Imagine!

All I've been worrying about was his stated intention to raise corporate taxes, but suddenly here he comes, slithering out of the miasma of Chicago politics, Constitution in one hand and blowtorch in the other.

And all those people jamming the gun stores are paranoid nutcases?

Prescient, more likely.

Don't worry, Clavos, it gets worse. Tomorrow I'll have an article on future Attorney General Eric Holder who makes Janet Reno look like a nice little old lady.

Dave

At this point, Janet Reno is a nice little old lady, having progressed some from her "prime", when WACO was destroyed.

Time and aging happens to us all, Dave.

From what you describe in your article above, the whole damned vetting process is a litmus test. Shouldn't it be? Aren't these jobs Obama's plums, the Christmas pies he gets to hand out to supporters for having supported him?

Little Jack Horner
Sat in his corner
Eating a Christmas pie.
He put in this thumb
And pulled out a plum
And said, "What a good boy am I"

Maybe he just wants to have a record of handguns and abolish MySpace. Ever think of that?

my god, dave. i was expecting something completely different. but this is far more idiotic than i could have imagined.

he's looking for skeletons in the closet, yeah? so he asks if you own a gun, and if so, is it legally held. (so you aren't breaking any laws.) then he asks if it has been involved in any property damage, personal injury, etc. (so you aren't pulling a dick cheney.)

that's how simple this is. it's not a conspiracy. it's just a damn question. as innocent as "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor?"

"Second, that last sentence is profoundly ignorant. It assumes that guns have the ability to cause "injuries or property damage" on their own, a common fallacious belief of those who revile guns and cannot understand that they are incapable of harm without some person consciously using them to do harm."

stop being so ridiculous. you know that's not what he's saying. what, are you imagining a gun jumping out of a holster and shooting up a barn or lunchbox? no, you aren't, so stop acting like it.

as for your last bit, you answered your own question, didn't you? obviously, if he gives biden, a gun owner, his second in command position, then he's not going to disqualify someone from a position if he/she owns a gun. he may disqualify them if it isn't legally registered or if that person used it to shoot up someone's house or face.

this is particularly pathetic and paranoid, even coming from you, dave. if you labeled this as satire, it would take all of its unexpected comedic affects away, leaving you only with this strange sadness. thanks for the laugh. and the tears.

Zing, you can try to dismiss it all you want, but the evidence of the gun-hostile attitude of the coming administration is mounting.

Your scoffing here is based on the same assumption as Obama's question, that there is something wrong with owning a gun and that it's something which could be used against a person or as a sign of bad character.

So long as that attitude prevails on the left, those who own guns have a reason to be concerned.

Dave

my god.

dave: "Your scoffing here is based on the same assumption as Obama's question, that there is something wrong with owning a gun and that it's something which could be used against a person or as a sign of bad character."

no it doesn't! there is nothing "wrong" with owning a gun. it's not illegal. obama's vice president owns guns! obviously, you're putting words in his mouth. and mine. look at what i said.

he wants to make sure that if a person owns a gun, they are following applicable laws and haven't done anything with that gun that could be used against that person or the administration.

it's just that simple. you're paranoid and delusional. you're seeing threats that aren't there. there is nothing in that question that should have you worried.

yes, there are some of us on the left (myself included) that would have more strict gun control laws written. and, obviously, all guns should be registered. but there's nothing in that question that suggests anything more than what it is: they just want to know if this potential hire has gotten into any mischief or illegally owns a gun.

you can certainly see the point in asking such a question, right? say you were going to hire someone to work in your house. a person that you didn't know everything about. would you ask them if they had a gun on them? in your house? yes, you would. just to know. it's a totally fair question to ask, and doesn't make any judgments, moral or otherwise, on the simple act of owning a gun.

Obama has a constitutional right to keep and bear as many questionnaires as he chooses.

If the government(or Dave) tries to take away our right to collect questionnaires, or to use them for hunting or any legal way we choose, we should all get up in arms.

Questionnaires don't hurt people;writers like Dave bent on making mischief hurt people.

Zing. If what you assert were true, other questions about whether the applicant had committed any crime already cover anything that's in the gun question except for the simple act of owning a gun, but the truth is that the first thing the question asks is not whether you've ever shot anyone or committed a crime, but simply whether you or anyone related to you even owns a gun.

Does Obama ask whenther you or any of your relatives owns a car? Hell, there's not even a specific question about DUI convictions.

Your argument doesn't wash, Zing. Obama wants to know about gun ownership as an issue of concern in and of itself.

Dave

dave! is it a "crime" or is someone "convicted" of anything every time a gun goes off and strikes a person or a bit of property? nope. ask cheney.

is it a crime to let your registration drop for a little while? probably, but not really. it's kinda like jaywalking, and it won't result in a criminal conviction or anything that will show up in a public records search (at least not after a few years).

and it's not "anyone related to you," it's "immediate family."

look, you can question what obama is really asking here. that's fine. but there's nothing here that absolutely screams "he's gonna take away our guns!" or "he'll never give a job to a person who owns a gun!" (because he already has...) and if he ONLY wanted to know if someone in the family owns a gun, he would have ONLY needed to include that first bit of the question.

you're completely overstating your case. it's a long step between wanting to know if there are any illegal firearms or misuse of a firearm in a person's past and wanting to take away everyone's guns and deny people jobs based on said ownership.

This really doesn't tell us anything about Obama. It tells us about the state of mind of his transition team, though. There probably aren't a lot of questions about whether you've allowed an infant to die after a failed abortion.

Maybe the application should ask if you've ever arranged a pardon for a criminal without consulting the Office of the Pardon Attorney. If Obama is serious about diminishing the corrupting power of money and influence-peddling, he shouldn't be considering Holder for Attorney General.

FEAR!

FEAR!

