Richard,

Well, things seem to be winding down here, but I'm happy to keep bouncing ideas.

>With due respect, you could be seen by some of the >right-wing as a
> fool if you can't acknowledge that legally and morally >she's let herself down. Now before you say "But haven't we
> all" I agree, BUT you and I have no sway in the ruling >of the country.

Well then butter me up and call me a fool. I just can't see at all how she's let herself down. She has been a victim in so many respects due to this whole blowjob scandal, and in not telling the nation about it, she was doing what I would consider morally right. The Clinton-bashing media impinged on her right to privacy and tried to make her denigrate herself in front of the American people, so eventually she had no choice but to show them up and admit her pain with strength and dignity. Yes, she withheld truth from the court along the way, but I'm not so obsessed with the law to ignore the fact that she did the honorable and dignified thing.

> I see it this way... because the mainstream media >seems to have a bent toward the left surely by deduction >there has to be traces of a liberal media and a liberal >elite.

You are completely missing my point. The mainstream media seems to you to have a bent toward the left, but I'm saying that that bent is completely fabricated. The media has no such bent, and so there by no means has to be traces of a liberal media. That media (along with the "liberal bent") is a conservative scapegoat that doesn't actually exist.

> The only way there can be an unbiased media is when >the ultra-right and the ultra-left and everyone in between >has the right to the same podium. You can't call a media >unbiased and fair when you just look at pockets whose idea
> of a relevent left wing voice is Alec Baldwin and a >relevent right wing voice is Dr Laura.

I would say with complete confidence that all the people you mention do currently have a right to the same podium. I haven't heard a single word out of Alec Baldwin relating to politics, so I'm not sure where you see him as a voice for the left in the media. He's not even part of the media; he's an actor, not a reporter. Meanwhile, George Will, Dr. Laura, Rish Limbaugh, Bill Safire, and many others are out there representing the far right which you seem to think is missing. When I see abortion debates on TV (you brought them up), they usually have a moderate conservative talking things over with a moderate liberal. The idea there is to represent each side without being too horribly offensive to one side or the other. Again, I just don't see where you find the liberal bias. Even Rush Limbaugh has denied that it exists.

> Firstly, Bush has no direct legal sway to overturn Roe >V Wade. (That I know of!) Even if he tried, it would have
> to go through what looks like an evenly balanced >Senate.
> I don't think it's wise to call for a wholesale ban on >abortion, but I do call for a reasonable
> evaluation of the topic. If we had a balanced media, I >think they would purvey the opinions of everyone equally.

He has no sway to overturn Roe v Wade, but he has lots of legal sway to appoint supreme court justices who are opposed to it. That's my point. And I think that we already do have a balanced media, and people have been reasonably evaluating the topic for quite some time now.

> If there are agencies that disclose hard facts then >they should be checked. Now David Geffen would probably
> never admit that he's bankrolling Gore. But there is a >government website that records how much he's donated so
> you can colour your facts and opinions of his work >with your cross-referencing.

I agree. In fact, that was my whole point in the first place. Don't check your facts with the parties, check them with non-partisan sources, like the government websites you're talking about.

> Al Gore and his team have gone to great pains to let >the country know just where GWB got his money from. If
> GwB called Gore on the fact that Hollywood bankrolls >him it becomes "a personal attack on my character".

Yes, Gore made a big deal of out Bush's oil money. Just as Bush made a big deal out of Gore's Hollywood money. And both of them knew that these big deals were meant as attacks on their character. Bush has been called a corporate lackey because of that money. Gore has been called an entertainment industry lackey because of that money. Same situation, different sides.

> An idea that even though the "top 1%" get a pretty >healthy kickback,
> after the fact, they'll pay MORE taxes? Right now the >"top 1%" pay about 40% of the tax bill. After everyone gets
> their money, the "top 1%" will pay more than they do >now?!?! Isn't that a good thing?

Okay, now this is what I'd call fuzzy math. You give the rich people a big tax break, and that results in them paying more in taxes? Even if half of the money they get from the tax break is paid back in taxes, the other half goes to them, and not to the goverment. Making them pay fewer taxes does end in them paying more taxes, and I'm not sure how you get that impression.

> unless you can take out *all* corporate money from driving >elections and make sure
> *people* drive elections then they can discuss >removing the electoral college. If the politics would >descend to a
> tap dancing extravaganza in the swing-states, then >it's a bad idea.

The corporate money issue is completely separate from the electoral college issue. Whether we count individual votes or votes by state, corporate money screws things up. As for your swing state comment, think about this. If we go by popular vote, there's no such thing as a swing state. States have nothing to do with voting in the president in that situation. It all rests on individuals. The concept of swing state will no longer exist.

Well, that's it for now...

-Scott