I used to think "wide open spaces" was a description of the space between their ears. Now I see it refers to the canyon between their legs...

so how is being ashamed of george bush foolish? bush wasn't even elected properly. i'd be ashamed if i was from the same state as the first american dictator and warmonger...

"softcore lesbian photo shoot"

Hmmmmm... I don't see where it's lesbian at all. I see three chicks that are naked. But, being naked with someone of the same sex I guess means that you're a lesbian now.

Those funny, funny, conservatives, so busy worried about what someone is shoving up their anus or who is sleeping with who, they just don't have the time to get to the real issues... Namely, the economy, our poor troops in the gulf, and healthcare.

It's funny... but in reality it's not.

Who the hell cares what the Dixie Chicks do? I don't. They are in charge or have a damn thing to do with our government. Instead of being so upset about what hollywood is up to, why don't people worry about the elected officials are doing instead.

Remember: It immoral to stick anything up someone's butt unless they happen to be your wife or your whore. These are the "real issues"


*rolls eyes*

i don't know that much about the DC, short of their music sucking, but this IS simply a lame publicity stunt. they have no talent (and i'm not saying that as someone who just doesn't like country music, give me johnny cash or steve earle any day) so they insult the president stupidly (like dennis miller said, they didn't see the backlash from the nascar crowd on this one?) and then try to use it to sell records. god bless america.

and whoever called bush a dictator better grab a fucking dictionary and look the word up before they REALLY show their ignorance. he's gonna have to be re-elected like anybody else. besides, kennedy won an even closer election, AND had the mob give him dead people's votes in illinois. but nobody talks about that because he was a democrat and is dead.

It's kinkier still since two are sisters. Actually when I first saw the shot I thought they were covering each other's various privates, but upon closer inspection I see they are just self-shielding. You do get all worked up about those Chix, don't you Al?

Sisters!? Now Jesus is really pissed. I can feel him wanting to rise up and rebuke the Chicks.

I must admit that I'm finding it HARD to stay mad at the girls. :)

Methinks Miss Victoria is being willful in not seeing the lesbian tone of this photo. Getting close up and nekkid for a photo shoot- they would have to be really, really dumb not to see this.

Indeed, giving them some credit for brains, I take this as totally intentional. The sexual provocation is half of the rebuke that they are making of their conservative critics. That intentional frontal attack is the main thing I like.

Miss Victoria is also mistaken in ascribing to me a simple Madonna/whore complex. I'd like to think that I have somewhat more unique and sophisticated hang-ups than that. I would, however, be totally willing to discuss these butt issues she has.

Jeez, you guys act as if you've never seen naked women before. Grow up.

I've seen maybe a couple of nekkid chicks, but they still get a rise out of me.

And of course, it's not simply that there are nekkid chicks here, but that it's naked Dixie Chicks, and the context of it.

The Chicks have taken lemons and made lemonade. Think about it, a basic C-n-W band, trying to break out into the mainstream with a cover of Fleetwood Mac, now have a cover on a mainstream entertainment magazine. And of course, the nudity makes it even more "controversial", (e.g., more saleable). Couple that with the Diane Sawyer interview, and you have to ask, how much free publicity can one group get? Their PR man/woman is brilliant!!!
Have fun,
Mark

It seems that freedom of speech has become somewhat of a joke in the USA. Unless of course you happen to agree with whoever's doing the talking.
It's sad.
What foolishness was Natalie Maines speaking?
The rest of the world knows that she's right.
Bush and his murderous gang of thugs deserve their contempt.
We know that they rigged the election. The evidence is in the public domain, can't be refuted. Damn morons!
What's wrong with the poor misled fools who refuse to see the truth?
Wars, invasions, covert manipulation of the affairs of practically every nation in the world who has had anything worth pilfering or who happen to be useful to the US one way or another. The murder of their own people.
Usually they get someone else to do their dirty work for them. Provoking foreign powers into war then playing dumb while their own people are slaughtered.
Read about Pearl Harbour.
Dig out the truth about 911.
Don't take my word for it.
They knew and stood back while innocent Americans died.
Meanwhile honest brave people, true patriots like Steve Earl and the Dixie Chicks are persecuted for speaking the truth.
They're attacked publicly their personal possessions trashed by halfits who don't even know why they do it. They're being duped by the obscenely mega rich.
These rich and powerful corporations are the true controllers of the USA. They govern the country and thugs like Bush are in on the deal. They control the media and keep the public in the dark.
Leave the artists and the visionaries alone. They're trying to free your minds and your hearts with the truth and all you give them in return is hatred and abuse.
Read your history do some research and you'll discover that their methods are part of the American system of government. It's been goin on for hundreds of years. The founding fathers themselves didn't want democracy, they were shit scared of it.
As for you clowns you're pathetic. You can't make any sort of a rational debate or an arguement so you make cheesy cracks about their sexuality and their lack of intellect.
Sorry boys I know that you're not aware of it but you are the ones with the questionable sexual habits and you are the ones with the IQs of snails.
Got it Jethro!?
Now you'all come back now! Hear? Hyuck hyuck hyuck!

mark's point about the DC's PR flack is dead on.

