Miscellaneous News Items

[Netghost56]

If a person doesn't want to

take time to choose a side in this- they're more or less allowing it to happen, and happen again in the future.



And yes, I signed it.

What are you're thoughts on hemp? I get a newsletter about that too.

[belgareth]

If a person

doesn't want to take time to choose a side in this- they're more or less allowing it to happen, and happen again

in the future.

And yes, I signed it.

What are you're thoughts on hemp? I get a newsletter about that

too.

There you are both wrong. I choose to not support either the democrats or the republican's actions

now and most likely for the foreseeable future. In my opinion both parties are dangerous and destructive to the

country and I will not support any action by either unless I honestly believe it is actually going to serve the

American people and or the world.

In my opinion this whole thing is mostly the ever escalating political

fighting. Look at history for a bit. John Kennedy wasn't impeached for screwing Marilyn Monroe in the Oval Office

or for escalating Vietnam, the latter action killed or maimed thousands upon thousands of people. Nor did he get

impeached for playing power games with Breshnev <sp?> which came very close to starting a nuclear war that would

have killed millions. Nixon got impeached for Watergate but never got the kudos he rightfully deserved for pulling

us out of the disaster in Vietnam. I could cite quite a number of other examples of politics getting more and more

dirty. Its getting nastier and people are playing along with it. I choose to not be a patsy to either party.



Were I to act towards impeachment it would imply my taking sides in what I percieve as more political BS. The fact

is that impeaching Bush is not going to get us out of Iraq, no more than Kennedy's assasination got us out of

Vietnam. The only point in this entire impeachment conversation I am interested in is whether or not we are in a war

in Iraq or anywhere else. I'm not going to waste my time or energy on something that will have no real effect.

Instead, I suggest people start putting pressure on their representatives to try to make it happen. A specific and

to the point attack on the single issue of war. The rest needs to be addressed but it isn't going to be solved by

supporting one party or the other, that is just going to perpetuate the stupidity inherent to party politics.

Perhaps getting people motivated to fight against the ongoing screwing of the american people will help in other

areas. Perhaps people will start taking ownership instead of leaving their brains at the door of party politics.



You want to do something useful with your time? Consider the potential for a pandemic that, if the medical people

are right, WILL KILL millions or hundreds of millions of people, very possibly within the next year or so. Now,

there is a cause worth your time.


Netghost
Hemp is a great example of how long this country and it's

alleged leaders of both parties have been owned by business. Hint: The worlds largest cotton producer paid for the

majority of the criminalization effort.

Hemp is a superior fiber to wood or cotton. It's yield per acre is far

higher than either product and can be grown under conditions that pulp wood trees or cotton would not survive. I'm

rather unconcerned about the recreational use of marijuana. It, in my opinion, is a sight better than alcohol which

is also condoned by both parties despite the fact that it kills thousands of innocent people every year. Bet you can

guess who puts a lot of money into both poitical party's coffers every year.

[Netghost56]

I choose to have a voice in

this merely to demonstrate that I feel that our government needs to change. Whether or not impeachment happens is

not the point- only that people know how I feel.

(Wasn't it Krushrev and not Breschnev? "Thirteen Days"?)I

can't give kudos to Nixon because of the wire-tapping.

I'm not total liberal. One thing I cannot support is the

rights of illegal immigrants in this country. My feelings on that subject border on racism. Bill Maher says that

without illegals, no one will mow his yard in Beverly Hills. He seems to forget that we have so many unemployed

native-born citizens in this country that would shovel sh!t happily for money. The most offensive thing that I think

Bush has ever said was that illegal aliens benefit this country because they take jobs that American's won't take.

He obviously doesn't see the homeless, the poor, the overlooked people in this country.

But I digress. The

point is that while I tend to side with the liberals I don't have blind faith in anyone. I think the mudslinging

has reached heights never before seen, and using the media to influence public opinion is unreal. Not to mention

that nowadays we have this Red/Blue Scare, on par with the Red Scare 60 years ago. People dragging up each other's

politics and using it against them like it was some form of stigma. Horrible.

Bird flu: Bill O'Reilly was

actually scared by Mike Leavitt's speech about preparedness. I had to laugh. He thought it was done for shock

value. Go ahead, Bill, don't worry about it. I for one have been preparing for a long time. I said last fall

that I expected us to get hit in the summer, when the heat will make fevers worse and dehydration a real problem.

Not to mention travel (not international, as the gov as been cautioning. If its already here, just going to the

store will keep it active). One thing I can say is that just because there's a bird flu its not cause for the

widespread extermination of all fowl. That's not going to help stop it, in fact it probably won't

matter.


Hemp: I've been advocating it for about a year, since I started researching it. I just happened to get

the latest newsletter so I wonder what you guys thought. I'm actually suprised that you support it, Belgareth.

[belgareth]

I choose to

have a voice in this merely to demonstrate that I feel that our government needs to change. Whether or not

impeachment happens is not the point- only that people know how I feel.

This is a discussion I've had

since I was your age (Without trying to patronize you) My voice is heard but it will not be heard supporting either

party. The government we have is a vile, rotten blasphemy that sucks the American citizens dry for the profit of a

few. Both the democrats and the republicans have been playing this game and stealing from us for at least the last

100 years. It desperately needs to change and supporting either party's games is not going to change it. Both

parties are criminal blood suckers and there is little if anything to distinguish

them.

(Wasn't it Krushrev and not Breschnev? "Thirteen Days"?)I can't give kudos to Nixon

because of the wire-tapping.

Read the book "The Cuban Missle Crises" I'm awful with people's names and

could never keep them straight.

Agreed that the wire tapping was wrong, but doesn't it pale in comparison to

the number of young people that were no longer being killed and maimed by a pointless political action in a foreign

land? He deserves the credit for ending that stupid and deadly act. By the same token, the unjustified bombing of

Belgrade was a horrible act, worthy of empeachment but I hear very little about it. Why is that? Shouldn't we be

using the same yardstick for everybody?

I'm not total liberal. One thing I cannot support is

the rights of illegal immigrants in this country. My feelings on that subject border on racism. Bill Maher says that

without illegals, no one will mow his yard in Beverly Hills. He seems to forget that we have so many unemployed

native-born citizens in this country that would shovel sh!t happily for money. The most offensive thing that I think

Bush has ever said was that illegal aliens benefit this country because they take jobs that American's won't take.

