Animal Rights:

There's a reason why animals should'nt have rights. First it's not a natural given under the natural order of life. Animals are by nature chaotic beings. They are spiritualy at their base chaotic neutral creatures. They are a lower life form than humans.They are unable to reason between good or evil. They lack the capacity to understand any higher forms of intelligance. I don't deny that they might feel pain, or that they cant' be emotional. That's all a part of their brain function, to be able to sence pain or to know and show fear by running away from danger. What's wrong with useing rats in science experiments? I have no problem with rats in the lab. The rats are able to reproduce so quickly and the species continues. But with humans it's a different matter because human's are slower to reproduce and grow. But we grow to a higher capacity of intelligence and being, that we are more likely to face extinction because of our growth rate. I don't deny that the animal's should be treated with fairness, that's if we keep them as pet's or as farm helpers. Horses, and other farm animals whare we interact on a daily basis desrve our respect and affection. But all animals regardless of their class remain one in the fact that they are by their neutral chaotic naure beings of lesser life forms, than humans.

From the Peanut Gallery: MCcain is going to run.

Is he or won't he? It's not if but when is he going to announce. Check out his speech to the American Enterprise Institute. It's obvisouly that he laying the ground work for 08. This speech reads like a foriegn policy speech that a presidential canidate would give. He's on the record now for haveing given a major foreign policy. What he's allso done is staked out ground, that anyone else who runs will either have to ,or that the Senator is right, or go negitave, and look as though they oppose the war. Or maybe look incompetent because they criticize a policy that actualy makes sence. This speech was a shrewd move, on the Senator's part.

Fear of Capitalism:

It is fear that motivates people to act or vote a certain way. Fear can be driveing force with either the use of wisdom, as a motivateing factore, or out of cowherdly fooloishness like in fearing Capitalism. Hugo Chavez has capitalized on that fear in Venezuela,and South America. Politicans use fear as a means to win support for their positions. Under tyrants fear is used to control the mob, to instill fear and a sence of vunerablity so as to instill a dependency on the tyrant in the role of big brother who can help those who cant' escape from the prison of fear. Fear is used as a basis for a false ideaology that offers a utopia with out fear but under the control, and domination by the tyrant. Socialism is a case in point. It preys upon the fears of the people to depend on government for safty and security while enslaveing them to false ideaology of a utopia that is born not out of self determination but out of need and fear. Capitalism susseeds whare the fear is tempered by haveing freedom, which gives rise to hope and the ability of self determination. An example would be the entrepnuer who has the freedom to take risks, setting aside his fear he takes a risk in starting a buiseness. But because he is free and not a prisoner of his fear he is able to determine for himself what is best for him and imagine what his own utopia ought be and not one provided to him by the state government. The people's of devoloping countries can not be free of their fear if they are not first given the right to freedom. If they can not escape their fear of uncertainty that comes with free trade then will not escape their poverty, and continue to allow for tyrants, like Hugo Chavez, to govern their lives.

America is feared across the world, but what is feared the most is the uncertainty that America offers to all, becasue what she is offering is the promise of freedom. America is hated because we offer the trueth of unbounded freedom. What is needed are tools for people to protect their right of self determination. We as people can do a better job in trying to bridge the gap between ignorance and enlightenment. For generations Americans have braved the unknown whether it was venturing across vast plains or exploreing the vast seas of the world. Are we afraid when we start? Sure. But we are free to take the risks as we so choose, because we have become fearless in takeing chances that decide our fate. Nothing is as great as to know that we as people are free to determine for our selves, the paths in life we ought to take . People like Hugo Chavez deny to his people that choice of self determination that only a free and fearless people can make. That is why we must stand up to tyrants and seek ways' of enlighting people imprisoned by fear, of the virtue in being free, from that fear, for the sake of claiming their right of self determination.

Political Triangulation:

Political triangulation: the ablitity in politics by a politician to triangulate his views by appealing to his parties base while at the same time appealing to moderate, independent voters who will help him win election. Examples of politicans who were successful at triangulation include former president's Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. President Reagan was able to successfully triangulate between the Republicans as his base and appeal to democrats, forever known as Reagan democrats for the landside support they gave him. President was able with able to triangulate as well, but the opposite of President Reagan. President Clinton triangulated with the Democrats as his base and was able to appeal to independent voters who helped elect him twice. President Clinton it should be noted was not as successful as Reagan in triangulation because the voters carried a level of mistrust of him, thus he is not honoured with the name Clinton Republicans. History aside triangulation is a balanceing act of policy positions that only the most political savy politicans succeed at.

The story of the '08 Presidental election will be one of who can best triangulate between their base and the moderate independent voters they need to win election.