And you fools think they did it for publicity?
Think it through. No 0ne takes chances like that unless they're sure if it's going to work.
They didn't know what the backlash was to be.
They didn't care because they were sincere.
The comments had nothing to do with record sales.
Untalented? Bullshit!
They are not a typical studio production, those girls write their own songs and play their own instruments.
Listen to the slide playing and the mandolin on Landslide.
Listen to those beautifully arranged harmonies.
Wake up!

..."Dig out the truth about 911.
Don't take my word for it.
They knew and stood back while innocent Americans died."

Whoa, Flix, what the hell have you been ingesting??

Shades of the WWII rumors about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor!

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Wimmin' don't mind bein nekked 'round each other, cuz they ain't worried 'bout dick size. That don't make em lezbeings, that jist makes em comfertable 'round each tuther.

At a Memorial Day rememberance ceremony today, I heard a military personage say that the 1st Amendment gave journalists the right to speak, even if we do not agree. Same goes for those who are against war. Anti-american? Hardly. This is what the Constitution was designed for. We exercise our own protest by not buying Dixie Chicks stuff. Others protest by doing so.

Flix, you seem to be confusing or conflating a belief in free speech as meaning agreeing with the lefty pinkos. The two specific ones you are invoking are, not to put too fine a point on it, schmucks more interested in being "right" or "cool" than in anything to do with the good of the country. Not that there aren't good arguments to be made against the war or the president- but these two aren't making them.

In Steve Earle's defense, however, he was once a really good songwriter. I'm not going to quit listening to Copperhead Road no matter what kind of self-serving radical chic foolishness he's spouting.

"The founding fathers themselves didn't want democracy..."

Flix, you're right, that's why they established a republic, not a democracy.

Maybe the founding fathers did establish a republic but nobody goes on about bringing republicanism to the world. Why is that?

Clavos, thanks for recognizing that the US is a Republic and NOT a Democracy. For you uninformed who know zip about US history but have an A+ in dickechickology we have a pledge which goes something like this.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
STANDS.
One more sentence to our pledge if you want to look it up. Dont look for Democracy in our pledge. It's not their. Also you will not find democracy within our US Constitution which was set up by our founding fathers. These were dem old dude's ya-all heard about if and when you went to school. Did you know Memorial Day was set aside by the founding father dude's for BBQ and a whole bunch of other crap.

HAPPY EASTER ALL

Did anyone sticking up for natalie no brains maines even see the interview she gave diane sawyer?

Like she totally talks like a 16 valley girl. Like diane sawyer goes why do you hate bush and natalie's all he's an embarassment to texas, like totally diane.

How can we assume that a woman that uses an average of 3 "likes" per sentence knows what she's talking about when discussing world affairs?

like whatever!

Mr Rose, most likely we talk about spreading "democracy" rather than "republicanism" because it's more romantic and idealistic sounding. "Democracy" is the will of the people as holy writ. The very idea of "republicanism" carries the idea of limiting or tempering the power of the people's will. It doesn't make for nearly as good a sloganeering when you're marching in the streets.

I, like, wonder, ya know, like what Natalie Maines might, like, think about democracy vs republicanism, ya know? I bet she's just got some like awesome insights and, ya know, like whatever.

It does get kind of creepy though, Al. Your country sells Democracy but doesn't practice it.

That's almost as Orwellian as when political control freaks speak out against Liberalism when what they are really attacking is Tolerance...

Tolerance?

It's actually more like the complete absence of any moral certainty under the guise of "tolerance."

More rubbish from our anonymous chum.

I'm morally certain that you are full of hatred and bile for large swathes of the modern world and not fit to be in charge of anything more challenging than a teacup. However, despite your deeply flawed views I am tolerant of your right to hold them. Is that clear enough for you?

Does anyone else find it ironic that "Arch Conservative" is so stringent on defending Bush, when the President is all BUT a conservative?

MMM Casey...why don't you show me exactly where I have so staucnhly supported Bush?

It sure wasn't in this thread.

Mr. Rose.. you need to get over yourself...seriously.

Get over myself, Archie? You are totally tripping, mate.

I must say you're doing a fantastic job reining in that vicious streak of yours. I wonder how long you can keep it up? You may actually write something credible if you're not careful...

Chris, haven't you noticed that the lower Bush's poles go the crankier Arch gets.

He's just looking for arch supports and having trouble finding them!

I assume you mean polls, Jet, unless Bush has some weird habits I'm unaware of. Wait, didn't he once go to Poland?!

Boy Chris I'm proud of you pal, you pole vaulted right over that one didn't you?

Well, he does fish, Christopher.

{:^p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now Chris, I've got a pretty high tolerance for your pinko hooey, but this right here is some nonsense

It does get kind of creepy though, Al. Your country sells Democracy but doesn't practice it.

That's almost as Orwellian as when political control freaks speak out against Liberalism when what they are really attacking is Tolerance...

Al, it's VERY hard to discuss politics with you Americans because the whole political landscape there is oddly offset to the right.

