Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Simply Joel]

I doubt I can convince you of anything you haven't already decided upon

You could try.

Amazingly enough, I have decided you no longer merit my time as indicated by the period(.) at the end of this sentence.

[Don Muerto]

Just as this thread is not about you, it is also not about me. Since I do not merit your time, perhaps you could donate the excess to the topic at hand.

[Simply Joel]

April 21, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Why They Hate Us, Really
By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD

For the last five weeks I have been traveling through the Middle East, meeting diplomats, officials, policy experts, military leaders, students and ordinary citizens. I learned something very important: the greatest single cause of anti-Americanism in the Middle East today is not the war in Iraq; more surprisingly, it is not even American support for Israel, per se. Rather, it is a widespread belief that the United States simply does not care about the rights or needs of the Palestinian people.

"The Palestinian issue is really what discredits the United States throughout the region," a senior Western diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East told me. Or, as one student after another put it after the university lectures I conducted across the region: "Why do Americans have to be so biased?"

In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other countries, the large majority of people I spoke with are ready to tolerate the Jewish state — most even understand that the final boundaries of Israel will include some of the heavily settled areas beyond the pre-1967 borders. They also understand that few if any Palestinians will return to the homes they lost after the war that erupted when Israel declared its independence in 1948. And they are prepared to accept, though not to relish, America's close relations with Israel. Beyond that, they want increased American support for their domestic political reforms and for initiatives to enhance regional cooperation for economic growth and fighting terrorism.

But one thing sticks in their craw: Why doesn't America care more about the Palestinians' future?

They have a point. America's Middle East policy is unnecessarily zero-sum. We can be more pro-Palestinian without being less pro-Israeli. Indeed, to the degree that American policies help create support for compromise among Palestinians, pro-Palestinian initiatives can help Israel too.

Take compensation. United Nations resolutions call for financial compensation for Palestinians who cannot return to their family homes in Israel. Israel's position that it cannot accept millions of refugees and their descendants is reasonable enough, and the Bush administration's support of it is nothing new. But we should be equally clear about compensation.

Many questions need answering: where can Palestinians go to have their claims for lost property adjudicated and certified? What tribunal will hear these claims? What principles will guide its deliberations? Where will the money come from to pay the claims when peace is finally made?

The United States can and should take the lead in building an international consensus on the compensation issue and, working with allies in Europe and elsewhere, help raise money to ensure that it is more than a pious wish.

There is more we can do. Millions of Palestinians are now stateless. (Jordan has integrated the refugees within its borders; other countries have not.) When peace comes, all Palestinians should be citizens of some state with full economic and social rights. The new Palestinian state will need financial help to absorb many of these refugees; and neighboring states who agree to integrate Palestinians should also receive international aid.

In addition, while many Palestinians are well educated, many others are poor and lack skills. They depend on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for basic services and support. Who takes the agency's place when peace comes and the Palestinians aren't refugees anymore?

Taking the lead on these and other issues vital to the Palestinians would not bring quick progress toward peace in the region, nor would it undo overnight the consequences of decades of suspicion and resentment. But it would help to reduce anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and beyond, as well as to advance the cause of peace.


Walter Russell Mead is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "Power, Terror, Peace and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk."

[Force]

Joel, if you think I was agreeing with you, you missed the sarcasm dripping from my post. Happens with text, but I was hoping you'd see my paraphrase of what you seem to be saying and therefore understand why it's coming off badly to people.

While some of those protesters may have been doing something that caused the riot police to give them a beating, it's a pretty safe bet that a lot of them were not and got beaten on anyway as an example to others who might have considered protesting but will now decide against it because they don't enjoy the feeling of a police baton bouncing off of their cranium.

And that's the real point- this is AMERICA, dammit, and we're supposed to be free to protest the corruption in our government without repression.

You make comments to the effect that "I'm too smart to risk my own butt to speak out against our corrupt government" and then sneer and deride those who do exercise their free speech rights, thereby winning a small battle and enabling you to live the life you do, are winning you no points.

