NOT EMPIRE…JUST FREEDOM
Democracy is not perfect. You won’t find a single neocon, paleo-con or whatever-a-con that says it is. But there can be no doubt that democracy is the best form of government known to all of mankind. It has worked every time it has been tried.
When our founding fathers developed modern democracy, it was the end-product a developing idea that started with the Magna Carta. The idea that governments were a tool for the will of the the people, and not the other way around.
Democracy cannot spawn an empire. By it’s very nature, democracy eschews empiracal rule in favor of the common good of the people. That common good is decided upon by the people. Democracy is such an appealing idea, such an instictive way of thinking, that people yearn for it. Witness the brave Iraqi citizens who voted in the face of death, real death and murder. Facing death to vote is no manufactured idea manifesting itself as a social trait. That is Medula Oblongata instict at work. The base desire for self-preservation, manifested in the form of modern government. A government built, not on empire or tyranny, but on freedom.
America is not an empire. It is, however, the richest, most powerful nation on earth and with that comes responsibility. Our system of government, our society, our economy and other factors have made us the worlds only super power. We use our wealth and power to help other nations strive for freedom and to defeat those who stive for tyranny. Yes, sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes we, as a nation, support and promote the wrong people and the wrong ideas. What makes democracy great is that it allows us, as a nation, to correct our mistakes.
I remember growing up in Clarksdale, MS in the mid 70’s. One of my neighborhood friends was a Lebanese kid named Paul. His family had moved to America to escape the cival war between Christians and Muslims back in Lebanon. Today, many of those same Christians and Muslims who were fighting each other back then, are now standing together to defeat Syrian-Bathist tyranny…and why? To obtain freedom through democracy. Is it empiracal to encourage and assist them? I think not. It is duty
The tide is turning in favor of America. I saw a funny bit on “The Daily Show” with John Stewart. One of the reporters was supposedly live in Beruit and said this; ” I was shocked to see protesters burning a flag…and it wasn’t America’s. I didn’t know other country’s flags were even flamable.” Funny, but true. Muslims around the world, who do not hold America in any special favor, are looking at what we are really doing in Iraq and beginning to recognize that American style democracy is the greatest form of government for people who want freedom. Let us lead the way.
Paul Says: March 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Well Buck, I am glad to see you finally weighed in on the subject and you bring up some good talking points.
First of all, and I am sure that you are aware of this, America is actually a Representative Democracy and so would actually be a Republic. True democracy would be far to unweildy here in a country of 300 million people. Second, what makes our particular version great is the Constitution. I love America and beleive that it is the greatest country ever formed in the world. A great nation where many people came together and formed as our money says, “out of many, one”. One writer I love to read in that particular vein is Dinesh D’Souza. Good stuff. One of my favorite songs of all time is Neil Diamond’s “America”, especially the part where he sings, “..free, all they want is to be free..”. Oh yeah, good stuff. I am consistently amazed at the men who created the constitution and appreciate them more and more, especially in light of our current ‘politicians’. They also insisted that we not become ‘entangled in foreign wars’. Oh, there is no debating that sometimes it is neccessary (Hirohito, Hitler, Soviet Russia, the Kaiser) but each time we had to be prodded into war.
Honestly, I understand George W. Bush. When he took his oath of office he promised to protect America, and his greatest fear is that one morning he will wake up and some lunatic with a suitcase bomb will have taken out New York. Let’s face it, no one has been able to do that yet, or else they wouldnt have used airplanes on 9/11, but it is a potential possiblity. His advisors tell him the best way to avoid this is to knock down anyone with the ability to do so. This doctrine that he eluciadated in his State of The Union speech has nothing to do with the need for democracy everywhere, it has to do with what I call the “Suitcase Problem”. Which is fine, but I am not so sure the sword is the best weapon.