If you think that people who speak out against government policies are unpatriotic then you're only two bootsteps removed from fascism yourself...

Oddly offsetr to the right?

Maybe Europe is just oddly offset to the left.

WHy must American politics be judged by european standards Chris?

More of your typical foolishness, Christopher. You apparently start out with a pacifist welfare state as the premise, the moderate center.

The Dixie Chicks don't look like any kind of patriots. I've seen in all this no indication whatsoever from any of them in these several years of any interest whatsoever in the security of our nation, nor really even a significant pretense of concern for our troops. It's all about them.

Now, it's out of line to start calling Maines a "traitor" or to lightly throw around the word "treason." Maines doesn't rise to that level.

She's just a spoiled little rich princess that thinks the sun rises and sets in her ass. Her behavior looks more like she's still stuck in the terrible 2s and doesn't really have any awareness that there's a real world outside of her little personal drama.

But of course, telling the world that she's full of it makes me a fascist.

Funny how every keeps mentioning me and my support for Bush. I never even mentioned Bush in this thread and you moonbats are going on and on about him.

Am I the only one that thinks Chris is an arrogant goon? He never critizises the content of a post he disagrees with. He just hurls insults at the author and reminds evryone how them how superior he is.

It's getting kind of old.

ArchBat not supporting Bush; that's cute I like that. Next thing you know he'll tell us he doens't fantasize about Phylis Schlaffly

Archie, whilst it could be theoretically true that it's Europe that has the offset, a swift glance around the rest of the world would soon confirm the inaccuracy of your assertion. I'm looking at American politics through a global eye not a European one; trust me, you're almost as far to the right as Castro is to the left.

Al, you're getting as giddy as Archie. I don't believe I've mentioned the Welfare state, let alone Pacifism.

I think making nasty personal attacks against people for their reasonable political views is simply a mark of the political hysteria which currently consumes America - and not in a good way. You'd do well to avoid to shun it. Latest example, criticising the hugely debatable invasion of Iraq in unpatriotic? Absolute balderdash!

Hmm, both Archie and Al making up stuff and attributing views to me that I don't hold. And they say American politics is healthy...

Re Comment #34, Chris wrote,

"Al, it's VERY hard to discuss politics with you Americans because the whole political landscape there is oddly offset to the right."

Truth is, Al, the American political chicken only has one wing - a right wing. This has been true for about 87 years since the end of WWI when a "red" scare got most left wing parties and organizations in your country banned. The left wing of the American political chicken, never terribly strong to begin with, got chopped off in 1919-20. The death of the Wobblies (International Workers of the World) was the end of the left wing in America. When Sam Gompers of the AFL (no, not the American Football League) chomped on his cigar and said that the goal of the workingman was "more," he killed the labor movement there too, but that was not to take place for another two generations.

By the time people started joining the Communist party in the '30's after a diet of American capitalism run rampant into poverty and starvation, the party was nothing more than the puppet of a foreign power, the USSR.

Yeah, it is a pretty fair statement of reality to say that politics in your country is "offset to the right." With a one winged politcal chicken, how can it be otherwise?

Christopher- WHATEVER. You can claim whatever label you want, but you're always a champion of things on the left end of the dial. Or would you like to join me now in calling for an end to government welfare programs?

I reject the stilted mumble of meaningless use of terminology to try to grab unearned psychic territory, as if I'm some crazed fascist extremist because I'm not buying onto the crappy socialist nonsense that is popular in other parts of the world. It's morally wrong, and it doesn't work.

I, Al Barger, represent the moderate center, and most of Europe is slowly grinding itself into economic dust with their "moderate" socialist welfare states. Plus, y'all Europeans are not only running your economies into the ground, but you depend on US cowboys to defend you.

Israelis are obviously totally capable of defending themselves. That's a question of the WILL to do so. I'll just say that Americans would not begin to tolerate the kinds of nonsense the Israelis have- and I'm glad of it.

Not that we're perfect, for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. But in the real world, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the US is way the most successful country in world history by most measures. Big parts of the world depend on the US economy and the US military. That's the facts, Jack.

Plus, we produced the Dixie Chicks. We RULE!!!

Ruvy, finally a little sanity on this article. Thanks, mate!

Al, you're too stuck into the world of party politics to understand what I'm saying. Just a quick heads up:_ I'm not a socialist of any kind. If anything, I'm into the idea of efficient politics. A shallow leftist/rightist view of the world can never provide that.

I think most of the rest of your comment spins off nto some kind of comedy but it's too self-referential and, well, American to be sure.

Yeah I make stuff up all the time Chris.

Like when I quoted you as saying that you didn't vare to heed global population shifts because they were American trends right.

When I said that most major eruopean nations are taxed more and have higher unemplyment rates I made that up too huh.


When I offered crime statistics from Interpol showing there are actually more crimes per 100,000 in most European nations than the US I was making that up too right?

I referred to the aid that the US gave the British and Russians in world war 2 that made it possible to defeat the germans and liberate france.....made that up too..........

