In regards to the article "Globalism and George Bush",  so much dreck to wade
thru…so little time.

    Let’s address this line by line…using direct quotes from the article.

"All the while knowing Al Gore had clearly won the popular vote."

 With that popular vote win, and $2.00, AlGore might be able to buy a cup of Starbucks Coffee.  We have an Electoral College that determines the election results, so small States like Rhode Island, or less populated States like Montana are not overruled by larger populated States like California and New York.

The 2000 election results will be debated till the end of time. There are endless reports of scandal and fraud from both sides. Most are fabrication, some are exaggeration, and unfortunately, a few are true. I assure you for every democrat scandal you present, I can reciprocate with an example of republican foul-play.  The election is over. The most reliable sources show Gore as the winner of the popular vote, and Bush the winner of the electoral vote. Above and beyond all the controversy, this was an  amazingly close election.

And while we are at it, the number of illegal votes by criminals, the bus crowd of the minority community that goes out and grabs people at home or off the street and
buses them to polls to vote Democrat; the situation in Wisconsin, where Gore/DNC operatives bribed homeless to vote with cigarettes and alcohol (Wisconsin allows
you to register at the polls on election day)…your response to these illegal acts is?
And then there was what happened in Missouri, where the polls were kept open after legal closing time by a crony Judge buddy of House Minority Leader Dick Gephart, in order to BUS IN minority votes. This turned out to be the margin in the vote between John Ashcroft and the corpse of Mel Carnahan (since he was dead, and the law says
he was no longer a legitimate candidate, the Govenor illegally allowed his widow
Jean Carnahan to accept his seat.  Ashcroft was too much a gentleman to protest.).

I've heard all these stories. Just more fabrications, distortions and allegations which have never
been proven.  Let's see some responsible documentation, if you can.

"Our current President is an alcoholic, convicted drunk driver, and draft dodger."

    Well, lets see. Alcoholic… Bush has admitted this.  Has Bill Clinton admitted to
being a cokehead, like his brother has said, and corroborated by Gennifer Flowers?
I've never heard or read any reliable information verifying Clinton's use of coke.  If you can provide
something other than tabloid hearsay, I'd be interested in reading it.

Convicted drunk driver… And were you this concerned when Ted Kennedy ran for President in 1980?  After all, he killed Mary Jo Kopechne, left her to drown ...."he killed
Mary Jo Kopechne, left her to drown"...this transparent and malicious implication clearly
demonstrates your opportunistic level of reason and shameful sense of justice.., and had his
family connections reduce his charges to leaving the scene of an accident...can you
document this? I'm waiting.... Try that yourself, and see what you are charged with.

Based on the known facts and Kennedy's statement, I'm certainly not convinced he purposely let
Kopeckne drown. I would feel the same way if it was George Bush driving the car that night. Would
you?.... It's about JUSTICE, not partisan angst. Those who claim Kennedy is a murderer are either
ignorant of the facts or part of a partial and mean-spirited mob mentality. And despite your intent,
this incident does not exonerate Bush's DWI.

Draft dodger…well, you are really out there. Bush was a pilot (no mean feat, btw.) in
the Texas National Guard.  Bill Clinton was the draft dodger.  Just ask the Colonel he
got to do the ROTC deferral for him, then Bill dodged the draft when he received a
high lottery number for the draft.  Bill’s connections in Arkansas really helped here, especially while he was in England.  He was thrown out of Oxford because he
sexually assaulted a woman (see further down), and then he went on to…MOSCOW.
I’ll let you make the connections, if you can. You have conveniently placed the burden of
making the connection between "MOSCOW" and Clinton on me. In that you have made this
insinuation, the burden of proof is on you, so why don't YOU make the connection for me. I can't
wait to hear it.

Although I'd rather be addressing more important issues, I can play this game too. The claims
below are documented with sources.