[Simply Joel]

Joel, if you think I was agreeing with you, you missed the sarcasm dripping from my post. Happens with text, but I was hoping you'd see my paraphrase of what you seem to be saying and therefore understand why it's coming off badly to people.

While some of those protesters may have been doing something that caused the riot police to give them a beating, it's a pretty safe bet that a lot of them were not and got beaten on anyway as an example to others who might have considered protesting but will now decide against it because they don't enjoy the feeling of a police baton bouncing off of their cranium.

And that's the real point- this is AMERICA, dammit, and we're supposed to be free to protest the corruption in our government without repression.

You make comments to the effect that "I'm too smart to risk my own butt to speak out against our corrupt government" and then sneer and deride those who do exercise their free speech rights, thereby winning a small battle and enabling you to live the life you do, are winning you no points.

What I am is smart enough to pick my battles... and usually I avoid authority figures with batons, tear gas and guns.


I didn't realize you could sneer when you write, but apparently you can according to this definition.

Main Entry: 1sneer
Pronunciation: 'snir
Function: verb
Etymology: probably akin to Middle High German snerren to chatter, gossip -
Date: 1680
intransitive senses
1 : to smile or laugh with facial contortions that express scorn or contempt
2 : to speak or write in a scornfully jeering manner
transitive senses : to utter with a sneer

I would ask you to be a wee bit more specific, but I get better responses talking to a brick wall.

Now regarding the word "deride." Here is a definition...

Main Entry: de·ride
Pronunciation: di-'rId, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·rid·ed; de·rid·ing
Etymology: Latin deridEre, from de- + ridEre to laugh
Date: 1530
1 : to laugh at contemptuously
2 : to subject to usually bitter or contemptuous ridicule

Now, if deriding someone in this forum is inapproppriate, then "you all" had better review the manner and style of which you write. I believe you would find that this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black." And if you don't understand that, pots and kettles used to be made of cast iron and after use over an open fire, turned black...


Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain <tired of continual sarcasms>
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm <this is no time to indulge in sarcasm>


Another defintion for your use.

Main Entry: 2wit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German wizzi knowledge, Old English witan to know
Date: before 12th century
1 a : MIND, MEMORY b : reasoning power : INTELLIGENCE
2 a : SENSE 2a -- usually used in plural <alone and warming his five wits, the white owl in the belfry sits -- Alfred Tennyson> b (1) : mental soundness : SANITY -- usually used in plural (2) : mental capability and resourcefulness : INGENUITY
3 a : astuteness of perception or judgment : ACUMEN b : the ability to relate seemingly disparate things so as to illuminate or amuse c (1) : a talent for banter or persiflage (2) : a witty utterance or exchange d : clever or apt humor


Is your cup of "wit" half empty or half full?

[Simply Joel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 22, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Losing Our Edge?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

I was just out in Silicon Valley, checking in with high-tech entrepreneurs about the state of their business. I wouldn't say they were universally gloomy, but I did detect something I hadn't detected before: a real undertow of concern that America is losing its competitive edge vis-à-vis China, India, Japan and other Asian tigers, and that the Bush team is deaf, dumb and blind to this situation.

Several executives explained to me that they were opening new plants in Asia — not because of cheaper labor. Labor is a small component now in an automated high-tech manufacturing plant. It is because governments in these countries are so eager for employment and the transfer of technology to their young populations that they are offering huge tax holidays for U.S. manufacturers who will set up shop. Because most of these countries also offer some form of national health insurance, U.S. companies shed that huge open liability as well.

Other executives complained bitterly that the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here. Instead, they are studying in England and other Western European nations, and even China. This is leading to a twofold disaster.

First, one of America's greatest assets — its ability to skim the cream off the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world and bring them to our shores to innovate — will be diminished, and that in turn will shrink our talent pool. And second, we could lose a whole generation of foreigners who would normally come here to study, and then would take American ideas and American relationships back home. In a decade we will feel that loss in America's standing around the world.

