[Grovenet] And so it continues, at least until 01-20-2008 ! ! ! ! !

[David Morelli]

On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bob Browning wrote:

> Gosh, David, I apologize. I guess I made the mistake of thinking  
> that "skills" should be something useful to others, and not in the  
> sense of tricks needed by a con man...
>
> bob "whoo, boy, what a GOP dog fight last night" browning

Bank robbers, safe crackers, extortionists, and drug runners all have  
skills that they hone to a sharp edge in their chosen fields.

Con artists, poker players, generals, and sharp shooters have skills  
that involve reading their opponents to be able to predict their  
future actions and use that knowledge to obtain their goals.  Some  
goals may be beneficial and others may be harmful.

As Ron indicated, even linguists can benefit from being a "quick  
read", while Carol's meeting suggests that Clinton is a very quick  
reader of human behavior.  If the other attributes of the person are  
useful to the nation, it may well be a real benefit to have a  
charismatic leader as a President.  But, when the other attributes  
include a blind passion to pursue a dogmatic goal despite the reality  
of the situation, it can be tremendously harmful.   Bush seems  
unwilling or unable to admit any error in his chosen path, which  
means we cannot avoid the icebergs as he goes "full steam ahead".   
His sycophants won't say anything to dissuade him, and the financial  
beneficiaries of his policies will support him even if it bankrupts  
the honor of this nation.

I am very sorry that a significant part of this nation fails to see  
the evil in what he does.

It is disheartening to realize that many people who believe that they  
are practicing a moral life style, hold to the premise that "the ends  
justify the means".  They act as if a financial or personal goal  
justifies killing.  Some may draw the line at killing animals, others  
at killing fetuses, and others at killing civilians, but they accept  
killing for personal or financial benefit.  A "moral relativist"  
would say that "it depends".

I would doubt that many of Bush's supporters consider themselves to  
be moral relativists, insisting that they are following a strict  
moral code rather than practicing "situational ethics".  Well,  
sorry.  Attacking Iraq as a preemptive measure and putting into  
motion a process to kill thousands of civilians and Americans is  
contrary to the strict Christian moral code.  So, supporting killing  
in Bush's War just because he will put judges on the Supreme Court to  
overturn Roe v Wade is pure situational ethics practiced by moral  
relativists.

Supporting Bush because oil interests may benefit is just capitalism  
at work.  Capitalism is amoral, it is the driving force behind drug  
smuggling, illegal immigration into this country, murder for hire,  
and prostitution.  The Taliban knows this and they are opposed to  
free market capitalism for moral reasons.  Bush keeps telling the  
fiercely moral religious fundamentalists in the Middle East that he  
wants to spread democracy and the free market.  His supporters  
believe that is a great idea, except that they don't want capitalist  
porn shops, capitalist drug dealers, capitalist abortionists and  
capitalist prostitutes in their neighborhoods either.  And yet, they  
cannot understand why the "Islamofascists" are willing to die to  
prevent an immoral economy from entering their neighborhoods.

David