....stuff deleted


I almost missed this post, and I really do appreciate your time.

What the Kansas school board does is based very little on who our
president is, but on their freedom to decide what they want for their
children. Not some Government program with enforcement police. Your
science teacher in Kansas is also free to find a classroom where he is
free to teach as he likes. I don't necessarily agree with the school
board, but I do agree that it is their choice, and I live a couple
hundred miles away, in the same country, and its not my business. As
far as the scientific method, sometimes it was not so scientific, but
that is another discussion.

The freedom to practice religion mandates that the school teach only
what is supportable by secular interpretation. So called "intelligent
design" does not meet this criteria. It is, as is all mythology, not
based upon observed criteria. The myth that our founding fathers
believed in a government based upon religious ideals is equally
unsupportable. A president, who appoints judges based upon their
religious belief, as this one does, and will in the future, appears to
be someone who is trying to build a theocracy. When he selectively
enforces laws to regulate who has free speech and who doesn't, he
appears to be someone who is trying to be a facist (example: he called
some right-to-annoy others and offered support to their protests outside
the White House this week, yet he banned anti-Bush protesters from the
Rep. Nat'l Convention.

Frankly, I think both protests were legal and deserved to be heard,
despite my support for only one of these. The president, however, has no
right to foster a religious perpespective, whatsoever.


If a woman in Afganistan wears a burka, that is a cultural expression,
no out rage here, from me. As long as she is free to go else where, and
not wear one if she desires, she is free. Now she is also free to stay
and not wear a burka. That liberty is what I value, and would like to
bottle.


And you would think others would as well. However, this is not the
society we live in today. How someone dresses is, and always has been,
canon fodder for the intolerent. Our society, however, is one in which
few would support a women dressed in this manner (although the ACLU
would). You may have your differences with the ACLU, as many of us do,
but at least they support the constitution. Something I wish this
president did. To quote Molly Ivins, "I'd prefer someone who burns the
flag and wraps himself in the constitution to one who burns the
constitution and wraps himself in the flag."

I spent three years in southern Mexico right where the Zapatistas are
fighting now for their freedom. I understand cultural differences!

As far as political climate in the blue states, keep in mind that they
were blue by only the smallest margin, even requiring recounts, with no
hanging chads. Those blue need to pay attention to the red in their
district, less the tide turn. Then your head will really swim! TnT


Uh, no. The blue states were mostly over 51% against Bush. Some were as
high as 62%, and most were in the 54% range. Not as close as you paint
them to be. Bush won by only 3 million votes, and in many states, the
poll results are more than slightly suspicious (including the several
thousand Afr. American votes which were illegally invalidated).

Rick