He obviously doesn't see the homeless, the poor, the overlooked people in this country.

But I digress. The

point is that while I tend to side with the liberals I don't have blind faith in anyone. I think the mudslinging

has reached heights never before seen, and using the media to influence public opinion is unreal. Not to mention

that nowadays we have this Red/Blue Scare, on par with the Red Scare 60 years ago. People dragging up each other's

politics and using it against them like it was some form of stigma. Horrible.

That's good. I'll go into

it in a minute but the point is to make your decisions based on your own beliefs, not because the liberals would act

this way or the conservatives, etc. Decide based on what is right and in the best interests of everybody. I'm not

racist whatsoever but am strongly in favor of far greater action against illegal

immigration.

Bird flu: Bill O'Reilly was actually scared by Mike Leavitt's speech about

preparedness. I had to laugh. He thought it was done for shock value. Go ahead, Bill, don't worry about it. I

for one have been preparing for a long time. I said last fall that I expected us to get hit in the summer, when the

heat will make fevers worse and dehydration a real problem. Not to mention travel (not international, as the gov as

been cautioning. If its already here, just going to the store will keep it active). One thing I can say is that just

because there's a bird flu its not cause for the widespread extermination of all fowl. That's not going to help

stop it, in fact it probably won't matter.

It's a good topic for elsewhere. All I'm trying to say is

that the potential for hundreds of millions of deaths makes a lot of this political nonsense seem insignificant. I

often believe that people lose sight of the real issues and are only interested in their party and vengence which

they hide under a cloak of self rightous anger at a political figure or party.

Hemp: I've

been advocating it for about a year, since I started researching it. I just happened to get the latest newsletter so

I wonder what you guys thought. I'm actually suprised that you support it, Belgareth.

You are surprised?

Then you are as guilty of not paying attention and generalizing as so many others in this forum. Supporting the use

of hemp and the decriminalization of pot is a rational action that has nothing to do with party politics. It has to

do with doing what I believe is right. Its another issue I've supported for a very long time.

First, hemp would

be good for the consumer and better for the environment in dozens of ways. Second, as I said before, recreational

use I'm indifferent about. It causes some memory impairment but so long as the user is firmly aware of that it's

the users choice. I don't see the problem with legalization and commercialization because it is the rational

action.

You see, you generalize, as most others do because that's what you've been taught to do. For instance,

I'm sceptical of the whole global warming/CO2 scenerio and flatly reject Kyoto, therefore I'm the enemy of the

environment, right? That is both untrue and lazy thinking. My stand is based on study, knowledge, careful thought

and the solicitation of opinions from far more knowledgeable people than myself. Although I'm probably going to

irritate several people here, the fallacious arguments and ridiculous justifications made in another thread helped

to create my belief that its a crock of bull.

Every stand I take is done the same way that's why I often reply

with "I've never looked into that so don't have an opinion". I think something you said above (blind faith)

indicates that you may be on the right track, or what I believe is the right track. Take nothing at face value and

only believe or disbelieve what you can demonstrate through fact. Don't let anybody else tell you what is right or

wrong, make up your mind for yourself on every issue you believe is important. It takes a lot more work but I think

you'll be a better person for the effort. But most of all, don't let the Chicken Littles of the world influence

you.

Have you figured out the difference between my philosophy and others expressed here yet?

[InternationalPlayboy]

Hemp seed oil is

also a good source for biodiesel fuel. One of the former Libertarian Presidential candidates, I think it was Ron

Paul, traveled the country in the "Hempmobile," during one campaign.

Belgareth mentioned the cotton industry.

Dupont was also a big factor in the criminalization of hemp. They had just developed nylon and needed to force the

shipping industry to switch to that in lieu of hemp ropes.

Just wanted to put my two cents in. The

benefits/criminalization of hemp/marijuana would fill up a thread on its own.

[belgareth]

Hemp seed oil is also a good source for biodiesel fuel. One of the former Libertarian

Presidential candidates, I think it was Ron Paul, traveled the country in the "Hempmobile," during one campaign.



Belgareth mentioned the cotton industry. Dupont was also a big factor in the criminalization of hemp. They had

just developed nylon and needed to force the shipping industry to switch to that in lieu of hemp ropes.

Just

wanted to put my two cents in. The benefits/criminalization of hemp/marijuana would fill up a thread on its

own.

With some of the recent technological breakthroughs, hemp fiber may soon be a good source of

biofuel too.

[Holmes]

Bill Maher says

that without illegals, no one will mow his yard in Beverly Hills.

That was just a

joke, was it not?

That's good. I'll go into it in a minute but the point is to make

your decisions based on your own beliefs, not because the liberals would act this way or the conservatives, etc.

Decide based on what is right and in the best interests of everybody. I'm not racist whatsoever but am strongly in

favor of far greater action against illegal immigration.

It's a sad commentary that people feel they

have to use the qualifier "I'm not racist" whenever the subject of immigration, etc. comes up. Especially

illegal immigration. Please tell me we've hit the ceiling with political correctness. (Somehow I fear we

haven't.)

Point blank, things are amiss when someone who barely speaks the language is allowed to - or feels

they are allowed to - zoom in from oblivion to start demanding rights they haven't earned, while taking jobs away

from actual citizens of this country who could really use the work. Is it really racist to say that you're against

that kind of thing?

Sorry if this was a nonsequator. I know this topic was originally brought up by Netghost

as a measure to clarify a larger point.

[belgareth]

It's a sad

commentary that people feel they have to use the qualifier "I'm not racist" whenever the subject of immigration,

etc. comes up. Especially illegal immigration. Please tell me we've hit the ceiling with political

correctness. (Somehow I fear we haven't.)

Point blank, things are amiss when someone who barely speaks the

language is allowed to - or feels they are allowed to - zoom in from oblivion to start demanding rights they

haven't earned, while taking jobs away from actual citizens of this country who could really use the work. Is it

really racist to say that you're against that kind of thing?

Sorry if this was a nonsequator. I know this topic

was originally brought up by Netghost as a measure to clarify a larger point.

