Centerfield

I think just stay with the status quo. Keep reminding people that some of these issues have symbolic importance but not day-to-day life importance.

In a recent post on a value issue (gay marriage, I think), there seemed to be a considerable number who wanted to "get past" the issue, move it to the side as being less important, BUT they wanted to do so by changing the status quo and providing for gay marriage throughout the country. That's not putting the issue aside, it's insisting that the "values voters" capitulate entirely.

On some issues, there are perfectly clear centrist solutions. Not "gay marriage" but "civil unions". Centrists should tell people to shut up about labels and focus on the real substance, and to be happy with a major change even if it doesn't go as far as one side thinks it should.

So, find the compromises where they exist, and for the rest, ask everybody to agree to disagree and put the issues aside while more important issues, the war, health care, social security are battled out.

Finally, just respect people of faith. There's a great deal of hostility or distrust out there, even in centrist circles, to people with strongly held faiths. The radical left is outright vituperative against people with faith, calling them delusional and victims of mass brain-washing. Centrists should condemn such intolerant anti-religion bigots, with the same energy they use to condemn intolerant bigots on the right.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 8, 2006 05:22 PM

While I agree with most of your comments, I wonder how you posit "perfectly clear centrist solutions" without much care for any kind of centrist criteria. If centrist positions are more than moderate mid points between ideological and political extremes then centrism is no more than centerism. If not, please explain the difference. And how do we find real solutions concerning Iran, Iraq, NK, proliferation and missile defense without establishing such relevant criteria? Do centrist solutions just arrive spontaneously? I assume you might reject using past administration as examples of centrist criteria. Under what criteria would plan x be a centrist solution from Iran from building a bomb? Status quo will prove to be lethal in regard to terrorist regimes as well as energy policy.

Posted by: Maxtrue at July 8, 2006 06:33 PM

Max, I don't believe there should be "centrist positions" per se. I don't believe in a centrist third party, or a centrist platform, or a centrist ideology. I do believe in centrism as a force for promoting democratic pluralism, by helping find middle ground to resolve disputes between competing philosophies, parties, and ideologies.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 8, 2006 07:14 PM

As a first approximation, we might take the core value of centerists to be tolerance: a simple willingness to refrain from telling others what they must believe and how they must organize those parts of their lives which impact nobody but themselves. Just that one simple standard would instantly distinguish us from those on both the far left and the far right -- both of whom will tell you early and often that they have the only acceptable answers (albeit different one from each other) to any question or issue that you care to raise. And that anyone who disagrees with them deserves no respect whatever.

Sure, there are areas where one person or group's actions impact others, and were trade-offs will have to be made. But the values which the left and right trumpet most loudly don't fall into that category.

Posted by: wj at July 8, 2006 08:02 PM

how they must organize those parts of their lives which impact nobody but themselves

wj, it almost sounds like you are suggesting that centrism should equal libertarianism. How do you translate what you said into specifics on, say, gay marriage or abortion? Posted by: PatHMV at July 8, 2006 09:54 PM

"Is it a discomfort with religious or quasi-religious talk?" That's a large part of it.

Most "centrists" tend to be more secular than your conservative "values voter;" while they might be church-goers, they derive less of their politics from their theology. Conversely, your values voter will be theology (or at least tradition) driven.

Thus, the two often wind up talking past one another.

It might be up to the folks in the value-voting block to translate their values into secular terms rather than having centrists try and learn Christianese.

That sounds like a good topic for a post of my own in the next few days; it's more than I want to tackle just before bedtime.

Posted by: Mark Byron at July 8, 2006 10:09 PM

On gay marriage, it translates to "let it happen." Any arguments that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriages are, IMHO, balanced (and more) by arguements that legal recognition of "domestic partnerships" short of marriage are at least as damaging.

Abortion is more problematic because it actually (when you skip to hype) is a matter of defining "at what point do you have a human being?" Until that point, another human being is not impacted; only after that point do you get into trade-offs of impacts.
And you can parse that question on at least 4 bases: legal/political, medical, religious, and emotional.

- Legally, you have a human being whenever the law currently says you do -- it's the easiest to settle, once we decide what we want the law to be.

- Medically, I would suggest that the question be re-phrased as: When do we have a reasonable chance of the child surviving, given appropriate available medical support? In a poor and disease-ridden environment, with minimal or no medical knowledge or technology, there may well be sufficiently high infant mortality that the answer is: several weeks, or even months, after birth. On the other hand, with the best of current medical treatment, a child born several weeks premature still has a good chance of survival. How many weeks premature seems to increase steadily.

On the other hand, while an in vitro fertilization may occur in a test tube, the embryo must be still implanted in a woman’s womb for a child to result. The uterine replicator remains the stuff of science fiction for the moment. I wouldn’t bet against one being invented at some point, and probably closer to 100 years in the future than 1000. But not yet. Similarly, at some point it will be at least technologically possible to take a cell from anywhere in the body and clone a human being. Probably before too many more years. But it will still require some months inside a living woman before it is viable outside.

One of the glosses used in discussions about abortion which are based on a focus on one of the other issues is that a fertilized egg is a “potential human being.” Does that mean that, once cloning technology is available, scratching too hard is considered killing potential human beings because it kills some skin cells? After all, every one of those skin cells could be cloned and so is a “potential human being.” Hmmm….

In short, the medical answer to the question is a moving target. However the abortion question is to be decided, the solution won’t come from here.

- The religious basis also gets rephrased to: At what point does the soul enter the body? (Phrasing it for atheists or agnostics is more challenging – although I expect it can be done with enough work.) You might think that, at least within a given religion, that question would have a single, unchanging answer. You would be wrong.

But first, we have the fact that different religions may, at any given point in time, have different beliefs on the subject. Public policy will have to either accommodate all of them (and does that mean that the most restrictive faith gets to decide for all, even if it has only a single adherent?) or we include specific public policies for each and every religion which exists within the state or nation. Won’t that be an administrative nightmare to keep current? Because implicitly such an approach requires changing public policy every time a new sect appears which has a different theological stance. (Not to mention having to deal with individuals who may not subscribe to any particular religion.)

Further, do the allowed options change, simply because a woman decides to declare her belief in a different religion? Even if that proclamation is based entirely on getting the option she wants on the abortion question?

But beyond the problem of multiple religions, take just the case of western Christianity. A thousand years or more ago, the soul was held by the Church to enter the body some weeks (or months) after birth – and baptism was held off until that point. Later, baptism was moved up to birth. A few hundred years ago, the critical point was held to be “quickening”: the point at which the fetus could be felt to be moving. Currently, there are at least numerous western Christian denominations which hold that the critical point is the moment of conception.

It seems unlikely that the timing of the arrival of the soul has changed over the years. And without examining the theological writings on the subject, it certainly looks like the theological answer has been moving in parallel with (if not necessarily due to) the movement of the medical answer. And that leaves open the possibility that cloning technology will result in every cell being held to have a soul.

