Patti Pace-Smith:

You write, "Sorry to burst your bubble Ed, but I do have a BA in the bs of political science and always look at all sides of an issue. ------ “C-SPAN viewers are not necessarily either knowledgeable concerning the operation of the federal government or fair-minded, I continue to believe that some small seed of being objectively informed about what’s going on in Washington has to stick”----- Ed please take your own advice, something you are obviously incapable of doing. What just MIGHT help you is to go to the National Journal dot com web-site and purchase a subscription. I’ll bet you’ll just find an excuse as why not to. If TV is what really floats your boat, may I suggest NCIS? -------“the employer can willy-nilly violate the law “--------Just what do you think hiring “illegal” aliens is, when there is 7 million unemployed American citizens? One last word of advice Ed; please learn the definition of bi-partisan, and then throw away your political thesaurus from the sixties."
 
Over the span of my six-plus decade life I've had as many bubbles burst as a dart-throw side attraction at a carnival.

It's been said that one can never go broke UNDERestimating the intelligence of the average American. While my anecdotal evidence tends to confirm the adage, I continually hope for more. That you missed the point, not that you or anyone in particular might or might not know a woman who has been the victim of an employer's violation of Title VII, that there in fact have been such victims, and that a violation of the law should not be allowed to go unsanctioned. That was THE point!

I also have . . . Well, I do not have a BA, it's a 2-major BS in poli-sci and business. The business major removed the degree from the BA. And I've got to admit that, until I got into the upper division statistical analysis and survey elements of the discipline (very arcane, fatiguing, and pretty boring, but 100% to the "science.), I was wont to side on the 'b' 's' proposition. However, as Karl Rove proved so exquisitely, the discipline can be highly scientific. 

You state, "always look at all sides of an issue." Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that allege that every issue has at least two legitimate sides?  Bad news: not all do. I'm still waiting for the German justification for murdering 6 million Jews, or the South's justification for Jim Crow, or the Goldwaterites' opposition to the Voting Rights Act.  

As to your proposition, "Ed please take your own advice, something you are obviously incapable of doing [my highlighting]," I ask for the evidence of the adverb. That you, or, again, anyone, might see something does in no manner require that anyone else might also see it; cooperative working relationship connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaida, for example.


Damn, you do have a flair for painting a picture without getting your brush soiled by paint. " . . . go to the National Journal dot com web-site and purchase a subscription. I’ll bet you’ll just find an excuse as why not to." Not only have I a subscription to NJ, I've also got one for WSJ, Washington Times, Human Events (I admire Pat Buchanan's mind, and I follow the Godfather's advice re my enemies: "closer."), the National Review, and to Army Times. Then of course there's WaPo and NYT (George Will is as intelligent a read as Paul Krugman & Tom Friedman, whenever he's not on sabbatical.) Other than Jeopardy and C-SPAN (runs 24/7 on one tv), I almost never watch network programming. So, what "boat" are you talking about, or was that just a trite cliche that "popped" out, like the imagined bubble being burst?

I do listen to Ed Schultz and Tom Hartmann on Air America, but not to Stephanie or Randi Rhodes; too harpieish.) I'm an enthusiast for fact-based, intellectual discussions, a la Chris Hitchens; even Newt Gingrich until he slides overboard into the religious drink. 

However I can speak for no one other than myself, and certainly not you, while in college I had to write an average of four to five 15-20 page "papers" every week or so. Regardless how I might have nailed a position, my efforts would have been scored poorly had I the conjugation errors your responses to me have included; "when there is 7 million . . ." And besides, that works against my call that employers should NOT be allowed to violate the law, willy-nilly or other, how? 

Can you spot a path strewn with non sequitors?  
 
Finally, as with most, I am visited from time to time by the most nattily-dressed and carefully coiffed two-somes trying to save my depraved soul. The first question I ask is, in one to four words, define the underlying moral behind the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It can be done with just one word. Nonetheless, I have always been treated to a semi-drawn out lesson on "helping a stranger." NOT! at all: the "point."

Similarly, if you're going to respond to anything I write, pay both of us the respect your time merits and pay attention to "the point." Please.

Ed