Your problem Chris.....is that you make these baseless characterizations of Europe and America based on your own narrow opinions and experience and then when someone refutes them with actual facts you personally attack them...... this is the manner in which I expect you to respond to this post as well as al's above mine

You'll probably just ignore everything i said and call me a hateful american or perhaps respond to one thing i said because you were able to muster a feeble argument that made sense to you but no one else with at least half a brain

Al, you need a bit of educating. If you read the book "1929" by William Klingaman, you learn a lot of interesting things.

For example, you find out that in 1929, the Prince of Wales, the fellow who later abdicated to marry an American divorcée (that's what they teach us, anyway), took a trip to see coal mines in his country and the conditions of workers. You can see in the photos in the book the haunted look in the man.

It comes out that this man became an admirer of Hitler. He watched as the government of the UK fumbled and did nothing while Brits starved. He wanted someone who would do something for the British people - and at least Hitler was promising to something for the German people, and when he came to power, he did. I'm not defending Naziism per se, but pointing out that Hitler did improve the conditions of Germans (except German Jews, of course) before blowing it all in war.

In researching this man further, the Prince of Wales apparently hatched the idea of a royal revolution where the king would seize power from the ministers and actually do something for his people, probably a program for economic recovery modelled on that of the Nazis. Ands apparently word of this leaked out. So when Edward VIII abdicated, the ministers wanted him far far away from London.

Also, Winston Churchill, it turns out, ridiculed the idea of deficit spending to deal with the economic depression in his country, and he ridiculed the idea of work programs and the like.

Apparently the British working class did not forget all this. They loyally stood by Churchill while he led the country in defeating Nazi Germany, but then ditched him when the victory had been won. The Labour government then did all the things for the British workingman it should have done 15 years earlier.

You and a whole host of other Americans need to get it through your thick heads that providing adequate health care for the population is a defense and security concern. It is not "creeping socialism" or some such other nonsense. Perhaps the British model of the National Health Scheme is not the perfect model - perhaps the Israeli model would be a better plan for your country. That I can't say. But there are basic elements of social democracy that would make your country an even better and healthier place to be than it is now. Universal health care is one of them.

Al, I don't know what center you allege yourself to be, but the 'moderate center' isn't one of them.

You and a whole host of other Americans need to get it through your thick heads that providing adequate health care for the population is a defense and security concern. It is not "creeping socialism" or some such other nonsense.

Ruvy.... the rest of the world needs to get it through their thick heads that we are Americans and we think differently than you do. We will not model our society on your's or europes because you say we should or because you claim it to be superior.

Quite frankly it is insulting to hear you or any other non-american telling us we must do so.

Ruvy, Chris and a host of others keep whining about how America needs to change to be like the rest of the world. Well guess what............ We don't want to. We like doing things our way and don't need some haughty europeans lecturing to us every five seconds on the evils of our society. There's a reason more people want to come to live in America than anywhere else in the world. it's because many people value or values, self reliance, capitalism, individualism etc.. more than they value the values of Europe, collectivism, income redistribution, social welfare.

If you don't undertsand this then you don't belong here anyway Ruvy. So why don't you all stay on your side of the pond in your socialist utopia, keep your stinking pieholes shut, and let Americans run America.

Bing, please do not ever get the idea that I think that Europe is superior to the United States.

I lived in America for many years, was active in American politics for many years - in both major parties - and have a very clear understanding of how Americans think. I know what they learn in school and what they don't. And they don't learn the history of the labor movement in their own country and the difference between syndicalist socialism, trade unionism, state socialism and social democracy.

To most Americans, and I suspect you fall into that majority, it's pinko this and commie that. Your ignorance is profound, deep and pathetic. You can't tell me, "if I don't like it in America, leave." I didn't, and I left, and will not return.

Europeans have made a deal with the devil - they refuse to have children and do the dirty work that needs to be done in their society, and they import cheap Moslem labor to get it done for them. And they are paying the price - in blood.

But America is running itself into debt and into the ground and refusing to recognize that Americans carry the lightest tax burden on the planet, and are the planet's biggest debtors. You in the States will pay for that stupidity in blood also. The deaths at the Trade Center and in Iraq and Afghanistan were just the down payment. More is coming.

I'm not interested in lecturing you on how to run your society, and very rarely suggest ideas for that reason. I do raise health care because I do know the difference between living with "employer provided health care" - we had the cadillac of Blue Cross/BlueShield plans - and under universal health care. Universal health care is far better by far. Of course there is "pay by yourself without insurance" health care - you can ask Jet all about how wonderful that is. He'll tell you chapter and verse, I'm sure. And for a lot of Americans, including all the restaurant workers I supervised, that was the wonderful system they had.

So smarten up, my good man. You need to broaden your perspectives considerably - it's a matter of saving your life, as well as your way of life.

Glad to see you're able to admit it finally!

You actually simply made several unsupported assertions, Archie, plus tossing in some numbers picked out of context.

As I've written before, you're now doing a fine reasonable job of remaining civil, now let's see if you can also get a little common sense working to complement it...

