Left vs. Right

[oggbashan]

I would add to Pure's statements above:

Not all people are able to work even if there are jobs available.

What, in Amicus' ideal society, happens to the handicapped, the disabled, the sick, and those who care for them?

What happens to those for whom no jobs are available because of the economics of the area they live in, or the inability of the job seekers to obtain work for which they are, or can be, qualified?

What happens to severely injured war veterans?

I consider that a society should be judged by how it treats those who are unable to fend for themselves. Hitler's Germany was an extreme example of what not to do. The mentally handicapped were eliminated as efficiently as the Jews.

Amicus said 'A rising tide lifts all ships in the harbor'. It doesn't if those ships are holed or otherwise unsound. The ships needing repair should be dry-docked or else protected from the tide that would swamp them.

The difference between left and right is a matter of degree. How do you protect and support those who cannot help themselves? How do you turn unproductive citizens into productive ones if that is possible? How do you care for those who need care?

Left and right both consider and address those questions. Their proposed answers and methods differ but the majority on each side do believe that some of their citizens need and deserve support.

Suggesting that your opponents have no compassion is no way to convince them that their methods are wrong.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

A rising tide lifts all boats?

What if you're not a boat, but a car parked next to the docks?

 

[amicus]

Pure...Og...et al...


I have always know it is a waste of words to address true believers, but in the perhaps forlorn hope that a fairly rational mind wanders by the thread...

You collectivists, in general, seem to want, ask for, seek, a guarantee that all the needs of all the people will be met according to their highest expectations.

Well...good luck on it.

But if anyone is seriously searching for answers and understanding of the human condition, then it is helpful to be realistic and objective.

Rather than begin with grand theories and low minded Marxists; why not imagine a primitive society that respects individual life and rather accidentally stumbles into a system wherein the freedom to 'trade' with each other is unrestricted.

Somehow, as time passes and no despot claims a 'tithe' of any individuals labor, let us imagine we have a working society.

This primitive group is small enough and familial enough, that the weak, ill, less capable are cared for by relatives.

Where children are protected by those who love them, as are pregnant ladies, old men and women and even the blind or maimed.

Within that 'primitive' group, each is free to trade and contribute in a manner 'each' sees fit and chooses.

That is to say, if you enjoy stone tool making, or basket weaving, or hunting/gathering food, then you are free to pursue that and barter your production.

Yes, it would be easier for all in a semi tropical area alongside a good sized river, such as the Nile or the one that runs through Baghdad.

It would be more difficult and different on the tundra of Alaska, or in ice-age Europe where the Neaderthals prospered.

But the same humanity between peoples is universal, a free exchange of goods between willing individuals for mutual benefit.

There would be employment for all...not equal of course and there would be sustenance for all, not equal again and not guaranteed.

No one ever promised you rosey eyed leftists a rose garden, or a garden of eden and no one can promise you anything but honesty, integrity and a respect for human life.

The best and most humanitarian thing any society can do, is to protect those innate and universal rights of humans to live free.


No doubt the words fall on deaf ears...but I feel obliged to type them, read and understood is not my responsibity.


amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Hi Ami,
How are you mate?

Have you ever given to charity?
Maybe someone collecting for cancer relief, tossed a coin to someone?

 

[elsol]

When do we get to the part where the white people come in and either kill everyone off for their land or make them slaves?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Pure]

Imagine

Ami: But if anyone is seriously searching for answers and understanding of the human condition, then it is helpful to be realistic and objective.

Rather than begin with grand theories and low minded Marxists; why not imagine a primitive society that respects individual life

Hey I'd rather imagine a primitive society with two beautiful women for every man. That would be my 'realistic and objective' move.

Is there any connection, in your view between being 'realistic and objective' and recognizing _facts_.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

When do we get to the part where the white people come in and either kill everyone off for their land or make them slaves?

Sincerely,
ElSol

I get your point here, but I'm white (well, not entirely, but a fair amount), and I've never hurt or oppressed anyone, at least not in a way that wasn't personal, and unrelated prejudice. I'm getting tired of being asked to answer for what a bunch of people who I don't share opinions with have done. It's generalizing about us, which just happens to be racist and discriminant as well.