Still others pointed out that the percentage of Americans graduating with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering is less than half of the comparable percentage in China and Japan, and that U.S. government investments are flagging in basic research in physics, chemistry and engineering. Anyone who thinks that all the Indian and Chinese techies are doing is answering call-center phones or solving tech problems for Dell customers is sadly mistaken. U.S. firms are moving serious research and development to India and China.

The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former (I've been no exception), we are completely ignoring the latter. We have got to get our focus back in balance, not to mention our budget. We can't wage war on income taxes and terrorism and a war for innovation at the same time.

Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."

For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."

And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? Right now we should have a Manhattan Project to develop a hydrogen-based energy economy — it's within reach and would serve our economy, our environment and our foreign policy by diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, the Bush team says let's go to Mars. Where is Congress? Out to lunch — or, worse, obsessed with trying to keep Susie Smith's job at the local pillow factory that is moving to the Caribbean — without thinking about a national competitiveness strategy. And where is Wall Street? So many of the plutocrats there know that the Bush fiscal policy is a long-term disaster. They know it — but they won't say a word because they are too greedy or too gutless.

The only crisis the U.S. thinks it's in today is the war on terrorism, Mr. Barrett said. "It's not."

[Don Muerto]

Does anybody else see the subtext of the Friedman article as:

"America is losing the long-term business battle because of over-regulation"?

His arguments are always oversimplified, and frequently very selective in their presentation of facts. This article strikes me as very typical.

I like how he unabashedly bemoans us losing the ability to steal intellectual talent from around the world, and gives a big fat PASS to American companies who pursue bottom-line profits by fleeing to less regulated areas of the globe. Then he turns right around and advocates for a huge Government subsidized technology project ala the Manhattan Project.

So, which is it? Is the American Government failing business by not offering enough 'tax holidays' at the obvious expense of the individual taxpayer? Or should it spend huge amount of tax revenue in yet another public subsidy for private profit scheme via the Hydrogen Energy technology?

Oh wait, I get it. The individual can pay for both and then everybody will be happy. Everybody that matters anyway...

[theCryptofishist]

"Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service...

Perhaps this individual is unaware that private fire services did at one time exist. The quality of their service--and their habit of standing there doing nothing while a building not owned by a client burned--was such that Public Fire Departments were created. A not uncommon example of the blind worship of the free market and ignorance of history displayed by some libertarians.

(And then there was the Roman Republican who made a fortune with his private fire-fighting service. Sell me your burning building at a deep discout and my slaves will put out the fire, or you can own a pile of ashes.)

[Simply Joel]

His arguments are always oversimplified, and frequently very selective in their presentation of facts. This article strikes me as very typical.

The pot calls the kettle black, once again.

[Don Muerto]

Will you continue to stick to posting other people's thoughts and responding to any critique of them with childish and empty ad-hominem attacks?

Why not take issue with what I said and refute what must be obvious shortcomings in my arguments?

Again, this thread is not about me. Do you have any political arguments to offer?

[Simply Joel]

Again, this thread is not about me. Do you have any political arguments to offer?

Yes, it isn't all black and white, good and evil... but shades of gray....

and it requires your participation...

please have your tickets ready at the gate.

[Simply Joel]

oh yeah, it appears the shoe is on the other foot.

[Don Muerto]

Those are cliches, not political arguments.

What, in particular, about my Friedman critique do you take issue with?

[KellY]

Hey, at least Freidman gets a dig in about the need for universal health care, for economic health reasons no less.

[Don Muerto]

KellY, I disagree that he offered it for economic health reasons. He was touting it as another cost-savings for businesses.

Businesses are under absolutely no obligation to provide health-care to their employees in this country. Similarly, vacation, sick-pay, profit-sharing, 401ks etc are all entirely optional. They are offered as pseudo-compensation to compete with other companies for employees.

All national healthcare would do for business is to relieve them of that particular cost of doing business, and that was the thrust of Friedman's comment. Who would pick up the tab that business would shed? You and me, of course.