Just a side note to Chris here. In American eyes, Europe, all of it, is socialistic. Americans do not learn the concept that the state should be the engine for economic growth that was common policy under Frederick the Great of Prussia (a pinko commie with a crown), and most other countries of continental Europe. To them, that's just socialism.

Even Switzerland, which is a bastion of free enterprise, is socialistic in American eyes, once they realize that the state owns (or maybe owned - this may have changed) a large sector of the infrastructure element of the economic system.

Archie, Ruvy IS an American...

Thanks for that Ruvy; as I wrote in #34 above, the USA's entire political compass is offset to the right.

People like Archie, and possibly Mr Barger, seem to think it's the whole rest of the world that's out of step with them. That is entirely in keeping with my contention that in terms of its national growth and development, the USA, now in it's 3rd Century as a nation, is still a mere strapping juvenile.

The certainity of being always right that many Americans so desperately cling to is one of the classical signs of this comparatively early stage of development.

Obviously you will never understand the American mindset Chris....

We have no desire to be "in step" with the rest of the world... why do you keep insisting that we should?

We are a juvenile in the sense that our nation is very young in terms of age. HOwever in just over 200 years we have grown to be the most dominant nation on earth economically, culturally, miltarily and in just about every other aspect of human culture.

It's not about being right or wrong Christopher. It's appreciating and livng the American lifestyle. I hate the europena lifestlye of collectivism rather than individualism, state social welfare rather than self reliance, your tiny cars and homes, your pacifism. I abhor it all. However that does not mean I think you should change to an American way of life. You like the european lifestyle and it works for you. Fine. That doesn't concern me. I have no desire to tell europeans that they ought to act more american.

But it is you who keeps on insisting that America must change to fit the european worldview. it is you that keeps insiting that America is the oddball in the world and that's somehow inherently bad.

Ruvy I would think you'd better understand the AMerican psyche. You say to us everything is pinko this and socialist that. Well conversely europeans see everything american as greedy this or cowboy that. They certainly exhibit the same level of lack of understanding of our culture as some of us americans do for there's. Wouldn't you agree?

And yes ruvy our current govt hasn't been leading us in the right direction but that's our cross to bear and attempt too rectifyand we don't need europeans telling us who to vote for.

You talk of 911 Ruvy. There is also another distinction between america and europe. When we get attacked we fight back. WHen europeans get attacked such as the train bombing in spain, they roll over for the terrorists. then they blame it on us. if spain didn't want ot send thier troops to aid us they didn't have to. that was thier choice. but blaming us for their terrorist attack is out of line.

Israel is much more like America than europe when it comes to national defense Ruvy. Don't tell me you'd like to have an israeli PM who takes a backseat to the demands of the palestinians and islamic terrorists...what both israel and america need in the face of the current islamic terrorist threat is another harry truman........apparently he was the only man in recent history from any nation who had the stones to get the fucking job done right!

ArchBat you've deluded yourself into thinking that your mindset is the American mindset, and the pathetic part of it is that you know you're wrong and won't admit it to yourself or anyone else.

I feel really sorry for you

Bing,

I did not compare America to Europe. You and Chris are fighting that battle. That is not my issue. I want you to see two things.

One, is that American politics is heavily influenced by the fact that what is normally called "the left wing" in political thought is absent in the United States. The American labor movement is virtually moribund because of the stupid tactics adopted by Samuel Gompers in the mid-twenties of the last (Christian) century. Americans have no understanding of any other economic system other than the one they live under and such provincialism is not fitting for a people that would aspire to keep the greatness it has won by the dint of its hard work. You need to comprehend that there are other economic systems and the reasons for their existence, and both their strengths and weaknesses. A wise man learns from the mistakes of others. Switzerland has a plural executive, for example. Germany elects half of it lower house based on proportional representation. Both these ideas could possibly benefit America, if adopted. But that would be for you to decide and to discuss.

That is the primary reason you need to understand these things. I'm not telling you to adopt a European lifestyle, and I'm not telling you to adopt their economic system. But fail to learn from the mistakes of others, and you will certainly lose the greatness you have now.

Two, is that universal health care for all Americans, no matter how you define them, is a matter of national security. A healthy people is a strong people, and a strong people makes for a strong nation. There are economies that can be implemented to make hospitals less expensive to run, and there are methods of delivering health care that are a lot cheaper than what you are now paying, and a lot more comprehensive. Europe has several models to look at and Israel has an excellent model to look at.

You write,

"Don't tell me you'd like to have an Israeli PM who takes a backseat to the demands of the Palestinians and Islamic terrorists..."

That is exactly what we have, Bing. That is what we have had since Yitzhak Rabin took office in 1992. The giving in to Arab terrorists and the giving in to fear of Arabs has gotten progressively worse in this country for the last 14 years.

Read my articles and my comments, Bing and you would understand that. It hurts to say that. But it is unfortunately, the truth.

Ruvy, based on comment 44, it would appear that you're supporting socialistic welfare state programs, and just labeling them "defense" spending. Your logic would seem to be that if the government doesn't provide the appropriate free stuff, then the citizens won't be able to get health care or take care of themselves. They'll be starved, diseased animals and become crazy Nazis.