As pathetic as it sounds,

I've had to demonstrate the point of a lack of racial prejuduce any number of times. It's another one of those

generalizations I rail about. You want strong immigration laws so you must be a bigot, what ignorance! I think

Netghost hit on it with comparing todays mentality to the red scare. Same mindset, same stupidity. "Either you are

with us or against us". Said too often and expressed by word or action even more often.

[Holmes]

As pathetic as it

sounds, I've had to demonstrate the point of a lack of racial prejuduce any number of times. It's another one of

those generalizations I rail about. You want strong immigration laws so you must be a bigot, what ignorance! I think

Netghost hit on it with comparing todays mentality to the red scare. Same mindset, same stupidity. "Either you are

with us or against us". Said too often and expressed by word or action even more often.

As have I -

and very recently. Which is I guess why I zeroed right in on this topic. (Not to mention the ripple effect brought

on by certain outcomes at this year's Academy Awards.)

The word "racist" is used so often and so

irresponsibly that it has become little more than a meaningless trance word - like "liberal." Bottom line is that

you're a bigot the minute you're against someone else (who happens to have a different skin tone or speak a

language other than yours) getting what he wants - even if he doesn't quite deserve it.

The common argument

I hear in favor of immigration again and again is "...but they work hard." A) not all of them do and B) so

would many of our own if given half a chance.

The Red Scare comparison is an interesting one. The root is the

same. It's all about inspiring guilt and fear and using labels to gain control of the situation.

[belgareth]

From my perspective, all

immigrants are welcome with the exception of known criminals. It only makes sense to exclude criminals from

immigration. However, to immigrate there are certain laws that are in place. If a person wishes to immigrate to this

country, they need to do so by the legal methods put in place to protect both the legal immigrants and the citizens

of this country. The fact that somebody entered this country illegally, or that they intentionally overstayed what

the law allowed makes them a criminal. They are intentionally and with full knowledge breaking the laws of this

country. They've already demonstrated a willingness to break the laws of this country, we don't need them here.

The only right they have is to humane treatment while they are being deported.

Somebody is bound to bring up the

subject of those fleeing oppression. That's fine, make your case to the appropriate embassy before you travel

thousands of miles and pay somebody to sneak you over the border.

[Holmes]

From my

perspective, all immigrants are welcome with the exception of known criminals. It only makes sense to exclude

criminals from immigration.

Yes, I was talking about illegal immigration. That's what I meant by

the "doesn't quite deserve it" part.

However, to immigrate there are certain laws that are in place.

If a person wishes to immigrate to this country, they need to do so by the legal methods put in place to protect

both the legal immigrants and the citizens of this country.

Or it should be the case that they

need to. And they shouldn't expect the rules to be bent for them. Charity begins at home.

[DrSmellThis]

The reader will notice that I

am responding to an unsolicited attack on my posts and project ("noise", "waste of time", "ridiculous",

"fallacious", "crock of bull" etc; I wasn't sure who "BS" was directed at.) asking for signature support to

investigate the case for impeaching Bush; not starting an argument. It's hard not to respond when someone

tries to derail your project with derogatory, unsupported labels; if you think your project was worthwhile in the

first place. A conflict junkie I'm not, believe me. I also have no interest in macho posturing, appearing to be the

better man, or anything silly like that. I would just like to post an adequate response.

Belgareth argues that

impeachment efforts are nothing but political partisanship. I have made the opposite point, that it has very little

to do with that to do with that (though there are always people that don't think much and just follow a political

line, and there are always politics that accompany everything on this planet), and find that suggestion to be

groundless. It's hard to believe anyone needs to even mention why.

Obviously, there are a lot of actual,

substantive, serious abuses of the office and oath at stake here. These abuses are more than worthy of

further bipartisan inquiry, which is the point of my post and request for support. Until that gets passed, no

one will have subpoena power to even get real human answers on questions about Bush's actions or put anyone under

oath. There could be absolutely no investigation into any questionable actions. Citizens deserve the truth.

To

suggest it's just politics in the face of all that defies all human reason. I hate to say this, but to me

that assertion itself appears to be politically motivated (even if not Democratic/Republican), since there is

no redeeming logic to suggest otherwise, and since there was the oft-present anti-taxation"/anti-government (for

lack of a better term) political stance attached.

While Belgareth is bold enough to compare Bush's actions with

Kennedy screwing Marilyn; I regard tricking a nation into devastating a country that was no threat to us, and

killing scores of thousands, including our own sons and daughters, as much more serious! And unbelievably,

that is just one of the egregious actions under consideration.

BTW, IIRC, and I was quite young when watching

this on the TV, Nixon ran against McGovern's relative pacifism on a platform of winning the Vietnam war, not

ending it; and only decided to pull us out later because of intense political pressure. Therefore it's hard to give

him much credit, like it's hard to give Bush credit for ending the Dubai port deal (Rove apparently told the Dubai

company to pull out, to save face). But, whatever. Sure, I was happy Nixon allowed Viet Nam to end. I do give Nixon

credit for diplomacy in China, as much as I know about it. From what little I know, I even suspect Nixon is unfairly

demonized, even though he was an @$$40!3. Maybe I'd change my mind if I knew more, maybe not. But all these so

called "apolitical" points are irrelevant.

He still should have been impeached. The fact somebody does some

constructive thing during their presidency is of limited relevance, to questions of whether they should take

Constitutionally prescribed consequences for massively destructive presidential actions; and actions that violate

the oath of office. Again, the logic here is extremely puzzling.

The only thing I agree with Belgareth on is that

the same standards should be applied to every president, regardless of party or anything else. I'd love it if we

started removing corrupt politicians from their offices by the scores, in fact.

So if the next democratic

president murders thousands of people by lying a nation into war he or she should be impeached! If they exhibit a

pattern of appointing totally unqualified cronies to head Emergency Management and other critical

agencies/functions, they should be impeached! If they illegally wiretap Americans and admit to it they should be

impeached! If they torture prisoners systematically, defend the practice repeatedly, and express disdain for the

Geneva Convention they should be impeached! If they out a CIA agent, appearing to commit treason, they should be

impeached!

If someone violates their oath of office in any serious way, they should be impeached. That

is what the Constitution demands, and what democracy demands.