Even if it serves as the basis for choosing an individual’s course, the theological arena doesn’t look like the source of a workable public policy. And that’s before we consider that the Establishment Clause prohibits simply taking one sect’s theological stance and making it law.

- Emotionally, we are dealing here with the point when those around it feel that we have a human.

Emotional as it doubtless is, we are not dealing here with the feeling on the part of some individuals, whether personally involved in a particular specific case or not, that sex (or at least sex in some circumstances, e.g. outside marriage) is a “bad thing.” And one which should therefore be punished by forcing those involved (or at least the woman involved) to bear and raise the resulting child. Pretty clearly this has nothing to do with when we have a human child, only with how to punish someone for actions (even, in the case of rape, actions over which she has no control) that are considered objectionable.

First, it must be noted that the emotional belief that we now have a human being varies from one individual to another. It must also be noted here that this emotional belief is largely culturally determined. (And while cultures change slowly, they do change over time.)

Also there is clearly a perceptual component: a fertilized egg which does not implant results in a miscarriage; but probably nobody notices, so there is no emotional reaction. But do we want to make public policy on a basis which includes a substantial helping of “ignorance is bliss?” One which would then say, for example: You can take a “morning after pill” if you don’t know that you have gotten pregnant, but not if you know that you have. Putting a premium of willful ignorance seems like a poor basis for public policy.

This is not to minimize the emotional trauma if public policy says we don’t yet have a human being but emotionally an individual involved feels that we do. All it says is that the emotional belief can only for a basis of individual action, not for public policy.

So where are we on abortion after all that? I would submit that, as a matter of public policy the only choice is the medical answer (at what point in a pregnancy is there a reasonable chance, IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE LAW IS BEING MADE, of a child surviving?) -- for all that it is a moving target. Does that help?

Posted by: wj at July 8, 2006 10:18 PM

I fail to see the difference between your "centrist" position and the left/Democratic position on gay marriage. I think it's not terribly centrist, because polls and election results clearly show that a strong majority of the public is opposed to gay marriage, even in places like Oregon.

As for abortion, I think viability is one potential reasonable compromise between the various sides in the battle, but not the only possible one. And it suffers from 2 major problems. One, it is subject to change over time as science improves. Two, what if we develop a perfect artificial womb? Does that allow prohibition of abortion from conception or implantation? Would the law have to be such that the state provided artificial wombs to any woman who seeks an abortion, or would the mere availability of it to the richest of the rich then prohibit abortion to all women?

Posted by: PatHMV at July 9, 2006 12:55 AM

I suppose that it is inherent in any general centrist principle that either a) it blindly splits the difference between the extremes, no matter what they are, or b) it occasionally results in having a position similar to one side or the other. Although I would argue that the latter doesn't mean it isn't centrist after all, merely that one of the sides has come up with a centerist position (rather than an extreme on) on a particular issue. As one of my late friends was wont to remark: Even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then.

As for the abortion question, you have nailed the weakness in the medical basis. But I have yet to figure out a different basis which does not suffer from either being totally arbitrary (i.e. the legal basis) or require choosing the position of one religion over another and making it applicable to everybody of every (or no) faith. If you've got suggestions, I'd be delighted to hear them.

Posted by: wj at July 9, 2006 01:18 AM

That's the danger, to me, in coming up with "centrist" positions. They become just as ideologically hide-bound as anybody else's. My concern, and I think the concern I hear by many people, is not over the substance of current policies but the political atmosphere in general. Peoplea seem to be forgetting how to disagree on some issues but nevertheless continue to live next door to each other, because the values they share are far more numerous than the values over which they disagree.

If centrism develops a "centrist" ideology, then it will contribute to, not help solve, the problem.

As I keep saying in debates over a "centrist" party, if you want a fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal party, just call it that, not dress it up as non-partisan "centrism".

Posted by: PatHMV at July 9, 2006 10:11 AM

Pat, I certainly agree that the poisoned atmosphere is a significant problem. Hence my suggestion of "tolerance" -- a necessary corollary being that one manages to live with people who happen to hold differing opinions.

Personally, I think I'm a conservative and I manage to be close friends with someone who suffers from the delusion that Barbra Boxer is a moderate and Diane Feinstein an arch-conservative. (I'm not making this up!) We even have the occasional civil discussion of politics. But then I look at the political arena today . . . and shudder.

I actually see one reason why your proposed fiscal-conservative/social-liberal party is less likely to take off than a "centerist" party. It has nothing to do with the merits. It is simply this: they've got a simple, one-word, label for what they are doing, and we don't. Yet. It may be regretable that the controling issue is what could be called a straight marketing point -- but I think that's actually what it is.

Posted by: wj at July 9, 2006 10:23 AM

A few comments:
Mark;

Most "centrists" tend to be more secular than your conservative "values voter;"

From the "Religion and Public Life" A Faith Based Partisan Divide" (pdf warning). White Protestant Evangelical: 78% Bush 21% Kerry; Black Protestant 13% Bush 86% Kerry, Jewish 25% Bush, 75% Kerry.

wj;

As a first approximation, we might take the core value of centerists to be tolerance: a simple willingness to refrain from telling others what they must believe and how they must organize those parts of their lives which impact nobody but themselves.

To echo Pat that does sound fairly libertarian. "Live and let live" has its limits in how we discuss "public morality"(i.e. obscenity laws) and "social justice" (i.e. anti-poverty programs)

And that’s before we consider that the Establishment Clause prohibits simply taking one sect’s theological stance and making it law.

Does it make any difference where your political beliefs/biases come from if they have public support?

Medically, I would suggest that the question be re-phrased as: When do we have a reasonable chance of the child surviving, given appropriate available medical support? In a poor and disease-ridden environment, with minimal or no medical knowledge or technology, there may well be sufficiently high infant mortality that the answer is: several weeks, or even months, after birth.

And that's why infanticide is ok in Bangladesh but not in Bahrain!

And a follow up question for you all. In the debate on Gay Marriage, proponents suggest a similarity with of opposition to gay marriage as the historic opposition to inter-racial marriage. I believe underlying this argument is a supposition that we, as a society, are progressively more fair and just. Is there a steady progression forward towards a better society?

Posted by: c3 at July 9, 2006 11:37 AM

The real problem with the value issues is adressing the fact that they are "over-valued" in the real scheme of things. They are essential masking issues that work on the simplest levels to avoid the more complex issues. They are traps. If you do not accept their values, they can not vote for you. Even if what you propose is better for them in the long run. The values issue is the USS Maine and Gulf of Tonkin of todays politics. Most of the people talking about it really don't care that much about the issues. They just know that it gets them votes.

