Setting aside the military arguments, there are a couple of socio-political points that would make this a difficult proposition. First is that, for fifty years, Cuba has been filtering out those who would want to live in an open society such as ours, either by killing them or failing to prevent them from emigrating/escaping. The majority of those that are left, we can assume, are people who have found some accommodation with living in an authoritarian society. It is doubtful that they would adapt well to a citizen's role very quickly.

That would require a long period of time with Cuba as a territory. How long? Well, Hawaii was annexed in 1898 and made a state in 1959. Puerto Rico was acquired about the same time, and is still a territory. A century for Cuba may not be long enough.

Finally is the gordian knot of competing property rights. What do you do to resolve the issue of property seizure by the communists, assuming you do anything? And what would be the political blow-back if you did nothing? After our recent "nation building" adventures, I don't think it would work out well for anyone.

I also recommend Heinlein, and would like to add The Puppetmasters to what has already been suggested. Although it's a little more juvenile, a series that has stuck with me over 35 years is the John Christopher trilogy The White Mountains, The City of Gold and Lead and The Pool of Fire. Some good subversive context, there. Finally, Orwell's Animal Farm is still a great allegory of descent into dystopia, and is still strong even without a key listing the main personages of the Stalinist era. Show him what relying on cliches and other people's thinking can do.

While Natural Law is a powerful force, it is not an explanation if you remove the concept of a transcendent being. The question then becomes, "Why do we have a conscience, if there's no one out there who put it inside of us?" Most of the answers I've read use gaming theory to analyze evolutionary choices, showing that cooperation and getting along are generally the best ways to go, except for that really bad apple that gains an awful lot in the short term.

The problem is those areas of morality that, taken outside of any religious sense, seem completely arbitrary. Examples include some of the odder strictures in Leviticus, such as boiling a calf in its own milk. Modern versions would be, when does life begin (conception, birth, first breath, age of reason?), and what constitutes a capital crime (an act against an individual, or against society as a whole?). Without a frame of reference bigger than our own reason, our choices here become more slippery.

Perhaps the BSA is overworked responding to member's NCAA bracket registrations?

Civility arises from respect.The lack of respect shown by one side of the political discourse stems from their view of those who do not hold their opinions as less than enlightened. There is no civility due to a heretic.  This view of others as living in darkness comes from the belief that the answers they have are so simple, so obviously right. The way you get people to live together in peace is to take away all their weapons. No one can accomplish anything on their own; the energy of government must be harnessed to aid them. If only you could get people to stop thinking hateful thoughts, then all would be in harmony. All of these reflect a shallow, superficial view of the human condition, of human nature as infinitely malleable. There is a lack of a sense of transcendence, a belief that the person is more than his material being, that pervades their thought. There is no value to the individual, only to the group in abstract. And if you're in the wrong group, you are owed nothing.

USDA and state agencies recruit people to go on food stamps. To go off of them, it's the honor system. Exactly. Backward.

After the 1994 mid-terms, the Democrat left was suddenly enamored of "Family Values", which I believe was their understanding of why they were shellacked. Of course, it only lasted a couple of weeks, but it was a values victory acknowledged by the losers.

I suspect it's an actively administered web site, and that only those petitions which lean in the proper direction make it to the front page. I can't believe that there are only 60 some-odd petitions entered, and that they're all leftish. But, the direct links should still work. Enough people sign those, and they'll be hard-pressed to not post them.

Indeed. We will not, and should not, comply.

But we have a chance to end this persecution in November. We should, and we must, vote!

Mythbusters - There is knowable, objective truth and it is important.

Deadliest Catch - Free enterprise is a system where passion can thrive.

COPS - This is a nation of laws, not men, enforced by human beings, not automatons.

Investigation Discovery channel - The pursuit of justice is essential to our character.

I am Catholic, and wore my ashes from early morning on. But I am not too worked up about either the presence or absence of ashes on Mr. Santorum or Mr. Gingrich. As noted above, too many of life's little issues can remove them from view. Other behaviors tell us more about a candidate's morals and character other than whether they washed their face too early in the day to suit some.

Besides, all we need now is people questioning whether Mitt was wearing his temple garment during the debate. It's all just another distraction from the real issue: Defeating Obama!

I read Chesterton's use of "rule" in a more authoritarian sense. I believe that Chesterton is saying that we should not select the man who thinks he can rule (see Napoleon), but the one who does not think he can (or should) rule, and therefore must lead (see John Paul II). I think this is more fitting with Christ's nature, who humbled Himself to lead and teach, rather than exalted Himself to rule autocratically. Chesterton's following comments about "the machinery of voting is  . . . an attempt to get at the opinion of those who would be too modest to offer it" also sounds the same theme of relying on the meek rather than the proud.

Wow  . . . Yeats is an immortal! Wonder where he is now?

I've been watching TN also, and have enjoyed it so far. Early frustrations with rebellious teenagers and precocious children have been allayed somewhat by the quality of the actors, and the unfolding of the overall plot.

It's an interesting twist on the "space colony/frontier" genre, moving it from space to time. I still have some logical problems with the alternate timeline plot point, but I'm willing to wait and see how that pans out.

The discussion of the use of a benevolent military dictatorship as the colony's organizational structure misses a rather obvious point: most of the other SF canon use the same thing, "Star Trek" being the most obvious example. It's easily understood, it gives a star or stars primacy of position, and it allows for the climactic decisions that make good drama. As for its realism, most fledgling colonies resort to some hierarchical organization, just because sometimes difficult choices have to be made that everyone must abide with, if not support. Participatory democracy usually arrives when survival has been assured.

President Pick o' Doom is visiting LinkedIn? Time to close out my account. Good thing I have nothing more invested than my time and a bogus email address.

RU486, bien sur. Tres dolore.