1. Bush was arrested for Drunk Driving (two DWI arrests for Dick Cheney)
2. Bush repeatedly lied about his DWI
3. Bush lied under oath
4. Bush avoided military service and was AWOL from the National Guard.
5. He was "assigned" the F-102 aircraft, a plane phased out and safe from combat
6. He skipped all medical exams after drug testing began in the National Guard (he was removed
from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical)
7. Bush was a drunk and drug abuser until the age of 40. He straightened out only after his wife
threatened divorce.
8. Bush was also arrested for theft and disorderly conduct.

These links belong to sites unfriendly to Bush, but the sources are thorough and legitimate.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/09/bush/
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~pearly-abraham/htmls/GWB3.html
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bush-arrests.html
http://members.tripod.com/~pearly-abraham/htmls/GWB2.html

Gee, tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't Al Gore volunteer for Vietnam?
 
You got to trash Clinton for 8 years (and you still can't stop). Well, sorry, but the party's over.
Now it's time to trash someone who really deserves it. It seem you guys can dish it out, but
you just can't take it. Welcome to America.

 "He ‘won’t talk’ about his former drug use and was at best a mediocre student at college"

    Because someone has done something in their past that they are not proud of,
does this mean that they are now unable to advise others to not do the destructive
things they did in the past…that hindsight gives perfect clarity that is not available
in the moment?  At least he didn’t try to lame his way out by saying he "didn’t inhale".  Not like x42 (x meaning ex, and Clinton was the 42^nd President.).
I like the way you (rather poetically) made your point and I agree with you. That's why these
witch-hunts into our politicians' pasts are often more hateful than necessary. But You are the
one most intent on frivolous character assassination. So if you want to dance, you're going to
have to pay the fiddler.

    We will never know what kind of student x42 was, because he refused to release
his college transcripts.
Can you document this? Either way, would you really want George Bush to release his?

Incidentally, according to a report by the Lovenstein Institute, George Bush has the lowest IQ of all
presidents in the last 50 years. Here are the results of the study: The study determined the following
IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:

182 William J. Clinton (D)
175 James E. Carter (D)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
091 George W. Bush (R)

http://www.bushnews.com/bushiq.htm
The credentials of the non-partisan academians who conducted this study are impressive.
"The conclusions of the study, conducted by an independent think tank located in Scranton, Pennsylvania
were surprising. This think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in
human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner Levenstein, world-renowned
sociologist, and Professor Patricia A. Williams, a world-respected psychiatrist. All members of the think
tank are experts at being able to detect a person's IQ from the criteria stated earlier."

While I certainly don't believe IQ represents the measure of a man, higher analytical skills are
more likely to reflect logical resolve. 


My comments below (in red) point out specific examples of irresponsible or "tabloid" journalism.

    He may have gotten a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford…but after he assaulted two women ...unproven accusation   at Oxford we will never know what kind of student he
was.  What’s that…you don’t know about the Oxford allegations?(allegation - a
statement asserting something without proof)  Well read here…

Do you know about the New Haven allegations?

"In 1965 Yale fratmates including Terry Johnson, roommate to Bush, verified his relationship to
then sixteen year old Annette Lightfoot from New Haven.  Although friends to Bush deny this, Ms.
Lightfoot claims George paid for her abortion after impregnating her.  Albany's  Westgate Hospital
in New York, has provided records of the procedure upon request from Ms. Lightfoot's mother. A
local "Spot Light" news reporter claims two of Annette Lightfoot's girlfriends will provide testimony
verifying Ms. Lightfoot's virginity before the incident. After two years and an unexplainable silence
from the Lightfoot family, it's assumed a financial settlement was arranged. 
http://www.monk.com/roadscholar/roadscholar.html Since this story first aired, there have been
countless accusations against George W. Bush involving rape, drug abuse, indecent exposure and
even cruelty to animals."....

....In less than an hour, I could have this (self) fabrication plastered all over the web leaving
thousands of gullible and/or willing readers believing it to be true without verifying its authenticity.
Case in point: That's how easy, misleading and dangerous tabloid journalism is.