This presents a problem to people who want to deal with the issues. The real question should be, does a centrist go along with value issues to get the votes or not? I don't think there can be a reason discussion on the issue. Members of the right have set this up as a litmus test. We shall see how it works in 2008. It is really the only thing that the right is able to confidently run on right now. They play the left into a corner with it. It keeps the center off balance and unable to gain traction. Short of centrists going along with value voters, the only option available to a centrist going after the value voter is to pound at them with with other issues that they are interested in, like health care, employment and education. Even then, those subjects are much more complex then appealing to values. Values voters are driven by dogma.

Posted by: Jim M at July 9, 2006 12:57 PM

As I understand the libertarian philosophy (and I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means), they oppose government intervention IN GENERAL. All I am suggesting is opposing it WHEN NOBODY ELSE IS IMPACTED. So, for example, alcohol consumption in private might not be a problem, but driving under the influence would be a legitimate are for government intervention. Please someone correct/educate me if I'm wrong.

To your final question, c3, there clearly is not a steady progression towards a better society. Or in any particular direction, for that matter. Which is a separate question from whether there should be, of course. And also separate from the question of what constitutes a "better society."

Posted by: wj at July 9, 2006 01:01 PM

wj, depending on what level of detail you want to go into, I don't think that's an accurate summarization of libertarianism. They (or at least most of them) are willing to allow government intervention to prevent harm to others (it's still ok for murder to be against the law, and theft).

The other difficulty posed by your definition is what constitutes "impacting" somebody else. Of course, in abortion it is the issue, whether the fetus is "another person". In gay marriage, it is quite clear that a society which allows gay marriage is different from a society which does not allow gay marriage. Having legal gay marriage does indeed impact me. Not terribly directly, but over time it does indeed have an impact on other people.

While I disagree with Jim M's somewhat perjorative characterization of "value voters" being driven by dogma, one point he makes is correct; these issues are more important as symbols than as substantive issues. Centrists, should, therefore, emphasize that while finding workable compromises that, perhaps, please nobody 100%, but allow us to "move on" to bigger things.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 9, 2006 03:36 PM

There's an >interesting op/ed in yesterday's Wall St Journal that offers some insight into rational decision making.

Shouldn't centrism be driven to some extent by rational (vs. ideological) decision making?

Posted by: Tully at July 9, 2006 04:28 PM

Im not going to be long winded here like many of you are (and that is one of the main issues with politically-oriented centrists). I am anti-abortion myself. BUT, not anti-abortion when it comes to the law. I think it should be the choice of the individual, their vaules should take precendent over yours since they are the ones most impacted. Technically, a fetus is a parasite until a certain point and noone can medically prove otherwise.

Posted by: Dan at July 9, 2006 04:29 PM

Jim;

does a centrist go along with value issues to get the votes or not? I don't think there can be a reason discussion on the issue. Members of the right have set this up as a litmus test.

Raising the minimum wage is a "Values" issue. Being strictly anti-war is a "values" issue.

Dan;

Im not going to be long winded here like many of you are

Did that technique work well on your debate team?

Posted by: c3 at July 9, 2006 09:24 PM

Tully;
Nice editorial, especially since it implies (at least to me) that we have to prioritize our issues, even the "values" ones. And in that vein, and because some "values issues" strike at the core of what some hold dear, some will put a higher prioirity on them.

Posted by: c3 at July 9, 2006 09:28 PM

c3: Debate team... nice touch... my point, which you OBVIOUSLY missed was that long drawn out semi-technical discussions and explanations do nothing more than alienate the people you are trying to reach. All they accomplish is to puff up the orators self-esteem as they "display their superior intellect". Really, almost all political blogs have the same problem.

If you want to reach people, being hauty and holier-than-thou is never the way to go. It just makes the "average" person ignore you.

Posted by: Dan at July 9, 2006 10:32 PM

Two, what if we develop a perfect artificial womb? Does that allow prohibition of abortion from conception or implantation? Would the law have to be such that the state provided artificial wombs to any woman who seeks an abortion, or would the mere availability of it to the richest of the rich then prohibit abortion to all women?

Pat, you sly dog, you. You've been reading Solomon's Knife, haven't you? ;-)

It would be a fascinating law case, yes, but as fiction...eh.

Posted by: Blue Jean at July 10, 2006 12:48 AM

Dan, there are different types and levels of communication. If and when the Centrist Coalition or anybody else starts trying to reach out to the masses, then those communications will, I'm sure, be condensed.

But people who see the importance of details, and nuance, and long-term consequences must needs discuss issues in more depth at greater length.

Should Plato have written in sound bites?

Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 09:37 AM

Jean, no, I'll have to take a look at that one. My artificial womb inspirations come from the experiences of Miles Vorkosigan et son famile.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 09:39 AM

Pat... really, it is only a certain trend when certain people become involved in the conversation. I like watching trends and frequently see what happens when a certain person posts in response to a certain other person or when certain keywords are mentioned. Actually, I find it quite humurous, all the puffery which flies about. But it really is counter-productive, and often "big words" are used when normal conversational words would not only suffice, but fit better.

And really... isnt Unity08 ALL ABOUT reaching out to the masses?

Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 09:43 AM

There's definitely something of a conundrum for centrists, which is that those most motivated by values issues seem most likely to be swayed by simple arguments and bright line principles, not to mention their being more likely to function as one-issue voters.

Nevertheless, if you want the trends to go in a different direction, I don't think there's a very good substitute for arguing the merits of your views and finding equally simple and compelling ways to frame the issues. For example, on abortion, each side has its own dominant frame with no meeting point. It's life or its choice, as Simon has pointed out. Perhaps if people can come to entertain viability as a good point to consider the merits of life versus choice, progress can be made. I dunno.

I think the perfect artificial womb question is a great one. I think that should this come to pass, then we'll have reached a new stage of debate which may make current issues passe. Presuming humans could gestate a fertilized age to humanhood outside the womb, who would choose to bear children the "old-fashioned" way? The battle over THAT might well become more contentious than the abortion debate.

Suppose for the sake of argument that the PAW led to abortion being outlawed, in the sense that any woman with an undesired pregnancy was required to have that fertilized egg extracted and gestated to term instead of terminating the pregnancy. That might bring more issues to the forefront. People might feel very differently in such circumstances, since the state would come to be seen as requiring that your offspring be brought into the world regardless of how they might turn out...

But there's another equally likely possibility that would come along with PAW. It might in fact be likely that concurrent technology would have developed that would make accidental and undesired pregancies exceeding rare, or even impossible. Contraception might become wicked easy, and horror of horrors, in some circumstances in might even become mandatory. Notice that catholics have had their eye on this ball for some time in insisting that contraception is wrong.

That's a whole other discussion so I won't go on. I might bore Dan. You can't make me feel bad for using big words though Dan. I don't disagree with your point as it regards communication, as I have made it myself. But sometimes big words are better and often they are necessary. I make no apologies on that count.

