orange.)

But when they do move into Orange, other people will play a role. Not just teachers in school. So if everyone decided, "There is nothing we can do to move people into higher stages. The correct response is to love them as they are" (the feminine and often Green response) then they really wouldn't move on. They need someone to talk Orange with, to practice some rationality with, some logic. But I suppose one would get the idea if they were close to rationality because they would be trying to do that; they would be trying to reason. Sometimes they will just need to be persuaded with Amber "reasoning" or Orange coercion.

Also, I think Intelligent Design might be an important stepping stone for Amber into Orange. Amber environmentalism seems to be another important emergence. It's interesting to see the contents of a structure evolve like this.

There is a lot of enthusiasm for the sake of enthusiasm. I to this day have still not seen or heard anything of substance that makes Obama the right choice. Can this be sustained?

This is quite true. He may turn out to be a great president, but there has been an awful lot of excitement generated because of his great speaches and because he is African American. This is not to say that he doesn't have presidential-level talent and ability; I think he does. But he might have waited until he had at least served a term in the Senate and demonstrated that he is actually an agent of change. He really does not have a record of creating change or transformation. He might turn out to be a great, transformative president, but he has never done it, including in the campaign. Green loves him, and that will carry him a long way. We'll see if he can reassure Orange and Amber Democrats and independents.

He's polling pretty well right now, but it's still very early. I think the vice presidential picks will be telling. He's not likely to pick Hillary, I believe: the two are working out details through a lawyer involving her role in the campaign, at the convention etc.--unless that is a front for vice-presidential negotiations. They would definitely have a lot of legal wrangling first if Hillary became the vp choice. Gore had a contract with Bill when he was vice president. I think it would be a great sign if he picked her: he would move into integral much more quickly with her and Bill around.

It is now being announced that he intends to travel to Europe and the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan this summer. . . . This is going to back fire so badly for him.

I think it very well might backfire. Green of course sees eye to eye with Green Europe, so Obama could go to Europe and say, "America has to change!" and they would cheer. If Obama were smart he would cuddle up with Sarkozy and Merkel--both of whom supported the Iraq war--and talk tough, even talk about blowing things up like Hillary. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some very premeditated tough talk. But I agree with you and Mr. Teacup: if he appears to be siding with European liberalism it is not going to help him. It could look like a betrayal. The McCain campaign will be watching for any way to exploit it like this.

 

mm

 

 

MM:

As always, your insights are valuable and straight on the mark.

I think McCain is going to pick Joe Lieberman. Do not, and I repeat, do not underestimate the power of the pro-Israel gesture. Do you agree?

This war in Iraq is about making the Middle East safe for Christians and Israel and business and development. And strategic recon bases to keep an eye on Russia and China.

All of those make America stronger, and Lieberman will be a poster child for our allegiances.

And the media, all of the Jewish-American media? You think they have slathered over Obama? They will drop him like a red-headed step-child down a well if Lieberman is nominated!

If there is any sympathy factor for African-Americans, it pales in comparison to the ways the Jewish peoples have been shivved repeatedly throughout history. Obama's knees will be cut off with Lieberman beside McCain.

Please don't give me any shit anyone - I am simply talking like the people who are at this very moment trying to win this doggone election.

Lieberman is a classy guy, very smart, one of the best politicians we have, very effective, and I think probably a Teal thinker.

Also, Lieberman's Jewish heritage suggests to voters economic savvy. Please don't anyone give me any shit about this, OK? The fact of the matter is that for the American voter, Jewish-Americans are perceived as being smart economists.

This Romney business? The guy is an absolute kuntu stud. He makes JFK look like a fat accountant in some suburban tax center. But, he also is associated with an absolute crack-pot religion and this will never fly. All these Mormon cases recently killed that.

I think what Obama is doing right now is this: he absolutely needs Hillary's support. So he is stringing her along, trying to get her to think she is in contention for VP, trying to get her to publicly support him as far as she is willing in this limbo state.

But ultimately, there is not a chance in hell of him picking Hillary for VP. He is living by the maxim: keep thine friends close, but thine enemies closer!