    "President Bill Clinton is facing a fresh sex scandal today over claims ...again,
CLAIMS, NOT FACTS that he raped a 19-year-old girl what's her name, where does she live,
how can this be verified?? while he was a student at Oxford in the Sixties.

    The allegation (allegation - a statement asserting something without proof) - together with
claims (claim - to state to be true, especially when open to question) that he sexually assaulted another student (what's her name, where does she live, how can this be verified??) while at
Yale - appear on a Washington website, Capitol Hill Blue
(http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/redirect?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.capitolhillblue.com). ...no documentation found on website

    It is claimed (claimed by who?...what are his credentials and documentation?) the future president met the 19 year old in an Oxford pub when he was a Rhodes Scholar in 1969.    A retired State Department official (what's his name and where does he live?) is quoted by the website (what website and what is the site's credibility) confirming that the rape took place and saying: "There is no doubt in my mind that this woman suffered severe emotional trauma.
    "But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape.  I filed a report to my superiors and that was the last I heard of it."
    He added that he was under the impression that while at Oxford "Clinton was more interested in drinking, drugs and sex than studies."...opinion, innuendo Capitol Hill Blue says the alleged (An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified) victim - who is now married and lives near London - hired a lawyer and changed her phone number after saying she would not go public with further details.  Before moving to the London area she is believed to have lived in Europe for a number of years, most recently in Germany.
    Women students who were at Oxford at the same time as Clinton have accused him of "boorish behavior", claiming he would press himself up against them and frequently suggest they should be honoured to have sex with him. ...unverified accusations
    The Yale University allegations (A statement asserting something without proof...An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence) centre on an incident in 1972 - where Clinton had returned from Oxford to study. A 22-year-old woman (what's her name, where does she live, how can this be verified??) student complained to campus police she had been sexually assaulted by him.  The web-site  (what website and what is the site's credibility?) claims (claimed by who...what are his credentials and documentation?)police confirmed the report. Like the woman in England, the Yale victim was tracked down, but she too refused to give her married name or to discuss the allegations. ...how convenient
    The Capitol Hill Blue allegations (A statement asserting something without proof...An assertion made by a party that must be proved or supported with evidence) come as Monica Lewinsky prepares to launch her book about her relationship with the President - written by British journalist Andrew Morton - with a series of television interviews.  She arrives in the UK this week. Public opinion appeared to be turning against the President when he and Hillary Clinton took a break in Utah over the weekend to celebrate their daughter Chelsea's 19th birthday on the ski slopes.  There women protesters carried placards reading "Rapist resign."
© Associated Newspapers Ltd., 01 March 1999

I can back my allegations…can you?
Citing a newspaper or website that merely repeats an allegation, does not prove the allegation is
true. Lies about Clinton have been repeated so many times that many people, obviously including
yourself, believe them to be true.

Associated Newspapers may have printed this story but the journalistic integrity wherein is ZERO.
You can't provide any documentation supporting these allegations.....can you?

Again, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

"Many well-intentioned critics have jumped into the fray without carefully thinking through the various
implications of their statements. They have sometimes displayed more emotion than logic, made sweeping
charges beyond what they reasonably support, failed to adequately document their assertions, and, in
general, have failed to do the homework necessary to make their challenges credible." 
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v01/n02/proper-criticism.html

    Well, I’d agree with you, if you would remember that the full text says...
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  This means that however pissed off you are, no matter what you believe, others have a right to believe what they want.  And, if they happen to be a majority, you must respect their rights as a majority.  Being a minority does not mean that you always get your way, like it seems to be now.

Do you really think I believe people don't have the right to believe in something???  I believe in
pluralism. Unfortunately, many Americans do not, although some say they do. Diversity is our
strength, not our weakness. I respect the rights of both the majority and the minority. But it doesn't
mean I have to agree with them or reframe from speaking out when I feel they are wrong or
misguided. You may not like it, but it's my right (and duty) to expose what I believe to be the folly of
ignorance and injustice.

