I agree. It does get very repetitive to hear hour after hour of the same inane "analysis" but it does give people a chance to hear what the candidates say and to vote in the primaries to express their opinions. The Democratic party isn't going to fall apart. They will unite and have a strong pull on a diverse group of people.
John McCain is struggling to stay on the front page but it's hard when you don't have a way to focus on an opponent.

April 27, 2008 | Al Buthman

This is an article about privatization. It's authors argue that privatization of all lands will benefit both the land and the people who reside upon it. They assert that all government is bad and inefficient and with private ownership, the land will be managed more cost effectively, and for the greater good, while generating profits and expanding private industry.

My question is, if this is true, what is the cost to the rest of society? The authors argue against taxes but for tax credits. One of the funny things that is missed at all times when this argument is made is that governing takes money. Credits are seen as a means to influence business but in a positive way while taxation is negative.

The problem I have is that government is not a business. The original intent of protecting our public lands is that they would be open to all people so that workers and productive citizens could rejuvenate their spirits out in the natural world...this would then make them more productive.

I wonder what our readers think about privatizing Yellowstone or Yosemite? It may seem like a mute argument but public lands are being sold off to private interests all over the country. To me, this seems short sighted and it appears to benefit private individuals accruing short term gain at the expense of the long term health of our overall society.

Please respond to this e-mail and let me know what you believe. I would love to post some privatization argumments as well as those in opposition to privatization. 

Thank You.

Jim

that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions,

and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations

and by the bitterness of their invectives.

Alexander Hamilton; Federalist #1

     Fiery Oratory. Antagonistic analogies. Unapologetic damnation. Sins of the past waging war on the hope of the future. Obama's preacher said some nasty things and the invective aimed at the hopeful Democratic front runner is loud and clear. He denounced the Reagan coalition, conservative pundits, and the original failures of the Revolution!

     He has been attacked by his opposition as pandering to appease the black community, denouncing his own grandmother, and elevating America's racial divide into the forefront of a presidential campaign. Unfortunately, he did not do any of this. He took on the issue confronting his campaign in what I found to be straight-forwardness and clarity.

The Anger

     The past has a great deal of bearing on our present and it will affect our choices in the future. The words of this minister have a place in the campaign, just like the words of Robertson, Falwell, et. al. who said the same things but justified their misplaced anger over 911 and Katrina on the backs of homosexuals and others of "liberal" ilk they claim are the cause of God's disgust with our nation. Obama's preacher blamed whitey and highlighted our ill-gotten gains and perverse reactions to foreign policy. All over the discussion over Obama, the spotlight is shown on the preacher's damnation of America. 

     Both sides are misguided. It is so very hard to disseminate the worth of this issue over the outrage. As one who has taken the other side's god-laden rhetoric to task for its judgment and confusion of God's will with their own, it would be disengenuous for me to ignore this blasphemous attack on our nation from this angry liberal preacher. It seems fair to me to say there is no wrath of God raging against our society. Our ills can be fixed. They are human caused and there is a great deal of anger on both sides. Let's discuss our differences more rationally.   

Jim 

 The funny thing to me is if an environmental protection group litigates to save some trees, the fanatics are out to get them but Exxon's ability to litigate over twenty years and billions of dollars in damages seems ok. Hmmmm?!