"Why does what goes on in California have anything to do with what is going on in Florida or Maine? I have heard all the arguments about national defence and economy and such. But as a practical matter each geography area, having its own seperate government, would better represent the people. Each region would still be as powerful politically, economically and militarily, as most countries of the world including the European nations. The only exceptions to that would be Russia and China.

I do admit that being one nation has it advantages as far as logistics. But do those advantages override the right of the people to rule themselves?"

TR, I hardly know where to start. First, I'm not touching Lincoln. What made this country great, the late unpleasantness exepted, is its uniqueness. We are not like the European countries, and who would want to be? Our strength is in the Constitution, as our founders designed it. Remember Franklin's reply when asked what kind of government we had made? He replied, "Madam, a republic, if you can keep it." Note he did not say we, but you. It is our individual responsiblity to keep the republic.

We can in fact govern ourselves, if we would take the trouble to do so. We complain about incumbents getting fat and lazy, and, in some cases, corrupt in Washington. The founders did not contemplate a career in gevernment. Their idea was to serve a period of time, and then come home and pursue your career in private life.

We don't need term limits, we just need to get good candidates and change them off from time to time. We have allowed Congress to vote themselves fat paychecks and retirement plans, and write the laws to benefit them selves.

We have allowed them to construct the tax system so that almost half the people pay no income taxes, while the top ten percent or so pay most of the taxes, yet the majority can vote themselves largesse from those of us who pay the bills.

We have come to think gevernment can, and should, do it all. The media have bastardized freedom of the press by taking sides in support of one candidate or the other, while pretending to be objective, so we are not able to vote intelligently.

One example, considering what happened in November 1963: the movie about Kennedy's assassination spreads the lies about a conspiracy, and Oswald having help, and the CIA being involved. The truth is there for the reading; Oswald was a Marine, and could shoot. He had time to fire three shots in 8.2 seconds. An 80 year old man did it in less tme. The rifle used was not a piece of junk. It servedthe Italian army very well for many years.

One bullet did in fact go through Kennedy and John Connally. It is not "pristine", but is bent and flattened, as it should be. It was fired from Oswald's rifle. Yet, the young people of this country belive Oliver Stone, and not the empirical truth.

If the press had done its job this year, instead of taking sides, the election might have been different. Nevertheless, we have a new President Elect. I hope he governs well. But if he doesn't it behooves us all to pay attention, write, learn, and change it two years from now, in the off year elections.

People who should know better complain about the Electoral College, by which we elect a President. The reason this method was worked out in the Constitutional Convention, was to allow small states to have some power in our governance. If we went solely by popular vote, the left and right coasts would dictate what happens in the whole country. God Forbid! And God save the Supreme Court! Enough. Stan