Q_C

 

[elsol]

I get your point here, but I'm white (well, not entirely, but a fair amount), and I've never hurt or oppressed anyone, at least not in a way that wasn't personal, and unrelated prejudice. I'm getting tired of being asked to answer for what a bunch of people who I don't share opinions with have done. It's generalizing about us, which just happens to be racist and discriminant as well.

Q_C

When do we get to the part where the more technologically advanced foreigners kill or enslave all the primitives.

That's my favorite part.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

You know... I just realized something... Amicus's philosophy has a lot in common with:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[cloudy]

Pure...Og...et al...


I have always know it is a waste of words to address true believers, but in the perhaps forlorn hope that a fairly rational mind wanders by the thread...

You collectivists, in general, seem to want, ask for, seek, a guarantee that all the needs of all the people will be met according to their highest expectations.

Well...good luck on it.

But if anyone is seriously searching for answers and understanding of the human condition, then it is helpful to be realistic and objective.

Rather than begin with grand theories and low minded Marxists; why not imagine a primitive society that respects individual life and rather accidentally stumbles into a system wherein the freedom to 'trade' with each other is unrestricted.

Somehow, as time passes and no despot claims a 'tithe' of any individuals labor, let us imagine we have a working society.

This primitive group is small enough and familial enough, that the weak, ill, less capable are cared for by relatives.

Where children are protected by those who love them, as are pregnant ladies, old men and women and even the blind or maimed.

Within that 'primitive' group, each is free to trade and contribute in a manner 'each' sees fit and chooses.

That is to say, if you enjoy stone tool making, or basket weaving, or hunting/gathering food, then you are free to pursue that and barter your production.

Yes, it would be easier for all in a semi tropical area alongside a good sized river, such as the Nile or the one that runs through Baghdad.

It would be more difficult and different on the tundra of Alaska, or in ice-age Europe where the Neaderthals prospered.

But the same humanity between peoples is universal, a free exchange of goods between willing individuals for mutual benefit.

There would be employment for all...not equal of course and there would be sustenance for all, not equal again and not guaranteed.

No one ever promised you rosey eyed leftists a rose garden, or a garden of eden and no one can promise you anything but honesty, integrity and a respect for human life.

The best and most humanitarian thing any society can do, is to protect those innate and universal rights of humans to live free.


No doubt the words fall on deaf ears...but I feel obliged to type them, read and understood is not my responsibity.


amicus...

I'm sure you don't get this, but do you realize that the society you describe is the one that you have told me numerous times before was "uncivilized"?

Bless your heart, you really just don't get it.

 

[CharleyH]

I'm sure you don't get this, but do you realize that the society you describe is the one that you have told me numerous times before was "uncivilized"?

Bless your heart, you really just don't get it.

Ya, I understand your sentiment., Cloudy. Lets ask him about art now! EDIT: maybe real issues he gets? What does he get, though

 

[Pure]

amicus said,
why not imagine a primitive society that respects individual life and rather accidentally stumbles into a system wherein the freedom to 'trade' with each other is unrestricted.

cloudy said,
I'm sure you don't get this, but do you realize that the society you describe is the one that you have told me numerous times before was "uncivilized"?

Bless your heart, you really just don't get it.

I do see your point, cloudy. But take note that amicus--for his purposes--does not start or base arguments on facts. If a certain Aboriginal society cared for its members, looked after the sick, etc. that is not what he wants to start from. Any actual case has embarrassments, such as some early societies that had infanticide, or enslaved the captives of a war.

{Same with any actual cases of unregulated capitalist enterprise, such as the cotton mills of England before 1830 (when legislation began to be passed). To cite England, ca 1800, as in a golden age, as paragon of non interference with industry would posed embarrassments. Only the imaginary capitalist society talked of by Ayn Rand, will do; the 'facts' are they are depicted in the novels.}

It's also worth stating that talk like :
Ami: [society should] protect those innate and universal rights of humans to live free.

is probably foreign to some tribal and clan situations.

"Rights" talk comes up at certain historical points, such as in the 18th century when non-aristocrats (for example merchants) felt ill used by the state.

Especially, 'individual right to liberty' may not apply to these early societies. Again 'individuals' start to be talked of at a certain point in history, as counterposed to the state.