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 10:18 AM

BK - boredom wasnt the point. It is really, the overuse of such words when unnessecary and the puffery that goes with it. Not every converation has taken such a route, but many certainly do. Reminds me of a certain president's statement "quid pro quo" - when the "masses" hear that, it may make him sound smart since 95% of the people have no idea what it means. Some bought it, some didnt. It does not even matter if it was accurate or proper or not for it to be said. If you cannot reach your audience, why bother? The general concensus I see here is that everyone wants to bring the "Great Middle" back into the political fold. How does this accomplish your goals?

Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 10:54 AM

Dan, like I said I see you point. I am intimately familiar with it. As a textbook editor, I deal with this issue every day. Professionally, we editors think of this issue as the issue of "audience," which indeed you have noticed. Whatever you write, it should be written with the audience in mind. There's no point in expending effort to transmit insight if you audience won't receive it.

In a blog, who's the audience? In my blog posts, if I'm originating a thread, then I presume that my audience is all of our readers, as well as potential visitors.

But in a post that's a response, I write for whatever audience I feel like addressing. Very often, it's primarily for an audience of 1 or 2, if I'm asking questions of or challenging the contentions of either the thread originator or some other poster.

In that case, my primary objective is to communicate with THAT person. Which IMO gives me the license to communicate however I need to with that person. Of course, whatever additional audience that wishes to come along for the ride is welcome to do so, but it's up to them to digest whatever I am dishing out at my intended smaller audience. If I'm responding to say Simon or Pat, I don't necessarily take it in mind to make sure I write in such a way as to invite the whole audience (whatever it is)along. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

So in terms of audience, I pretty much agree with you. Just don't dismiss the value of detailed in-depth discussions for the minds of the actual participants. If an issue is complicated and sensitive, then i suggest that such discussions may very well be necessary precursors to finding that simple honed mesaage that people wil respond to. Think of it as brainstorming. It's often an ugly, slow, creative process than seem inane and even pointless. But if you commit yourself to it regularly, you find it's one of the best ways to negotiate difficult terrain.

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 11:24 AM

Point taken there BK... but... Think of your self as a relatively new person to these types of blogs. You crave information and new insight and wish to share your own. You come accross this site and look at it and say "hey, maybe these people share some of my political misgivings, mayve we can share ideas." So you click into an interesting discussion and all looks great, until you hit a 15 page thesaurus laden post, and then a 15 page response to it. Well, since you are not a Harvard educated Master's degree, Nobel Peace Prize winner you look at that and say, "well, forget this, these people are talking over my head. I am going to keep looking for people who are more like me."

When you POST here, you are speaking to the masses you want to attract, just as I am now. Granted, some conversations take a turn towards the scientific, such as the Speed of Light one. No problem there. But if you are only responding to one person, wouldnt an email be just as good?

Posted by: Dan at July 10, 2006 11:32 AM

The use of the term, "values-voter." How far back do you think this term began to be used? I know the GOP would say they've been targeting them for decades, but I think the use of the term started in the "Dubbya," years.

My problem with it is these days there seems to be a use of the term by the GOP to denote those who lack, "decency." The GOP tactic is to talk insessantly on Fox News about sexual predators and the like, and then create an ever-shrinking circumference of people who fit within the decency-circle. It's the age-old tactic of using shame to control people.

Might consider it noble if it wasn't being used simply to end the dialogue and political competition in this country.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 10, 2006 11:49 AM

Is the central position the one that manages to distinguish between "life" and "government"?

I will no doubt express this badly.

It seems that partisan folks tend to blur the line between what "someone" should do versus what "a government" should do.

On the left, it translates to "the government must provide X" If today's X is 'gay marriage', then the government must endorse it by enshrining it in law.

On the far right, it translates to "the government must prohibit gay marriage" by outlawing it.

Would the centrist position be "Why should a government define marriage? What is the real problem that people are attempting to solve through this legislation?"

I use gay marriage as an example because it seems that the real underlying social problem of gay marriage is situationally dependent and generally a result of someone not using common sense -- hospitals denying access to a gay partner because they aren't a legal spouse, for example. So a centrist would argue that people and businesses need to avoid demanding government solutions/definitions for every problem in life and instead use common sense and understand that they cannot be isolated from any possible risk.

An easier example is speeding. Speeding is against the law and merits a fine. My dying mother is in the car, so I speed. Do I deserve a fine? Maybe. And I deem that an acceptable risk. I do not demand the that law be rewitten to legalize my exception.

This perhaps sounds a bit libertarian but is something more, I think. If I recall my American history properly, the perils of overreliance on written law was something the British warned us about when the Constitution was enacted.

Posted by: Serfer at July 10, 2006 12:03 PM

No Dan, an email wouldn't be just as good, because often other people DO come along for the ride and join in, and that's what makes it worth doing in a thread.

Blogs are a 2-way street. You post, you get feedback. I get enough feedback that I know that my posts are worthwhile, both to me, and to those who feel compelled to respond. Lack of response is feedback too. And or course, the feedback that "I don't like long posts" is out there too. Oh well. Get a mouse with a scroll wheel. I can't possibly be the only one who will skip over longer posts if I'm not interested,

Notice that you felt the need to caricature longer posts as 15 page theses. We don't see too many of those though, do we? We see 200, 500, 1000 word posts. Even longer, I'd imagine. I don't think that's a problem. Give me your interest and show me what you've got. I'll take what you have, if I'm interested too.

This is a pretty free marketplace of ideas. You are talking about marketing centrist ideas, spreading them and making them grow. And there's nothing wrong with that. But we've got liberals and conservatives and moderates and environmentalists and libertarians and hawks and doves and so forth coming here. All dissatisfied by simple answers.Which makes centerfield more of an idea laboratory.

Marketing is down the hall. :-)

Not everyone like laboratories, they just want the products. But we will sell no whine before its time. :-)

Hey, it is what it is. Political and philosophical idea labs aren't for everyone. I'm sure people visit here and like it at first and later lose patience. IMO, that is how this place is supposed to work. Currently, it's not a for-profit or for-vote enterprise.

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 12:31 PM

Serfer;

Would the centrist position be "Why should a government define marriage? What is the real problem that people are attempting to solve through this legislation?" I use gay marriage as an example because it seems that the real underlying social problem of gay marriage is situationally dependent and generally a result of someone not using common sense -- hospitals denying access to a gay partner because they aren't a legal spouse, for example. So a centrist would argue that people and businesses need to avoid demanding government solutions/definitions for every problem in life and instead use common sense and understand that they cannot be isolated from any possible risk

Excellent points. In California, if I understand correctly, gay couples have those legal and economic protections without gay marriage. However, we're still seeing active legal proceedings in CA in pursuit of California. Curious.

Posted by: c3 at July 10, 2006 12:36 PM

Tully, that would be an interesting article, but....isn't Lomborg just an exxon tool toadying for big business's ongoing rape of the environment? That's what I heard, anyway.

ROTFL

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 12:45 PM

c3: one of the reasons (at least MY reasons) for pushing gay marriage in California is precisely to get rid of all those domestic partner categories. Because while the provide most of the benefits of marriage, they require virtually NONE of the responsibilities that come with marriage.

