first post from my new laptop, but it needs a bag. still, i so love it. kansas lost, so i lost. ugh, mike wins again. more killing in israel. we should feel lucky. i count zero exploding people on our city streets while many if not most of the weapons used by the israelis were bought from or given by us. we should begin with using that as leverage, if we truly disagree with israel at all about their current response to the terror. yet, that would seem rather hypocritical, not that dubya’s random mumblings and backtracking statements are not. maybe thisll put priorities in order, giving us a second or so off the evil and iraq mumbo jumbo war prep.

free trade is simply a game we wish to play, cause the rules dont matter when you are by far the biggest monkey. in general, each side of the two parties divert from their rhetoric to grab as many votes as possible from the other side. but ive also come up with an alternative view of why they do things differently than they preach. give me a minute. true theoretical free trade is a very lefty idea. liberal. big d democrat. everyone in the world at a giant bazaar. voting with their pocketbook. everyone with labor and environmental rights, results of the combination of democracy, mass education, and a majority middle class. but there is the problem. without those three, free trade is not fair trade. anyway, both presidents were guided by nationalism, as they both wanted a stronger america. i think clinton thought more long-term. he felt we could try to limit protectionism here, thus helping other countries to raise their economies via export to america. those countries would become more open, as in more democratic and educated with a more fair distribution of income. we would have some trouble, but we could handle it in anticipation of a future with better trading partners and more democracy and less instability. bush’s view is more immediate. he takes the unilateralist view. lets find places and people to produce for less, while not allowing other countries to take advantage of us. in a sense, bush’s view is simply to keep what we have and get a little more. clinton’s vision was a more complex gamble. give a little now, get a lot more later. i guess the green way skirts both, cause we want protectionism and the growth of other countries. most simply, greens value the planet and its people over profit. but that leaves out so much. like clinton’s gamble. if it worked, wouldnt it be worth it?

sorry, but how come republicans believe the poor will only improve their lives if they have no other choice, but corporations can simply be given incentives to stop harming the public. it would seem to me that you should be stricter with those whose actions harm others than those whose actions only harm themselves.