Yeah, hopefully you move toward maturity, which is antagonistic to
ideological extremism. Barry Goldwater, a conservative who favored the
right
to abortion and gays in the military, and Pay Moynihan, the liberal who
brought you "benign neglect" of inner-city ghettos, are two examples who
come to mind. Will's position on supporting single mothers is the same
kind
of thing.

This phenomenon is what I call the O'Reilly Factor, pretty original huh?
Bill O'Reilly, who everyone knows is a solid right wing conservative, likes
to pretend he's not because he has a couple of issues where is doesn't agree
with the bulk of his right wing pals, like he's anti death penalty. It's the
same with Goldwater or Moynihan. They had a couple of things where they went
completely contrary to where their party stands. But as a whole Goldwater
was a die hard conservative and Moynihan was a die hard liberal. One or two
issues that run against your basic philosophy don't negate what you are.
Some people like to think otherwise though.


He's sure a dyed in the wool conservative
though.

Yes, he's a conservative.


I'm just saying
that actually knowing someone isn't always as good as knowing
everything
about someone.

That sounds like an idea without a referrent. Actually knowing someone
is...actually knowing someone.

Like something is what it is?

It's hard to argue with that one, right? g

snip


Oh no, say it ain't so, and yes, you're irritating the hell out of me. A
baseball fan. I should have sensed it. Why someone with a brain likes
baseball is beyond my ken.

Pfhhht! It's a special kind of taste. Not everyone has what it takes. d8-)

Thank Zeus! But taste? I don't think it's taste. It's more like a bent.

After taking up basketball and tennis,
games where I actually did something during the game besides spectate, I
thought, how could I have ever liked baseball. I realize now that I did
it
because my Dad got me into it. When you grow up and try some other
sports
you too will figure out what a waste of time baseball is. There is hope
for
you yet.

FWIW, until five years ago I also was a certified E-level soccer coach.
And
I competed in tennis from ages 12 through 14.

So you do have some redeeming value after all. You'll still need to see the
light though on baseball. Once you look at it objectively you can't help but
notice it's the most boring sport in the world. Why else are statistics such
a big part of it? Because the minutia of statistics are actually more
exciting than the games themselves.


I hate to break the news but George Will is a stereotype.

He really wants to be Baseball Commissioner, but they turned him down. g

They probably don't want a white man for the job. It's probably being saved
for a double minority, a black woman like Condi Rice, who I hear wants the
job very much. With her connections and even though she's never played the
game she's a shoe in. I'm sure she'd do better there than in her last two
jobs where she stunk up the place. Which is what happens when you get picked
for who you know not what you know. I loved Donald Trump's assessment of her
stint as Sec. of State, "She can't make a deal!". That's absolute blasphemy
in his book.

Nobody calls him a
moderate. He is the new standard bearer for the party. When Bill Buckley
died the mantle of most conservative guy fell on Will's shoulders, right
where it belongs. And just because he utters a word or two that is out
of
step with the rest of the conservative crowd doesn't exactly set him
apart.
Besides, he probably had just finished listening to Peggy Noonan
blathering
on about Reagan and even he was appalled by her silliness. No, a few
blips
on the radar screen doesn't take away the central theme of an ideologue.
Will is far, far to the right of the spectrum, and that's a fact, Jack.

It's amazing to me how many conclusions you jump to with so little
information to go on, Hawke. You have a pigeonhole for everything and
everybody.

In the first place; a pigeonhole is a good place for keeping things, and
it's part of how I keep track of it all. Why else do you think they make
them? But what you think is a jump to a conclusion is anything but. It just
seems like that to you because you don't know everything that goes into the
space between my assertion and my conclusion. There is a lot in between.
You're just not privvy to it. If I don't have a good deal of evidence
between a premise and a conclusion I don't make it. I just don't always
include the part in the middle because the end is so much more important
than the middle. See?

Hawke