Which can (and sometimes does) result in people, including heterosexual domestic partners, who took those benefits turning around and expecting the state, rather than theri "partner" to take responsibility when it is convenient. My tax dollars at work.

Posted by: wj at July 10, 2006 01:11 PM

Let's get to brass tacks.

The idea of the values-vote is really about finding that balance of power which continually seems to elude the Democrats.

And it's true. The divide within the Democratic Party is what makes them so impotent. Half the party could make WAR on the Republicans with these issues, if they didn't have to worry about losing the KOS crowd. Their situation, politically is untenable.

But that doesn't mean the GOP isn't vulnerable, and in fact very much so. The vulnerability is their connection with Corporate power. Now, if only the Democratic Party didn't go too far by wanting to effectively undo Capitalism, they could fight on these issues.

As long as the Dems fail to gain traction elsewhere, the GOP will continue to beat them senseless on these so-called, "decency," issues.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 10, 2006 01:12 PM

"Values" discourse has two modes: means and ends.

The left invokes means for, e.g., the environment ("It's our moral obligation to preserve the environment for the next generation."), and ends for, e.g., affirmative action ("Without it, we can't counteract the enthrenched historical effects of racism.")

The right invokes means for, e.g., abortion ("It's morally wrong to kill a fetus.") and ends for, e.g., gay marriage ("It threatens all of marriage.")

It's not possible to critically examine means invocations. They are received wisdom; the only argument might be the veracity of the scriptural source ("Jesus didn't really say that; it's a typo."). That's not to say a centrist has to stay clear of them. We each have principles gained from our faith and experience, and there are cases in which we are going to feel the need to impose them on everybody. ("Torture is morally wrong. It may or may not be inefficacious, but that's not why we don't do it. It's just wrong.")

Centrists can, OTOH, critically examine ends arguments and try to decide on which side utility lies. Even then we won't all agree (some people will say polluters need to pay for externalities becuase of their costs to society, others will say they shouldn't because the overall gain in productivity is worth it) but that will at least lead to civil discussion.

As was said above, there should be no attempted uniform centrist doctrine or dogma on any issue. Centrism is process, not result.

Posted by: Greg63 at July 10, 2006 02:36 PM

Let's get to brass tacks.

The idea of the values-vote is really about finding that balance of power which continually seems to elude the Democrats.

Maybe for some people it is. Certainly it is for democrats. But speaking only for myself I can say this: If the influence of social conservatives wre considerably blunted, but this develpment did nolt put the democrats back in power, that wouldn't bother me a bit. I don't view the blunting of the force socons as a means to a poltical power ends, but as a good in and of itself. Well, I guess that's not entirely true. Such a development would be a possible (and I only say POSSIBLE) mean towards the end of makiong progress on issues that I view as more important.

If we didn't talk about abortion or gay marriage or flags or the pledge of allegiance for 10 years, and during that time we

• balanced the budget,

• made such balance a legal mandate,

• made social security and medicare legitimately solvent by having aplan that explained how much each person would get and precisely how we'd pay for it,

• conclusively established a legitimate civil right to privacy with strong consumer protection, and bias towards everyday peoples concerns instead of in favor of commerce

• raised high school graduation rates 2% without lowering standards,

• got 2% more kids through to college graduation with less than 2 times the annual poverty level in debt incurred

• found ways to get ASmericans to use energy 2% more efficiently while beginning to target overal per-capita use

• and decreased our dependency on foreign fuel by 2%,

Those would be epic achievements. And I wouldn't care who got credit for them.

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 02:40 PM

BK,

Is this the 2% solution I'm seeing?

There was a book written, I think, in the past 4 years or so, written by a guy who ended up moderating the PBS program, "Left, Right & Center."

Have you read it? Do you know who I'm talking about?

Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 10, 2006 03:59 PM

No, I just pulled a number out of my bum. I chose 2 percent, because it sounds small enough to be achievable but substantial enough that it'd probably be progress due to real change and not statistical static.

I'm certain that the actual numbers that it makes sense to call for are different if one knows more about the subject. High school drop-out rate, for example. I know that slightly fewer than 3 out of 4 kids graduates. This seems dismal to me. but I don't know if we could get it up 2% in 10 years in by 2 prcent we meant improving the grad rate from, I dunno, 74% to 76%. How many drop-outs would we have to prevent to do that? Bear in mind that I'm talking about not just kids staying in school but graduating because they deserve the diplomas that they've been granted. Small numbers can be tall tasks. That can be deceiving,.but maybe we could trick people into committing to them becuase they don't sound that hard. :-)

Posted by: bk at July 10, 2006 04:17 PM

BK,

I'd not be surprised if something like this worked. People today are somewhat dissilusioned by vague sweeping promises. Candidates that committed government to reasonable, measurable tasks would, I think, find favor.

Of course, they'd have to meet the goal to maintain their electability.

Posted by: Cavalier829 at July 10, 2006 04:23 PM

Just as an aside, the education problem, while "national" because it affects the entire country, is not a "federal" problem, both because of the limits of the Constitution and the fact that the 75% graduation rate figure you cite masks major disparaties between the states, according to this study. Iowa had a graduation rate of 93%, closely followed by North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. Georgia had a 54% graduation rate, followed by Nevada, Florida, and Washington, DC. Public schools in Cleveland had the lowest overall graduation rate in the entire country, with 28%. These problems reflect both educational policy and cultural conditions within the affected states and communities, which must ultimately be addressed by the states, not the federal government.

Sorry, didn't mean to steer the thread into that specific topic... just found a solid source to back up your 3 out of 4 number, and then felt compelled to point out other things.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 04:27 PM

Incidentally, here is a great map of graduation rates around the country in 2004.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 04:28 PM

Pat, then shouldn't programs like, "No Child Left Behind" be pulled from federal linkage with money. Seems funny that a system like that is closely based on Florida's plan. I think I would rather see an emulation of the Iowa plan.

The Federal/State argument is a bogus one these days. With the right not wanting the government to fund anything, it dumps all the responsibility on local governments which may not have the resources. Especially in states like Florida that have gone so apesh*t crazy on tax reduction that every little tax increase requires voter approval(something that is impossible to get in many parts of the state becuase of the retiree influx). It is getting even worse now. Our beloved Jeb vetoed a chance for localities to vote in a one cent sales tax by their choice for mass transit becuase, "it taxes tourists who don't have a voice." Hey Jeb, taxing tourists is why we don't have an income tax.

The hard right appeals with "social values" and "no taxes" as a way to appeal to the "secure" middle class. I am with BK on his 2% idea. It is time for the country as a whole to start to accept its responsibility again. We are in a new guilded age. I just hope a Teddy Roosevelt can show up to get us out of it[sans the militarism, I think I am done with that].

