A similar ad hominem methodology can be seen at work among Buchanan's somewhat more extreme allies on the antiwar right, the paleo-libertarians and neo-Confederates whose main hangout is lewrockwell.com. For the neo-Confederates, the evil American empire does not begin (as it does for the Buchananites) with the Gulf War or the Kosovo War or the Cold War or World War II; it begins with the Civil War and Lincoln's unprecedented exertion of national power to suppress the Southern rebellion. The neo-Confederates hate Lincoln's policy both as unjust and wicked in itself and as prototypical of the current American empire and its client state Israel. Just as Buchanan smears the "rampaging bull" Sharon as the fons et origo of Mideast violence, the neo-Confederates rant about "the blood-thirsty Lincoln" as the sole cause of the South's ruin. This "blood-thirsty" slur contains two false inferences: that Lincoln's primary motive was to kill as many people as possible, rather than to save the United States from dismemberment; and that it was only the evil Lincoln (or Lincoln and his band of radical Republicans) who wanted a large-scale war on the South and forced the rest of the country to go along with that tyrannical policy. The truth, of course, is that it was the majority of the Northern people, Republicans and Democrats, who through their elected representatives supported the war; and that their motive was not to shed blood but to save the Union.

Gore uttered his first big lie in the second paragraph of the main body of the speech when he informed the audience that his main concern was with “those who attacked us on Sept. 11, and who have thus far gotten away with it.” Who have thus far gotten away with it. The government of Gore’s country has led a coalition of nations in war against al-Qaida, “those who attacked us on Sept. 11”; has destroyed al-Qaida’s central organization and much of its physical assets; has destroyed the Taliban which had made Afghanistan a state home for al-Qaida; has bombed the forces of al-Qaida from one end of Afghanistan to the other; has killed at least hundreds of terrorists and their allies; has imprisoned hundreds more, and is hunting down the rest around the world. All this while Gore, apparently, slept.

As we get further into our studies of the political economy, the term "margin" will come up with more frequency. It basically is an economic term, but it especially is important in its political meaning, which is why we will spend this entire second lesson on the political side learning about "the margin" and how to "think on the margin." Our daily "Memo on the Margin" are essentially observations on something that we think of timely importance. The world or the economy or the culture is moving in one direction and suddenly something happens, perhaps something that seems insignificant, which causes the direction to change. That "something" will be "on the margin."

He also supports generalists which in today's world of hyper-specialization we could use more of in our corporate and government suites.  Specialists are usually too narrow in their thinking and have a hard time at least taking into consideration other points of view.  In other words, many are bad managers. Although they are great to have around if you have a heart attack.

IT might cost you up to $350 a head to see the Rolling Stones in concert, and Mick Jagger says God bless the U.S.A. "It's America. We're not living in a socialist society where we're all paid so low and no one can afford it," the rockasaurus tells the upcoming issue of Fortune, which estimates that the Stones have raked in $1.5 billion since their 1989 Steel Wheels tour. Jagger, 59, says ticket-pricing "is the one aspect of the business that I really try to control as much as I can. Pricing a concert ticket is very different from pricing a Lexus or a toothpaste. It's more like a sports event. And you are prepared to pay the market price." Also an astute businessman, guitarist Keith Richards admits that many of the band's decisions are based on avoiding taxes. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not the U.S. . . . We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don't want to screw anybody out of anything," Richards adds, "least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30 percent in holding until we sort it all out." 

At the heart of every successful relationship, there's a mystery. But few surely are as mysterious as the lonely coupling of George Bush and Tony Blair. They represent many opposites: reluctant politician, earnest striver; plain-spoken reserve, articulate guile; '60s conformist, counter-culture dabbler; realist, idealist; gut, brain. I can't imagine that many people, two years ago, would have bet on Blair's becoming Bush's closest ally in world politics. Blair, after all, was chummy with Bill Clinton, a man George W. has privately come to disdain. And Bush's breezy style, simple doggedness and lack of curiosity are not qualities known to endear him to liberal elites among which Blair is so effortlessly at home. But there you are. Events have thrown these two together; or, rather, events have unveiled shared convictions that make the Bush-Blair relationship increasingly a hinge around which the rest of the world pivots.

Federal health officials will issue detailed guidelines today for vaccinating the entire U.S. population against smallpox within five days of an outbreak of the dreaded disease.