We need to start holding politicians accountable,

regardless of party. The corruption will go backwards and get worse if we don't. In my mind, this has nothing to do

with partisanship. Nobody talked about impeaching Gerald Ford.

But if you all remember, Clinton was

impeached, for getting a blow job; not that that was the measure for how inquiries should be run. Bush

should be for screwing us, the planet, and our place on it. He could have at least kissed us all first!

(Yuck) Some rose petals on the bed, maybe. I like to be romanced.

Speaking of unsolicited attacks, once

again Belgareth nakedly dismisses my global warming argument (he didn't use my name, but obviously includes me, if

you read the thread), as "fallacious" and "ridiculous justifications;" without using a shred of logical reasoning in

support, here or in the environmental thread. The attentive reader will notice, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that

at no time did he respond directly, in logical detail, to my central argument in the environmental thread,

or even express understanding it; even though it was clear, simple, detailed, and based in typical, solid,

academic, scientific reasoning; statistics and research methodology. You know, "ridiculous fallacious"

stuff!

He simply dismissed it as "illogical". In fact, he specifically declined a polite request to clarify

exactly where the logical "flaw" he charged me with was; if the reader will look at the most recent posts in that

thread, before the time of this one. It's all public record, thankfully.

Therefore, the naked derogatory

labels are meaningless. I'm not going to speculate further as to why someone chooses that style of "debate". It's

certainly not playing fair, but that's not my choice to make. My requests to look at that style of debate were not

responded to constructively. Again, nothing personal is intended by defending myself here, but it was somewhat

important to say something.

[DrSmellThis]

Yes, I was

talking about illegal immigration. That's what I meant by the "doesn't quite deserve it" part.



Or it

should be the case that they need to. And they shouldn't expect the rules to be bent for them. Charity

begins at home.

I agree with you guys on this one, from what I know. Nothing prejudice about wanting

immigrants to be legal, and wanting citizens of whatever color to have the first crack at jobs. Like gun control,

this is one where I don't completely get the political controversy. I'm open to learning more.

[belgareth]

And here we see why I no longer

discuss things with DST. He has some good points but systematically misrepresents me time and again. I don't have

the time or energy to bother refuting what he says and really don't care about it. If he feels he is being attacked

he is entitled to think that. He is also entitled to his opinion about anything else. That's something I encourage

and he claims to as well, even though he gets indignant every time I do if it disagrees with him.

To the rest of

you out there. I've enjoyed the conversations and intend to have mutually rewarding and interesting conversations

with each of you.

[DrSmellThis]

And here we

see why I no longer discuss things with DST. He has some good points but systematically misrepresents me time and

again. I don't have the time or energy to bother refuting what he says and really don't care about it. If he feels

he is being attacked he is entitled to think that. He is also entitled to his opinion about anything else. That's

something I encourage and he claims to as well, even though he gets indignant every time I do if it disagrees with

him.

To the rest of you out there. I've enjoyed the conversations and intend to have mutually rewarding and

interesting conversations with each of you.

Hmm. You posted this four minutes after I posted my long post the

first time; leading me to wonder how you could have read much of it, even if you were waiting by the computer

refreshing to see if I'd posted yet; since it took you time to think and write your reply too. You say "here we

see about DST", as if its all self evident without reading or thinking about the post. I don't get

that.

Next you "split", as everyone often says in the social services field: being blatantly nice to the "rest of

you" in the forum, at the same time you're dismissing me. That feels like a power game to set one against the

other, since it usually is when people do that. Sorry, but I can't help but notice those things.

Maybe the

problem is that, for some time now, you were not willing to discuss when we disagreed. That would explain the

frustration I feel.

Regarding not discussing, I know better than to think that means you won't express

"disagreement", which I do support. Saying you won't discuss but will "disagree", knowing that you sometimes

choose to disagree in an aggressive manner, means you could have an excuse for, say, trashing posts without having

to back it with logic, or respond to logic. I don't see that working as well as trying to work on having better

discussions for minimizing silly conflict.

Constructive disagreement is good, of course. Without discussion it

gets problematic, unless people are respectful and make it clear it is their opinion and nothing else, like a claim

to be right versus the other being wrong. If you make it clear you are just expressing an opinion, in a neutral way,

without telling someone "they are wrong," belittling their logic (especially without demonsrating specific flaws),

or dismissing their post out of hand, no conflict has to happen. Otherwise you still have all the conflict, maybe

more, without the meaningful dialogue. It becomes a battle of wills, and although the whole conversation becomes

nonsense, the more willful person could imagine themselves victorious.

You have accused several people of

misrepresenting you terribly in this forum, not just me (see the recent exchange between yourself and AKA in

the warming thread for a good example). Could there be a "two way street" at all here, or is it all a coincidence?

If you had pointed out a true instance of me misrepresenting you based on what you wrote, I would have gladly

apologized; and still would, as always. I don't mind eating crow when called for, and like to make amends when

possible. Those are some of my values, whether I achieve them or not. To just point it out that it's all the other

guys fault for misunderstanding you, and not admitting word choice had anything to do with it causes problems,

IMHO.

The only thing I know to do is carefully look at your actual words so as to avoid misrepresenting you. I

try hard to do this, but obviously not to your satisfaction. For example, with supposing you to be "anti-liberal",

if you remember, which led to a recent fight, I based it only on your actual, literal words; which I documented

for all to see. How is that in any way misrepresenting, unless it is misrepresenting your private mind? I can't

keep that from happening, even though I would not pretend to know your mind.

In the past you have denied the

logical implications of your own words, in my view; or vaguely referenced something you said a long time ago that

is supposed to release you from the obligation to make stand alone points today. That puts too much

responsibility on the reader, every time, to put together your position. That led to some problems and conflicts,

from my perspective.

To my knowledge, every charge of misrepresentation that I could imagine having any

validity was based on me supposedly not getting what was in your head because you did not, presumably, articulate

it (i.e., the "responsibility" debate). I fully acknowledged that possiblity many times, and made it clear that I

have to respond to actual words.

Not everyone challenges your words and beliefs. In my view, you should

appreciate that I do, and use that challenge for something constructive, rather than lashing out. I don't think you

see that I try hard to be fair, reasonable, and disciplined in my responses. It looks almost as if it's hard for

you to consider being wrong once you've "made up your mind' or looked into something. Are you really "better off"

arguing with people who will back down from you and not challenge you to the core?