Frankly, I am fine with my taxes going to universal health coverage. Beats the pants off JDAMS, DU tank rounds and stealth technology.

[Alpha]

Businesses are under absolutely no obligation to provide health-care to their employees in this country.

...except those of you in the fine state of Hawaii, where the Prepaid Health Care Act compels it.

(this was news to me, I though companies over 15 employees HAD to provide health insurance!)

[Don Muerto]

Really? Interesting. I must research...

[Don Muerto]

Fairly progressive legislation, but not exactly mandatory employer provided healthcare.

It seems that the employer is liable for 1/2 of the cost, provided the other half does not exceed 1.5% of the employees wages. (I am assuming gross wages, but it was unclear). If 1.5% of the employee's wages does not equal half of the coverage cost, the employer must cover the difference.

Here is the relevant text:

[§393-13] Liability for payment of premium; withholding; recovery of premium. Unless an applicable collective bargaining agreement specifies differently every employer shall contribute at least one-half of the premium for the coverage required by this chapter and the employee shall contribute the balance; provided that in no case shall the employee contribute more than 1.5 per cent of the employee's wages; and provided that if the amount of the employee's contribution is less than one-half of the premium, the employer shall be liable for the whole remaining portion of the premium.

The employer shall withhold the employee's share from the employee's wages with respect to pay periods as specified by the director.

If an employee separates from the employee's employment after the employee's employer has prepaid the employee's share of the cost of providing health care coverage, the employer may deduct an amount not to exceed one-half of the premium cost but without regard to the 1.5 per cent limitation, from the last salary or wages due the employee, or seek other appropriate means to recover the premium. [L 1974, c 210, pt of §1; am L 1976, c 206, §1; gen ch 1985]

Thanks for the contribution, Alpha. Good stuff. I would like to see this sort of safety-net be extended to all Americans.

[Simply Joel]

Daily Capricorn Forecast

Quickie: Don't dirty your shoes. Keep contempt under your hat. Turn the negative to positive.


I'll do the best i can today... because I can always be contemtuous tomorrow.

[Simply Joel]

Did loyalty finally trip up Colin Powell?


Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune
April 21, 2004

WASHINGTON -- I just can't wait for Thursday because Colin Powell keeps getting more interesting every day.

"Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward's new behind-the-scenes book about how and why President Bush went to war against Iraq, portrays a secretary of state who was blatantly dissed by his boss back in January, 2003.

Since the release of the book last weekend, Powell and the Bush administration have disputed Woodward's account of Powell being informed of Bush's critical decision to go to war only after Bush informed Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and even Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar.

This dispute is curious, since Powell admitted on Monday that he was among the many people Woodward interviewed, including President Bush. Powell has long been known to be not only a good source for Woodward, but also a diplomat who knows how to play the media as well as John Coltrane played the tenor sax.

Either way, the administration praised most of the book as a fair and generally complimentary account of the days leading up to the war.

Which raises a big question in my mind: Why didn't Powell quit while he was behind?

Powell was doing fine until he joined the Bush administration. With his charismatic presence, his formidable biography and squeaky-clean reputation (despite spending a lot of time in Washington), Powell was among America's most admired men.

But his tenure as secretary of state has faced one setback after another, mostly at the hands of Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-conservatives.

Powell's first months in office were so low profile that Time magazine asked on its cover "Where Is Colin Powell?" The date of that issue, ironically, was Sept. 10, 2001. His profile soon rose, but in August of 2002, it was conservatives beseeching Powell to get on the Iraq war bandwagon or get out of the way. Leading neo-conservative William Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard that Powell should sort out "how best to execute the president's policy--or he should step aside and let someone else do the job."

Powell once told Bush in the Oval Office that the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with him that the U.S. should present a new UN resolution on the occupation of Iraq, even though Rumsfeld opposed going back to the UN. Bush returned to the UN but the resulting resolution did not call for nearly as much internationalization of political power in Iraq as Powell wanted.