In the end, Hillary will have publicly supported him enough to where she cannot turn on him (and take her base with her), and she will be forced to swallow a most bitter pill, which is cheering for someone who shivved her bad. She'll get something in trade-off though.

As for planting an Orange seed in an amber mind, two things come to mind:

* first of all, happy Amber has a very healthy respect for competition. That has been the bane of high-Orange and Green in America (and what guys like Steve Jobs are trying to undo). Pluralism has been associated with being meek and non-competitive.

So, if you want to get happy Amber to rise, you have to show it how it can get stronger in a healthy way by doing this.

* Second of all, we need to be honest about a dirty little topic. And that is - the difference between happy emergers who are growing from a base of strength (along any line) and unhappy emergers who are growing because they have been getting their asses kicked at their current level of development and are seeking new and higher refinements of subtle technique with which to return to their former grounds of shame and exact retribution.

An example: I have a friend who used to belong to Sokka Gakkai. They'd go door to door and look for people whose lives were a complete mess. And they would administer the fatal blow, bringing them to the Dark Night, and at their most vulnerable, they are ready to join.

But people who have stable lives, good jobs, a happy family, etc. will never listen to Sokka Gakkai.

I told my friend that this cult of his has one good feature - the chanting. It's very strong and effective for harmonizing body and mind. But the world view and tactics of the group are so much crap.

He dropped out several years ago, after in-group controversies and a leadership struggle back in Tokyo.

So, the question is really - how do you administer an Orange seed to a very successful and happy Amber soul?

I think the answer lies in the very fact that amber is partial and orange is world-centric. Pure rationality will show that universal rules are more fair than rules that only apply to us. Pure rationality will show that everyone suffers, everyone gets sick, everyone dies. So what the fuck are we doing with our head in the sand ignoring people who just happen to be separated by water or false borders?

Pure rationality will show that the borders of today were not the borders of yesterday. California used to be Mexico. Spain used to be Rome. Etc.

So, I would say to amber - open your fucking eyes, idiot! I am not asking you to believe anything. But at least join us in the world. That tribal shit went out of fashion about 50 years ago. Welcome to the 21st century friend. Right now you are looking like some Amish dude who refuses to ride in a tractor or use a telephone.

I think you get healthy amber to orange by just being really forceful with them and basically telling them that amber is so history that they are an embarrassment to themselves. A good friendly kick in the ass gets happy amber peaking into orange turf.

Then ... show them how they can gain competitive edge (in healthy competitive endeavors like business) by embracing other views.

Show them that a little meditation will help them think more clearly (Zen that is). Show them that the Sunzi "Art of War" can help them learn how to build good strategies for their business. Etc.

With ennervated amber, I don't think you have to do anything more than point out the door to them. They want to regain their strength and trump their former oppressors.

Now I know, that this sounds like Nietzshe. I think FN was a madman, personally. I am talking simply about being effective in helping people see a motivation to grow.

This leads to a really dicey topic: is there any role for Darwinist views? In my life, I almost never live by Darwinist principles.

But, I was thinking the other day: years ago, my parents had sex. There were vast armies of little spermatazoa ready to bust out and claim the flag. Of all those contending little flagellants, all of those power hungry little bastards, I beat them all! And so did you! How do we deny that our very existence began by winning what was the most massively difficult competitive event in history?

So, I raise a toast to you, MM, and to every other member of the Integral group. We all fought enormous odds, scrapping our weigh through all those little contenders, and we made it to the Egg! Be proud! We are the Champions!!

Thoughts?

I think McCain is going to pick Joe Lieberman. Do not, and I repeat, do not underestimate the power of the pro-Israel gesture. Do you agree?

Seriously? Lieberman is a solid liberal on every issue except foreign policy, and if McCain picked him, the third party challenge that's currently smoldering would burst into a raging inferno. At any rate, the big "Fortress America" candidate was Guiliani, and that went nowhere because Republicans want to get out of Iraq as much as anyone, and they nominated McCain because he can do it "honorably", which is to say without admitting that Bush and the Republican Party fucked it up. A hawkish VP pick like Lieberman is the last thing he needs.