I have a somewhat different outlook these things, but this story certainly isn't the place for it. Affairs of state need to be discussed, but they have nothing to do with the main important thing: nekkid Dixie Chicks. It's kinda ludicrous to even pretend to have a serious political discussion of any kind based on the childish rantings of these girls.

Still, Natalie sure is cute when she's mad.

Jet more poeple in America share my views than yours. Sorry to have to break it to you.

Ruvy..........Sharon never struck me as the type to cave to the palestinians and islamic whackjobs but then I'm sure my knowledge pales in comparison to yours regarding the situation.
What do you think it will take to rectify the problem? The way I see it, there is no hope of the jews and palestinians ever living side by side in peace. I believe the palestinains and thier ilk would seek the destruction of israel no matter where it was locted in relation to the palestinians. It seems as if the more radical elements of islam are at war with the world while those who aren't look the other way.

What do you think of a Harry Truman solution Ruvy?

I wonder why society has such an aversion to a weapon that would kill many thousands in the blink of an eye but seemingly no such aversion to allowing violence to go on for years and years with an actual death toll which is higher. Is one so much worse than the other? Or maybe humans just like their misery in small doses.

Arch, what are Bush's approval ratings at the moment? Polls mean NOTHING to you unless they agree with you.

Get your head out of your ass and smell the coffee. That's what you want from me isn't it, to keep goading me till I lose my temper and you can sit there naked at you keyboard giggling at the monitor?

You got your wish, now go get a paper towel and shut up

Now Jet, you play nice, or we'll make you sit in the corner.

Jet,

Bush's admittedly low polls only reflect the public's disapproval of GWB's governance, they do not invalidate conservatism as a school of political thought. Plenty of conservatives remain firm in our belief in conservatism while rejecting much of what W is doing. A pretty good argument can and has been made that Bush has strayed well away from conservative priciples during his incumbency. Give me a good conservative candidate in '08, and I will vote for him/her in a NY minute.

Bush's low poll numbers are precisely NOT because he's "too conservative" but because he's not very conservative acting at all. The only way his numbers could get anywhere NEAR this low is by his conservative base turning against him. If he were gung-ho conservative, he'd have at least 40% approval or so.

Maybe Natalie Maines should run for president. I'm sure she'd have some great insights to share with eager voters.

Fair enough Al and Clavos, I used to be proud to call myself a conservative until the Repbulican party sold it's soul to the religious right in order to win elections.

Now they're nothing but a parrot to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Jet, when was it that the Republicans supposedly sold their souls to Falwell and Robertson? It would actually appear to me that the religious types have somewhat LESS influence than they did, say, during the Reagan administration.

OTHER than gay marriage (on which topic I don't see any more real support from the Democrats), on what issues are these religious types having their way?

I wonder what Natalie Maines thinks about this. This is a story about Natalie...

Abortion, the supreme court, rights to privacy, rolling back personal freedoms in favor of a religious police state Just to name a few.

and you right, it was during the Reagan elections that I switched from Republican, to Independant to Democrat. The era of Jerry Falwell's "Moral majority" and Anita Bryant.

You've really got to do something about this obssession you have with Natalie Maines, you're going to either get your monitor screen all wet, or start posting comments about Marilyn Monroe!

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Until you respond to something I actually said instead of whining about Bush's po;; numbers I'm ignoring you.

At that's where you went for so long, you were fantasizing!!!....my bad!

Who's bitching about Bush's poll numbers??? I think they're great and currently 64 out of 100 americans agree with me!

..."currently 64 out of 100 americans agree with me!"...

Now now, Jet, keep that ego under control. Shouldn't it be you agree with 64 out of 100 Americans?

Oh I'm sorrrrrrry 36 out of 100 Americans agree with ArchBat. How's that?

Dunno. Shouldn't you ask the 36 first?

What the 36th first transvestite batalion paratroopers from Billings Montana in their perfect makeup and hair?

Why encourage him, his meds are just now kicking in.

Nice try, Jet, but he said in #64 he's ignoring you.

Oh he must've gone back to do more fantasizing...

Al,

Health care is a matter of national security, just as a good interstate system is. The interstates were all built under the rubric of national defense - a system of rapid troop transport over the highways. You write,

"Your logic would seem to be that if the government doesn't provide the appropriate free stuff, then the citizens won't be able to get health care or take care of themselves. They'll be starved, diseased animals and become crazy Nazis."

I don't take the logic as far as you would indicate. I don't need to. The standard of living is falling in your country. Fifty years ago, by and large, one person could generally provide for a family's needs. Now it takes two, by and large. Dance and sing all you want; if it takes the income of two people to support a family where it used to take one, that is a drop in the standard of living.

First of all there is no such thing as "free stuff." There is always a cost somewhere and there must always be a way to pay without writing IOU's on the grandkids.

