John Adams

That's the latest in a long line of really wacked statements by you. It's actually OK for people to deny their primal urges. It's why I don't commit homocide when someone cuts me off in traffic. It's why I'm monogomous. It's why I don't abandon my retarded relatives. I deny my primal urges because it makes rational sense. Abstinance is the BEST option for children. No disease. No pregnancy. That's why it should be stressed. God. Is this so hard? Egads man. I'm really all for a full education, but it makes total sense to me that you would emphasize the best solution for children. Not to let your first statement be your "doozy," you moved on to say: Que? Discussing abstinance as the best way to stop pregnancy and disease is like living in the middle east? WTF? This is so whacked I can't really respond. And further, who is saying that it's just girls who should abstain? Boys should too.

Just curious. What works better to prevent teen pregnancy than abstinance? I think you should educate kids on how all the plumbing works, go through all the serious consequences of pregnancy, i.e., becoming a teen parent, and the ramifications of that. Talk about all methods of birth control. And even explain how abortions work... and how they burden many women's conscience. But that's just crazy old JA, who believes that information is good for people, even kids. I just found out that my daughters 3 best pre-school friends are going to public school. She loves them dearly, but I cannot bring myself to put her education in the hands of the whims of government officials. One day it's teach kids about my two mommies/. The next it's teach only absitinance. The next it's sight reading. The next it's phonics. And on and on, depending on the wind.

You mean in August, 15 years ago? A clue! A clue! Yipee.

Survivor is the root of this? I knew that Probst was up to something, but creating a mass society of psychopaths?

Even the President says Iraq had no WMDs. The Intel was "dead wrong.". Your argument is that even though the man who lead the war admits he was wrong, and the Intel community has been chastised by a presidentially appointed comittee as "dead wrong," ... somehow, some way, maybe WMDs got out of the country. Look, it's possible, but even the Republicans in power can't agree with that. That's how far you're willing to go with your own beliefs. MY point is simple. We thought there were WMDs based on bad intel (and or for biased reasons as Ken points out). That bad intel drove us to take over a foreign country and cost us a lot of money. Despite such a monstrous error, there is not a blood bath of firings. Just a reorganization. If I screwed up my job this badly- the results of which would be on a much smaller scale than launching a war- I would not only lose my job, I would be dis-barred, and maybe even go to prison. But in our government, there are just a few reshufflings. I would think that the socialist Republicans would at least give lip service to how badly the intel community did, and demand some firings and cleansings. But no. I guess you guys have slipped further to the left than even *I* thought.

Both points are irrelevant to the discussion of bad intelligence and accountability. Bush could not have said to the American people, "I want to go overthrow Saddam in Iraq because he's a bad guy and it's right to spread democracy" back in 2001-2 and been in any way within his Consitutional powers. So instead, he sang the clear and present danger song, which we now know is "dead wrong." Bad intel got us into a friggin war. Doesn't that bother you? What if the next bit of bad intel is about China? Ready to start a war with them over bad info? The people that got us into one war are still the ones at work today. I appreciate that intelligence is not exact, but this was a collossal failure with extreme consequences- not misreading a building location on a map.

Very beuracratic of you. No need to point fingers and fire people. Just appoint a few new middle management types and restructure. You could argue that almost any country we invade and topple would be in a better state. I think intel that made us go topple another country at great cost in money and lives is a very big deal. But that's just me. I demand more from my government. You're probably right- I should not be pandered to.

Who will answer for this. The president's somission says the Intel on Iraq- you know- that place where we've spending 250+ billion and some 1500 lives so far- was "dead wrong." This is unreal. Someone should pay. I foresee lots of people getting the axe for what has to be one of the most expensive intelligence failures of all time. What are we looking at? 100-1000 sackings in the next 1-2 weeks because of this horrid gaffe? "Dead wrong" intel- bipartison comission

I disagree. Boone got on the radio and spoke with someone. Maybe the someone is in the hatch.

Solar Death Rays I'd like to put a Dolphin Helmet in there. Or Bill Belechik's oversized brain.

You know what's sad. I am an engineer by undregrad and scientist in grad school... who practices law as my job. In adding the multiple of 10, I must have thought I was billing a client for a second.

This article says that the CA gov't has spent 4.5 million (so far) outfitting 52 homes with solar panels that will provide a house with heat during the winter. Do that math. That's about a 850,000$ per home. They should be able to recoup that cost at about the time the sun goes supernova. Expensive Garages

The difference between the campaign and now is that on the campaign trail, IT WASN'T MY MONEY paying for these town hall type visits. Effers.

This is an odd story, and the thing that grinds my bones about this is that Bush does these things on MY dime. When I'm paying for him to speak, I should be allowed to hear it, even if I disagree with what he's saying. Open and Honest Debate

Another tough job. We obviously don't know much about the case, but considering how many restraining orders get brought before judges, the judges are often rightly skeptical. Court Ordering where someone can and cannot be is pretty serious.

I was skimming the talk radio circuit last night and heard this several times. "This shows that she wants to live." Although the human body can live a long time when it's basically non-functioning. I heard the initial estimate of her remaining time as 1-2 weeks.

I quite agree about the differences between the situations. I was contrasting the belief systems.

See you in H-E-double hockey sticks. It's interesting that the Pope is on his last breaths, with a feeding tube, at the same time that Schiavo is on her last breaths without one. It's a contrasting belief system for sure: the Pope believes that you should fight on for life (and suffer) as much as possible. Others are at peace with a natural progression towards death.

Let's see. You make some terrorist a billionairre? Doesn't sound like that great an idea.

Why isn't the US spreading democracy in the Congo?

Good lord. Putting a spouse in charge of his PVS spouse's life is not a slippery slope to killing children. This particular case is distasteful only because the parents oppose it. In a vast majority of these cases, the PVS person dies, at the family's behest. As far as I know, in the eternity since people have been making such end of life decisions, the slippery slope hasn't lead to societally approved killing of brown eyed babies. Although the technology is different now, people have been offing those in suffering for a long time. Assuming Ms. Schiavo dies, this case breaks no new legal ground. In fact, if all the court battles have shown anything, her case breaks almost no ground at all; the law in these cases is pretty clear. Don't like the law? Change it if you can. According to a lot of polls though, even the Christian Right is not fully against the right to die in these cases.

Where is outrage from the white community over the BTK killer. Come on whities, get up in arms: a white person did something wrong. Band together and have a march or something.

I'm not sure I ever said I was married. In fact, a few months ago, I think I even challenged the assertion that people think I'm a man. I can be whoever I want to be here in cyberland. Maybe I'm an agorophobic female Dolphin fan living with 20 cats.

You would be making the same statements if the government, back in 192x had socialized the phone system. We'd have a working phone system in 2005, and the thought of privatizing it would be outrageous because we couldn't imagine a private system. You've been conditioned to think the government is needed for so much, but it's not. RE highways, people want to get from point A to point B. A lot. Imagine the private industry solutions to this problem, if only the government didn't diddle with all areas of transportation so much.

The Smoking Man took a kindly shot at you because you aren't Libertarian to the hilt. Besides Richio and Debbie, who else in the world is a pure party mouthpiece? We'd all be idiots if we aligned perfectly with party platforms. I'm a Libertarian who believes in NASA funding, and that the ideals of the party must be tempered by realistic plans. I want the government out of almost everything, but practically speaking, such a goal must be acheived in steps, not all at once.