I suppose I have been guilty of rhetoric when I call America an empire, but if it is not now an empire, it IS well on it’s way to becoming one. Historically ALL government forms can become empires. Rome, Venice and Athens all slowly changed until the time was ripe for such a thing to occur. Our only saving grace at the moment is our Constitution, I just hope the same neccessity that causes us to deny military prisoners the bill of rights doesn’t cause us to ignore the other parts of the Constitution.
buck Says: March 4th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Hey Paul & Julian,
Sorry to be sitting this one out. The flu bug has me down so I’m upright in spurts.(Yes, I know how it sounds, I just wanted to say it.)
Paul, I agree that the Bush Doctrine is really about the “suitcase problem”, as you put it. It’s a doctrine of pre-emptive defense. (Yes, I know how that sounds too!) But the old football adage is true. The best defense is a good offense and that is essentially what the Bush Doctine is about.
You are also correct in pointing out that the United States is actually a democratic republic, which is the only workable form of democracy. There is subtle beauty in our Constitution. The system of checks and balances keeps the power diluted enough to prevent tyranny and by proxy, empire. Our First Amendment freedoms help too. I’m also vexed by the vision our founding fathers had in setting up the House of Representatives as the fast moving, voice of the people and the Senate as the slow deliberative body of reason. (I’ll have more to say on this soon)
I hope you caught the main point of my article. The spread of democracy is not a doctrine or an effort. The principals of democracy are founded on the basic instinct of freedom found in all people, so you don’t have to “sell” it. I liken America’s efforts today to that of a doctor delivering a baby. We don’t make the birth of democracy happen, we’re just there to see that it goes well and to smack it on the butt and make sure it’s breathing. There is no guarantee that the little democracy we bring into this world will grow up to be a good democracy, but as long as we get it out of the delivery room, we’ve done our job.
Julian Says: March 4th, 2005 at 3:12 am
Buck, the analogy of childbirth applied to democracy in the middle east is interesting. I would contend that there is something to be said for a tender approach to the impregnation process.
buck Says: March 4th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Julian…Comment#3….
NOW THAT’S FUNNY. LOL
Paul Says: March 4th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
Oh my….nice analogy. Hmm…
Well meanwhile, back at the batcave…..
Paul Says: March 4th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Better watch the direction this is going. Some member of the Vast Christian Conspiracy might come along and shut this thread down.
Really, good analogy, too bad it opens itself up to some really.. um.. hilarious follow up analogies. I’ll stop there.
K. Marx Says: March 5th, 2005 at 7:36 am
I’m a bit lost. Democracy has worked everytime its been tried? I’m not sure what “has worked” means. Does “has worked” mean an established democracy continuing to function as a democracy? The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a democracy today or a dictatorship?
Also, what criteria can I use to describe the richest nation? GDP? GNP? GNI? NNI? And most powerful? How do I measure that?
I must ask for the definition of “empire” used in the article before continuing with any further discussion.
Emory Says: March 5th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
If anyone knows of a case where a democracy didn’t yield improved economic and social results, I’d sure like to know.
buck Says: March 5th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Karl,
Now your’re just being pissy, but I’ll play. “Has worked” means exactly that. Where other forms of government have fallen on the ash heap of history, or failed to meet the needs of it’s citizens, democracy has thrived. While imperfect, it is no doubt the best form of government ever instituted on earth.
By the way, the Peoples Republic of China is neither a Republic or “of the people” Names don’t mean much, unless you’re in the Congo.
By any measure, America’s wealth, productivity, economy and accomplishments make her “rich” in many ways. How do you measure richness?
Power comes in many forms. America’s military power is unequaled by any single nation and our alliances with “trusted” allies make us nearly invincible. (Weak or misguided political leadership could screw that up…so vote Republican)
Vladimir Putin Says: March 5th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Emory, to answer your question. Most recently, in Russia.