Medical care has become a lot more expensive than the five dollar house call and the two dollar penicillin shot I remember as a child. This has happened for various reasons - one being the natural inflation of the price of personal services (physicians), a second being the cost of use and throw needles and equipment, pajamas, etc., etc. instead of the sterilizing laundry that used to be used. A third might be the pathetic overpricing of medicine in America as drug companies try to make back R&D costs for their trips into the Amazon jungle to gather plants...

The last I remember (2000), a visit to the pediatrician cost $80. That was just the visit. I had insurance, but when I was a little pisher hiding under the covers trying to avoid the penicillin shot that seemed the inevitable result of doctor's visits, my parents didn't have to worry about medical insurance to pay for the house call.

All these little factors show up in the economy - people who ignore their health because they have to, less energy in people, less initiative, etc. etc. Add to this the forced abuse of emergency rooms by people who cannot afford regular medical care, and you have a problem. I'm not even going into all the details because I don't have time to.

You seem to want to shuffle the problem off to charity and pretend it doesn't exist. Meanwhile the country's health system and health declines as crisis after crisis besets it. Others have been wiser than this.

In imperial Germany, that flaming socialist and pinko commie, Otto von Bismarck, put in place the 8-hour day, workmen's compensation, and unemployment insurance - all this before being forced out of office by the one-armed emperor of idiocy, Wilhelm II in 1890. He also laid the groundwork for Germany's present system of healthcare. You think Germany was regarded as the most civilized state in Europe because they listened to Wagner? It took the Great Depression to get acceptance for anything like this in the States.

Why do you think Bismarck did all of this? He didn't do it because he went to sleep each night lustily singing "The Internationale". If he thought he could have gotten away with banning the Social Democrats in Germany and jailing them, he would have. He did it for two basic reasons. One was the concept in German statecraft (laid by Frederick the Great, another pinko commie with a crown, no less) that the State leads the way for industry to develop and has a responsibility to do so. The other was to deprive the Social Democrats of their basic issues. For him, it was a win-win situation.

A "conservative" political alignment in the States can do the same thing, for nearly the same reasons. Richard Nixon had Bismarck as one of his models, and if you remember, he proposed a negative income tax many years ago to deal with the welfare problem in America.

So you need to look to the "conservative free enterprise" folks to get a universal health care system going in your country. When you are coughing your guts out or going blind, and can't afford the treatment to take care of you, doctrinnaire considerations get put to the side, and continuing to live in good health comes first.

Finally, a "frontal assault" by some naked girls is always fun to see...

Bing writes,

"Sharon never struck me as the type to cave to the palestinians and islamic whackjobs but then I'm sure my knowledge pales in comparison to yours regarding the situation."

and asks,

"What do you think of a Harry Truman solution Ruvy?"

Short answers, Bing. I don't want to hijack an article about naked girls challenging your government's policy.

Everybody figured that Sharon would settle the Arab's hash and end the busllshit. That's why he defeated Ehud Barak in 2001. But he didn't. He kicked out Barak and folowed his policy, under a different name. He was Israel's equivialent to Henri Pétain.

I've written extensively about these issues on Blog Critics. Go to my articles on Israeli politics, the piece called "Lo Nora," my review of the book "Warday" and my comments talking about how the Wahhabis and their spoor have hijacked Islam. I there, you'll see how I view a "Harry Truman" solution.

Jet does seem to have gotten the whole religious right thing a bit backwards. More than the GOP catering to the relgious right we see the GOP using the religious right for their own purposes. It's hardly a one-way street.

Dave

Ruvy, you're just wrong by almost any actual practical measure on the ground to suggest that our standard of living in the US has fallen in 50 years. We have more stuff, better stuff, cheaper stuff (relative to income levels), more availability, FAR better medicine, etc.

However, you do certainly have a legitimate point here: "Fifty years ago, by and large, one person could generally provide for a family's needs. Now it takes two, by and large."

This is true- but the main reason that it's true is that now governments at all levels suck up about half of people's income in taxes one way or another in order to pay for all the free stuff. Besides the economic boom that would undoubtedly result, if we just eliminated income taxes, a whole lot more people could afford to be single-earner households.

I wonder what Natalie Maines thinks about a single-payer health care system? This is a story about Natalie...

Al, given that this is an article about Natalie Maines, I wonder what Natalie Maines thnks about being naked and cold in a photo shoot.

But you force me to ask you some questions, and since you're available and Natalie's not, here goes.

What is a libertarian doing talking about "free stuff"? I know that Dire Straits sings about "money for nothing and chicks for free" but that's a song about the fantasies of a pissed off delivery manager in an appliance store.

Even a syndicalist socialist like me knows there is no such a thing as "free stuff". What is in the water (or beer) that you're drinking that has you talking about "free stuff"? Everything that is material costs money, and everything that is material has a price.

If you want services, you must pay for them. In its better forms, public administration is about finding ways to maximize the service delivered for the money paid, but there is always a cost.

In some places, for example, it is much more economical to have private collection of garbage. Cities where the private homes are primarily individual buildings or duplexes, like St. Paul or Minneapolis, are examples of this. Cities like Jerusalem, where the private homes are primarily apartments, by contrast, are more effectively served by a municipal garbage collection system. Whether that system should be privately or publicly owned is another question entirely.