After persuasively presenting claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the UN that have turned out to be bogus, Powell's once-mighty stature has been reduced among Democrats and America's allies, among others. Within the administration, his sacrifice appears to have won him nothing. His image remains positive, but less superhuman. Super-Colin looks more like a semi-Colin.

Powell's biggest leverage is his popularity. His approval ratings tend to run in the high 70 percent range and even in the 80s. Cheney, whose ratings tend to run in the 40s or, on a good day, the 50s, reportedly chided Powell to sacrifice some of his high approval ratings by supporting his crusade to topple Saddam Hussein.

Powell, the good soldier that he is, sallied forth, investing some of his political capital.

Will Powell stick around for a second Bush term? "I serve at the pleasure of my president," he has responded enigmatically when reporters have asked. Translation: "I'm out of here."

So I can't help but wonder, what if he had quit? Just think of how much impact that would have had. Widespread shock! Headlines! Media frenzy! Sober regrets from stony-faced Cabinet members trying to explain it all.

Maybe, just maybe, Powell could have slowed the train long enough for Americans to have gone into the war, if it came to that, with more information upon which to base their views. By now, he might be seen as some sort of principled hero.

He's not likely to resign now. He's a good soldier and, besides, it's too late. He needed to have quit while the administration was up and he was down, back when the final plans for the war were being laid down.

Besides, as a quitter, he would never drink lunch in this town again. In Washington, a protest-resignation brands you for life as a loose cannon who can't be fully trusted with another government appointment--by either party. But Powell is not likely to stick around for another Bush term, if there is one. Sometimes, as John F. Kennedy used to say, party loyalty asks too much.

[Don Muerto]

Powell is indeed an interesting figure in the Bush Administration. Word on the street for a long time has been that Cheney and his toadies Perle and Wolfowitz can't stand him, and even after being neutered by the corporate media the scorch marks of the State Department/Defense Department schism were discernible to those reading between the lines in the run up to the invasion.

I kept hoping it would flare up into real conflict or at least public sniping, but no luck. Say what you will of the GOP, but they do know how to enforce discipline and the Bushies are no exception. In fact, I would say they exemplify the trait.

If Bush wins, (or steals), the November elections don't expect Powell to keep his job. Condi Rice is likely to get it, although I have heard interesting speculation that she might replace Rumsfeld who is ideologically closer to the White House, but less of a "good soldier" than Powell was. I have to admit that I pray every day that something will piss Rumsfeld off and he will vomit forth more glimpses into the inner workings of the Bush admin. Either way, I think Page is correct in that Powell will not be a member of any future Bush cabinet.

I am a littled surprised at Page's assertion that Powell's reputation is intact, but then I live in the Bay Area which is a horrible place to try and gauge the general public's temperature. Around here his name is mud, although most would rather have him over for dinner than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Still, I have not seen any poll numbers that have him in the 70's for approval ratings although I admit that I don't watch the polls as closely as I watch foreign policy as a practice. I find it easier to believe that he can still pull high ratings for his personal/charisma, as he has successfully, (and subtly and skillfully), portrayed himself as the dupe of the neocons he works for. It has been a guilty pleasure watching him adroitly walk a tightrope between the nonsense he has been "forced" to parrot and maintaining his "good man" image.

Since he swims with the sharks inside the beltway, I am not convinced this won't sink his fast-track career, but it does play well to the people in front of their TV's. I think he will end up with one of those super-cushy defense contractor consulting or board positions whether the Bushies hold on to the Executive branch or not. Coming soon to a Commencement speech near you.

[Alpha]

Well said, DM. I always liked Powell and was saddened to see him used as a puppet of the administration in front of the UN. I don't think he'll ever be appointed to a significant office again -- he could salvage his reputation by speaking out against the administration and claiming that he was duped or coerced into following the party line. If that were to happen then I think he'd stand a decent chance of being elected to political office by moderates on both sides. Why he would want to involve himself in politics any further, however, would be a mystery to me.