I am sorry you have decided

not to discuss with me. In my view, I have tried to play fair as regards you, based on your words. I try to treat

everyone well here on the forum, have been open to criticism from others, and have tried to get better at all that

as the years have gone by. I pledge to continue doing that.

I have no problem with people disagreeing per se,

(Psychologically, I'm not perfect here: Sometimes I do have a twinge of anxiety about it, depending on how

someone disagrees, as you noticed) but you sometimes go beyond disagreement, as several people have tried to

point out. This would never have been a problem, if you were that way, but were also open to looking at it -- to

damage control once it happens. God knows I have worse faults. Please be assured that I don't see any terrible

character flaw, or judge you, but I do find it very difficult to debate you, because I believe that you often

don't yet play fair when you argue. Frankly, you apparently lack insight into this, and aren't open to that

insight. Otherwise you'd learn quickly (here wanting not to be at all patronizing, just honest).

But that is

one reason I try to minimize the debates and focus on areas of agreement when possible. The other is my philosophy

of what makes a good intellectual conversation -- mutually moving to a higher truth than either party could alone.

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems you're more of a "lone wolf" about conversational values, seeing it as

individuals expressing their separate opinions and wills, without the collaborative aspect.

I am willing to

accept my share of responsibility for whatever I or we do, that is not helpful to the forum, as always. But I am

not willing to take 100% responsibility. If you have a problem with me, I am open to looking at that, to the extent

I believe you are equally open to looking at your own issues. I wonder whether that fits you.

If you do decide to

work on having fair, cordial debates and discussions, I will be happy to discuss whatever.

In the mean time, I

am at a loss about what to do to help the forum, you and myself; other than keep my opinions to myself when you

dismiss what I say, carefully and with much thought, as so much mularchey. While I'm not always right, an expert,

or inspired; I don't as a rule spew garbage, and have worked very hard for many years to make sure I don't. I

don't appreciate the frequency with which you suggest I do, as I quoted you to have done several times in rapid

succession, at the beginning of post 379. That is very different from not tolerating disagreement. Can you see

that? If you're going to suggest I'm spewing BS like that, you better bring a powerful argument, be armed to the

hilt, feel secure, and not just leave it at that, if you don't want to create conflict. BTW, if someone does

bring a powerful argument, I admit to "bull". Do you?

[Netghost56]

I think there are some

arguments/debates that cannot be won by either side. There is simply a draw.

Bill Maher says that without illegals, no one will mow his yard in Beverly

Hills.

That was just a joke, was it not?

Actually, he said something along those lines on a recent

episode of "Real Time".

The common argument I hear in favor of immigration again and again is

"...but they work hard." A) not all of them do and B) so would many of our own if given half a

chance.

Absolutely. That's exactly what I keep telling people.

I used "racism" under the context of

"hatred". I have no ill feelings of any kind to any race. But illegal aliens are really on my last nerve. I, for

one, live in a town that in the past 10 years has gone from being 30% to over 75% Hispanic. There are now more

Hispanic stores (in which there is NO English language read or spoken, and non-hispanics are not welcome- except for

white women!) than non-Hispanic stores. Most of the employees at the non-hispanic stores are hispanic too. Everyone

in town is pretty assured that most of these are illegals; some naive-born Hispanics have even admitted to it.

There's several smuggling rings in town that are so blatant they do it right in front of the police.

Since the

rise in Hispanics, crime has gone up, poverty has gone up, pollution and degradation has gone up. We now have

chickens running up and down Main Street, and people butchering goats in public view WITHIN city limits. There's

more run-down houses and trash in the streets than I've seen in any town I've been in. I've even witness an

illegal alien raid at the local chicken plant.

All in all, I know I don't have it as bad as people living on

the border. Have you heard about Nuevo Laredo? In other places, farmers have to arm themselves when they're out in

the fields. Some even have to patrol their farms at night. Is that anyway to live?

Now, I've been called a bigot

because of my opinions on this. But I don't care. I've seen way to much negative impact to really think

otherwise.

In this case I'm probably further out than Belgareth is: I think a wall ought to be constructed

across the entire Mexico-US border, and all illegals from the past 10 years should be shipped back. I've even heard

on another forum of the idea to mount machine-guns on that wall. Extreme? Sure. But in 50 years, who

knows?

You are surprised? Then you are as guilty of not paying attention and generalizing as

so many others in this forum.Supporting the use of hemp and the decriminalization of pot is a rational action that

has nothing to do with party politics. It has to do with doing what I believe is right. Its another issue I've

supported for a very long time.

I expected you to say that the amount of land required to grow an adequate

amount of hemp to sustain us would force everyone to live in capsules, or something along those lines . Maybe

I'm wrong but I have the notion that you toss aside ideas quickly without trying to make them work. Thats my

perception.

Have you figured out the difference between my philosophy and others expressed here

yet?

Well, I think that you judge everything (and everyone) on its own individual merit. My only problem with

that is that you seem to have an unattainable standard that negates pretty much anything. While I haven't read

every post or heard every argument in this forum, Hemp is really the first thing I've ever heard you agree with.

[belgareth]

I expected

you to say that the amount of land required to grow an adequate amount of hemp to sustain us would force everyone to

live in capsules, or something along those lines . Maybe I'm wrong but I have the notion that you toss aside

ideas quickly without trying to make them work. Thats my perception.

Have you ever noticed that I'm

often on the forum in the middle of the night but still maintain a full time job? I also have time for a lot of

other activities because I don't watch TV and don't sleep all that much. I'm also a lot older than you. There is

a lot I've seen and done in an active life that you are experiencing now. Often, what you think I toss aside is in

reality, something I looked into in detail years ago. Actually, in some ways I envy you because of the times you

were born into, they will be interesting.

The information I imparted was, to the best of my knowledge, factual.

Another comment was made about Dupont that I'd heard but could not confirm so didn't comment. I rarely voice an

opinion without some knowledge.

Well, I think that you judge everything (and everyone) on its own

individual merit. My only problem with that is that you seem to have an unattainable standard that negates pretty

much anything. While I haven't read every post or heard every argument in this forum, Hemp is really the first

thing I've ever heard you agree with.

