Friday, 17 September 2004 - 10:08 PM EDT

WHAT GOOD IS BEING CONSISTENT, IF YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG?

The obvious answer is: The Presidency, majorities in both houses, a majority of federal judgeships, a majority of governors, a majority of state houses, and a favorable rating of 57% --- still believe in Democracy?

Thursday, 30 September 2004 - 11:38 PM EDT

I'm no fan of dubb-ya, but who's to say he's wrong? I for one, surely, but I am only one. We'll have to wait to election day to know if enough other people feel the same way. Then, and only then, will we be in position to state, from an institutional perspective, that dubb-ya was wrong. I think this was The Dude's point, eh?

Friday, 1 October 2004 - 3:13 PM EDT

Dub-ya touts "consistency" as a virtue, in and of itself, without regard to its content. My point is that consistency cannot be judged as good or bad without an understanding of what you are being consistent *about*. If you are right, then consistency is probably a good thing. If you are wrong, then consistency merely mutliplies the error, and is *not* a virtue