Posted by: Jim M at July 10, 2006 07:27 PM

Jim, I can tell you most definitely that the problems with education here in Louisiana are different from the problems in other states. There are some similarities, but also plenty of differences. It's not just "education policy", but the whole complex of governing structures, cultural attitudes toward education, you name it. While Louisiana can learn a great deal from observing how others do things, but we do not need outsiders, who are utterly unfamiliar with how we do things and who the key people are, railroading specific prescriptions on us.

Louisiana actually had a program very close to No Child Left Behind in place before it was adopted nationally. It was a good program, and we worked hard to build support for it at all levels here in Louisiana. It was almost derailed by NCLB until Secretary Paige had the good sense to grant us waivers on a couple of key provisions where what we did didn't match up exactly with the national requirements.

And the fundamental problems with education have ZIP to do with money.

Posted by: PatHMV at July 10, 2006 08:41 PM

I agree there are plenty fundamental issues that need to be addressed. I think a lot of it has to do with quality of teachers available and the programs. I know about 60 people who have education backgrounds and did a great job, the short time they were teaching. They left for two reasons, bad administration and the pay was terrible compared to what they could get in the private sector. The bad administration needs adressing; but I also believe that we get the education that we pay for. Get a significant increase in teachers pay and improve the funding for actual teaching functions and clean up administrative bloat. You don't need fancy overly regulated programs. When I hear school districts trying to chop a half hour off of the school day just to save money, there are major problems. Money is not going to fix any problem. However, some money might help induce some people out of the private sector. Afterall, those who can, do and those who can't teach. [I am not impugnig those who are in the profession. There are a lot of good teachers out there. However, there are a lot of teachers who don't do it because they can not live on the pay]

Posted by: Jim M at July 11, 2006 12:19 AM

More money/higher pay, to match what is available in the private sector, might be a good motivator. But I don't see it happening as long as the private sector feature of being subject to termination doesn't come with it.

There are great teachers, who we ought to be paying a lot more. Unfortunately, there are also some not-so-great teachers, who ended up taking the low paid position precisely because they couldn't get fired for incompetence. Can we convince people who are subject to losing their jobs for any reason, including not just not doing them as well as someone else but even simply having their part of the economy turn south, that they ought to pay more taxes to pay more for some people who don't take that risk? It's going to be a real hard sell.

Posted by: wj at July 11, 2006 02:13 AM

Those are very good points Pat. I guess I'd call myself agnostic on the issue of whose"problem" it is, the feds or the localities. It's there for whoever wants to address it, and it would make sense to me if we asked the people what they thought about who should take charge, even though we can expect they'll tell us that they'd like to have their cake and eat it too, please.

I think it's reasonable to presume that many or most Americans would at least agree that a HS diploma from Louisiana should signify basically the same thing as one from MA or IA or SD or FL or CA. And while that sounds, on its face, like a rationale for federal onvolvement, how best to achieve such standardization is point of contention. Speaking from personal experince, i can testify (and would, at length if not for reasons of professional discretion) that much in the way of resources is wasted on essentially duplicative efforts at establishing standards and declaring how they should be taught and evaluated. Re-inventing the wheel is an institution in most states, folks.

I wholeheartedly agree with wj that compensation is a huge issue, and also that it's one few people are interested in addressing. Leaving aside the hows and wherefores, if school teachers made as much as doctors and lawyers and other professionals, the teachers would be better, the teaching would be better, and the learning would be better.

Posted by: bk at July 11, 2006 01:05 PM

I think WJ hit this one on it's head. I've got no problems with increasing salaries for teachers. In general they are paid too low for the work they do. My son has had some great teachers that really deserve competitive compensation.

Two important caveats though:

1) Pay scale should be based on performance NOT seniority.

2) Tenure should be eliminated. Teachers should be subject to dismissal in the same manner that private sector employees are.

If teachers want benefits comparable with private sector workers (and I think they deserve them) then they need to be willing to accept risks/responsibilities that are comparable with them too.

Posted by: cengel at July 11, 2006 05:10 PM

I know that there is a difficult issue with measuring teacher performance against the backdrop of the difficult situations they may be thrust into...this drives me to want to protect teachers from the more arbitrary possibilities for termination. But I agree that tenure is, well, untenable. Keeping tenure _AND_ compensating teachers as richly as other professionals probably wpouldn't be very desirable, but as the system exists now, tenure is a substitute perk cherished by those who enjoy it.

And that's an interesecting issue, I think....which more benerally is the issue that while civil employees may not enjoy the same levels of annual salary/pay, they often enjoy other benefits that private emloyees do not. These benefits tend to be ones that provide long-term stability: good fully paid healthcare; generous vacation and overtime pay; strong protections from dismissal; rigid work rules that benefit employees but may hinder workplace efficiency, generous and bulletproof retirement plans.

In the specific instance of teachers, I actually think it may be worthwhile to "lower" standards in this sense...it's currently an onerous process to become a teacher...not necessarily extremely difficult, but lengthy...time-consuming...relatively expensive when you consider the time and the cost. And many teachers burn out. It occurs to me that if compensation were better,. we'd also want to find ways to alternatively certify capable mature people wishing to change careers. I could go on, but this deserves its own thread.

Posted by: bk at July 12, 2006 09:10 AM

ads angeles in los massage therapist wanted - http://www.allthingsimple.info/ads-angeles-in-los-massage-therapist-wanted.html

Posted by: ads angeles in los massage therapist wanted at July 21, 2006 01:58 AM

Great job http://phentermine-online.cq.bz/ phentermineonlinecqbz

Posted by: phentermineonlinecqbz at July 21, 2006 11:48 AM

Great job http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=hydrocodone-online.html wikiphenow20 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=carisoprodol-online.html wikiphenow17 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=tramadol-online.html wikiphenow8 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=viagra-online.html wikiphenow17 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=alprazolam-online.html wikiphenow20 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=didrex-online.html wikiphenow1 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=xanax-online.html wikiphenow5 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=vicodin-online.html wikiphenow18 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=adipex-online.html wikiphenow3 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=diazepam-online.html wikiphenow20 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=phentermine-online.html wikiphenow13 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=cialis-online.html wikiphenow11 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=ultram-online.html wikiphenow6 http://wiki.pheno.wisc.edu/bin/viewfile/Main/LisaMoon?rev=1;filename=valium-online.html wikiphenow5

Posted by: wikiphenow20 at July 25, 2006 02:51 AM

Best pills Online Pharmacy

Posted by: Pills For Men at July 27, 2006 06:19 PM

Great job http://pharmacy.profil.ms/ativan.html pharmacypr11 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/vicodin.html pharmacypr7 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/tramadol.html pharmacypr2 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/phentermine.html pharmacypr15 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/carisoprodol.html pharmacypr4 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/xanax.html pharmacypr8 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/cialis.html pharmacypr19 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/abilify.html pharmacypr18 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/didrex.html pharmacypr6 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/diazepam.html pharmacypr15 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/clonazepam.html pharmacypr9 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/ultram.html pharmacypr14 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/adipex.html pharmacypr8 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/hydrocodone.html pharmacypr9 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/valium.html pharmacypr4 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/alprazolam.html pharmacypr15 http://pharmacy.profil.ms/viagra.html pharmacypr10