Correct me if I'm wrong; supply us with the facts, but I'm not sure that a well-functioning early society operated in terms of invidual liberty, or an alleged right to it. This isn't to say, 'no liberty' or 'everyone was a slave' just that the talk, the concepts do not really apply. If individuals identify their welfare and that of the group, refuse to view one in conflict with the other, you dont get 'rights' talk.

 

[amicus]

Kendo... "...Hi Ami,
How are you mate?

Have you ever given to charity?
Maybe someone collecting for cancer relief, tossed a coin to someone?..."

Well, I did 128 continuous hours of radio broadcasting and managed to get 1,000 blood donations to the Red Cross in Hawaii in the early Vietnam war days.

I gave my time to a volunteer fire department in my community.

And I am now saving all coins for my grandchildren to put, one at a time, in the McDonalds Katrina donations, both as a gesture and a learning process.

What have you done?

Elsol... "...You know... I just realized something... Amicus's philosophy has a lot in common with:..."

Actually John Lennons thoughts or songs do not mirror mine at all, rather, Paul McCartney's 'Silly Love Songs' is much closer, but thanks for thinking of me.

Cloudy... "...I'm sure you don't get this, but do you realize that the society you describe is the one that you have told me numerous times before was "uncivilized"?

Bless your heart, you really just don't get it.
__________________
Saint Cloudster
patron saint of the dysfunctionally afflicted..."

Dear Cloudy...almost two years ago now, I mentioned that I was curious as to why the Native American culture remained stagnant for more than 5,000 years while Europe, the Middle East and Asia were becoming more organized, having moved from the "Tribal" to the village and city state.

My pre dilection was that it was a 'spiritual' reason, the people of North America sought faith and belief instead of knowledge.

I have modified that somewhat, through research, to include the ease of gathering food in Northwestern Canada and the US, and the scarcity of metal deposits in those areas.

When people remain 'tribal', in Africa, or Australia, or Asia, as can be documented, they function as an oppressed people, subject to the rule of tyrants or witchdoctors and human growth is stymied.

My study, my novel, saga, as it were, is the fictional supposition of a a native american tribe that broke the mold and set forth into rationality rather than the spiritual world.

So it is not me that doesn't get it, you simply fail to recognize the writings on the wall, that demonstrate without error, that native american culture failed to progress and was absorbed by a more advanced civilization. Had the French or the Germans or the Dutch become dominant in North America, you would have your choice of language, but still be a footnote in history as a failed culture, continuing to exist through the gratuity of the conquerors.



Pure... "...Especially, 'individual right to liberty' may not apply to these early societies. Again 'individuals' start to be talked of at a certain point in history, as counterposed to the state.

Correct me if I'm wrong; supply us with the facts, but I'm not sure that a well-functioning early society operated in terms of invidual liberty, or an alleged right to it. This isn't to say, 'no liberty' or 'everyone was a slave' just that the talk, the concepts do not really apply. If individuals identify their welfare and that of the group, refuse to view one in conflict with the other, you dont get 'rights' talk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Pure : Today at 09:01 PM.

True, Pure, 'individuals' in your terms, language, did not define actions or understandings.

If you would take the time to read my novel, "The First Chief, Ahjeed" available online or at iUniverse, or even read the free, second volume, "The First Chief, Sahjeed Deeda" which takes place 300 years later, still posted on Lit, you might understand how these people began to discover that the 'individual person' held value.

They did so by protecting loved ones, family, and providing for them against a hostile environment, criminals within the village and at large. They began, very slowly, to realize that one might go hungry to feed a child, that one might risk ones own life to save anothers.

I try to portray it as I think it might have been as people, in this one small village, began to acknowledge the basic value of individual human life.

I know quite well that we cannot go back to a more simple time, nor do I suggest it. I do propose that one might gain a deeper understanding of current events by looking back at our beginings...

Most of you have been schooled and showered by media to believe that Capitalism, the free market, and rugged individualism are both bad things. Your art your music, your literature, glorifies the philosophy of sacrifice and altruism, the joy of sharing, the evil of masculinity and male domination.

And you may be right, the world may degenerate into a gender neutral morass of sharing what is left from those to have to those who have not.