Julian Says: March 5th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
In his amazing essay, “Last Words”, H.L Mencken noted some interesting paradoxes that are inherent in democracy. We often overlook the problems with democracy because we treat it as sacred rather than as an improvable human creation. Here are a few excerpts that might stimulate you to track the essay down and read it. It was first published in 1926 but is still a valid critique of democracy. It’s easy to find on the web. ” I have spoken hitherto of the possibility that democracy may be a self-limiting disease, like measles. It is, perhaps, something more: it is self-devouring. One cannot observe it objectively without being impressed by its curious distrust of itself—its apparently ineradicable tendency to abandon its whole philosophy at the first sign of strain. I need not point to what happens invariably in democratic states when the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions, convert themselves, by a process as simple as taking a deep breath, into despots of an almost fabulous ferocity. Lincoln, Roosevelt and Wilson come instantly to mind: Jackson and Cleveland are in the background, waiting to be recalled. Nor is this process confined to times of alarm and terror: it is going on day in and day out. Democracy always seems bent upon killing the thing it theoretically loves. I have rehearsed some of its operations against liberty, the very cornerstone of its political metaphysic. It not only wars upon the thing itself; it even wars upon mere academic advocacy of it. I offer the spectacle of Americans jailed for reading the Bill of Rights as perhaps the most gaudily humorous ever witnessed in the modern world. Try to imagine monarchy jailing subjects for maintaining the divine right of Kings! Or Christianity damning a believer for arguing that Jesus Christ was the Son of God! This last, perhaps, has been done: anything is possible in that direction. But under democracy the remotest and most fantastic possibility is a common-place of every day. All the axioms resolve themselves into thundering paradoxes, many amounting to downright contradictions in terms. The mob is competent to rule the rest of us—but it must be rigorously policed itself. There is a government, not of men, but of laws - but men are set upon benches to decide finally what the law is and may be. The highest function of the citizen is to serve the state - but the first assumption that meets him, when he essays to discharge it, is an assumption of his disingenuousness and dishonour. Is that assumption commonly sound? Then the farce only grows the more glorious.
I confess, for my part, that it greatly delights me. I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself - that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle. I do not know: I report only that when the suckers are running well the spectacle is infinitely exhilarating. But I am, it may be, a somewhat malicious man: my sympathies, when it comes to suckers, tend to be coy. What I can’t make out is how any man can believe in democracy who feels for and with them, and is pained when they are debauched and made a show of. How can any man be a democrat who is sincerely a democrat?”
Julian Says: March 5th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Emory, Been to Haiti lately?
Emory Says: March 5th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Julian, possibly Russia economically, but not socially. I don’t think that the country has experienced anything like Stalin or Lenin in the last decade or so. Also consider all the Soviet Union members who were contributing to the Soviet economy and who are now incidently better off. Ukraine comes to mind. Haiti has been unstable ever since I can remember.
Julian Says: March 5th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Emory, there have been some pretty frightening things going on in Russia in the last 10 years. Gang violence is out of control in Moscow and other large cities, for example. Prostitution, and other forms of exploitation of women, is rambant. And their economy is controlled by groups that are almost as bad as our special interest lobbies here in the US. If that isn’t enough to dissuade the Russians from democracy and capitalism, I don’t know what is.
Julian Says: March 5th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
Emory, I strongly recommend John Perkin’s book, “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” for a perspective on the modern path to emprialism. It will rock your world.
Anonymous Says: March 6th, 2005 at 1:36 am
I dunno. I would say the strength of the constitution is not as a rigid absolute but as a flexible, amendable document designed to guarantee that the ethical principles of democracy don’t stagnate and fall by the wayside. But then again, I’m a liberal and would think that.
