At poet4democracy, Tim asked:

What do you think about the fact that all great poetry in the twentieth-century, written in English, was lyric, Mr. Eliot's ventriloquism not excepted?

I have two answers. One is Savitri.
The other is that, following Jean Gebser, I believe that civilizations go through stages. It is likely that certain poetic genres are more appropriate to the genius of each stage than other genres. Cultures at the mythic stage seem to excel at epic (The Torah, Gilgamesh, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Milton). Cultures at the rational stage favor scientific and philosophical treatises (Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Darwin). Cultures at the relativistic stage favor lyric poetry (Wordsworth, et al) and the novel. Cultures at the integral stage seem to prefer hyperlinked, interwoven, sphere-shaped screed-communities like the one you are reading.

1. News you'll never see on the Drudge Report: Al Qaeda wants Bush to stay in power. [Bottom half of page]

2. Al Qaeda's attack in Madrid was designed to affect the election.

3. A terrorist attack on US soil will drive up Bush's popularity.

Q. Given these three facts, what are the chances that there will be an Al-Qaeda attack on the US in November?

It is notable that of the major proponents of coral, they are all very religious, usually traditionally so. Thoreau -- transcendentalist, Tolstoy -- Christian, Gandhi -- Hindu, Teilhard deChardin -- Catholic, King -- Protestant, Mandela -- Christian, Nhat Hanh -- Buddhist.

This is untrue of yellow: unreligious: Middle Goethe, Melville, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Wired; religious: Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky.

Turquoise witnesses a merging of the religious and secular: Late Goethe, Emerson, Dickinson, Frost, Rilke, Heidegger, Einstein, Fuller, Sheldrake.

As conservatives used to be fond of saying, the US should not be the policeman to the world.

I agree. But I believe that the world does need a policeman. E.g., Serbia, Rwanda, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti.

So, who?

The UN would be the answer, if it were capable of bilateral force.

I believe that the answer is an expanded, empowered NATO.

Ultimately, nations will have to give up sovereignty in order to solve global problems.

Perhaps a confederation would be a good approach.

Someone needs to write a global constitution.

"What youth desires, age receives in abundance." -- Goethe

Summary of Issues

This should be interesting to look at in a year.

* First net loss of jobs over term since Herbert Hoover
* Dishonesty and secrecy
**** interference with scientists, stem cell research; climate change
**** deceptive economics, dishonest budgets, ludicrous job growth estimates
**** abuse of intelligence organizations; interference with 9-11 comission
* Tax cuts -- regressive transfer of wealth from working class to the rich
**** did not yield promised improvement to economy
**** depleted social security fund; created large deficit;
* Iraq -- no WMDs; no al-qaeda; no 9-11 connection; no threat; questionable humanitarian value
**** not in interests of US; is no help in war on terrorism
**** dangerous attempt at early exit
**** weakened NATO, UN, US relations with Turkey, Europe, etc
**** Halliburton profiteering
* War on Terror -- no attempt at increase in port security
* No progress on Palestine; no criticism of Saudis
* Gay Marriage -- unnecessary, anti-federalist constitutional amendment
**** interferes with privacy rights -- anti-libertarian
* Valerie Plame -- was Bush or Cheney aware of felony? If not, why not?
* Afghanistan -- no Bin Laden, heroin industry, poor nation-building
* Poor treatment of armed forces, national guard
* Ashcroft's disregard for civil rights
* Neglect of national guard service
* Haiti -- US coup?

UPDATE: how the hell do you write an outline in blogger? or in html for that matter?

So is it fair to say that conservatives believe that fetuses are human, but that gays are not?