I neither agreed or disagreed on the subject of hemp. You asked

for an opinion without voicing one of your own and I happen to have one since I've been following the subject

rather closely from either my late teens or early twenties. As it turns out, you seem to agree with me.

You got

part of it right but missed the major point and do me an injustice. (That's the 'poor me' sad face, if you

couldn't guess. That's also a joke.)

Let's try a few examples. I have not once said we are not destroying our

environment, as a matter of fact, I've stated time and again that we are. However, I also say that more data is

needed to make a convincing argument. Well trained, extremely intelligent and highly educated environmental

scientists unaffiliated with global warming scientists are asking the same questions I am. I know that because I

live with and spend a lot of my time around scientists giving me access to information most laymen don't have.

Additionally, some scientists have jumped ship on the global warming crowd and are saying its wrong. Wouldn't it be

rational to look into it?

I acknowledge that Bush is trouble although he has done some things I agree with. My

goal is different and I don't have what I percieve as in irrational hatred for him. I also don't see that

Impeachment is going to happen. Instead I am suggesting that people start putting pressure on their representatives.

That's because I believe we need every citizen involved but making their own decisions. The most important thing

out of all this is to stop the killing! There is nothing more important. Impeachment WILL NOT accomplish that making

the entire effort, in my eyes, a waste of time. Since this is a discussion forum, I exercised my right to voice an

opinion and suggest another course.

Although I really haven't had the chance to get into more depth, the idea

of building a wall on the border wouldn't bother me at all. Overall, it would probably be a lot cheaper than all

the expenses we are dealing with now and it might actually accomplish the goal of controlling illegal immigration.



Then there was the comment about your statement regarding blue versus red. I mentioned that I thought you were

right, didn't I?

However, the real point that you and most others seem to miss is the most important one. I

don't tell you what to think or believe. You see, the major function of government, political partie, corporations

and religions is to give you a place to leave your thoughts and moral values behind. "Do what we tell you. We'll

tell you what is right and what is wrong. Follow us, we are the only right way to go." One of the major indicators

of that mentality is its adherents always get upset when you disagree with them, mangle your statements and

misrepresent what you said and eventually make personal attacks. You even commented on it yourself...Mudslinging.



How many times have I told you to do the research yourself and make up your own mind. I don't especially care if

you agree with me so long as you think it through carefully and make a decision based on what you believe is right.

I am not going to tell you what to do other than to make your own decisions, then act on them. That philosophy is

what will fight the red/blue nonsense, the government intrusion threat and thousands of other ills. Playing the back

and forth games of government parties and such have never solved anything and are unlikely to ever solve anything.





Doc:
Despite what you might claim or believe, I read it word for word. Don't judge my reading speed or

comprehension by your standards. Although it really wasn't all that hard; it was, without deviation, your standard

pattern. It took very little thought because you said more or less what I expected you to say. You are pretty

predictable.

[InternationalPlayboy]

All in all, I know I don't have it as bad as people living on the border. Have you heard

about Nuevo Laredo? In other places, farmers have to arm themselves when they're out in the fields. Some even have

to patrol their farms at night. Is that anyway to live?

This happened just around the corner and

a few blocks away from where I live:

Agents nab 44

at Yuma drop house

I was looking for another one that happened within the last month or so

that had some unbelieveable amount of illegals crammed into the house. I want to say 75 or 100, but I can't recall

for sure. If memory serves me right, there was no room to sit down in the house when the agents busted

it.

Not so much for the reasons posted above, but my resentment with the illegal immigrant issue is the fact

that I feel I no longer have freedom of movement here anymore. There is usually at least one checkpoint on the way

to Phoenix, sometimes two, and usually two on the way to San Diego, with one often on the return trip. Areas along

the Colorado River where I partied in high school are now dangerous to go to. If not the illegals, the Border Patrol

will hassle you for being in the area, which is public land.

On Interstate 8 between Yuma and El Centro there

are the Imperial Sand Dunes. It has become dangerous to travel this stretch of freeway at night as smugglers often

drive on the wrong side of the freeway with their lights off to try to evade the Border Patrol, who has a strong

presence out there.

You talked about how your area has changed. Being near the border, it's always been "se

habla español" here. But in the last few years, my "middle class neighborhood" has deteriorated too. Numerous check

cashing businesses and temporary employment agencies near my house now. I didn't feel this way when I moved her in

1972, but for about the last decade, being a white European male, I've felt like a minority in town. I do have an

attraction for hispanic females now though.

I was going to give the winter time as an exception to feeling

like a minority due to the "snowbirds," our other immigration problem. But I still feel like a minority then as

median age jumps up to about 70 years old then.

In this case I'm probably further out than

Belgareth is: I think a wall ought to be constructed across the entire Mexico-US border, and all illegals from the

past 10 years should be shipped back. I've even heard on another forum of the idea to mount machine-guns on that

wall. Extreme? Sure. But in 50 years, who knows?

I like Hunter S. Thompson's idea I heard once. We

invade and annex Mexico and build a wall at the skinny part near Central America.

[belgareth]

G8 ministers push nuclear

solution to energy puzzle Thu Mar 16, 2006





MOSCOW (AFP) - Energy ministers of the powerful Group of Eight

countries were divided on how best to ensure global energy supplies, with Russia and the United States favouring

nuclear power and others backing short-term investment increases in oil resources.
Russian President Vladimir

Putin appealed for unity on energy policy.
"Russia calls for unity in efforts by the world community to resolve

these problems," he told the meeting of G8 energy ministers.
In a final statement, the ministers from Britain,

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States, meeting under Russian chairmanship, appealed

for strong development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in countries so wishing, in order to meet their

long-term energy needs.
"For those countries that wish, wide-scale development of safe and secure nuclear energy is

crucial for long-term, environmentally sustainable diversification of energy supply," the statement said.
Russia

currently holds the rotating G8 chairmanship.
But Andris Piebalgs, the European Union's energy commissioner, said

the G8 members' approaches varied greatly.
"Germany is progressively stopping its nuclear power stations, France

is strongly in favour of nuclear energy and the United Kingdom is currently in the process of reviewing its energy

policy," he said.
The statement underscored that diversification -- of energy sources, suppliers and consumers as

well as delivery methods and routes -- was crucial to ensuring that the world's growing appetite for energy was

met.
The 11-point communique also called for development of new energy technologies but admitted that fossil fuels

such as oil, gas and coal "will remain the basis of the world energy industry for at least the first half of the