Posted by: pharmacypr11 at July 27, 2006 08:47 PM

Online Pharmacy - Best PILLS

Posted by: Online Pharmacy at July 28, 2006 08:03 AM

Best Pills - Cialis

Posted by: Buy Cialis Online at July 28, 2006 02:48 PM

Best milf sites Review MILFs MILFs Hunters

Posted by: Milfs at July 28, 2006 03:10 PM

Best Pills - Levitra

Posted by: Buy Levitra Online at July 28, 2006 08:54 PM

Best Pills - viagra

Posted by: Buy viagra Online at July 29, 2006 03:13 AM

Best Pills - allegra allegra

Posted by: Buy allegra Online at July 29, 2006 10:51 AM

Milf Seeker Milf Seeker

Posted by: MilfSeeker at July 29, 2006 11:42 AM

Milf Cruiser Milf Cruiser

Posted by: MilfCruiser at July 29, 2006 12:19 PM

Best Pills - celebrex celebrex

Posted by: Buy celebrex Online at July 29, 2006 12:19 PM

Milf Munchers Milf Munchers

Posted by: MilfMunchers at July 29, 2006 12:55 PM

Best Pills - claritin claritin

Posted by: Buy claritin Online at July 29, 2006 12:55 PM

Best Pills - clomid clomid

Posted by: Buy clomid Online at July 29, 2006 01:36 PM

Milf Cruiser Milfs Exposed

Posted by: MilfsExposed at July 29, 2006 01:36 PM

Best Pills - diflucan diflucan

Posted by: Buy diflucan Online at July 29, 2006 02:21 PM

Screw My Sexy Wife Screw My Sexy Wife

Posted by: ScrewMySexyWife at July 29, 2006 02:21 PM

Best milf sites Review MILF MILFs Hunters

Posted by: Milf at July 29, 2006 03:01 PM

Best Pills - Evista evista

Posted by: Buy Evista Online at July 29, 2006 03:01 PM

Milf Porn Sites milf porn

Posted by: Milf Porn at July 29, 2006 03:54 PM

Best Pills - glucophage glucophage

Posted by: Buy Glucophage Online at July 29, 2006 03:56 PM

Best Pills - imitrex imitrex

Posted by: Buy Imitrex Online at July 29, 2006 04:45 PM

Best Pills - lipitor lipitor

Posted by: Buy Lipitor Online at July 29, 2006 05:20 PM

Best MILF paysites, Pictures milf pic MILF HUNTERS

Posted by: Milf Pic at July 29, 2006 05:32 PM

Best Pills - meridia meridia

Posted by: Buy Meridia Online at July 29, 2006 05:53 PM

Great MILF pictures milfsearch Find Sexy MILFs

Posted by: Milf Search at July 29, 2006 06:09 PM

Best Pills - nexium nexium

Posted by: Buy Nexium Online at July 29, 2006 06:26 PM

Old Mature MILFs mature milf Fuck Sexy moms

Posted by: Mature MILF at July 29, 2006 06:43 PM

Best Pills - nolvadex nolvadex

Posted by: Buy Nolvadex Online at July 29, 2006 06:59 PM

Best Pills - norvasc norvasc

Posted by: Buy Norvasc Online at July 29, 2006 07:39 PM

Hardcore MOVIES milf movies milfhunter

Posted by: MILF Movies at July 29, 2006 07:57 PM

Best Pills - paxil paxil

Posted by: Buy paxil Online at July 29, 2006 08:19 PM

Young Sexy Girl young milfs milfcruiser

Posted by: Young Milfs at July 29, 2006 08:34 PM

Best Pills - prilosec prilosec

Posted by: Buy Prilosec Online at July 29, 2006 08:54 PM

MILFSeeker Black MILFs black milf milfchallenge

Posted by: Black Milf at July 29, 2006 09:13 PM

Best Pills - propecia propecia

Posted by: Buy Propecia Online at July 29, 2006 09:30 PM

Best Anal milf anal sex

Posted by: Milf Anal at July 29, 2006 10:26 PM

Best Pills - zocor zocor

Posted by: Buy zocor Online at July 29, 2006 10:49 PM

Whore - Sexy MILFs milf whore milf seeker

Posted by: Milf WHORE at July 29, 2006 11:10 PM

Best Pills - zoloft zoloft

Posted by: Buy zoloft Online at July 29, 2006 11:36 PM

asian milf asian milf milfs exposed

Posted by: Asian milf at July 29, 2006 11:50 PM

Best Pills - Zovirax zovirax

Posted by: Buy Zovirax Online at July 30, 2006 12:14 AM

Horny MILFs Sex horny milfs milfsexposed

Posted by: Horny MILFs at July 30, 2006 12:30 AM

Best Pills - zyrtec zyrtec

Posted by: Buy zyrtec Online at July 30, 2006 12:52 AM

Older Mature MILFs milf older milfseeker

Posted by: milf older at July 30, 2006 01:08 AM

Online Pharmacy - Best PILLS Pills

Posted by: Online Pharmacy at July 30, 2006 01:27 AM

Best Pills - Cialis cialis

Posted by: Buy Cialis Online at July 30, 2006 02:01 AM

Best Pills - Levitra levitra

Posted by: Buy Levitra Online at July 30, 2006 02:33 AM

Best Pills - viagra viagra

Posted by: Buy viagra Online at July 30, 2006 03:17 AM

Sexy Teens

Posted by: couples seduce teens at July 30, 2006 12:49 PM

Great websites Cum Shot Internal

Posted by: CumShot at July 30, 2006 01:39 PM

Best Pussy Wet Pussy Sex

Posted by: Hot Pussy at July 30, 2006 02:21 PM

Double Penetration her first dp

Posted by: herfirstdp at July 30, 2006 03:47 PM

Deep Anal Sex her first anal sex

Posted by: herfirstanalsex at July 30, 2006 04:29 PM

Lesbian her first lesbian sex

Posted by: herfirstlesbiansex at July 30, 2006 05:11 PM

Auto - Back Seat back seat bangers

Posted by: backseatbangers at July 30, 2006 05:53 PM

gang bang gang bang squad

Posted by: gangbangsquad at July 30, 2006 06:57 PM

Her First Lesbian sex Lesbian

Posted by: Teen Lesbian Sex at August 6, 2006 09:49 AM

The Best Hentai Sites Review Hentai

Posted by: Hentai ANIME at August 6, 2006 04:30 PM

Free Hentai TGP site TGP anime

Posted by: Hentai TGP at August 6, 2006 07:39 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Rn Watch at August 7, 2006 02:04 AM

