Jay,

>>>Of course they are but there is in my mind a huge difference between being 'legel' and being 'right'.
>
>>I think it's clear to ourselves that we try to do the right thing, and can clearly see the difference between right and wrong according to our standards. But that brings to mind Socrates wonderful question -- doesn't everyone think that they are doing the "right" thing? I mean, unless someone has a really bad image of themselves, people don't intentionally try to do the "wrong" thing.

>Well, let me toss the proverbial 'spanner' in the works. Hitler.

>He was an evolutionist in that he believed in the philsophy of the survival of the fittest. He believed with all his heart that the Aryan people were somehow superior (*gag*) and acted upon that belief.

>Was he, given your definition, right?

My point was that people do give a lot of care and thought to what they do and they don't intentionally want to do wrong. Even when I disagree with people and even when I disagree with people on principle, I still expect that they want to do the "right thing".

I share your repugnance of Hitler. However, I was not arguing about objective truth -- that's a different issue and a different argument. I was simply pointing out an individual's experience of decisionmaking.

To raise the issue of Hitler as the only alternative to objective truth provides a pretty stark distinction between the true and the false. I guess I'd see 99.9% of us falling somewhere in between.


>At some point there are generally accepted rules. From everything I can see Mr. Gore has been far more willing to bend those rules to the point of breaking them. If someone is philosophically aligned with any given position there is a huge temptation of 'wink' at violations. I have seen this with the Gore camp consistently over the last 7 1/2 years whereas I have not seen this with the Bush camp over the last few months. I have seen this with those in the Republican Party I'd think of as the Country Club Republicans and I have seen what I think is mis-thinking on the part of the Christian Coalition (loosely so called) and I say that as a Christian myself.

>No, I'd have to say that between the two camps it is by far the Liberals that are more prone to 'fudge'.

You know, it all depends on your perspective. We all root for the home team and I have no problem with that. I happen to vote largely on the other side of the aisle. I could point out at length, if I felt it worthwhile -- which I don't, issues with the Bush camp point by point with critiques of the Gore camp.

At heart, thought, they are politicians and politicians play a political game -- and in terms of tactics, they're all pretty much alike. I don't find anything morally wrong with that. We want ambitious people to hold public office and yet we want them responsive to the will of the people. So, our system provides for a delicate balancing act which sometimes seems to get out of control. It ain't always pretty, but it's usually effective.

>
>>>I would suggest you read George Will's column in today's Washington Post. Here's the URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64817-2000Nov11.html
>
>>Whew -- my head is still spinning! I haven't seen George that wound up in a long time! I think that it is possible to disagree while respecting the person you disagree with. This article is not what I'd consider respectful or responsible political discourse.

<g>

>He was pretty wound up but does being emotional about something make it not true? Is passion only good when you agree with the cause? You may not see what he wrote as respectful but from the shenanigans I've seen, given the gravity of this current situation, I think he went lightly.

In fact, I found that it made a straw man out of Gore by lambasting him with every possible Republican biased rumor, assertion, conjecture, interpretation of the past several years. Many of the alleged "facts" are in fact one-sided interpretations presented as fact. It is on that basis that I consider it inflammatory and irresponsible journalism. And, at this time, I think it only succeeds in encouraging conflict and confirming people's prejudices rather than hoping us move towards some calmer resolution at this time.

My biggest gripe with the column is that it is fear-based -- by focusing on personality he leads one to imagine that our politics is personality-based. In fact it is based in law -- and I could quote many of his articles in the past where he would affirm just that.

I read George as often as I can. I often disagree with him, but I generally respect his opinion and always learn from his command of American history. His article last week in Newsweek offered a wonderful perspective on issues NOT covered this election. And, in a weekly column last week, he had a thought provoking article on the electoral college. I'm just disappointed that his partisanship and fear overwhelmed his usual standards of commentary.

I have no problem with emotion and wouldn't mind seeing more in all areas of life! I have no problem with passion. But, passion doesn't make facts right, either, does it.<s>

>IMO the bottom line here is that Democrats are totally willing to drag the entire nation through process after process in order to try and gain power. It's absolutely disgusting and I have little or no regard for them in the moral sense.

Well, the manual recount is a legally mandated process open to either party which is designed for close elections -- which this is. I, too, fear endless legal challenges. I understand that Republicans are exploring challenges and recounts in other states. In fact, when George Bush took a 9 vote lead in New Mexico, the Republicans requested and received an order impounding ballots in a variety of jurisdictions -- which left several hundred votes still uncounted and impounded. Saw in today's paper that Gore offered the following: no new balloting, a manual recount of the entire state of Florida, and he would accept the results for the State. Sounds like a way to wrap things up to me.

>You may disagree and that's ok with me but I'd again suggest you think real hard about what kind of country you want and people you'd like to be its leaders.

You know, I have. <s>

And isn't this a great country? That's what our founders fought. Not for Gore, not for Bush. But for the opportunity to have discussions like this and to be able to talk and learn freely and determine what our country will be through its elected officials.