It is unconstitutional for the government to favor one religion over another or to create policy based
on any one religious precept. Separation of Church and State is so elemental to the ideas of our
country's founders and so necessary for true freedom, it distresses me to see it debased.

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." - George Washington

    We are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.  You had better thank whatever you believe in that we are, since the classic definition of a democracy is 6 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

OK, have it your way....  If America is a representative republic, do you believe secularism is a
prerequisite for our representative republic? If you don't, better read up on the constitution.

For a non-partisan definition of democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
www.dictionary.com

If you really want to get technical defining America, both terms may lack sufficient, semantic
specificity. Perhaps "Representative Democracy" would be most conclusive.

    Secularism is the new religion of the liberal masses.  You want to believe in nothing, fine.  Just stop criticizing those who believe differently.  Remember; the First Amendment works both ways.

Your definition of secularism is incorrect. This word has adaptive quality and there are some who
couple it with religious belief. It's an unfortunate, common and often opportunistic mistake.
"Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to
the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of
natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the
promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the
common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of
Secularism)

If you think I believe in nothing, you are quite wrong. Contrarians are frequently accused
of nihilism.  Among other things, I believe in the beauty and intuitive goodness naturally
inherent in humanity. I believe in ethical behavior, justice, compassion, honesty and the
promotion of science, reason and rational behavior.

The last two sentences in your above statement are truly oxymoronic in nature: If the First
Amendment works in both ways, why should I stop criticizing those who believe differently??!!??
It's one thing to quote the first amendment, it's another thing to understand it. You say "Just
stop criticizing those who believe differently"?  I fear your ilk could be the bookburners
of the past.

A free society cherishes non-conformity. - Commager

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious
basis is necessary. - Albert Einstein

"As a world leader, his refusal to support the Kyoto treaty, clearly demonstrates his shallow,
short-sighted, isolationist stance and ill-regard for our planet and it's inhabitants. To many around the world, we are seen as we often are: greedy, militaristic, arrogant and self-righteous. No wonder so many people hate us."

    Isn’t it funny that no other Country ratified the Kyoto treaty after it was signed, and only Germany and Japan have done so earlier this year.  These two Countries have a huge radical enviroMENTAList faction.

What's not funny, is how misinformed you are: Where are you getting your information?
Rush Limbaugh? (pretentious, transparently deluded and insidiously deceitful ayatollah of the
airwaves)

As of May 2001, 168 countries have signed the treaty, including the European Union and most of its
members, Canada, Japan, China, and a range of developing countries. Of the 34 countries that have
already ratified or acceded the treaty, only Cyprus and Romania are European countries. (United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)  http://www.theglobalist.com/nor/factsheets/2001/07-24-01.shtml

"If one wants to be a world leader, one must know how to look after the entire earth — and not only
American industry." (EU Commission President Romano Prodi, on U.S. President George Bush's
rejection of the Kyoto protocol, April 2001)

    In your twisted view, opposition to a bad EnviroMENTAL treaty proves someone is evil.  Hmmm...no wonder people hate enviroMENTALists with their junk science and holier-than-thou attitude to enviroMENTAL issues.

Hmmm....upon review of "Globalism and George Bush", I can't find anything that even implies I
said this. To say I consider those opposed to the treaty evil, is clearly a sign you have nothing
rational (or logical ) to offer. Desperate and irresponsible fabrications such as these do nothing to
further productive and meaningful debate. It's sad you connote negativity with the word
"environmental". This planet is our home and it's the only one we have. There are extreme and
fringe environmental stances on both sides. I oppose much of what they do also. But it's unfair
and irresponsible to lump us all into one basket.