FEAR!

(Sorry - just wanted to parrot the anti-gun-control crowd since all they seem to think about is their guns. "Pro-life! Pro-War! Pro guns!" - such a hypocrisy!)

Ah, Glenn. Is it that much easier for you to think in stereotypes than to actually think?

Dave

Yeah, Dave - I never think. That's why when you make statements like "the concealed-carry law in Florida lead to a big drop in crime" and give no reference for it, I post numbers like the Florida government statistics to show how false your claims are.

Yeah, I never think. And all this time I thought I was letting the facts determine my belief, rather than allowing my beliefs to determine the facts. Gee, Dave - thanks for showing us all how false and misleading are my reliance on facts and reliable statistics!

glenn: "And all this time I thought I was letting the facts determine my belief, rather than allowing my beliefs to determine the facts."

about as succinct a criticism of dave as i've seen.

dave, you must at least admit that you've heard this before. maybe you should listen to it.

Glenn, we already went over the difference between your florida 'facts' and mine, and you did nothing to show my statements to be incorrect.

You're the one who tried to reduce the genuine concerns over civil rights expressed in this article - which are shared by millions in this country - to some trite jingoistic slogans and shouting 'FEAR'.

Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

Dave

Dave: a perfect spokesman for the current Christian Conservative Strawman Republican Party.
Motto: Irrelevant By Choice!

Dave, Dave, DAVE -

Glenn, we already went over the difference between your florida 'facts' and mine, and you did nothing to show my statements to be incorrect.

"In Florida, for example, in the first 5 years after they passed concealed carry crime dropped 26% overall while the rest of the nation saw an overall 12% increase in crime."
"I was talking about the first 5 years after CCW was passed, which would be 1987-1992."

Glenn, you're confusing your threads. My response is over on the other thread.

And because I didn't mention it over there, your own source doesn't support your claims.

Might it be because you aren't adjusting for the increase in population?

Dave

Dave -

You tried to refute my first statement concerning Florida, but you have not tried to refute my second. In this thread you claimed you had already done so, so it was apparent that you weren't paying attention to the other thread I brought the argument over to this one.

But I'll happily take it back over to the other one.

And when it comes to your point on population increase, look again so you can see that the statistics were given for crimes PER THOUSAND, meaning that the increase in population WAS taken into account.

And I just checked - the Florida population increased 10.012% over that period...which could in no way account for the discrepancy between the statistic you claim and the statistic published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Dave - give it up. Just as the facts and numbers are against the Dems when it comes to nuclear power, and just as the facts and numbers are against Cindy when it comes to anarchism, the facts and numbers are against you on gun control.

Maybe Obama just wants to know who is safe to go hunting with.

All BS aside, Obama is asking the right question. Who wants a bunch of gun kooks in the government?

The gun question in the transition team questionnaire may have a more innocent purpose than to exclude gun folk. For example, the intention may be simply to know who the gun people are, in the future administration, in order to highlight them politically to appeal to gun owners.

Your explanation is a good one, Bliffle, but I have no reason to believe that Obama or his crew are thinking about anything they do in that kind of a subtle and clever way.

Dave

"I have no reason to believe that Obama or his crew are thinking about anything they do in that kind of a subtle and clever way."

so he's only sneaky when he's doing stuff you don't like? which is it, man? is he hiding his intentions, or not? you can't have it both ways.

Who wants a bunch of gun kooks in the government?

I do.

Ah, but Clavos, do you want a bunch of armed kooks in the government?

Somebody's gotta keep the pentagon honest, Bar...

The very last question seems to me to be the oddest one of all.

"(63) Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect."

I mean if the poor bastard filling out the questionnaire still has other skeletons in the closet after answering the previous 62 questions...

Dread, that last question is essential. There's always some fetish, or addiction, or family name ("Dad changed it to Hilter") that you'd never think to ask about, that'll come back and bite you. The whole section about nannies and gardeners didn't used to be on the list, I'll bet. As for blogging, Daschle could lose his job when people find out that he used to post on Blogcritics as Just One Man.

LOL...

Clavos-

Don't kid yourself.

If you think you can pull out the Second Amendment and take up arms against "the man," you won't get very far. You are powerless and just have to get used to it.

I think he just wants to take arms against a sea of troubles.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear an inflated ego, shall not be infringed...."

After Scooter Libby you'd think they'd have questions about whether you'd written any peculiar Japanese-themed fetish porn novels.

Dave

hello all you sheople, I know that I have not been missed but nevertheless I am back.

I happened to be in Berkeley California the night of the selection for president. What a spectacle, I am now firmly convinced that the only type of people dumber than republocrats are their left leaning brethren. Oh the cheers, the hoots, the hollers for the new messiah, with all the political insight of numbskulls.

I remember watching Obama being asked when he was a candidate about the CFR, and he actually acted like he knew very little about it, and certainly did not know if he was a member. Then he slyly said that there was no secret handshake.

Its the oldest trick in the book, it is called good cop bad cop, obama is just another bush with a human face, and the sheople are in ecstasy.

Here are a list of his closest advisors, many of whom will be in cabinet level positions momentarily, all CFR branded, many of whom are also Bildergers, a few skull and bones thrown in for good measure, and don't forget the Rhodes Scholars. :)

Zbignew Brezsenski
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Madeleine Albright
Richard Holbrooke
Dennis Ross
Martin Indyk
Anthony Lake
Lee Hamilton
Susan Rice
John Brennan
Jami Miscik
Bill Richardson
John Kerry
Robert Gates
Ivo H. Daalder
Sarah Sewall
Michele Flournoy
Tom Donilon
Wendy Sherman

Roll back the Patriot Act perhaps? Methinks not
Military commissions act? Hardly
Start war with an Act of Congress? Sure
Stop the looting of the Treasury? Yeah right.
Tax the air that we breathe for the Rothschilds? You fucking bet.

baaaaa baaaaaaa baaaaa sheople, keep on dreaming the dream, as your wealth and belongings and freedom go up in smoke. Enjoy!

And now we have Timothy Geithner, CFR and head of the most powerful branch of the foreign owned FED being picked as Treasury Secretary. Change my ass.

Have fun sheople. :)

All I can say is that I truly hope that Obama keeps on stoking those fears.

As to Pablo? What a fu... (Personal attack edited by B.)

B

Watching him name his cabinet, all old Washington insiders so far, it's beginning to look like his will not be an administration to rock many boats; any more than any other Democratic administration. To date, there doesn't seem to be anything groundbreaking or innovative about it, just more of the same old, same old.

"Change we can believe in" is beginning to look like "Change we can recognize."

It's quite clear that Obama's change is mostly rhetoric. It's as much an illusionm as Pablo's fantasies about global conspiracies.

Dave

sure davey

Gee Baritone and here I thought you were a gentleman, how wrong I was!

change my ass

dave

do a google news search on new wold order, how many hits? your naivete knows no bounds

Do a Google search on The Wizard of OZ. So what? Numbers of hits are meaningless.

Clavy,

I know your reading comprehensions skills are not up to par, I said google news.

google news on wizard of oz 2,218 hits
new world order 68,411

google news are stories in the news clavy about a particular topic or phrase

google search is a different animal altogether.

New World Order.

Weren't they a Brit Band?

Actually they were a brit band. Cecil Rhodes on bass guitar, Lord Rothschild on drums, Milner on lead guitar, and Orson Wells on keyboards, only problem is their music sucks.

Well Pab, I didn't note anything "gentlemanly" in your scathing diatribe. There's not much favorable mention of pomposity, contempt or condescension anywhere in the Emily Post lexicon. I don't know though, maybe I missed it.

B

I know your reading comprehensions skills are not up to par, I said google news.

google news on wizard of oz 2,218 hits
new world order 68,411

Sorry, pablo, but I AM trying. My mother says I'm up to a second grade level already--c'mon, a little credit where it's due.

So, let's see on google news which I think you said consists of stories in the news about a particular topic or phrase, you got 68411 hits on the phrase new world order, versus only 2218 on the phrase wizard of oz.

Meaningless, pablo. Ubiquity does not connote inerrancy.

Here are a list of his closest advisors, many of whom will be in cabinet level positions momentarily...

Oh, well if they're only gonna be in the cabinet momentarily, we don't have anything to worry about. How much damage can they do with only a moment in which to do it?

Gee whiz, only 539 for "unicorn" and 10,969 for "vampire." Now that proves something!

Dan(Miller)

I hope the RNC takes note of that, Dan(Miller). Obviously, if the Dems run their unicorn in 2012, the Reps need to bring the ol' vampire out of retirement, saddle him up, and turn him loose.

Clav(os)

Repeating for your benefit the CFR doggies that Pablo was so nice to round up for you. These are the schmucks who have flushed America down the drain (and have been busily flushing Israel down the same toilet). I'd repeat my little ditty about Jack Horner, but from the looks of things, there is no Christmas pie to munch on. For you folks anyway.

How 'bout the Rawhide theme instead? YOu can enjoy some nice chewy leather....

change my ass

Pablo, you keep repeating that. Is this a diaper changing station? I was under the impression it was an online magazine.

If you want to complain about Obama, at least write "Change comman my ass period"....

Consider this editing a promotion. Further services will be billed.

Darn, I fergot the list!

Zbignew Brezsenski
Joe Biden
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Madeleine Albright
Richard Holbrooke
Dennis Ross
Martin Indyk
Anthony Lake
Lee Hamilton
Susan Rice
John Brennan
Jami Miscik
Bill Richardson
John Kerry
Robert Gates
Ivo H. Daalder
Sarah Sewall
Michele Flournoy
Tom Donilon
Wendy Sherman

All CFR endorsed and stamped "kosher".

That's funny. You just know that if the parties had to pick a unicorn or a vampire for president, the Dems would pick the unicorn and the R's would choose the vampire. Unicorns bring peace and rainbows. A vampire would have experience and probably a tough foreign policy.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Unicorns support virginity, which is more of a Republican thing. And Democrats like government regulations that can suck the life out of you.

I find it pretty hard to believe that Obama would do something as politically suicidal as implementing a hard-line stance on gun control or "taking away our guns!" so to speak. He would only do it if he doesn't want to be re-elected and would have to realize it would most likely be overturned somewhere down the line by either Congress, the Supreme Court or the next president.

Really, this whole article smacks of paranoia. Why so worried, Dave? To quote the Eagles: "Take it easy."

If we take it easy we end up getting our rights trampled because we didn't stand up for them.

Obama won't be the one initiating gun right restrictions. It will come from the Congress and Obama will be there to rubber stamp it.

Dave

Paranoid bullshit. Conspiracy theory lives in Austin, TX.

Someone really should take Dave's guns away from him. He's apt to start shooting at anything that moves, especially anything on his left.

B

Are you a betting man, Baritone? Care to bet that there won't be a new version of the expired Assault Weapons Ban in the next 4 years?

Dave

"Care to bet that there won't be a new version of the expired Assault Weapons Ban in the next 4 years?"

as there should be! for heaven's sake... what do you want, bazookas on the street?

dave, you can't think those weapons should be on american streets, can you? my god.

Oh, zing, can it.

You know what he means.

maybe i don't...

the ban on assault weapons was good...

am i missing something?

What bothers me is that people can defend something like the assault weapons ban when they don't even have the first idea what it does - they just assume that anything that bans weapons has to be a good thing. It bothers me even more that zing thinks that without the assault weapons ban bazookas are legal.

All reminders that the basic qualification of the gun haters is total, abyssmal ignorance.

Dave

Dave's articles about guns are reliably his nuttiest. This one is no exception.

Out of everything that's going on in the world, do you honestly think this is important and worth discussing? Quite amazing.

By the way, I filled out an application for the new administration. I didn't get asked any of these questions. Apparently they are only for the top-level jobs.

My assumption is that every single one of them is about avoiding embarrassing snafus like the two Clinton attorney general nominees who both had issues with nonpayment of social security taxes for their nannies.

I welcome the fair and thorough scrutiny of the new administration by skeptics on here, I really do. It's healthy. But Dave's paranoid gun stuff and Clavos's rah-rah-yeah-right-on comments thereon are just foolish, and unworthy of these two, who are more than capable of discussing genuine issues that deserve to be addressed.

And why does Dave feel the need to couch both his don't-touch-my damn-assault-rifles and the sneak-preview of his coming Eric Holder slander in the same ominous, conspiracy-mongering tone? Does he mistake this for what actual journalists do? Hint: It isn't.

dave: "What bothers me is that people can defend something like the assault weapons ban when they don't even have the first idea what it does."

for fuck's sake dave. it's not a complicated thing. i know what it bans and what it doesn't. and it really doesn't ban much at all. do you know what it bans?

"It bothers me even more that zing thinks that without the assault weapons ban bazookas are legal."

jesus christ. have you ever heard of exaggeration? of course bazookas aren't legal. i was ASKING YOU if you WANTED BAZOOKAS on the street. as in, where do you stop?

come on. bazookas? if i had said gatling gun, would my intent have been any more clear to you?

All reminders that the basic qualification of the gun nuts is total, abyssmal arrogance.

#65 Considering that Gattling guns are also (For the most part) illegal without an Assault Weapons Ban? yah, it helps to know what the hell you're talking about before you endorse yet-another-redundant-law.

Cannonshop, I know you're getting a bee in your bonnet (looked so cute too) about this but try and understand what people are trying to say before calling for the closure of the entire internet. It's called empathy, and has been known to render weapons fairly redundant in many a civilised country, if not yet the teenage wasteland we know as the USA.

cannonshop: "#65 Considering that Gattling guns are also (For the most part) illegal without an Assault Weapons Ban?"

that's my fucking point! my god, how dense can you be?

"yah, it helps to know what the hell you're talking about before you endorse yet-another-redundant-law."

i do know what i'm talking about. it's you and dave that can't move from point a to point b without someone holding your hand.

jesus, how hard is it to figure out? i KNOW those weapons are illegal without the assault weapons ban. and i know what the ban actually bans. i'm asking what it is that you gun nuts want.

I hope to hell they do reinstitute an assault weapons ban, one that is more inclusive and one that has far stronger teeth than the one allowed to lapse.

I personally think that pretty much any gun use outside of the military and law enforcement is childish bullshit. Basically, those who believe that owning guns and other deadly weapons is necessary for personal security and/or to thwart a rogue government are in fact high on the nutball conspiracy theorist list, and live their lives in fear and loathing of their fellow human beings. It's all owing to a stunted moral and social maturity. The only way in which gunsters can feel confident is if they have a means to take out the room within easy reach. You look upon everyone as a potential enemy and as a potential danger - after all anybody might be plotting to take your stuff.

B

Basically, those who believe that owning guns and other deadly weapons is necessary for personal security and/or to thwart a rogue government are in fact high on the nutball conspiracy theorist list, and live their lives in fear and loathing of their fellow human beings.

Sorry to disappoint, B-tone, but I like guns simply because I'm a damn good marksman, and I like to do most anything I'm good at; I like to hunt animals, and a day spent at the range shooting at targets is a day well spent, in my book.

jesus, how hard is it to figure out? i KNOW those weapons are illegal without the assault weapons ban. and i know what the ban actually bans. i'm asking what it is that you gun nuts want.

We want not to be called 'gun nuts' by people who are ill-informed on gun issues and irrationally terrified by the very concept of owning a gun.

Dave

Baritone's #69 expresses exactly why I support gun rights and would do so if I didn't own a gun, and in fact did before I ever bought a gun.

The issue is indeed a litmus test - as the article suggests. It separates those who are rational from those who are utterly deranged and whose mental processes are bizarrely twisted by irrational fear and hatred.

I could get rid of every gun I own and I'd still pay the NRA to keep on top of the issue, just so that I could tell who the dangerous nutjobs in congress and in society are by their reaction to the fight for gun rights.

Baritone demonstrates exactly the reaction which confirms to anyone who believes in individual liberty and a government based on reason, that there are people who are not emotionally or intellectually capable of thinking clearly and dispassionately about issues.

Dave

dave, you're nuts about guns. it's true.

and everyone's misinformed if they disagree with you, right? i'm not irrationally terrified of anything... it's quite rational to look at the amount of gun violence in this country and come to certain conclusions. as in, this country would be better off with less guns in it. and certain types of guns have absolutely no business being on the street.

"The issue[...] separates those who are rational from those who are utterly deranged and whose mental processes are bizarrely twisted by irrational fear and hatred."

true!

If Dave thinks #72 is a meaningful example of a gun-rights-enthusiast's being 'rational,' then he is living in a different universe than I and probably most other Americans too.

Considering the economic crisis and the multiple potential foreign-policy flashpoints that the new president and congress will have to deal with, it would be pretty shocking if they tried to push through any kind of gun legislation. This issue has been a non-starter politically for the Dems for a long time now, and they realize it.

Maybe at some point they will try to reverse some of the action/inaction of the Bush years regarding guns, but if they do it will be largely symbolic rather than big sweeping legislation. A reinstatement of the assault weapons ban wouldn't change Dave's life or anyone else's in any major way. The knee-jerk reaction towards even the possibility of it would be laughable if so many more crucial things weren't at stake right now.

So I find articles like this irrelevant, offensive and decidedly unnecessary.

So, would you (if you were able to) prohibit the publication of such articles, handy?

oh, clavos, can it.

you know what he means.

I do indeed, zing.

It's why I asked the question.

i'm sure you can figure out the answer.

Yup.

Clavos and Handy have shown us the way. We ought to be discussing the democratic plans to shut down free speech.

dave

now you're just being silly.

Um, Dave -

The 'fairness doctrine' was mentioned by a few Democratic pundits...but it is NOT being taken seriously by most Democrats and I've seen nothing by Obama et al about bringing it back.

The conservatives, OTOH, have been howling to the rooftops that the Democrats are a-gonna end free speech, just like they're absolutely sure that we're a-gonna take away all your guns and we're a-gonna force your children to BE GLBT.

If you would just for once objectively see what the Democrats really want - NOT the far-left of the wing, but the REAL Democrats - you'd see that most of us don't want the 'Fairness Doctrine' (because it could never be enforced), we don't want a total gun ban, and when it comes to GLBT's, all we want are equal rights for them.

According to Dave, this is EXACTLY why he wants to keep is beloved guns and wants everybody else to pack heat:

"Basically, those who believe that owning guns and other deadly weapons is necessary for personal security and/or to thwart a rogue government are in fact high on the nutball conspiracy theorist list, and live their lives in fear and loathing of their fellow human beings."

He goes on to say:

"The issue is indeed a litmus test - as the article suggests. It separates those who are rational from those who are utterly deranged and whose mental processes are bizarrely twisted by irrational fear and hatred"

With respect to the second quote, he is correct. I can only hope that Dave and other gunsters have the wherewithall to get help.

As to the first, Dave apparently admits to his being a "nutball conspiracy theorist" and that he lives "in fear and loathing of [his] fellow human beings." Just the kind of sober and clear thinking we need to lead us through the coming years.

But such self awarness on Dave's part does give one hope that he will in fact take that vital next step on the road to recovery.

B

baritone, i don't think that dave wrote that first bit. in fact... didn't you? am i in bizarro world, or did i miss the point? or is there some strange sarcasm going on here...?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that first quote isn't mine. I may have diverse opinions, but I'm not usually in direct contradiction like that.

Dave

The 'fairness doctrine' was mentioned by a few Democratic pundits...but it is NOT being taken seriously by most Democrats and I've seen nothing by Obama et al about bringing it back.

It's been introduced as legislation as recently as 2005 and Pelosi, Durban and a number of other Democrats have spoken publicly in support of it in the last couple of months - they're Congressmen, not pundits.

The conservatives, OTOH, have been howling to the rooftops that the Democrats are a-gonna end free speech,

Not just conservatives. A lot of others who are confused about 1st amendment issues are bothered by it.

just like they're absolutely sure that we're a-gonna take away all your guns and we're a-gonna force your children to BE GLBT.

I can't speak for conservatives, but I don't believe any of that silly stuff. Unlike most Obama supporters I'm in favor of gay marriage.

If you would just for once objectively see what the Democrats really want - NOT the far-left of the wing, but the REAL Democrats - you'd see that most of us don't want the 'Fairness Doctrine' (because it could never be enforced), we don't want a total gun ban, and when it comes to GLBT's, all we want are equal rights for them.

Well, it's encouraging that you say these things, but you're hardly the only voice we hear out there expressing ideas about policy for the Obama regime.

Dave

"Unlike most Obama supporters I'm in favor of gay marriage."

that's some rhetorical gamesmanship right there.

it also says that you're a obama supporter, if you read it the right way.

"I don't believe any of that silly stuff."

any of that? you don't believe that we're gonna take away all yer guns? wonderful! then what have you been babbling about for the last two or three days?

Zing, I was referring more to the GLBT conversion thing. Clearly some folks like Baritone would like to take away our gunrights just for a start.

As for why we're still babbling about this, I blame the dearth of new articles on BC. Off to see if I can do something about that.

Dave

Perhaps I should have included this from Dave's #72 in my comment above.

"Baritone's #69 expresses exactly why I support gun rights and would do so if I didn't own a gun, and in fact did before I ever bought a gun."

Yes, it was sarcasm. But since Dave considers me to be "not emotionally or intellectually capable of thinking clearly and dispassionately about issues." I thought it apt. Dave tends to feel that true of anybody who disagrees with him about anything. He virtually never fails to dismiss any of his naysayers as some kind of unhinged, vacuous nutballs.

Gun butts somehow think that they are standing on the high ground. They have no clue, or are at best in total denial of their childishness. It would be silly and humorous if it wasn't such a potentially deadly issue. I played with toy guns when I was eight or ten, but never developed any interest in the real things as I looked upon them as unnecessary and inappropriate to a modern, civilized society. But a number of people fail to go beyond their youthful enthusiasm for things that go 'bang.'

Personally, I don't believe Clav furthered the cause of gun lovers by stating in #70 above:

"I like to hunt animals..." Hunting is a pastime involving guns or other weaponry that is more or less useless. It is occasionally used for population control of some animals when their numbers become too great for their habitat to sustain, or their presence in populated areas create a danger to both humans and the animals in question. Otherwise, I'm hard pressed to come up with a meaningful reason for hunting. Very few people in our society need to hunt for sustenance or for hides, pelts, etc.

People toting their guns wandering through the woods, or sitting up in one of those camouflaged chairs mounted against a tree with their bow and arrow poised, ready to pierce the heart of an unsuspecting deer or moose (god luv em, Sarah)or whatever, makes no more sense than bull fighting.

However, hunting is at most secondary to many gunsters. Many if not most guns are purchased in the belief that they are crucial to one's day to day survival. It's a jungle out there, right?

Hey. I'm 62 years old. I have lived in urban environments including New York City back in the evil 1970s when crime was supposedly rampant.

I have never owned a gun. It is more than likely that I never will. I have never felt the need.

I'm aware that shit happens, but, I could arm myself to the teeth; set up a security perimeter around my yard with high tech surveillance cameras, heat and movement censors, etc; erect a parapet and set it up with one or more mounted machine guns, bring my sons back home and man it 24/7; read all things gun, take extensive lessons in the proper use of such weapons, and on and on, and still wind up killing myself climbing up that damn parapet.

BTW Dave. You are full of it, and you are no less hysterical about your guns than many of the most avid conspiracy nuts certain that JFK was actually sprinkled to death by Tinker Bell's evil fairy dust, or those that believe the government has 200 pounds of alien kosher ham hidden at area 51.

B

You picked up on my enjoyment of hunting, B-tone, but totally ignored my mention of target shooting on a range, which is, by the way, an Olympic event.

I'd much rather spend an afternoon tearing up a paper target than some of the silly things others do for entertainment, but hey, to each his own.

Oh, and being, as I am, also a Mexican, I'm a very enthusiastic aficionado del toreo as well. As a kid, I spent many an exciting Sunday afternoon with my parents at the Plaza de Toros in Mexico City, my birthplace and still my favorite city in the world.

Otherwise, I'm hard pressed to come up with a meaningful reason for hunting.

Perhaps there is none, just as there isn't for football, or NASCAR racing, or even baseball; they are all simply enjoyable to their fans, and need no other justification.

When I get over there, we're going target shooting!

Do they make allowances for blokes who can't see properly??

Baritone, you're missing the big point in your obsession with all aspects of culture you don't share in being somehow inferior or undesirable.

I haven't been hunting in more than 20 years (shooting varmints in the back yard not counting). And I'm not particularly concerned about burglaries at my house. There's no crime in Austin and less out here in the burbs, plus I've got a security gate and dogs.

But I do like to shoot competitively and I'm not too bad at it, so long as there's no speed component involved. It's fun, it's legal and it's a safe passtime.

So the question I ask is why my harmless little hobby should be the target of so many people who want to take it away from me? And why do they respond with such childish accusations and negative colorations of those who enjoy shooting guns, for whatever reason? Why do they want to take the guns away AND make the gun owners out to be inferior, uneducated, violent, reckless or crazy?

It just doesn't make sense.

I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want to do so long as it doesn't harm others. Merely owning a gun cannot harm anyone. Any dangerous use of the gun requires a human being to act and to have intent to do harm. So why is the focus on the gun and the law-abiding gun owner? And why does it always come with the kind of denigration which Baritone practices so freely?

Dave

My dislike of the proliferation of guns in the community is well known, but I do agree with Dave here.

(Regulation, licensing and control designed to keep firearms out of the hands of nutcases being something very different to a total ban).

There is nothing wrong with the type of target shooting Dave describes.

That's a sport, and it's actually fun.

I'm all for leaving the guns securely locked up in safe cabinets at the range though.

Stan, if they make allowances for Chenney shooting people in the face, they'll make allowances for you.

Hurry over, the welcome mat is out...

baritone: "People toting their guns wandering through the woods, or sitting up in one of those camouflaged chairs mounted against a tree with their bow and arrow poised, ready to pierce the heart of an unsuspecting deer or moose (god luv em, Sarah)or whatever, makes no more sense than bull fighting."

see, i actually like bull fighting. there's some skill there and the matador is at least in somewhat of a dangerous situation. if i went down there to face a bull, i'd get mauled. there's a beauty and a tradition to it. but even i could sit in a parapet and keep quiet long enough that, with some luck (or some doe pheromones,) i could blow a damn deer's eyeball out. bull fighting is sport. hunting is... just cruel. there's too much technology and the prey doesn't stand a chance, except blind luck. pathetic.

dave: "So why is the focus [of gun control efforts] on the gun and the law-abiding gun owner?"

that's the thing. it's not. nobody would want to take the guns away if they weren't used to commit so much crime. the focus is on the guns in criminals hands. we already take away those guns. but they get more. and where do they get them from? either criminals that haven't been caught or from formerly law-abiding citizens.

a market for illegal handguns is a lucrative market. lots of people want to get in on it. you can bet the crime rate will go up if the economy tanks, and a lot of those guns creating that crime will be formerly legal guns. criminals will steal them, people will sell them. that's how it works. if you can't see that, you're blinded by the steel.

My guess is that Washington under Obama will somehow override the states on this issue and implement some form of cohesive national gun control that doesn't involve an actual ban.

It might be that unfettered ownership of certain types of weapons - say, semi-automatic weapons (or assault-style weapons) - is banned, though, and there'll be some serious licensing-style restrictions are placed on hand-gun ownership.

Betcha that's where it will go.

But I'll also bet that most legal gun owners in the US don't lose their firearms.

Thanks Jet, BTW. I was hoping to get there this year, but it didn't work out. I'm glad in a way, though, as it would have been last month.

I was mid-trip in Asia instead, right in the middle of the global turmoil, when the Aussie dollar started its spectacular slide.

If I'd been in the US, I would have lost about a quarter of my holiday money on the exchange rate. That wasn't good news at all as the global crisis sent our currency tumbling and it was bad enough being somewhere else where it wasn't too bad.

At least when you know how bad it is, you can plan for it. The US is cheaper than Australia for just about everything, including food, so you make it up in one way I guess, but part of the fun of going on holiday in the US is to spend all your cash buying up cheap goodies like Haines Ts and Levi's and looking for stuff at places like Old Navy, Wal Mart, Macy's, Target.

Everyone likes designer jeans brands in Oz but I like quality American stuff. Last time I was there I stocked up on Levi's, which are much cheaper (including some great second-hand pairs) than they are in Oz, and I like Wrangler jeans so I always try to get some of them too.

It's fun getting that stuff in America but usually when we're travelling I just steer clear of the shops and let my wife go for it. I do one shopping trip with her to rack up some bloke credit and then I'm off the hook :)

One holiday shopping trip = a carton of holiday smokes and three pizza nights.

Yes Stan, but the airfare offsets any savings you might find? I guess half the fun if the hunt!

"part of the fun of going on holiday in the US is to spend all your cash buying up cheap goodies like Haines Ts and Levi's and looking for stuff at places like Old Navy, Wal Mart, Macy's, Target."

oh my god, you come over here to slum.

True what you say about the airfare jet, but I really love going to the states just for a holiday anyway. It's great fun. Buying stuff isn't the primary reason.

I know I poke fun at you guys, but I really like Americans even though you're all madder than cut snakes and I always have a ball when I'm over there because people (mostly) make you feel at home.

I like the UK too for the same reason, but geez it's bloody expensive. You have to get way out of London or your money just vanishes.

The fact that I almost speak English is pretty handy too.

Point taken

"oh my god, you come over here to slum."

Mate, I love Levi's especially the boot cut ... 503s and 507s here but the same price as 501s, and about double or more what you pay in the states. I love Haines Ts too and they're really hard to get here at a reasonable price.

Who wants to pay $100 for an imported T-shirt?

I'm slumming anyway just being in the states zing :), so whay not make the most of it while I'm there???

I like Wal Mart for blokey stuff. If you look around you can find all kinds of handy gadgets, although they're pretty much like K-mart and Target are in Oz. Still, can't have too many cheap-shit gadgets, right?

Buy up a bunch of Levis over hear Stan and then sell them in Moscow!

I reckon I could sell them here for pretty close to what I'd get in Moscow, AND save on airfares - plus not have to fly on any former Eastern bloc airlines.

I've never understood why they are so expensive in Australia, since the ones we get here aren't made in the US.

The answer to that is because they can charge what they like, I suppose, and they know people are still going to pay it.

Wages are a bit higher generally here but it all gets chewed up in an outrageously high cost of living, especially in this city where you get stung at every turn.

On that score, you are better off in the states.

"I reckon I could sell them here..." But where's the adventure and intrigue in that?

that's the thing. it's not. nobody would want to take the guns away if they weren't used to commit so much crime. the focus is on the guns in criminals hands. we already take away those guns. but they get more. and where do they get them from? either criminals that haven't been caught or from formerly law-abiding citizens.

And my point is that the focus should be on the criminals. Stealing a gun is a felony. Using a stolen gun in a crime is a felony. We should be cracking down on gun crimes. 97% of those criminals are REPEAT offenders. Why are they free to commit a second gun crime? That's the problem, not the guns.

Dave

dave: " Why are they free to commit a second gun crime? That's the problem, not the guns."

they're free to commit a second crime because using a gun in a crime doesn't automatically get you a life sentence. which is, in some ways unfortunately, as it should be. the problem is that guns are still readily available to them when they get out.

in some states, using a gun in a crime will get you sentences up to twice as long as committing the same crime without a gun. which is also as it should be. but the fact is that if you hold up a liquor store with a gun and take $400, that shouldn't mean you should be put to death, or that you should really spend a large chunk of your life behind bars. besides, if we did that, our jails would be overflowing (more than they are now) with criminals who used guns.

in some ways it's NOT the guns' fault. but that's like saying it's not the nuclear bomb's fault that terrorists blew up your country. we can't get rid of people, and there will always be bad people. but we can do something about guns.

What BC readers have failed to realize is that all the hubbub Dave Nalle has raised over Gun Laws recently is to cover up his intense embarrassment at the utter failure of the economic principles he holds so dear, and which are now in disarray in this failing Bush Economy.

Frankly, I don't care much about gun laws one way or the other, and I suspect that is true for most people. While gun laws are of little interest, they are an inflammatory subject so it's easy to get people riled up and that serves the purpose of dragging a red herring across the trail to distract folks from the most pressing issue of the last 70 years: the collapse of the world economy.

It should be evident to the meanest intelligence that the collapse is due to the extraordinary privileges and money that have been given to business interests over people interests. All of this on behalf of some kind of 'privatization' ideology.

George W. Bush represents the climax of that kind of thinking and so it came to pass that the collapse occurred toward the end of his malign reign.

It is becoming apparent that throwing more bailout money onto these failing businesses is like throwing gasoline on the fire.

Inspired by promises of bailout heaven, businesses are hurrying into failure. Last week Citicorp was assuring their people that Citicorp was in good shape. This week they're pleading, nay, demanding, $300billion in bailouts from the US treasury.

And demand they should. After all it would be unfair to deny them their share of the spoils on the Treasury raid. It would give their competitors an unfair advantage. It's only fair that Citicorp get a share of the spoils.

So, this bailout policy is resulting in a downward spiral for the US economy.

Attempting to save bad businesses with generous bailouts is like putting a rotten apple in the barrel hoping that the influence of the good apples will cure it if you just give it another chance.

Meanwhile, millions of people will suffer the loss of their fortunes and their homes to prop up this potemkin capitalism. They will be neglected by this malevolent distortion of Market economics, which resembles nothing so much as feudalism.

a market for illegal handguns is a lucrative market

And will become even more so if "legal" guns are outlawed altogether.

And don't kid yourself, outlawing guns will NOT get rid of them, any more than outlawing recreational drugs has gotten rid of THEM.