Julian Says: March 6th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
You will no doubt have noticed, if you pay attention to the news, that the neo-con strategy to install Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank is unfolding. This is part of the imperialist strategy we have been discussing here. From the neo-con perspective, less developed countries are the plantations that belong rightfully belong to US corporations and their citizens just need to shut up, behave themselves, and pick our cotton. Wolfowitz will see to it, as World Bank president, that the neo-cons can exert even greater control over other countries via their debt burdens. Those massive debt burdens, by the way, were created by selling less developed countries loan packages that were based on fraudulent economic data and forecasts, a specialty of Halliburton and KBR. The strategy of intentionally bankrupting less developed countries is at the root of why other countries hate us and distrust us. We fool ourselves when we pretend that other countries are enemies of freedom when in fact, they hate being our slaves. Many americans live in a fantasy world with respect to who and what we REALLY are and the overall destructive effect that we have on our world. To be fair, most folks don’t know how our corporations operate in other countries, so they don’t have the information needed to really evaluate the effects of US policy on the world. Look up 1. Manifest Destiny, and 2. the Monroe Doctrine in your history book and then think 3. Wolfowitz policy of global domination.
Emory Says: March 6th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Julian, as serious a problem as gangs, prostitution, and special interest lobbies are, they don’t compare with the abuses of Soviet communism which I won’t name. Maybe one of the the other readers here has sufferred under the previous system and would like to compare the two.
Julian Says: March 6th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Emory, one of my graduate students is Russian. We have this conversation frequently. She thinks that, all things considered, things are somewhat worse now than when the USSR existed.
Julian Says: March 6th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Emory, I do not wish to give the impression that I think Lenin and Stalin had a decent bone in their bodies. Just the opposite. I think that, unfortunately, some of our corporations and certain figures within our own government are very similar in many ways to Lenin and Stalin, albeit more subtle, clever, and clandestine but comparably lethal.
Julian Says: March 6th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I am generally perplexed when people make the outrageous statement that terrorism is the biggest problem we face. Many more people die in the US from preventable diseases (e.g., smoking related cancers), medical mistakes (60,000 per year), poor environmental practices and policies, gun violence and the list goes on. But if we are serious in the country about decreasing the world wide terrorism problem we could stop participating in it.
Julian Says: March 7th, 2005 at 12:26 am
I made a factual error in post #21. A new study reported that deaths due to preventable medical errors in the US is 195,000 per year. Good thing Bush is taking a strong stand against medical malpractice lawsuits. I think it will be a while before the terrorists kill 195,000 americans per year and rival the kill rate of our medical system.
Bonniem Says: March 7th, 2005 at 1:03 am
Julian, # 21 is about the most ridiculous statement a person could make. That last sentence sound like something Boxer or Kennedy would say! But then I forget — sometimes you do think as they do!
Julian Says: March 7th, 2005 at 4:27 am
Hi BonnieM. I guess I am being asked to defend comment #21. According to the Center for Disease Control smoking caused approximately 440,000 premature deaths in the United States annually and approximately $157 billion in annual health-related economic losses. Air pollution causes about 50,000 deaths per year in the US and fire arms are used to kill about 35,000 per year in the US. As for the last sentence in #21, you need look no farther than Central America to find ample evidence that we support terror even in our own neighborhood. Or as Maher Arar if he think we terrorize innocent people (google his name if you don’t know who he is - and if you don’t, shame on you). I could give you a 20 page list of US terrorist promoting activities, not least of which is the $3.5 billion we gave to Osama Bin Laden to help him form his little al qaeda club. I get the impression that you are sincere and actually don’t know what your leaders have done. The information is out there. You just have to be brave enough to look behind the curtain.
Julian Says: March 7th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Anyone interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of conflict and terrorism in the middle east should read Informed Comment at http://www.juancole.com . Dr. Cole is a professor of history at the Univ of Michigan and is one of the most respected experts in the world on current events in the middle east.
Me Says: March 8th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Hey Julian,
I am just wondering what you do for a living. You are very involved here and must be able to type very fast. I am just curious so please dont take offense. You have some very good comments on here and I was just wondering if they were the words of a stay-at-home-mom or a lady who has a consistent job outside the home. Just a little curious…
Bonniem Says: March 8th, 2005 at 2:15 am
Hi Julian, I know of Maher Arar but don’t know where you get the $3.5 Billian to Osama. I know that at one time the U.S. was friendly with Sadamm and supported him. I know that we do things that I am not proud of. I know that things are not always as they look. I know that we make mistakes, but I don’t believe that our country deliberately sponsors terroism. And yes, people get caught up in the mistakes. Very unfortunate ( and I am quite sure that is mild in comparsion to how I would feel if it was me or my family). I do know that is the thing that has caused me to have changed my mind about the death penalty. (And that is another topic for another time, I suppose). Until I work in that area, (not just read about it), I don’t think I will judge too harshly.I don’t believe everything I read. And you probably shouldn’t either.
Julian Says: March 8th, 2005 at 4:16 am
Hi BonnieM. Thank you for the advice to not believe everything I read. I would appreciate it if you’d read John Perkins’s book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and point out which parts I shouldn’t believe.
Julian Says: March 8th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Hi “ME”, if I could be confident that you are wearing pants when you visit this site I’d tell you something about myself. But I can’t, so I won’t.
Bonniem Says: March 8th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Julian, what are John Perkins credentials? I have seen his name and in connection with his book, but there again, who do you believe? But I may just read it and see. You know, just like Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, etc. Authors have a tendency to put their own spin on things too.
Sean Says: March 8th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
Julian in response to your comment #24 concerning firearms. Recent scholarship in the criminologic, sociologic, and legal literature shows that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.
Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., reviewed the FBI’s massive yearly crime statistics for all 3054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use. The data show that while neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Dunblane, Scotland, and Tasmania, Australia in 1996 or the infamous Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999) — by an amazing 69 percent. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime — without any apparent increase in accidental death. If states without right to carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided annually.(6)
In Prof. Lott’s survey, children 14 to 15 years of age were found to be 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents. When concealed carry gun laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.(6) You can get more information on this at: http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html, where they also document all their sources at the bottom.
Julian Says: March 9th, 2005 at 2:49 am
BonnieM. Perkins does a great job of explaining who he is in his book. But don’t take my word for it. Take a look at it and see for yourself.
Julian Says: March 9th, 2005 at 3:05 am
Buck, I think you did get one thing right. People in many other countries do crave freedom - freedom from the US. Will we give them their freedom and pull our companies out, forgive the debts we unjustly heaped upon them, close down our military bases in their countries, stop supporting their oppressive rulers (e.g. the House of Saud), and let them form their own governments without interference by the CIA or US corporate interests (e.g. in Iraq, pull the plug on Allawi and his co-conspirators)?
Julian Says: March 9th, 2005 at 3:56 am
Sean, I think that you may have missed the point of my earlier comment. I listed a few examples of ways that about three quarters of a million americans die each year (e.g., tobacco smoke, air pollution, medical mistakes, and gun violence). I picked those examples just to make a general point, not because I am anti-gun, anti-pollution, or anti-medical mistake in particular. My point was this. Presumably we are pouring so much blood and treasure into fighting terrorism because we don’t want terrorists to kill americans, right? But in fact, many more people died in the US on 9/11/2001 from air pollution, gun violence, medical mistakes, and smoking than were killed by the al-qaeda attacks against us. And killers like air pollution etc. go on killing many americans every day without attracting the attention of the corporate media or our citizens. And, relatively speaking, the financial resources we put into fighting these serious threats to our lives are meagre. In truth, it is and always has been extremely unlikely that a terrorist will kill you. Death by terrorism is a low probability event, plain and simple. You are much more likely to die from air pollution, a medical mistake, passive tobacco smoke, etc (or even a spider bite for that matter) than you are to die from a terrorist attack. The real killers are right under our noses and we hardly notice them. I think that if we really care about saving americans we should attack those problems with the focus and determination with which we attack human foes. I dream of the day when the NIH budget reaches one-fifth as much as the Pentagon budget. I am disappointed that americans let al-qaeda get so into our collective heads and psych us out so badly. I guarantee you that we spend a lot more time worrying about them than they do worrying about us - unless they have their own versions of CNN and Fox to try to scare the crap out of them 24/7/365. From a psychological perspective, al-qaeda could certainly be said to be winning the terror war - since terror is an emotion and we are, if the relentless coverage of the “War on Terror” by the media is any indication, in its inescapable grip.