When you have stolen everything from those that can produce and there is nothing left to loot, where do you go next?

By the way, that is the theme of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rands novel of the failure of collectivism.

Not that it matters.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Re visiting fantasy land. Aborignal peoples

Ami said: When people remain 'tribal', in Africa, or Australia, or Asia, as can be documented, they function as an oppressed people, subject to the rule of tyrants or witchdoctors and human growth is stymied.

I don't know of any evidence that the American or Australian Aboriginal people were 'subject to the rule of tyrants,' to take two obvious cases. What is your evidence? Again you're creating a historical mish mash where 'tyrants' as found in Greece and Rome, and in Nazi Germany, are projected to periods where the concept does not apply.

My study, my novel, saga, as it were, is the fictional supposition of a a native american tribe that broke the mold and set forth into rationality rather than the spiritual world.

In your imagination you're free to imagine this alleged transition: young Voltaire's and Hume's sprouting up in Aboriginal Times.

But there is no evidence of this 'transition' as historically accurate. There is no evidence that it applies, say, in England, at the launch of the Industrial Revolution. The launchers were generally Christian, Protestant, Quaker. The same occurred in the US. So what you call more 'rational'--i.e., capitalism --does not presuppose the passing over of a 'spiritual period.'

Indeed, judging by polls, votes for GWB, the "I believe in God and Jesus and redemption through His Blood" folks are a large minority (30%) overall, and perhaps a majority of Republicans. So your most admired figures did not overcome 'spiritual' leanings. Rockefeller Sr., founder of Standard Oil, a hero by your Rand standards, was a practicing Christian (Baptist, iirc).

You have skewed definitions of 'spirituality' and 'rationality' and have your usual lack of contact with historical facts. Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies, the beginnings of your glorious American example of Free Society based on universal rights, were set up on a Christian basis. Same for Pennsylvania. You seem unaware that you're supporting the 'pro Christian' camp with one breath (those who want to re-assert the role of God, in American history, based on texts like the Dec. of Ind.) , and proclaiming 'rationality and objectivity' with the other.

----
As to your apocalyptic statement:

And you may be right, the world may degenerate into a gender neutral morass of sharing what is left from those to have to those who have not.

When you have stolen everything from those that can produce and there is nothing left to loot, where do you go next?

By the way, that is the theme of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rands novel of the failure of collectivism.

In your imagination you're free to imagine 'degeneration' flowing from women's voting and having abortion rights. No doubt you have a novel to prove the point.

"Collectivism" in the form of democratic socialism or its principles is alive and well in the *REAL* world, though not in Ayn Rand novels. Progressive taxation, unemployment insurance, support for single moms who can't work, etc. in US, Canada, W. Europe, etc.

Proof that there is no degeneration or even the perception of it is, in for instance, in Germany, right now. The conservatives, who may have gained power, only talk of *revising* the systems of UI, pensions, etc. The don't say "Bring back arbirtary firing for no cause [employer's right] or ending of UI [a degenerate socialist scheme]." If the German conservatives *adjust* pensions, they only affirm the principle. Even the right wing major parties in all the 'advance' Western nations do not deal with your imaginary world, approved by imaginary inhabitants.

Your brand of 'objectivism' works--and has its appeal--only in the imagination. In Rand's case, it sometimes had the purity of idealism, like say, in Plato, or Fourier. In yours, being in bed with the capitalist cronies of the Rep'n Party power structure utterly destroys the credibility of your views, even as ideals.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

When do we get to the part where the more technologically advanced foreigners kill or enslave all the primitives.

That's my favorite part.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Thank you.

Q_C

 

[Kassiana]

I'm guessing coming in here and asking, "So, where are all the white women at?" would be politically incorrect at the moment.

So, where are all the white men at?



[Sarcasm. Humor. See anything more? You put it there.]

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I'm guessing coming in here and asking, "So, where are all the white women at?" would be politically incorrect at the moment.

So, where are all the white men at?



[Sarcasm. Humor. See anything more? You put it there.]

