Real Moral Values

[Tranquility]

I just read Arianna's column regarding 'Real Moral Values' and of course I think it is brilliant. Brilliant not only because it is a straight shooting critique on the Democratic Party's scramble to attach itself to the new 'strategy' for 2008 but brilliant because it clearly outilines the way Democrats, which I proudly claim affiliation, can achieve fulfillment.

Never has Democrats had so much to campaign against with respect to what Dubya and his crew did to the USA. Yet, when given the choice at voting time, more people chose Dubya over Kerry. it went beyond 'performance', it was about the 'values' one candidate, Dubya, projected.
Dubya, however dubious when compared with his actual administration's achievements, illicited concern and went the extra mile to cement himself as a 'compassionate conservative' while Kerry stayed away from engagement.

The moral values issue will give the Republicans the 'space' to plan their agenda because as Democrats try and wrap their collective arms and grapple with this 'issue', 'Roe v. Wade' will be overturned, the minimum wage will be dissolved and Social Security will be raped...and the Democrats will lose all the issues that make the party necessary.

[a-Citisen]

When the Democrats convention was in San Jose CA they did not want the adverse political aims of the BA with -w- in tow, used as fuel for campaign purposes. They did not allow in and on the floor any body or group that might so attack the BA with -w- in tow. The DNC was the controlling feature of the convention. If the Democrats mean to put forward a realistic platform in 2008, then that DNC element had best be neutered. It is the same force and cabal that has completely taken over the Republican party. Of the prospective Democrats will Hilliary be the answer, probably not. In her effort to divorce herself from WJC she may opt to use that DNC force\cabal for support of her own political aims. At this time WJC heads up the yet constitutional elements of the Democratic party. The Democrats may have a two-headed snake to battle in 2008.

[VSM]

I've begun an effort to address many of the concerns in Arianna's colmumn..

See http://members.cox.net/ttbaltr/

for more information.

Much of this is still evolving in my own mind and too primitive for the general "publicaion" at the moment, but I've not identified any substantive obstacles at this point. Also, there seems to already be a growing consensus in the democratic community that this issue must be addressed somehow., regardless of whom the president is.

I'm suggesting an innovative way to do it from the grass roots level in a national virtual forum. The process is expected include an educational experience among and between "experts", leaders and citizens. Results are to be acheived by consensus motivated and constrained by rules of order.
Anyone is interested in contributing to this project, may contact me through the web site.

The site changes almost daily, as I get my ideas out of my head. I apologise for the crudeness of the web site at the moment. I'm working to move the relevent part to it's own site very soon. I'll certainly be adding a link to the Real Moral Values" column, tonight!

Thanks, Arianna!

[Tranquility]

Pull the Wool Over His Eyes
This phrase, meaning to deceive, has a quite straightforward explanation, but one that is not readily apparent today. The wool refers to a powdered wig. To pull the wool down over a man's eyes is to temporarily blind him.

[a-Citisen]

In view of the sophistry at work at the 'Current Events' discussion site, the above titled topic of moral-values as future political platform, is gonna be a most difficult Democrat attempt. Why? First, what is the direction the USA as a politically self-governing interest, will it head into? The frightful concern at that time, is that of the ease in which a few have so easily managed to lessen expectations of we-the-people. IMHO, that has been accomplished over time via less work and pseudo-education for the general body politic and the significant of either for but the few. In place of work there are mere "jobs" and in place of thought-invoking education there are empirical-administrative matters for the mind.

Some of the most significant questions now before and upon we-the-people perhaps the first is what are we as a republic to do next? According to views of that idea- a Republic, it works best with a population of a small number. A democracy on the other hand also is best when a population is numerically small. In USA history some of the best times occurred when such number was by comparison to today was small. The FDR times that number was smaller. The Puritans of early USA Republican efforts were also small. Democracy worked best especially in the times of the revolution as well as in the so-called-war between the states. Its a so-called event for, how does a Nation declare war against itself? Or too, in the USA of its constitutional process how can one person be said to have declared a war?

A parallel success of small numbers is religion. It was successful because it concerned a small number. As an idea adjusted to meet the interests and concerns of unknown people it sort of adapted itself- religion did, with the alternative idea of toleration but, ideas are meaningful only when a human principle of good thought is in constant play. Too many people to please means to a contemporary religious concern that finds itself in 6+ billion people instead of just a select few of an easily controlled tribe, what is moral for all?