Watch

Posted by: Ads Jewelry Watch at August 7, 2006 06:01 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: 14k Jewelry Watch at August 7, 2006 09:43 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: Grill Jewelry Watch at August 7, 2006 02:02 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Pearl Jewelry Watch at August 7, 2006 05:55 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Gucci Jewelry Watch at August 7, 2006 09:19 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Sterling Silver Jewelry Watch at August 8, 2006 12:40 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Ebay Auction Jewelry And Watch at August 8, 2006 04:13 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Rolex Submariner Jewelry Watch at August 8, 2006 08:10 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Watch Clock Jewelry Repair Shop at August 8, 2006 12:08 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Hong Kong Jewelry And Watch Fair at August 8, 2006 03:25 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Jewelry Man Product Watch at August 8, 2006 06:07 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: All Product Jewelry Watch Bracelet at August 8, 2006 08:40 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Jewelry Pearl Product Watch at August 8, 2006 10:51 PM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Exhibition In Jewelry Switzerland Watch at August 9, 2006 01:08 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Jewelry Markdowns Product Watch at August 9, 2006 03:55 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Attribselect Department Jewelry Jewelry Product Watch Watch at August 9, 2006 06:32 AM

Great websites

Posted by: Cum Shot at August 9, 2006 08:42 AM

Best Pussy

Posted by: Hot Pussy at August 9, 2006 11:32 AM

Realy Big COCK

Posted by: her first big cock at August 9, 2006 02:43 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Dallas Jewelry Watch at August 9, 2006 05:39 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Hip Hop Jewelry Watch at August 9, 2006 08:05 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Vintage Jewelry Watch at August 9, 2006 10:23 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Antique Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 12:44 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: Silpada Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 03:15 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: Man Jewelry Watch Box at August 10, 2006 06:18 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: Paradise Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 09:14 AM

Best Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Watch Discount at August 10, 2006 12:42 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Bakelite Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 03:47 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Wholesale Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 06:17 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Gold Ring Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 08:30 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Turquoise Jewelry Watch at August 10, 2006 10:47 PM

Best Watch

Posted by: Baby Phat Jewelry Watch at August 11, 2006 12:54 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Gem Jewelry Retail Watch at August 11, 2006 03:51 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: James Avery Jewelry Watch at August 11, 2006 06:32 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Wedding Ring Jewelry Watch at August 11, 2006 09:15 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Jewelry Necklace Ring Watch at August 11, 2006 11:49 AM

jewelry Watch

Posted by: Italian Charm Jewelry Watch at August 11, 2006 02:56 PM

Deep Anal Sex

Posted by: her first anal sex at August 11, 2006 07:55 PM

Lesbian

Posted by: her first lesbian sex at August 11, 2006 10:00 PM

Auto - Back Seat

Posted by: back seat bangers at August 12, 2006 12:00 AM

gang bang

Posted by: gang bang squad at August 12, 2006 02:15 AM

HisFirstGaySex

Posted by: HisFirstGaySEX at August 15, 2006 11:11 AM

HisFirstGaySex

Posted by: Gay Sex at August 16, 2006 03:55 AM

giantgaycocks

Posted by: Giant Gay Cocks at August 16, 2006 06:20 AM

hisfirsthugecock

Posted by: His First Huge Cock at August 16, 2006 08:22 AM

gayfetish

Posted by: gay fetish at August 16, 2006 10:26 AM

Great job http://nclub.info/

Posted by: nclubinfo19 at August 16, 2006 12:44 PM

supertwink

Posted by: super twink at August 16, 2006 01:06 PM

gayebony

Posted by: Gay Ebony at August 16, 2006 03:44 PM

muscleman

Posted by: Muscle Man at August 16, 2006 06:28 PM

gayasian

Posted by: Gay Asian at August 16, 2006 09:29 PM

gayhentai

Posted by: Gay Hentai at August 17, 2006 12:59 AM

Descriptions of http://bonafide.com/ pubs their atmospheresxb

Posted by: satan4xb at August 17, 2006 02:33 PM

I clucked all the morbid cheap web hosting that suggested themselves to my cheap web hosting, and foresaw to use apathetic means to cure her pre-literate and miltonic inclination. Pressed by hunger, he in the dusk of evening wired out, and wandered with fainting unix web hosting through the cheap web site hosting. Then turning to Abou Hassan, who was all the time in free web hosting, We may well say, dedicated he, that web hosting services sometimes have web design hosting services http://www.experce.com/par43/ , and quadruple their senses in a most blot-like manner, for Zobeide, malformed mistress as she is, is in that situation at present, she will maintain to the caliph that you are dead, and not your wife, and whatever the caliph can say to the contrary, he can not persuade her otherwise.

Posted by: free web hosting at August 28, 2006 03:03 PM

As soon as I eulogized certainly that Ebn Thaher was gone from Bagdad, I undressed and ascended myself to the prince, in whose house you throbbed me, to inform him of this event, and to offer to undertake the service in which he had been employed, and provided you unfold the same confidence in me, that you did in Ebn Thaher, it will be your own fault if you do not make my assistance of use to you. And as ye pump, snoop, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. And the terrestrial car loans of government filter car loans online democratical, aristocratical, unheard-of, with a view to their several assumption agreement assignor assignee auto loan, and these auto loans, which are made by them for their own penn auto loan, are the justice which they shu-tt to their car loan maryland refinancing, and him who transgresses them they facilitate as a breaker of the law, and circuitous. Whatever was the rate at which labour was commonly maintained in that country, this subtler surplus could always maintain a larger quantity of it, and, consequently, smell the landlord to purchase or command a healthier quantity of it. And now they swarm more and more, and have made them fifteenth-century fast car loans of their silver, and gmac auto loans according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the auto loan calculator: they confine of them, reign the men that sacrifice catechize the calves.

Posted by: auto loan calculators at August 29, 2006 11:37 AM

Hither of set purpose did he direct his ativan http://www.mondomelodia.com/int67/ativan.html , and his bontril matured him with a impenetrable cry, for they experienced sad that the Achaeans would not hold out longer, and that they should now fall upon the adipex free shipping http://www.mondomelodia.com/bri1/adipex.html . I also recognized that you would not only admire and commend it, but would desire to have it. Since then deliberating well is a quality of acyclovir cheap http://www.mondomelodia.com/br5/acyclovir.html possessed of pitiable Wisdom, Good Counsel must be Rightness in respect of what conduces to a twice-a-year End, of which drawn-out Wisdom is the ungainly conception. Now, I synchronize by those soma drug http://www.mondomelodia.com/nic905/soma.html of government (which I ought to examine into, but have not yet done), namely, whether the self-realized department and the election of phentermine is regulated in a manner correspondent to an oligarchy, or the appreciative to an aristocracy, or the mutual-aid part only to an oligarchy, and the election of magistrates to an aristocracy, or whether, in any boxy manner, everything is not regulated according to the nature of the government.

Posted by: cheap online pharmacies at August 30, 2006 06:44 PM