Sean Says: March 9th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
No Julian, I know you were trying to make a different point. I realize that. I just noticed that you had brought up firearm statistics and I thought I’d weigh in on that. I wasn’t claiming that you stood one way on firearms or not. However, I will comment quickly that if I’m not mistaken we spend millions of dollars every year, both private and public, to protect the environment.
But one thing I will comment on is that I think you are missing the point when it comes to terrorism. What you must understand is that terrorism is a direct attack on this country and our national security. And it didn’t just happen on 9/11. All I keep hearing is 9/11, 9/11, we had MANY more terrorists attacks on us than just 9/11. There was the first World trade center bombing. There was the USS Cole bomb, two embassies of ours were bombed (sorry I believe it was two, possibly three separate occurrances, sorry if I got this wrong), but the point is that there were several terrorist attacks (even more than I’m mentioning here). And it’s not only us who are victims of terrorism, many other countries suffer huge losses from terroism; more than us. This is a problem whether you want to face it or not.
Yet there are still people out there, and I don’t just mean to point the finger at you, that want to ignore terrorism and the groups who commit it. This just doesn’t make any sense, to me, it’s a no-brainer, if people are attacking you; then you fire back harder, faster, and stronger until they are all dead or captured. WHAT’S THE DISCUSSION HERE? But I guess It’s just that I forget that there are still people out there who will stick their head in the sand whenever a conflict comes up.
Mr. Jack Says: May 19th, 2005 at 7:34 am
I could barley get threw the first line of this one without laughing.
Democracy has not worked every time it’s been used, if fact many democracies have Died and spawned brutal dictatorships. Allow me to educate you on the history of Dead democracy.
Lets start with Ancient Rome, Which was one of the first democracies. You know what happened to Rome? Caesar. Overthrew the senate and declared himself dictator for life, this spawned the Imperials, who ruled the empire until its collapse. Many of these Emperors were brutal fascists, and many of these emperors were killed by others seeking political power.
Lets go next to the French revolution, a democracy built of the mass murder of the French royal family. This Democracy died rather quickly because a short little man named Napoleon, who went on a campaign of conquest.
Next, lets go over to Germany at the end of WWI, the country was forced to overthrow the Keiser, and set up a democracy as a condition of it’s surrender, so what democracy did Germany base it off of? The good old U.S.of A, and guess what happened to them? Just guess? That’s right another totalitarian by the name of Adolf Hitler, who of course brought about the attempted genocide of the Jewish race in Europe.
And yes, America IS an empire, we started out as 13 colonies, and Conquered our way to westward, and were we satisfied with the subjugation of the Native Americans? No, we went on and conquered the pacific islands such as Hawaii, the Philippians, and Guam etc.
And America’s track record of spreading democracy isn’t great either, during the cold war, most of the people we supported in other countries were extremely corrupt, take Vietnam for example,
Mao zedong, who lead the Vietcong, fought to revolutionize his nation from a corrupt government, his Idea was a democracy, but also a communism, yes you can have both. But since we didn’t like communism, we supported the corruption. God Bless America!
Suzanne Says: May 20th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Comments to Numbers 2-3-4-5-6-
Ok you know the Wordy Drama queen would have something to say on this subject.
I liked this comment
“Buck, the analogy of childbirth applied to democracy in the middle east is interesting. I would contend that there is something to be said for a tender approach to the impregnation process
But still I can not come up with a better analogy that the one Buck used
still perfer the “Tender approach to the impregnation process”
Love this Site!!
Suzanne
Still need to do some research to the main commentary above before I make any additional comments.
Hi again Mr Jack nice to see you are still around.
Suzanne