21st century."
And it called for market-oriented approaches to boosting energy supply as well as significant

investment in new means of producing, transporting and processing energy resources.
"I think it's very difficult

to see a common view on nuclear energy in the G8," said Pielbalgs.
Energy experts in both Russia and the United

States have been formulating plans for a global nuclear energy system that would be run by leading nuclear powers

but make nuclear energy available to paying customers anywhere on a closely-controlled basis.
Putin on January 25

announced an initiative for establishment of an international network under United Nations supervision for

production and sale of nuclear fuel on a "non-discriminatory" basis.
His proposal was quickly followed by similar

announcements in the United States, and US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said here the Russian initiative "is

consistent with our thinking."
Speaking to the G8 ministers in the Kremlin, Putin called for members of the

powerful club to unite on energy policy with the aim of enhancing energy security for all states.
He said the G8

summit to be held in Saint Petersburg in July presented "a unique opportunity to open a new page in world energy"

and said the time had come "to move beyond bilateral deals on specific projects to a global partership" on energy

security.
Putin also reiterated his initiative on creation of a global network for production of nuclear fuel and

said: "An alternative form of energy must be available to everyone, including developing countries."
As G8 states

voiced differing views on the nuclear issue, Russia showed little inclination to give in to mounting European

pressure for it to sign an Energy Charter treaty laying out ground rules for energy producers and consumers.
The

treaty, which Washington has also balked at, would prevent Russia from curtailing energy supplies as it did during a

gas price dispute with Ukraine in January, and would encourage the opening of Russia's energy transport

infrastructure to outside competition.
French Industry Minister Francois Loos said Wednesday that the Russian and

American global initiatives were "spectacular and interesting but not at all concrete."
"It's a global plan, but

we have our own ideas," said German junior energy minister Georg Wilhelm Adamowitsch.
The Europeans, concerned

about the reliability of Russian gas supplies, which provide a quarter of EU consumption, did not receive any

concrete assurances from Russia.
Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency, also warned

that if there was insufficient investment in new gas fields by the Russian energy giant Gazprom, "there will not be

enough Russian gas to meet its export commitments."
The communique also underlined the need to create conditions

favourable to investment to increase energy supplies, develop greater energy efficiency and less polluting

technology.

[Netghost56]

Super cyclone hits

northeastern Australia

Sun Mar 19, 5:51 PM ET



A super cyclone smashed into tropical northeastern Australia, with winds of

up to 290 kilometres an hour (180 mph) causing casualties and ripping homes apart, officials said.

Tropical

Cyclone Larry hit land near Innisfail in the far north of Queensland state as a top category five, but had since

been downgraded to a category four, the Queensland weather bureau said.

It is the strongest cyclone to strike

Australia in more than 30 years and was seen as potentially more dangerous than Cyclone Tracy, which devastated the

northern city of Darwin in 1974, killing 71 people and leaving 20,000 homeless.

Innisfail police said they had

been inundated with calls from terrified residents whose "homes are literally crumbling around them".

"We have

roofs flying off in Fly Fish Point, Silkwood and in the city centre," an Innisfail police spokeswoman said. "And we

have trees across roads."
Police had been unable to leave the station despite hundreds of calls for help, she

said.

"We've had reports of some casualties at Cairns hospital, some 20 or so," weather bureau forecaster Jonty

Hall said. "There's also some reports of a few people missing as well."

Queensland state Premier Peter Beattie

declared a state of emergency ahead of the storm's landfall late Sunday, opening the way for mandatory evacuations

in several coastal areas, where tidal surges of up to two metres (6.6 feet) were expected.

Hundreds of people

evacuated coastal towns in the area and major airlines cancelled all flights into Cairns and Townsville, the two

biggest cities in the region.

The weather bureau describes a category five cyclone as "extremely dangerous with

widespread destruction". It said Larry posed a very serious threat to life and property.
Forecaster Jonty Hall

said conditions around Innisfail were "extremely dangerous".

"We're starting to see a very dangerous storm

surge come to shore anywhere pretty south of Innisfail down towards Cardwell," he said. "It doesn't get much worse

than this."

Local officials said on national radio that Larry's winds had knocked out power in some areas

and was toppling trees.

Amanda Fitzpatrick, owner of the Barrier Reef Motel outside Innisfail, told ABC radio

under the eye of the storm: "It was so terrifying, we were all crying.
"It's just like a bomb has gone off,

like something went through and just bombed it."
Innisfail resident Wayne said: "Whatever trees aren't uprooted

have snapped off or have no leaves on them. It's just unbelievable."

Garage roller doors had been "shredded,

just shredded. It's really scary stuff".
Innisfail resident Des Hensler said the cyclone was the most frightening

storm he had seen in the 35 to 40 years he had lived in far north Queensland.
He said he was sheltering alone in a

church with water up to his ankles, "just standing in a place where I'm not going to get killed".

"A tree has

just fallen on a house (and there's a) street light actually touching the ground, that's how strong the wind is,"

he told Seven Network television.

Reflecting the rough and tough attitude of many residents of Australia's

tropical far north, he added: "It's just frightening. I don't get scared much but this is something to make any

man tremble in his boots.

"There's a grey sheet of water, horizontal to the ground, and just taking

everything in its path.
"And believe me, it's taking everything ... it is totally scary."



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060319/wl_asi

a_afp/australiaweather
______________

[belgareth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/canamericakeepup

[Netghost56]

Very, very depressing



Makes me want to move to Singapore.

[tim929]

Interesting article.Very

interesting indeed.Funny however that the graduating class of 1985 read the same article in CIVICS class.I know...I

was there for the discussion groups.This trend is hardly new.We have been on the long downhill slide for a long

time.One need only harken back to American cars of the 1970's and 80's to see that the real talent was in Japan

all along.

