You said:Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day.Teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for life.And suggested the Dems fall in to the first philosophy and Reps the second. While not necessarily defending the Dems, I'd suggest that you could add the third line to represent progressives,Change the system that allows polluted streams that poisons the fish inedible and we'll be able to fish safely.To suggest that conservatives or Republicans are for longterm solutions is to turn a blind eye to Republican environmental policies (not that the Dems have been much better).I agree that the concept of personal responsibility has been a conservative ideal. I don't find that often in the modern Republican policy.We need to divest ourselves of dependence on oil, for economic, ecological and national defense reasons. Instead, we have huge tax breaks for those who purchase Hummers while we're phasing out tax breaks for Electric Vehicles. We have lightened up instead of increased the CAFE standards which would require cleaner cars. We are not pushing mass transit pedestrian or bicycle solutions, instead we keep building more and more roads. We stake our hopes on investing money in the possible solution of hydrogen fuel cell cars (not necessarily a bad thing) but ignore currently available solutions that would take responsibility for our transportation solutions NOW.I agree strongly with the need for longterm solutions. I just don't see politicians of any stripe pushing many. Not in the environmental arena nor in international policy.Your suggestion that continuing our invasion of Iraq that is producing terrorists faster than we can kill them is a longterm solution is not sound. We need to get at the root of what causes terrorism rather than focusing on swatting at mosquitoes. That, my friend, is a short term solution, don't you think?

Dan, I have to reply to the end of your comment first, because I think we've got a broken link there.We're not 'continuing our invasion of Iraq,' that's already a done deal, Saddam's in the hoosegow and democracy's in the oven.It's cooking nicely and is almost ready.What are we doing still in Iraq? We're ensuring that when we leave, they'll be okay.I think you may have missed the part where I acknowledged my concurrence with George Bush's belief that spreading democracy into the Arab/Muslim world would(will, as things seem to be going) be the most effective method of curtailing future Islamic terrorism.We need to bring the Muslim perspective into the 21st Century. Obviously, Iraq is part of that strategy.That's a long-term(by that I don't mean the presence of our military there, I refer to the end result) plan."Divesting ourselves of the need for oil" is a good idea, I totally agree, but given the tooling involved(the machines that run on gas that our society depends on for the moment, not to mention several zillion other moments leading up to this minute), I think it will take awhile.Even saying that enviro-car{my term} manufacturers were sufficiently outfitted to replace even a fraction of the spontaneous combustion vehicles now on the road in the U.S., the costs for what you get and what you absatively/posolutely have to pay for are pretty high when compared to performance ratios, mileage figures[depending on whether the car is 100% electric or part gas. I won't comment on fuel cells, because I'm not conversant with any recent developments in that area]. But you don't throw out the dirty water until you've got the clean water, right?Hey, friend, I live in San Francisco(less than a month to go and counting, however...) Ride a bicycle to/from work here, the city will treat you even better than Monica treated BJ Clinton.As far as the Dems go, well: Tell me what they accomplished in the 8 years the snake oil dude was President. You know, that felon from Little Rock or wherever.Then outline to me the precise logic, foundation and schematics of a DNC solution to a problem that George Bush hasn't solved(you can--PLEASE-- leave out the illegal immigrant policy, because no matter how hard I try, I can't understand it either).Where environmental policies are concerned, I give you this:Nature was provided by God for Man's survival,enjoyment and convenience, not as Man's brother and friend. Hit the books, Dan. Start with Genesis.We are free to do as we please with God's bounty, though it is obviously our responsibility at such to preserve it.My preference is living in cities, and I have always been a "mass transit" type. For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone with a choice would prefer to spend half his/her time sitting in stop-and-start traffic.Have you ever spent any time in L.A.? It seems like that's their national passtime down there.:-)

On the Iraq Invasion/"bringing Democracy to the middle east" line:I understand that you think that Bush's actions will bring democracy. I think his/our actions will increase terrorism. We disagree strongly here and I'm not sure that will change.But EVEN IF democracy eventually springs forth in Iraq (and a true democracy - as opposed to a puppet regime that does what we want - would be a good thing), that does not make an illegal invasion any less illegal and immoral actions any more moral. The ends do not justify the means.But as I say, we disagree on this point, so I'm not sure how helpful it is to continue this discussion.

Yes, Dan, we do seem to be coming from two totally separate realities, don't we?It's difficult if not simply impossible for me to understand the perspective of a complete pacifist.If Americans were all pacifists, those of us the Islamofasists didn't manage to murder would one day be living under Sharia law.

Great post Seth. Very well writen.

Thank you. :)