I wasn't trying to be over-dramatic, but it gets old. Not being a minotrity (though I am mixed with minority blood) doesn't make me any less of a good person or any more responsible for all the world's problems than it does any one else for their "ethnic background." People overlook that far too often. It gets hard for race and gender not to be important to us when it's so damned important to everyone else.

I can take humor, though. Especially a "Blazing Saddles" quote. They're always welcome.

The white men? Right here. So "excuse me while I whip this out"... No, you won't have to back up.

Q_C

 

[amicus]

Pure...sorry for the delay...I have read your post three separate times.

Usually when I read something, I can sense a proper and pertinent reply or question, yours leaves me cold, as if you continue to belabor the same points again and again.

Germany, quasi socialist, has the worst economy and highest unemployment in of all EU, as I read somewhere and the recent vote there resolved nothing and almost guarantees a continuation of the failed plans and programs.

The free market in the United States suceeded in spite of the 'spiritual' overtones in society, not because of it.

Hume and whoever else you mentioned (the back button didn't work) not only could have, but I rather suspect did, occur in previous times.

People, in general, as a rule, react badly to 'new ideas'. They would much rather remain as they are and not change...somewhat human nature, I would think.

You seem to imply that it is 'natural' for humans to sacrifice their individuality to a group, be it spiritual or political or oppressive and tyrannical.

I maintain that it is not, that the individual egoism (self interest) of the individual to control the events that affect his life has always been an essential part of man.

And of course it is in fiction that ideas and dreams are expressed; that is why, 2000 years later we still know the Egyptian and Greek gods and goddesses, the artistic and literary attempt to comprehend the unknown.

Some see it as beautiful and inspirational, others a dark and depressing.

I choose to view the nature of man as heroic and striving for realization of goals that were once but dreams.

You seem to advocate a quagmire of altrusitic sacrifice of both the spirit and the soul.

So be it.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Ok, i'll keep it simple

amicus:

Pure said, "I don't know of any evidence that the American or Australian Aboriginal people were--[because of spiritual leanings]-- 'subject to the rule of tyrants,' to take two obvious cases. What is your evidence?"

Question 2 Is there any evidence that, say, the Massachusetts Puritans were less inclined to spirituality--e.g.,belief in God, his rule, his rules-- than the aboriginal tribes they pushed aside? Yet they were clearly more 'enterprising' in the capitalist sense--what accounts for that?

Question 3: Given what we know of the religion and spirituality of many of the 'greats' who founded the industrial revolution in England and America, does it make sense to say that capitalism owes its flourishing to a lessening of spiritual inclinations, belief in a Christian God, etc.?

 

[amicus]

Pure...you don't seem to make the transfer from concrete, (your continual call for evidence and history) to the abstract.

I am not speaking of 'capitalism' or relgion, spirituality, specifically, I am addressing human nature, the nature of an individual, what it takes to acquire security and well being.

Again, you seem to think it is a group value, as you do almost everything. I maintain that individual values are primary and the group, secondary and by choice, not by force.

I do not know what 'theoretical' collectivist plan you have in mind, but I am sure it has been tried and failed, before.

amicus...

 

[Kassiana]

No, you won't have to back up.

Damn, so I won't be able to moan "It's true, oh, it's true"?

 

[Pure]

Ok

I asked for evidence about subjection to tyrants and you produce none:

Pure:
"I don't know of any evidence that the American or Australian Aboriginal people were--[because of spiritual leanings]-- [amicus words] 'subject to the rule of tyrants,' to take two obvious cases. What is your evidence?"

Amicus answer: you don't seem to make the transfer from concrete, (your continual call for evidence and history) to the abstract.


---
It's time to be a mensch and withdraw your spiritual hypothesis, as quoted below. The quotation itself shows the glimmerings of recognition that availability of resources (and by implication, other material factors) are more important than the 'spiritual issue.' For --noting your lack of evidence re the aboriginals of US and Aus-- we can't say that those 'capitalistically backward' (my phrase) native peoples were more tied up in the 'spiritual' or 'subject to tyrrany' than the victorious White Christians that displaced and exterminated them.