From the Peanut Gallery: 08 The Early View:

'08 primairies are still two years and three months away yet the race is starting to take an early shape. We have Hillary who we've known was going to run for years now, she's looking like a contender. The big question there, are there going to be any democrats to oppose her in '08, or are they going to hand it to her? Evan Baye was in the state last week to give a speech, word is that he was quite impressive. Could be something building there.Other Democrats of interest John Kerry? Please.It's all ego there. John Edwards could come out as being the outside the belt way canidate. Govonor Bill Richardson from New Mexico is intrigueing but it's still to early to tell if he has "it". Sen. Russ Feigngold? Who? No name recognition in the state yet. An unknown quanity. As for the Republicans it's an open field, Mccainis a front runner, but is he going to attract the money he needs to run a national campaign? Can he move the party faithful to cough up some dough? Besides there has'nt been a president elcected from the senate in how many years? Personaly I like Mccain, (no I'm not on the payroll of the Republican party, or any canidate), but right now I have yet to see if he has "it", the motivateing factor, and ability to convince people to vote, and donate money for him. Another likely Republican canidate is Mitt Romney, govonor of Mass. The early view here is he's vunerable. He's got questionable skills as a govonor. He does'nt listen to advisers, and commisions that he personaly appoints particualy well. Another down side which might seem a plus is he's known to the people of NH, whare he vactions on lake Winnipisauki. You would think this would be an advantage, whare he would have instant name recognition being the govoner of a neighboring state, and a summer vactioner. But the people of NH know him, the Boston media market dominates the heavily populated southern part, which allows for easy criticizims of the govoner to reach the people of NH. But this all becomes mute if the primary calender is changed within the next year with NH loosing it's first in the nation status primairy, which is possible thanks to the Democrats. Who else for the Republicans? Virginia Sen. George Allen is rumored to be a strong canidate. Downside no name recognition, an unknown in the state of NH. Tennesse Sen. Bill Frist, please he's damaged goods. As senate majority leader his leadership under the attacks by the Democrats make him look vunerable. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a question mark. Does' he have "it"? He's got solid credentials and is a reliable quanity for the Republican party. NY Gov.George Pataki. The downside potential here is he capable of beating Hillary? She might do a pretty good job of takeing him down. Another factor is he seems like he's another Mitt Romney, can he govern effectivly?Does he have "it"? He's not realy known outside of NY. I don't see any upside yet. Finaley two outside shots from the Republicans. Newt Gingrich, and Miss. Gov. Hailey Barbour. As for Newt can he appeal to enough moderate, independant voters to win? Will the fact that he seems to be a right wing extremeist be a factor? Gov. Barbour might be the suprise canidate for '08 . He has shown he can govern effectivly in times of crisis, aka. Hurricane Katrina. He's got a strong postion that he can win from. He's shown he's not a weak and ineffectual govonor. He's also got solid credentials as a Republican, haveing been Republican chair could help with name recognition, and raiseing money. The primairies are two plus years away so stay tuned.

Fear and Free Enterprise:

What is missing in the the national debate on hot political issues, is the debate, and, of the conflict of fear by the people, and the importance of free enterprise to America. America is a capitlist society, thus there is the need, and desire to be free to pursue free enterprise. But there is also a backlash against capitalism which translates into fear and insecurity, of capitalism. Canidates for and in being President need to counter balance the fears and insecurites of the people, against the desire of caplitalism to be free. The voters are fearful of looseing their jobs which translates into inseucurity. These increase as the government is percieved as not doing enough to help the poor and working classes. Which translate to anitpathy at the polls for canidates that are seen as not meeting the needs of the voters. On the otherside of the equation is the need by buisness to be free enough to grow and turn a profit which might benifit all. What has been missing from the national debate is a clear and reasonable discussion of what the balance ought to be between the government saftynet and the the governing of the buisness. This is a balance only of which the state can achieve but is put to the mercy of the patisan political winds blowing through Washington at any one time.

A Sacrifice for Liberty:

Why are we in Iraq? What is the sacrifice we are asked to make? For whom? Why? It appears the reason we're in Iraq is to free it from the tyranny that was the regiem of Saddam Hussien. The sacrifice we're asked to make is in military service for operations in Iraq. We are asked it appears to support our troops that are serving in Iraq. Which is fine, but it's not a sacrifice for the American public unless their love one's are serving in the military. As for who, it appears for the people of Iraq. Why?Because Iraq, was, still is, a cess pool of thugs,terrorists, and tyrant's hostile to the idea of liberty. Is Iraq realy worth the sacrifice we're makeing there? To me there was nothing of the national interest there. It seems to be case of makeing war for the sake of just getting rid of a tyrant, no matter how hard the President try's to make to make a case for it being a part of the war on terrorism. But what is the value of sacrificeing the Lives of American troops for a nation with no history of Republicanism? What's the value for a nation without any spirirt of patriotism? What's the value of Liberty in a nation whare the people themselves have yet to decide that price for themselves? If the cause in Iraq is for Liberty it seem's shallow when the Iraqi people themselves have yet to debate the spirit of liberty amoung themselves. The other major problem is there is no common cause, no spirit of patriotism with the counrty, which is important for the sucess of a Republic. Another point I want to make is that at the birth of America we had the age of enlightenment takeing place, causeing a great and noble spirit running through the young nation. What seems to be missing here is a age of enlightenment in Iraq whare the classics and philosophies are studied and debated. Yet this speaks of what is also missing in America today, a reference and promotion of those very classics and philosophi's upon which America was founded. Does America need another age of enlightenment? Yes it does. So as to promote the ideas of noble action and virtue for the purpose of furthing the peace and prosperity of the hunman race.