What song best sums up the previous year?

"Like Iraq"...by Bob Seger, of course.

All I can say from having spent quite a lot of time with Pat is that he would be ashamed that you so speak so callously to a community of which you are a member. Compassion and understanding is not conditional, and yet you make it so. Next time you want specific responses, fill them in yourself.

I'm sorry for your loss, Nate, truly. And I'm sorry for your insensivity as well. Re-read your post again. It leaves all options available as far as responses go. If you don't realize that you live in a highly polarized nation, you are either not paying attention, not asking questions, or simply too busy labeling the idiots. Well, you can consider me one of them, and I'm grateful that Pat found it so easy to love me for it.

I agree entirely, Dan. We are experiencing what I see as a retardation of meaningful discussion in this country, and I happen to believe that governmental heirarchies impact the country in exactly the same way that parents and CEO's do in their respective environments, setting the tone of discussion/tolerance/money management/sense of entitlement/greed/etc. right from the top on down. While I can't readily think of a song to represent that particular dynamic, the one title I skewed (in half jest, albeit) is for me representative of the past year, and applicable to politicians, corporate executives, moralistic leaders, and others who "Like Iraq" throw up a smoke-and-mirrors image of themselves while operating in a world of deceit. This phenomenon extends beyond party lines, religious affiliations, and bullshit commitments to customer service. We've become experts at lying about who we are, and most effectively so to ourselves, to the point that we believe the charade and thus are mostly impervious to a truthful dissection of our actions. In other words, we are being taught that personal responsibility and honesty are nothing more than fodder for building a fictitious self-image. People complain about kids not being responsible for themselves? It starts at the top, with this endless array of scandals and lies. Again, I'm not simply pointing the finger at Bush. Rather, it is the tone that has been set by his government, one that actually honors deceit, and one in which all discussion shall not venture beyond the surface.

I'm not sure any of the responses given here would be representative of a radical left, as Nate mentioned. I don't think any of us is out tossing molotov coctails at WTO meetings. Nor were any of the responses overt expressions of hatred toward Bush. Indeed, 9/11 was a wake-up call, and I happen to believe that "you're either with us or against us" fired the starter's pistol on this volatile state of affairs. Because from that point on, unrestrained and unsubstantiated became the name of the game. As the economic future of our esteemed country is being whittled away, we fling names and moralistic epithets at each other, having now been charged with the supreme duty of separating the patriots from the enemies within. At the same time, Bill O'Reilly suggests that it would be a good idea for Al Qaeda to annhiliate San Francisco. Forget damaging the morale of the troops, he's encouraging terrorists to blow up an American city!

Nate, whether or not you feel you belong on this site is up to you. There is no question that you have offered an immense amount of valuable discussion and useful audio recommendations within these threads. Personally, I hope you choose to continue. The Internet is tough sometimes, especially because many of the tools we use to communicate (vocal fluctuations, facial expressions, gesticulations, etc.) cannot be infused into this simple exchange of words. It's also difficult because most of us have never actually met in person, which if we did it would help to deepen subsequent conversations.

We live in a volatile time, one that might take us aback while looking at it 20-30 years from now. Dan, you said something last week about the selfish nature of man, something that really got me thinking. You said:

to describe human nature as "selfish" is not unlike calling an elephant large. What we call "selfishness" is simply a basic human trait.

This is a quality with which I've never been comfortable, and always wished it was different. But as you say, it just is. It certainly explains the corporate scandals, the mass genocides, the falsifying of pharmaceutical data, cheating on taxes, and so on. Ultimately, it might also explain another human trait: the desire to live beyond it. While I'm not convinced this is possible, we do have our moments. And many times, they occur right here in this community. Thank you, Dan.

Barb is here, so we're off for a drive in the foothills. Enjoy your weekend, you guys.

Howard

In case anyone is interested, this is the story on Mr. O'Reilly's comments. He suggested (among other things) that the terrorists should blow up Coit Tower, which is in fact a monument to firefighters.

Appreciate the attempt to balance this point, Paul (Oldpet), but in all of the time I have watched Mr. O'Reilly, the word 'balanced' has never come to mind as representative of his delivery, or content. He (like others, yes) has a specific agenda. He is not a reporter. He is a well-compensated pawn for the Rupert Murdoch conservative agenda, a mono-chromatic politicizer of issues, and completely out of line to suggest to this dangerous enemy to which you refer should blow up an American city. This is not balance, and it is without question NOT satirical. It also would not be tolerated had Al Franken or Michael Moore said it, nor should it be. This is a heinous invitation to bring the violence here to the US. Sorry, not funny.

As I've always said, if you believe in the war, put your money where your mouth is and suit up. Go and fight, or your words are meaningless. I can tell you one thing, however. I wouldn't want them recruiting in my kid's high school. Nor do I want Procter & Gamble paying for their audio/video equipment either, for obvious reasons.

Mr. O'Reilly understands sales. He understands politics. We might even say he understands the Clinton-esque side of backroom sexcapades. But he does not understand the first thing about the current geo-political scenario in which we are ensconced. He's not a newsman. He is not a sage. He is a barking firestarter, and paid extremely well for being exactly that.

Wow, a lot of negative miserable people out there.

Who's miserable? Vocal, perhaps. Dissatisfied with certain aspects of our nation's governance, sure. But certainly not miserable. In fact, none of the respondents spoke of being miserable. Glad to see you're so happy and appreciative. A true blessing.

There are a number versions of that song, Buynow:
Eric Burdon & the Animals (probably the one you refer to)
Nina Simone
Elvis Costello

...and I'm sure there are more.

"Boa, did you serve? If not, shut up."

C'mon, Charlie, you wouldn't say that to the president would you?

You never had or have the guts to serve.

You are making no sense, Charlie. Read my comments again. What do they have to do with me serving/not serving in the military?

Charlie101: 11 posts, 11 insults. Surely, you have more to offer this community, don't you?

Dan, thank you for the support. I sure hope we get the chance to meet someday. That would be a real treat for me.

Tom,
Will you clarify the point you are making? I believe I get what you're saying, but don't want to assume that I do.
Thanks,
Howard

Thanks for the clarification, Tom.

The world needs more Thomas Jeffersons

Tom, we are in complete agreement there. No, not as the slave owner, but rather as the man who is willing to live by these words, the balance of which should inform any inquisitive American that his present government would make Thomas Jefferson sick.

The Nazis and Japanese of WWII were noble in comparison to the enemy we face now. At least the enemies of WWII fought as soldiers, who understood the rules of war - not terrorists, who know, no boundaries.

The Nazis were noble? Sure Paul, try and sell that line to a Jew. You can start with me. Please tell me you wrote that while having an aneurysm.