On the SS, I hope your sanguine view turns out to be true. I just have my doubts. Perhaps I am much younger than you, but I do not expect to receive any benefits although I have paid the maximum contribution each year since I have worked–effectively an extra tax with no expected benefit. I have heard mixed reviews on the Chile proposal, with a figure no less than Greenspan criticizing it on economic grounds. I am not an expert to have an opinion on that proposal, but any proposed solution likely will require additional taxes and sharply reduced spending. As to apportioning blame, the Dems are an easy target, and you are correct that Bush proposed overhauling SS and the Dems balked, but this is political theater. Medicare is something like 10 times the liability that SS is, and has no money going in (unlike SS), and this is the liability that OMB is conveniently pushing recognition on until–surprise!–2009. Effectively, the Bush administration has excluded this liability from its budget forecasts and dumped it on the next administration. This is to justify those crazy stats that make permanent tax cuts and further tax cuts seem reasonable and sustainable, even when they are not (at current spending levels). As to letting inflation solve the problem, I’d refer you to the wonderful standard of living enjoyed in Argentina over the last 80-100 years because of that country’s use of inflation to get out of its debts. Do you want us to be a banana republic as well?

Islam is a complicated religion. No less so than Christianity or Judaism. My muslim friends, who are law abiding Americans, would disagree with most of what you wrote to characterize the religion. I would merely observe that all three of these Abrahamic religions appear to have gone through an evolution. 3-5K years ago, the Jews wiped the Hittites off the face of the earth because they did not worship the God of David. 700-800 years ago, Christians committed atrocities during the Crusades for the same reason. Now a subset of the Muslims are doing it. I think it’s a phase in the ideology, which is exacerbated by a lot of other historical and economic forces that are at play. The other thing I would say is that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding. Finally, I’m pretty sure that Obama is not advocating discussions with Jihadi’s but with Muslims who are rational and would be willing to negotiate for a mutually beneficial outcome. By the way, some of those people are in Hamas, notwithstanding what many Americans believe. The US won’t deal with the democratically elected representative of the Palestinian people because some members promoted terrorist events; yet we (correctly) celebrated the 60th anniversary of Israel although its seminal leaders also committed terrorist acts (e.g., Begin’s bombing of the King David hotel). To not talk with non-Jihadi Muslims is to encourage the proliferation of these radicals. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

Back from my trip, so a couple of quick replies. I disagree that Jihadis hate us “because we are free” - they hate us because our freedom and success is an affront to everything they and their particular brand of Islam represents. Recognize that Islam is not a point of view - it is a faith that promises that Muslims are God’s chosen and that they shall inherit the earth (by wiping out the infidel, for one). The fact that the world of Islam has proven itself such a failure in so many respects to Western (Christian and Judaic) society challenges the very essence of their faith.

In their view, the success of the West can only have occurred by the Christians and Jews being in league with Satan (hence, the Iranian reference to “Great Satan” and “Little Satan”). Most people in the West cannot comprehend such total, absolute fanaticism that fails to respond to any hint of reason (even when backed by force). You can’t really comprehend it until you have stared in the face of a Jihadi, as I have done…several times. Frankly, those people scare the c*** out of me and I recognize that there is only one solution - kill them and let all other wannabees know that this is their the only future, should they choose that path! A salutary effect of Iraq’s “fly-paper” strategy has been to attract Jihadis from the world over to Iraq’s killing fields.

Second - in reference to Bush and the coming collapse of social security. May I remind you that it was the Bush administration that proposed, despite warnings never to touch the “third rail” of politics, a complete overhaul of the Social Security system to not only move it to solvency, but to provide social security contributors with permanent, tangible assets. The proposal was based upon the very successful model system put into place in Chile (designed by U. of Chicago economists). The proposal was so viciously skewered by the the Liberal MSM that the American eloectorate never got a clear idea of what it was about, much less an opportunity to debate and vote on it. The social security system will not collapse, instead it will probably fade into irrelevancy as “actual” benefits dribble way into nothing, be it through tightened eligibility rules or inflation that erodes away the value of the benefits.

Cheers.

If we start with the assumption that human beings are mortal, does this mean life and activities in life must then have no meaning?

Or is it that life has more meaning precisely because life cannot exist indefinitely.

People’s minds cannot be changed with factually accurate counter-examples precisely because many people don’t believe what they haven’t seen. Just cause you saw a “counter-example” based upon fact doesn’t mean you can make anyone else agree with you.

That doesn’t mean we should “refrain from conversing or debating”, you know.

but it’s not one I hope to ever encounter and I’m pretty sure it’s incompatible with democracy

Did you skip the history lessons on how propaganda has ensured the survival of many nations and peoples, including the Union’s efforts in the Civil War?

This one is interesting to consider. You may be right in the sense that being Vice President is usually considered to be an accepted preamble to the presidency. On the other hand, what were Gore’s qualifications for the Vice Presidency? Senator for a couple of terms? Did he have any experience managing anything? What did he do as Vice President?

Personally, I’d take two terms as governor of _any_ state over two terms as senator, but I’m not sure what kind of weight to give the Vice Presidency. It certainly _can_ be a sort of partnership, with the VP sharing designated responsibilities, but I don’t think that’s mandatory…as I understand it, the VP could vacation in the South Sea Islands for the entire duration, as long as the Pres remained in good health. In other words, whether the VP position better prepares a person for the presidency than spending time in the National Library depends entirely on the president - so what did Clinton expect/allow Gore to do during his time as VP?

What I said was “or are they using whatever method was standard in the previous administration(s)?”

That doesn’t indicate to you that I didn’t know when the present methods were introduced/approved? Why so quick to defend the Clintons?