In my own opinion, such a company should be privately owned by the workers and should compete for tenders against other companies privately owned by the workers. Thus you make sure that people actually compete and you have some guarantee that these people are not going to be in some terribly unequal income distribution pyramid, with the hardest worker getting paid the least. But that is my ideological bent speaking, not necessarily what is most economical. I haven't crunched the numbers. I'm just giving an example of syndicalist socialism and how it could work, and how it has worked, by the way.

You could ask Natalie Maines what she thinks of it after she gets some clothes on. That is, after you've explained to her what syndicalist socialism is and how it works. Think you could manage it?

As for having "more stuff and better stuff" and needing two incomes to pay for it all, that is something you might want to really think about.

Finally, I remind you that the United States has the lightest tax burden in the "first world." You pay for a lot less, and get a lot less as a result. And the way things are going, you will get even less in the future, whether you pay the same or not.

As a result of the mismanagement of the economy and the budget by your present administration, the issues in America are how to balance the budget, how to maintain a good defense system.

As a result of the terrible bump in the population caused by the "baby boomers" you face a looming decision of either payng exhorbitant amounts of money to support old farts like me, who have paid their 40 quarters into the system, or to cut us all loose with a middle finger. I'm betting on the second solution. I'll be shocked if I see a dime out of Social Security.

Finally, there is the issue of maintaining the health of your country. Once, it was a matter of shelling out $7 or $10 for a house call. Now it's a lot pricier. If health services are left as a profit drven enterprise, only those who can pay will be healthy and the rest will be sick.

It really is that simple.

Too many "finally's" in thast last brief comment, I see.

Even a syndicalist socialist like me knows there is no such a thing as "free stuff".

NO shit there is only "stuff you paid for yourself" America or "stuff somebody else paid for" Europe.

"syndicalist socialist"? I always figured he was a member of the SS!

Gee thanks, Jet...

You're a sweetheart, too. Anyway, kid, now you know that I'm the socialist and the real leftist on the board, so now you all can leave Chris alone... He is your standard capitalist living in a social democracy.

That doesn't make me any less a Jew - I don't buy into the atheism the Marxists hustle. It doesn't mean I'm any less a Jewish nationalist, and I certainly do not buy into all the garbage about "national liberation for Palestinians" that the European social democrats spew like so much volcanic ash.

It means that I think that syndicalist socialism is a better way to go than having wage slaves at NIS 20/hr or less and a rich class that exploits them, sitting on thir asses being self righteous about it all.

And now I wish you all a happy Shavuót. I'll be in touch, G-d willing, in 50 hours or so.

I am indeed a capitalist living in a social democracy, but "standard"? I'm shocked and hurt!

Have a good one, Ruvy.

My god it's finally happened! Ruvy's gone so for left in the circle that he's right, and Arch's gone so far right he's left!

Saint's be praised?

Solus mei sententia
Jet

Brother Ruvy, when you go on about how there's no FREE STUFF, you're making my main point there. It's one of the classic critiques of democarcy that they will inevitably devolve into people voting for free goodies for themselves. Hey, someone else will have to pay for it.

I understand wanting to help people- but you should do it with your own money. It's real easy to be generous with other people's money.

Now, besides the fact that it's not right to take money from one guy at gunpoint to give to another, it tends to be very bad economics. Every dollar of relief ends up doing several dollars worth of damage in a half dozen different directions.

Perhaps Natalie Maines has some insights on syndicalist socialism vs free market capitalism.

Brother Al:

We finally have the "free stuff" straightened out. Now let's look at your other observations:

"I understand wanting to help people - but you should do it with your own money. It's real easy to be generous with other people's money."

Yup, we agree there - your critique appears to be of the welfare state.

"...it's not right to take money from one guy at gunpoint to give to another, it tends to be very bad economics."

Yup, we agree there. You appear to be making the basic and most common critique of state socialism and what used to be known as Russian communism

The whole idea of syndicalist socialism is not to "redistribute" wealth but to see to it that its creation is as equal as humanly possible at the gitgo - and to see to it that you have true competition between private enterprises so that you have quality.

Examples of this were the kibbutzim in Israel. We now come unfortunately, to your final and most stinging criticism.

"It's one of the classic critiques of democarcy that they will inevitably devolve into people voting for free goodies for themselves. Hey, someone else will have to pay for it."

When the Labor party came to p[ower in 1949, it didn't take too long for the kibbutz movement to turn to banks for loans to back them up when they screwed up. With the Labor Party backing them up, it was hard for the banks to say no...

So the kibbutzim became gradually indebted to the banks for the overly luxurious lifestyle they voted their members. And when the Labor party fell from power, the banks started to call in their teds. In the mid '80's. when the Labor Party emasculated the Workers' Federation in Israel, the kibbutzim started to fall on hard times - and many of them have "gone private."

A few of the kibbutzim, particularly the religious ones, the ones who didn't borrow a luxurious life style with bank loans have been able to stick it all out.

This stuff takes discipline...

Shavua Tov,