(Which maybe goes to show that the presentation of information is more important than the availability of information)

It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.

Someone guided more by ideals than by practical considerations

Pragmatist:

A person who takes a practical approach to problems and is concerned primarily with the success or failure of her actions

The exact question asked is - "When in conflict, should idealism be valued over pragmatism?". A thoughtful consideration must begin with another question: "What is the nature of the conflict?".

If the consequences of the conflict are relatively unimportant (should I snack on some raw fruits and vegetables or should I satisfy my mild hunger by eating a hot dog?), then it probably matters very little if I solve the conflict with the idealism of "what's good for me" or the pragmatism of "what's readily available".

If the conflict involves a matter of life or death (should I support a presidential candidate who believes that a show of military might is the right response to most international disputes, or should I cast my vote for a candidate who believes that diplomacy is the better approach?), then the choice between idealism and pragmatism is certainly more important.

Of course, there are a range of conflicts that fall somewhere in between the trivial and the dire.

I would argue that, as the consequences of the choice between idealism and pragmatism become more crucial, the more important it is to be able to temper idealism with pragmatism. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. I believe that the best problem solvers are those who are both noble-minded (idealists) AND realists (pragmatists). If there are important issues that need to be resolved, we are more likely to implement successful solutions if we start with the idealistic approach of "what is the right thing to do" and then realistically consider "how to get it done".

It seems to me: that the "Pure Idealist" (if there is such a creature) would rarely accomplish much - Utopia only exists in our minds, and the "Pure Pragmatist" represents a potential drastic threat - the ends do NOT always justify the means.

According to your blog, Machiavelli suggests many characteristics of a "good Prince" - arguing that if the ruler follows Machiavelli's advice, the kingdom would benefit and thrive. Each point of advice could be argued on its own merit, as to the benefit that it would bring upon the subjects of the monarchy.

But the argument FOR a monarchy (as put forth in your blog), leaves out a key component - succession. When the "good Prince" passes on his duties as ruler to the next Prince, how likely is it that the next ruler will exhibit all of the suggested characteristics, and therefore benefit the people of his kingdom as well as his predecessor? AND, what are the rules for succession? If my understanding of history is (even close to) correct, succession is a family matter - the "next in line" for ruler of the kingdom is based on birth rights (although it seems the history of monarchies is rife with many examples of subterfuge and chicanery).

I would put forth the argument that the concept of royalty is merely the opposite of slavery, and that both are equally preposterous. To accept that a person can be born into slavery is morally wrong, and to accept that a person can be born into royalty is also wrong.

However, to answer you question - Yes, I suppose that a monarchy (under the auspices of a "good ruler") COULD be a good form of government. But I personally would prefer a direct democracy (even though the democracy in which I find myself could definitely use some improvements. But that would be an entirely different debate).

The real problem (as I see it) is that wealth distribution has gotten way out of balance - with the very top of our societal pyramid controlling a disproportional percentage of available capital.

If we don't find a workable solution that puts more capital into the hands of the middle and lower class, the pyramid will collapse. And creating meaningful jobs that contribute to the overall well-being of our society is a solution that will work to infuse capital into our system.

And as soon as President Obama calls on me for advice, I will share the sage wisdom of my deep insight for the betterment of all mankind ;-)

I suggest you look at each candidate's website.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

http://www.johnmccain.com/

(you may have to dig around Senator McCain's website a bit to find his specific tax proposals)

My support for Senator Obama is NOT based on who has the better tax plan. For me, when it comes to the presidential election, there is ONE OVER-RIDING CONCERN - who is least likely to start a nuclear war.

Barack Obama is thoughtful and careful, and would consider all the consequences of "pushing the button". John McCain strikes me as impetuous and dangerous, and I don't want his finger anywhere near the button.

There is certainly nothing wrong with choosing which side of a debate you believe is presenting the facts. BUT, any debater will improve his/her skills by being able to make arguments both ways!

However, the Catholic church made a regular practice of shielding known child molesters for many years (if they have indeed stopped it to this very day). Those "acts of facts" forever changed my perception of the Catholic church.

I was blessed (or perhaps cursed) with a questioning mind, and have gone through some major "changes-in-thought" in my adult life. Even though I was raised a Catholic, and have been a Baptist, and a born-again Pentecostal Christian, and some others as well ....

One day I got to thinking about the Biblical passage (one of the foundations of Christianity), "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now, John 3:16 may be one of the most well-known quotes from the New Testament, and lots of God-loving Christians use it as a tool to try to convert non-believers into believers. BUT, they neglect to point out the next two verses:

"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"

These verses seem to contradict each other. Jesus wasn't sent here to condemn the world, but if you do not believe you are indeed condemned.

Huh?

If you accept Jesus as the Son of God sent here to redeem your sins, you get to go to heaven, and if you don't ... well, you don't.

After much thought, reflection, and soul-searching, I cannot accept such a premise. I cannot believe that a loving God would condemn people to hell and damnation based solely on a single belief.

I don't point this out as an attempt to convince anyone to see it my way, but as way of explaining why some trivial pop culture fiction like The DaVinci Code just doesn't have what it takes to change my thoughts (I'd like to believe that my thought processes aren't that superficial).

Also, 30 years ago people were not under the magnifying glass of 24/7 cable news nor the "proliferation of information" known as the Internet.