[Don Muerto]

You give him more credit than I do, Alpha. In my opinion, the time to speak out was before throwing his considerable weight in support of the invasion.

Nope, I don't think he thought the invasion was wrong. I think he just thought it wasn't politic, and there is a world of difference between the two.

[KellY]

I have a couple different theories about Powell:

The first and most likely in my mind is that he's just so thoroughly brainwashed with the "good soldier" mentality that his own moral compass is completely trashed. Maybe even to the degree of it being a sadomasochistic thing - sucking up the abuse to prove how loyal and virtuous he is. I've seen relationships like that personally.

He also might be holding on to the delusion that he can somehow be a moderating influence and keep the neocons' insanity in check (the same thing has been said about Tony Blair's cozying up to Bush). History shows this doesn't tend to work to well. Tolkien illustrated it's consequences wonderfully with the character of Saruman, I think.

It's also possible that they're holding out the carrot of vice-presidency to him. He says he doesn't want it, but so did Richard III.

Or maybe they just said "Play along or your family dies." Given the haggard, depressed look on Powell's face so much of the time nowadays, I'm not completely writing that one off.

[theCryptofishist]

The first and most likely in my mind is that he's just so thoroughly brainwashed with the "good soldier" mentality that his own moral compass is completely trashed.

Apparently, he TWICE in his position in Vietnam recommended AGAINST investigating the Mai-Lai massacure. Doesn't say much of his moral compass ever existing, if true.

[Don Muerto]

I think Powell's "good soldier" attitude has much more to do with not committing political suicide than anything else. If he were to make a public split from the Bushies he would simply never work an important US post ever again. Nobody trusts a defector or a whistleblower, not even if they helped you by blowing that whistle. Regardless of his good soldiering, I think I have as a good a chance at the Vice Presidency as he does. I think he will quietly "pursue other goals" not be promoted.

Regarding a moral compass: I honestly do not believe that you can rise to the level of political office Powell has and still have one. So many compromises, shady deals and victims line that long road, the only thing even approaching moralism at that level is a very fluid concept of the greater good.

<geek>
BTW, Saruman only worked for Sauron in the movie. In the book he seeks the ring himself, -he wants to *be* Sauron. Besides, I didn't exactly get the impression that Saruman was trying to put the brakes on the old evil eye by creating Uruks and unleashing them upon the Fellowship and Rohan.
</geek>

[KellY]

Read the book again, Don. In his pitch to Gandalf, Saruman argues that Sauron's victory is inevitable, but that can make things better by working with him instead of against him, using Sauron as the stepping stone to their own power. Even though Gandalf rejects this, it seems that Saruman pretty much convinced himself that he was right. Of course, he ends up completely overwhelmed and subservient to Sauron, though still trying to play his own game.

I've read that a lot of the German conservatives who supported Hitler thought the same thing- they would use his charisma to bring the movement to power, then safely tuck him away somewhere in the propaganda department or something. Didn't work out too well.

Didn't know about Powell and My Lai. How disgusting. Still, in comparison to the neocons, he seems to have a grasp on sanity and the real-world consequences of our actions.

[Don Muerto]

Read the book again, Don. In his pitch to Gandalf, Saruman argues that Sauron's victory is inevitable, but that can make things better by working with him instead of against him, using Sauron as the stepping stone to their own power.

Then you think Saruman sought the Ring to give it to Sauron? I am pretty sure he meant to have it for himself. IMO the only truly irritating deviation from the book the movies made was to make Saruman Sauron's toady. There was no need and it made Saruman less than he was.

[KellY]

I meant if the ring remained absent, or if Sauron ended up with it. If Saruman had gotten it, he would have kept it, obviously. Powell, on the other hand, might have handed it right to W.

[Don Muerto]

Powell, on the other hand, might have handed it right to W.

I admire your smooth transition away from thread-drift, and agree that Powell does not seem to own the stones to try and be Sauron himself.