Having sang Pat's little ditty in my head and then aloud to my apoplectic cat, I'm compelled to agree with his message. Watching the unraveling of some of these threads (no pun intended) makes me question the constructiveness of some of these debates. It seems we all start out with valid and important topics of discussion only to dissolve into partisan political pissing contests (wow, my screen's wet after reading that one back to myself)

I must admit I'm a bit left-leaning when it comes to general policy but I endeavor to be as objective as possible when evaluating these crucial issues. For all my vitriol toward this current administration, I've also been critical of Clinton and overall democratic policy when I feel it's borne out of alterior motives or left wanting in judicious thought. In my own deluded way, I guess it feels like this even-handedness gives me the right to question or criticize Bush when seen fit without appearing biased myself.

Regardless of the flaws in my strategy, I think it vastly superior to its counterpart- spinning events to neatly fit within one's sided loyalty. This tack seems frighteningly akin to the Seinfeld bit about rooting for your favorite baseball team no matter who the players ("You're cheering for a piece of laundry"). Judging by some of the posts I've read, Dubya might as well don the shroud of Turin or some Third Reich regalia. It would clarify things a great deal.

Part of me worries that some patrons of this board have been so strident about attacking "the other side" that the antagonists feel they've betrayed their cause if they concede even a trivial point. It's as though this minor issue was precipitously supporting a house of cards which makes up their entire credo. This hyper-accelerated cognitive dissonance leaves one with no choice but to justify every action of their beloved party to the point of vitiating whatever legitimacy was inherant within the dialectic.

As a whole, maybe we can all just try and practice some of the simple principles established in social psychology theory. When selling a point to a decidedly supportive crowd, one is better off accentuating only the positives of their philosophy. When selling to skeptics, it has proven more effective to present both sides of the issue to establish your credibility. Perhaps I am just longing for the day when, just once, I'll hear Dale candidly acknowledge the occasional Bush pecadillo or Ian will begrudingly trumpet one of his periodic accomplishment. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for Mick's oblique and deflecting cryptic thoughts. They're often like one big neutrality balm for my brain.

Brent