Hey, Schalk, Mr. Teacup. Great points. I enjoy talking to you.

I sure hope McCain picks Lieberman. I have been hoping for that a long time. Joe has long been a favorite of mine. Yes, I believe he is a Teal thinker. He is a man of great integrity and willing to risk his own political fortunes for what he believes in, which is probably why he and McCain like each other. Karl Rove has made positive comments about Lieberman as McCain's running mate, saying Lieberman is the one who would bring "excitement" to the ticket, but there are also potential liabilities, particulary with the social conservatives who have their hearts set on more Amber judges.

I think the arguments that Schalk puts up for Lieberman are good ones. It's interesting to think of Lieberman undercutting Obama's bid to become the first president of his race by being from a minority group himself. Most importantly, in my view, adding Lieberman to the ticket will interest a lot of independants and moderate Democrats. These folks will not get excited about Mitt Romney, who is probably the front runner as McCain's running mate. Romney will not generate any excitement. Mr. Teacup brings up an important point, however, when he says that adding Lieberman could cause some defections. That's probably the biggest thing keeping McCain from picking Lieberman--social conservatives would not like it, but perhaps they could live with it if given a choice between Obama and McCain/Lieberman. I think Wall Street Republicans would be better with Lieberman, but not overjoyed. But people also understand that a vote for a third party candidate will help "the other side," and it remains to be seen whether Republicans are as foolish as Democrats in this regard. Everyone saw what Nader was able to do in 2024 (help G. W. win the presidency).

I don't think Lieberman could be called a liberal exactly on issues other than foreign policy. On some issues, yes, but on others, such as fiscal policy, he is at least a moderate, perhaps a traditional conservative (pay as you go). He has also built some social conservative credentials over the years, at least for a Democrat. It would be an interesting choice having a hawkish (on Middle East policy) Jewish guy on one ticket and a liberal with the middle name "Hussein" on the other. Some people will want Obama so people will like us more, but toughness may be in order. The Bush administration seems to have scored an amazing foreign policy win in Colombia by defeating the FARC (a situation a Democrat would likely have made worse; most of them, including Obama and Clinton, voted against a bill that would have given the Colombian government better trading status) and perhaps another win in disarming North Korea. Similar toughness will likely be necessary to finish off Iraq in the proper way and perhaps Iran, and it is questionable that Obama would provide this. Who in the world knows what he really thinks about things anyway. But one can see that progressives flock to him in droves, and that is not reassuring.

Mr. Teacup, was it Guiliani's "fortress America" policy that sunk him? I didn't watch it closely enough to really know, but I thought it might have to do with character issues. The New York Times really went Guiliani. They called him vindictive and sorts of things. I think Republicans have had enough of neocons for sure, but they might see McCain and Lieberman as more moderate than the neocons. But McCain's temper and perhaps an ethnic bias in Lieberman (on Middle East policy--as much as I like him, and really he is a favorite; I just mention that to cover one more base) does raise the question of whether they would be too hawkish.

I like your ideas about Amber, Schalk. It's a good idea to bring up suffering, as Christians are interested in helping the poor. I think you're also right that sometimes it will simply take brute force (say, an Orange police force). I would say that if they are clearly going to be in Amber for awhile the thing to do would be to talk to them about more open-minded Christians, use more open-minded Christian arguments. If they were American and ready to get more modern, one might bring up the Constitution, which is a document of almost Biblical proportions. Some Christians will argue the Constitution is really a Christian document, but if one can show that it contradicts the more narrow Amber views it might help.

I think you might be right about Hillary too. Obama just might be too arrogant to pick her.

This campaign is kind of funny--they've skipped even trying to discuss the issues and launched right into character attacks. In the last couple of days the Obama campaign has done nothing less than launch a Swift Boat attack against McCain and his Vietnam service (which Obama denies having anything to do with as he did during the primary), and McCain has called Obama unprincipled and opportunistic, a man who can't be taken by his word. Apparently McCain is going to wait until after the Democratic convention to name a running mate.

 

mm