This is the way I see it. The Earth is finite. Our population growth has become exponential. At the
current rate, world population doubles every forty years (Stephen Hawking The Universe In
A Nutshell ). Although the amounts and exact consequences are debatable, toxins poisonous to
human beings are pouring into the air we breathe. Sooner or later something's got to give. Even if
our lifetimes are unaffected, I believe we owe it to our descendants to take this seriously. I believe
it's in everyone's best interest to cut carbon dioxide emissions on a global scale and to seek
alternative energy sources. Afterall, our oil and coal supplies are also finite. Oil is also at the
root of our problems in the Middle East.

I care about our country. I also care about our world and all the beings who live here. I care about
our future. The world is simply getting too small for world leaders not to work together. Now and in
the future, political deprovincialization wilI be necessary to subdue the challenges we will face.
Our descendants will look back and be amused at our tribal behavior. I wish Bush would at least
have tried to compromise on the specifics of the treaty he disagreed with.

    I seem to remember in the 70’s, the same people who are screaming about Global Warming (massive barf alert) were screaming about the coming ICE AGE!  Call me when you can come to a conclusion that is based in sound science, not radical Marxist doctrine and self-loathing for being a success.    As a musician, you use some of the finest woods in your instruments…wood that primarily comes from the Rain Forest.

Here again, your hostility dwarfs your rationale. No one knows for certain about the future of our
global climate. Theoretical scenarios and model experiments based on statistical evidence,
however, support global warming beyond natural variability, as a very real possibility.
That's sound science.

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

I will never forget the hypocrisy of the musician Gordon Sumner…aka Sting, when he was performing onstage in a concert to benefit saving the Rain Forest.  He had some Brazilian tribal chief present him with an award for all he has done to help.  Sting then launches into some drivel of a song, and I get a good look at his Bass.  As a Bassist, I know what I’m looking at. The neck was made from…drumroll please…Rosewood!  A hardwood that comes from...the Rain Forest (also India, but predominantly it is Honduran or Brazilian Rosewood are tonewoods).  So, we all need to cut back…but pious, hypocritical liberals can do whatever they want…kinda like how they all have HUGE mansions, limousines.    SUV’s, and are huge consumers…but they mouth some platitudes and they CARE!  WOW!

Once you look past matters concerning the construction of bass guitars, you might be able to see
the full picture: These concerned musicians are responsible for raising millions of dollars for
related noble causes and educating their fans to the ecological and political realities around the
world. They are aware of the eco-sociological repercussions involved. Most of these people are
practical and are advocates of reasonable moderation; a moderation and practical ecology that
not only justifies and celebrates the use of rosewood, but ensures the use of it in the future.

    There are 40 wars (what 40 wars?)being fought in this world today, 38 involve Islam

Before I address globalism directly, I'd like to take a larger look at Islam and religion in general:

Religion is the vehicle, but the enemy is not the religion of Islam. The enemy are those who pervert
the religion to support and justify terrorism. The enemy are those who subvert the impoverished,
uneducated and fearful into a frenzy of hate. When Bush said Islam was a “religion of peace”, he
was correct in the sense the original altruistic tenets are of peace, mercy and forgiveness. (All the
great religious traditions; Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, have similar themes and similar
tribal deities. (e.g. Allah, Brahma, Budda, Jesus, etc.) In many respects religion is responsible for much
charity and noble accomplishment throughout history. These religions also often offer commandments or
edicts conducive to a peaceful and honorable existence. They offer consolation for those who can’t face our
mortality, resulting in the consequent variations of life after death. Personally, I don’t believe there’s anyone
“up there” judging us. I believe humans are totally responsible for their actions and answer to no one but
themselves (except maybe our wives). Whether or not religion is a viable or responsible application for
human existence, when it is used as a diplomatic tool, the results have proven disastrous.) However,
religion has historically been the “modus operandi” for so much murder, oppression,
obscurantism and suffering, it clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of it all. Christianity
itself has its own present and historically infamous record.  Listed below are just a few
examples of what Christianity is responsible for or supportive of: