ONE PARTY: HOLD THE LOCKSTEP!

Maybe things would not be so bad in a dictatorship. However, Plato thought about it and passed. The main problem being finding a good dictator or one benevolent to all. But maybe we should experiment with one party rule. The Republicans have done the latest research in this field and now that we know what does not work, except for those that want to trade charges about who is holding whose breath, we can breath a sigh of resignation and just have Democratic rule.

This phase of the experiment is well on it’s way. There are two beakers of influence in this chemistry set. One is the fall and rise of Howard Dean and the other ,the rise and fall of Hillary Clinton. Dean and his scream and now don’t we all wanna scream has gone from being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to being the leader of the Democratic Party. Hillary has now gone from being the Liberal that the Conservatives would anoint as an opponent to the darling the DLC would as well.

One party rule under Democrats would still have a lot of screaming and divide so it would certainly be no worse than the resulting divide that has occurred under someone who puts hard work as a last resort, even beyond a war without end.

[Drafted 7-27-05 before this link
Roger Larson

The above link I stumbled on today. But it reminded me to post this draft I had saved. The link is about the breakup of the unions and whether it is for the best. I'm not sure I can answer that but only will summarize my above post as follows: One party rule might not be that bad, as long as it is not the trickle down Republicans. It would be OK if it was the "Up the Filter" Democrats for they would still have a "healthy" debate. In fact, is not that the true spirit of competition if not evolution?

OUT OF THE BLUE? NOT!

I would hate to jump to a conclusion, but questions leaping out are another matter. What about Judith Miller, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak? The only one not talking is Judith Miller. She chose to protect her sources. For a journalist admirable, for a pawn of the administration, what? The missing link seems to be the two sources that Robert Novak used. One Karl Rove*, the other still unknown. Another journalist? Is confirming that one heard something from an unknown source a confirmation? Is forgetting the source a defense? Is protecting bad sources or administration leaks a journalists job? Is it job security or a defense against charges of treason?

I feel I must qualify this discussion in the vein of setting a fair playing field of semantics. Journalist is too broad a term. For I am a journalist, one who journals, not a professional reporter. Just what is Robert Novak or the likes of Armstrong Williams and others who pander to the powers that be or pay?

Another line of playing field adjustment, is the reporter and whether they actually just report or have any questions that really would probe.

Then there is legalities and ethics, well just when did Bush say his conscience was his guide. I will have to re search that guiding light. I am pretty sure I noted that it and was sometime during his first campaign but it does come up again as the adjustment is made in Bush’s view of who will be remaining in the administration or whether they need to be criminals to be asked to leave. I believe I also wondered on to the field in my concern about just what does chain of command mean these days. Those days were well before torture was a term that still needs investigation.

Back from the BLUE: [I should note the little sabbatical that I took to investigate other endeavors, but I seem to be able to pick up where we left off.] 

* edit 6-12-14 Carl read Karl