Well, the potential impact would certainly depend on the video - its subject, how well it is done, how it presents its premise, its use of facts (or lies purported to be facts), its audience and their reaction and how they help spread the message, ... and many other contingent aspects.

This particular video was featured this morning at the Huffington Post, and some of the comments suggested that some viewers would indeed "spread the message" by sharing the video. So, this video will most likely be very viral.

Of course, that doesn't address the issue of how damaging this video's message will be to the campaign of John McCain.

I suspect that, when it comes to political messages, most of us tend to view any particular message through a biased lens - a lens that distorts the message to conform to some preset ideas. People that are against McCain will declare, "this video sure proves that McCain is ______." (fill in the blank with some sort of derogatory). And people that are for McCain will declare that this proves that Obama and his supporters are nothing but a bunch of low-lifes (or something along those lines).

So, no this is NOT "the most damaging" viral video (but it is cute, and proves that those Obama low lifes have a point about McCain being an almost senile old fool).

But a supplication written on a piece of paper and stuck into a wall is just so much superstitious BS (IMO), that it begs to be shared with a soulful rubber-necking "right-to-know" congregation of peeping toms.

I don't know enough facts (and suspect that I never will) to make a decision. And even if I did, I wouldn't presume to accept the mantle of someone capable of pronouncing the guilt or innocence of such a serious offense.

I have an entirely different view that I would like to put forward. I find it a strange statement of the human condition that we CAN get together to declare that there are acceptable "rules of war" (it's OK to kill one another as long as we follow some humane guidelines of conduct), but we often CANNOT get together to talk away our grievances without resorting to violence.

How about we agree that war itself is a crime?

So, is it your argument that we should only have the right to own guns that were being used at the time the constitution was written? (And just where can I get a front-loading flint-lock anyway? [grin])

I know, this argument is actually a fallacy (it was reworded during the Viet Nam War and called the "Domino Theory", which turned out NOT TO BE TRUE).

BUT, as an analogy for laws banning gun ownership, the dog's desire to get into the bed mirrors a societal power structure desire to control the population - "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."

If we allow our government to ban gun ownership in some certain jurisdiction, it will indeed be just the first step toward a more encompassing ban, and then an even larger ban. And at some point, we will have lost our legal right to own guns altogether.

Our government was designed with a system of checks and balances - 3 branches of government each designed to keep the other two from abusing power to the detriment of the people. I believe that our founding fathers instituted one additional check and balance - our right to bear arms.

In the rural community of Casey Illinois, we have a beautiful little park - Fairview Park (home of the Casey Popcorn Festival), and they always put on a fine show which I can see from my front yard (or I can I walk or bicycle to the park, if I so desire).

Wishing everyone a safe and fun-filled holiday weekend.

But, for the sake of argument - football comes with its own set of physical challenges. A person can get seriously injured playing football, and that might be construed as "more challenging" - depending on your definition.

What little water polo I have seen, it seems that no one gets injured.

I read an article (quite a few years ago) that stated that motocross was one of the most physically demanding sports.

What does that mean? Is that intelligent debate (or childish name-calling that adds nothing to reasonable discourse)?

I would also like to see an interface giving us more ability to format our arguments.

1) Republicans have harder heads than democrats or independents. When dropped on their head from a height of 5 feet, more republicans were able to comprehend Bill O'Reilly Talking Points than independents and democrats combined.

2) Republicans are whiter than democrats at the skin level, redder than independents at the blood level and bluer than anyone at the sadness level - red, white and blue = more American than average.

3) It is easier to live next door to republicans than it is to eat raw sewage - eating ^^it is more detrimental to your health than listening to ^^it.

AND BEFORE ANYONE GETS PO'ed - this is all in jest. Hey, some of my blood relatives and many of my in-laws are republicans.

My best guess is that all of the airlines are struggling under the weight of increased fuel costs, and are doing the best they can to maintain operations and continue to earn a profit. This surcharge-on-luggage is merely an effort to charge more to make up for the increased cost of jet fuel.

It takes energy to travel. Even if you were to walk from place to place, you'd have to eat (ingest energy) in order to make the trip. And guess what, it also costs more to eat today - due in part to the increased cost of oil.

What we could really use - is a leader with vision, and a national goal (similar to our commitment to put a man on the moon) to develop and put into use a source of energy other than fossil fuels. I have no doubt that, if we put our collective minds to it, the United States of America could say "good-bye" to our dependence on oil.

There are hundreds, thousands - or even hundreds of thousands - of other drivers sharing the road, and we ALL have a right to expect the other drivers to do their best to be safe drivers.

And there can be NO DOUBT that some drivers absolutely need to put all of their attention on driving.

The program didn't explore the WHY of this. But being a wonderer, I wondered why it was. And one possible answer that came to mind was that religions have historically been "nay-sayers" of some scientific advances. And so, I postulated that religion in a given culture may very well have stood in the way of scientific research and the resulting discovery and practical use of those discoveries.

I had no specific evidence to back up my postulations, but while trying to come up with possible modern day examples of why some cultures might be technologically ahead of others, my mind latched onto the current events example of stem cell research. I observe that right here in my own country, we have religious influences hindering the advance of a particular scientific avenue of research, while other countries are more aggresively looking for practical uses of this promising field.

I can't help but wonder if America is setting itself up to be left behind (or left to play catch-up) in whatever practical applications can be made from pursuing stem cell research?