The story of humankind's progressive freeing itself from witchdoctors and priests is a sample of Rand's novelistic approach to history. Note: (US) evangelical broadcasts to millions, and meetings of thousands; the 'priests' access to the White House and influence (e.g., about Schiavo); the occasional statement about the Christian crusade in the mideast, by Bush and at least one general; the recent flap over the 'under God' phrase of the pledge. If the US priests --(evangelical ministers) have less influence than did the Vatican in 1600, they are not exactly impotent at present.


-------


Amicus original statement:

My pre dilection was that it was a 'spiritual' reason, the people of North America sought faith and belief instead of knowledge.

I have modified that somewhat, through research, to include the ease of gathering food in Northwestern Canada and the US, and the scarcity of metal deposits in those areas.

When people remain 'tribal', in Africa, or Australia, or Asia, as can be documented, they function as an oppressed people, subject to the rule of tyrants or witchdoctors and human growth is stymied.

 

[cantdog]

This has nothing to do with left and right, maybe. It depends how you define them.

News from the headwaters

 

[Pure]

I think it has to do with the right,

since the article mentions the anti porn efforts revived with Reagan (and now be re-revived with GWB).

Odd that some in the forum, who celebrate Bush's taking further opportunity to undo 'collectivism' and the New Deal are implicitly condoning the Evangelical Churches' agenda, that Bush and the FBI have partially adopted and are now furthering.

if, perhaps, secularism peaked in the latter part of the 20 century, around the 1970s, where are the 'individualist' and 'secular' protestors (against the religious right's increasing influence, since then) among the Republicans and their sympathizers (leaving aside our favorite, actual conservative Republican, Colly)?

 

[rgraham666]

I’ve been thinking a lot about the things brought up by this thread. Especially the ‘right’ and ‘left’s’ inability to talk with one another these days.

Most people seem to think this is a fairly recent phenomena. But to my mind, this started thirty years ago. That’s when three men came to my attention. Their names are Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich and Terry Dolan.

Richard Viguerie was the fundraiser. He went to very rich, very angry people and got money that he then sent to Weyrich and Dolan, among others. An example of his backers was Joseph Coors who sent money to such groups as The John Birch Society and The Minutemen.

Paul Weyrich specialised in direct mail. He had long lists of people that were angry at the way the U.S. was going, and who longed for ‘The Good Old Days’, when people other than white males knew their place and didn’t get uppity. Political groups such as Dolan’s NCPAC would use him to get the word out.

Essentially, Weyrich was a spammer before there was spam.

And like spam, direct mail was under no obligation to speak with moderation, nor could an opposing point of view be offered to it.

Terry Dolan was the founder of NCPAC, The New Conservative Political Action Committee. I believe this is where the term ‘neo-con’ originates from.

NCPAC ‘targeted’ Congressmen and Senators that it believed to be ‘liberal’. It would create other PACs in the state of the representative and pour money and directions to it to defeat said representative. It would fund television commercials, direct mail, and other methods of communication to undermine the representative

PACs, at the time, and still so far as I know, are not limited in either funds allotted to them nor in actions they can take. A representative or candidate is limited quite a bit on both fronts.

As an example, NCPAC funded a TV commercial with a person standing next to a missle silo. The person states that, “This silo is empty because representative X voted against appropriations for it. Our country is less defended because of him.”

This was a misrepresentation. The Congessman had voted in favour. It was The Air Force that had emptied the silo as the missile it held was obsolete and the silo couldn’t handle the new missiles.

The Congressman called them on it. And they did retract it. By printing the retraction in a newspaper ‘on page 73 under the tide schedules’. So many people saw the commercial, few saw the retraction.

And all that was thirty years ago. So this has been going on for a long time. A large section of the U.S. population has been exposed to a clever and protracted propaganda campaign. A campaign designed specifically to raise their emotions and feed their preconceptions.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that it’s difficult for both sides to communicate now.

I still hear of Richard Viguerie, occasionally. I don’t know if that’s because he’s drifted from power or if he’s just hiding behind the scenes. The latter I suspect.

I heard of Paul Weyrich last year. He was being quoted as an ‘old fashioned conservative’ who was rather worried about the direction of conservatism in The States. I found that rather ironic and somewhat humourous considering his contribution to this state of affairs.

Terry Dolan died in 1986 of AIDS. He didn’t get it from an infected needle or a blood transfusion either. God does indeed have a sick sense of humour.