Something that the article fails to mention however is that foreign students from Asia can come here

to learn engineering,get thier tuition paid for by the United States Government,then take that education back to

Asia with them and use it to trounce us in the marketplace.Your tax dollars have been giving foreign students from

selected countries a free ride though the university system for about twenty years now.U.S. manufacturers thought it

would be a good idea to start educating the folks that were going to be doing all the work in a few years so that

they could quit paying an American to do it and start paying a whole lot less for someone in Micronesia to do it

instead.The result is that the Asians have taken that new found talent,started thier own businesses and drowned us

in superior products made for less without the bennefits of gaining the profits.

We have been screwing ourselves

for years with this system.A student from India can come here and get a $75,000 education for FREE(!!!) and walk

away to use all that education to take YOUR (!!!) job away from you.Why do you think we can now outsource tech

support? Twenty years ago we couldnt outsource reading or writing...now they have all the tools they need ans we

gave them those tools,while American students cant get a job good enough to keep up with thier student loans.Our

students dont get a free ride,they have to PAY FOR IT!!!

Im not talking about foreign students going to Bumfuck

Community College in Sticksville U.S.A. We are talking about kids going to MIT for FREE!!!

But,in the long

run...who realy gives a crap anyway.We have television to keep us company and macaroni and cheese in a box to keep

us fed and a host of stupid sit-coms on DVD to keep us smiling.Our waist lines are getting bigger so everything must

be okay,right?

I am going to stop writing now befor I launch into a monologue about the second amendment and how

it factors into putting this country on the right track again.If I go there I will probably get into

trouble.

[Mtnjim]

Did anyone see the press conference

this morning. I only caught part of it, but some of the reporters tore "W" a "new one".

Questions about why we

went to war since all of his excuses turned out to be false, another another questioned the honesty of "W" and his

administration, yet another questioned getting rid of "Rummy".

I wouldn't have wanted to be him!!

[belgareth]

Did anyone see

the press conference this morning. I only caught part of it, but some of the reporters tore "W" a "new one".



Questions about why we went to war since all of his excuses turned out to be false, another another questioned the

honesty of "W" and his administration, yet another questioned getting rid of "Rummy".

I wouldn't have wanted to

be him!!

Should have been interesting. Sorry I missed it.

Here's what one source of

the press had to say about it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_45;_ylt=Aou1t7KQe4r_WgYFGjs8UC1qP0AC;_

ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Mtnjim]

Here are some of the Questions from

Here:
(be sure to check the link

a little later, they have more to add)
QUESTION: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President -- your decision to

invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a

lifetime.
Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is: Why did you really

want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, your Cabinet officers, former Cabinet officers,

intelligence people and so forth -- but what's your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil, the quest for oil.

It hasn't been Israel or anything else. What was it?
BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your

question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- that I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong,

Helen, in all due respect.
QUESTION: And...
BUSH: Hold on for a second, please. Excuse me. Excuse

me.
I didn't really regret it. I kind of

semi-regretted it.
-- President Bush







No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true.
My

attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. When we got attacked, I vowed then and

there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people.
Our foreign policy changed on that day. You

know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the

11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life.
And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to

forget the vow I made to the American people, that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part

of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy, and that's why I went

into Iraq.
Afghanistan provided safe haven for Al Qaida. That's where they trained, that's where they plotted,

that's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I

was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council. That's why it was

important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed.
And the world said, "Disarm, disclose or face serious

consequences." And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message

of the world.
And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult

decision to make to remove him. And we did. And the world is safer for it.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

Secretary Rumsfeld...
BUSH: You're welcome.
I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted

it.



On possible staff changes

QUESTION: Mindful of the frustrations that many Americans are

expressing to you, do you believe you need to make any adjustments in how you run the White House?
... Even within

your party, they say that maybe you need some changes. Would you benefit from any changes to your

staff?
BUSH: I've got a staff of people that have, first of all, placed their country above their

self-interests. These are good, hardworking, decent people. And we've dealt with a lot, we've dealt with a lot.

We've dealt with war. We've dealt with recession. We've dealt with scandal. We've dealt with Katrina.
I mean,

they've had a lot on their plate. And I appreciate their performance and their hard work, and they've got my

confidence.
And I understand Washington's a great town for advice. I get a lot of it, sometimes in private from my

friends and sometimes in public. There are those who like to stand up and say to the president, "Here's what you

ought to be doing."
And I understand that.
This isn't the first time during these five and a half years that

people have felt comfortable about standing up, telling me what to do. And that's OK. I take it all in and

appreciate the spirit in which it's delivered, most of the time.


We've dealt with war. We've dealt with

recession. We've dealt with scandal. We've dealt with

Katrina.
-- President Bush





But,

no, look, I'm satisfied with the people I've surrounded myself with. We've been a remarkably stable

administration, and I think that's good for the country.
Obviously, there are some times when government

bureaucracies haven't responded the way we wanted them to, and like citizens, you know, I don't like that at

all.
I mean, I think, for example, of the trailers sitting down in Arkansas. Like many citizens, I'm wondering why

they're down there, you know. How come we've got 11,000?
So I've asked Chertoff to find out, "What are you going

to do with them? The taxpayers aren't interested in 11,000 trailers just sitting there. Do something with

them."
And so I share that sense of frustration when a big government is unable to, you know -- it sends wrong

signals to taxpayers.
But our people are good, hard-working people.

[Netghost56]

LOL, Helen Thomas never holds

back.

They're talking about spending about $350,000 to bring in gravel to the area where the trailers are

sitting. They want to spread the gravel around and park the trailers on it to keep them from sinking.

Now, how

much gravel would it take to cover an area big enough to hold 11,000 trailers??

[belgareth]

LOL, Helen

Thomas never holds back.

They're talking about spending about $350,000 to bring in gravel to the area where the

trailers are sitting. They want to spread the gravel around and park the trailers on it to keep them from sinking.



Now, how much gravel would it take to cover an area big enough to hold 11,000 trailers??

They need

to stop fiddling around with silly BS and distribute those trailers to people who don't have homes.

[Mtnjim]

They need to stop

fiddling around with silly BS and distribute those trailers to people who don't have homes.

That would be

too much like "Social Services", an anathema to the current administration!

[belgareth]

I agree but it's been anathema

for our government for a long time. Look at it, you'll see that taxes have risen and services have declined no

matter who is in charge.

The really galling part is that those trailers were bought for the people of the gulf

coast and now they sit, unused.