[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

The place where middle and lower class Americans get hit the hardest is with the state taxes. Even this websites states this but can the federal government do anything with the states tax system?

Well, that's interesting; In the U.S., drinking age limits are set by the states individualy--but nation-wide, there's a minimum age of 21. Why? Because the federal government exerts a little pressure on the states--"21, or we take away your cut of gas tax revenue" (or something like that...the exact details escape me). So yes, the federal goverment can squeeze the states in that sort of way, by threatening to reduce or remove some subsidy or another that the states receive. They can't exactly legislate away state taxes, though.

On another note, I keep thinking about what people don't get about this flip-flopping issue: the fact that it is (in theory) a perfectly logical approach.

Logical? Not true! It's indecision, and we can't have that in a strong, fearless leader!

Enough of the complaining. If you have an opinion (say, you believe that there are weapons of an unusually destructive sort in Saddam Hussein's basement) and you gather some evidence (like marching in and taking over his basement, and subjecting it to a thorough search), and the overwhelming majority of the evidence doesn't support the initial belief...why do you still believe it? But I used a Bush example, and he doesn't flip-flop. So let's take a Kerry example.

He voted for the war, then he voted against it.

That's right; but he went through the same process. He believed that the war was justified, due to an oppressive leader, and some assurances from other branches of government (and votes for it). He then gathered some evidence (like watching what Bush is doing, and what Saddam Hussein is doing, and reading the morning intelligence briefs) and finds that the notion of further increasing government spending on the war is not exactly supported by the evidence (maybe influenced by his sense of fiscal responsibility, in whatever small and insignificant measure it exists in a Democrat), and votes against the $87 billion dollars. He is then vilified as a "flip-flopper".

That series of steps described above had damned well better sound familiar to most people--it's called the scientific method, and you were supposed to understand it in elementary school (eighth grade, at the latest, where I come from). Like arithmetic is to mathematics as a whole, it's a fundamental concept in the sciences--but like arithmetic, it is wholly applicable to everyday life. Substitute hypothesis for belief (similar, but less structured), do an experiment (one way to get evidence) and draw conclusions, with which you modify the hypothesis (or belief). It's the same thing, and John Kerry, whether he's familiar with the concept or not, has applied it to at least one important issue as a senator. Whether Kerry is right or wrong, he's apparently calling it as he sees it (if his explanations during the debate were any indication), and is being picked on by the ignorant and the blatantly partisan for applying a logically consistent strategy to his decisions. Mr. Bush got as far as collecting evidence, but he seems to have drawn a different conclusion. That's fair enough (he's entitled to do so), but why then has he changed his explanation of his original motivation so many times? WMD, chase the bad man, institute democracy, get those terrorists, etc.; all potentially valid, but he never claims to have used as his primary justification to go to war any combination of the above--it's always one or the other. That raises questions about his sincerity, irrespective of the validity of any or all of those reasons. It isn't proper to change a hypothesis ex post facto, and insist that it hasn't changed, and has always been that way. It is proper to change your mind when new evidence comes to light. That's why a wrongful conviction can be overturned; that's why hypotheses like the phlogiston theory of heat are dead and buried; that's how we try to right our wrongs.

Now, before someone jumps on me with some incident of flip-floppery that doesn't fit the pattern, I have another possible scenario that may suffice as an explanation. Maybe Kerry is sucking up to his audience:

Originally Posted by Saturday Night Live

That is not flip-flopping, that is pandering, and America deserves a president who knows the difference.

This is a very valid explanation for some of the alleged flip-flops. Pandering (e.g. to pro-/anti-war crowds) is typical of politicians, expected of politicians, and largely distasteful. America ought to itself know the difference.