When guns are made illegal, people who want them (for whatever reason) will still have them.

zing -

It is impossible, repeat impossible, that we can get rid of all guns. It would be easier to get rid of all the cars. Getting rid of the guns...simply ain't gonna happen.

All we can do is:

1) Register ALL guns
2) Require safety training for each class of firearm
3) Destroy all guns used in a crime or otherwise unregistered
4) Have greatly increased prison sentences for gun crime and repeat offenders who use a gun
5) Ensure that background checks for ALL buyers, including at gun shows

That's all that can be logically and rightfully be done. Pandora is out of the box and she ain't goin' back in...you will never, ever, ever get rid of all the guns so long as humanity exists.

Talking about the Obama Litmus Test, I think it's more important that a candidate have good academic credentials than that they have hands-on practical experience, for the reason that it's the hands-on guys who have led us into this mess with their short-term view of the economy.

glenn--i know it's impossible to get rid of guns. i'm not calling for that. i'd just like to see registration and severe limits on the types of guns allowed on the street.

clavos--yeah, well, at least they'll be more expensive.

Dave:

Stealing a gun is a felony. Using a stolen gun in a crime is a felony. We should be cracking down on gun crimes. 97% of those criminals are REPEAT offenders. Why are they free to commit a second gun crime?

1) Register ALL guns

Good luck with that.

4) Have greatly increased prison sentences for gun crime and repeat offenders who use a gun

This is the single most effective proposal you make; the rest (except for Destroying all guns used in a crime or otherwise unregistered) will have little or no effect on crime committed with guns, and will only create a typical government bureaucratic hassle (and probable new revenue source for the government) for legal gun owners, while generating a huge and thriving black market.

I have seen a few bullfights in Ciudad Acuna, Mexico, the border town south of Del Rio, TX. I presume that it amounted to the equivelant of "B" or "C" level minor league baseball - not major league stuff.

It was all a pretty sloppy affair. Nothing particularly dramatic took place. No gorings. But, neither were there any masterful kills by a dashing matador. Some of them were unable to finish the task at hand with the supposed fatal lunge between the shoulder blades. They repeatedly stabbed into bone. I remember at least one sword breaking in the effort. In the end several of the hapless bulls were shot.

It quickly became clear to me that pretty much no matter what, the bull didn't have a snow ball's chance in - well - in Mexico. Once he found himself in that dust laden ring, his time was about up. And his end would be far from glorious.

I was also surprised to see how the bulls were softened up to a great degree by the toreadors and picadors. By the time the "brave" matadors made their appearance, the bulls had been "gored" themselves with a substantial blood flow brought on by repeated stabs and gougings.

I suppose this reveals my lack of knowledge regarding the machinations of bullfighting, but, to a novice viewer in the stands, it all seemed a cruel and senseless affair. On this, I part ways with the venerable Mr. Hemingway.

BTW Clav. Certainly baseball, NASCAR and other sports may not have much "meaningful" reason for their existence beyond the enjoyment of their respective fans (and, of course, the lining of various pockets,) but for the most part nothing nor no one winds up dead at the end of the game or race, or whatever with the obvious exception of bullfighting (and dog fighting, and cock fighting, etc.)

B

You're right, B-tone, bullfighting (or anything) in Ciudad Acuña bears no resemblance to a corrida in Spain, or one of the big league plazas in Latin America.

I was also surprised to see how the bulls were softened up to a great degree by the toreadors and picadors. By the time the "brave" matadors made their appearance, the bulls had been "gored" themselves with a substantial blood flow brought on by repeated stabs and gougings.

Actually, B-tone, the work of the picadores is intended to make the bull angrier, not to "soften him up." The points on the banderillas
are relatively small, and to the bull, are an irritant, not a debilitant.

There is a ritual, there are rules, and there are definitely artistry, grace and athleticism in a good bullfight. And occasionally, a particularly brave bull is spared.

The bulls, like thoroughbred race horses, are specifically bred at dedicated ranches. They are bred for their fighting spirit, and some ranches are noted for their stock more than others; bulls from these ranches are reserved for the top venues. The bulls you saw in Cd. Acuña were likely rejects.

But it is a cultural difference, particularly in Mexico, where death (of all animals, including humans) is not feared, but celebrated. If you're interested, read The Labyrinth of Solitude, by Octavio Paz, Mexico's Nobel Laureate, which has a very interesting chapter on the Mexican attitude toward death. An attitude, IMO, far healthier than the American viewpoint.

BTW Clav. Certainly baseball, NASCAR and other sports may not have much "meaningful" reason for their existence beyond the enjoyment of their respective fans (and, of course, the lining of various pockets,) but for the most part nothing nor no one winds up dead at the end of the game or race...

Not usually, true, but it happens. Ask Mark Buoniconti.

Spectator sports, of whatever ilk, serve mostly to distract the peasantry, their function since Roman days.

I'd hardly say that the average sports fan sitting in the stands are a part of the "peasantry" considering what it costs. The cheapest seats for a Colts game is $34. in the rafters. (They do, I am told, have people moving amongst the crowd dispensing cotton swabs with which to wipe the blood out of your ears.) The top price is $270. Those are the prices charged by the Colt organization. Ticket brokers and scalpers tend to get a good deal more (legal in Indiana.)

Indy 500 tickets start at $40. and range upwards to $150. There are actually much MORE expensive seats, but they are not generally advertized nor included at the Indy 500 web site. Note also that the $40 is for the seat. There is an additional charge of around $15 per head just to enter the grounds plus $25 or more for parking. Again, brokers and scalpers can double, triple or even guadruple those prices.

I haven't been to an Indy 500 race since 1964. I have attended only 1 Colts' game and a handful of Pacers' games.

Such prices render the "peasantry" to watching most sports on the tube.

My wife and I went to see The Lion King here in Indy Saturday afternoon - a gift for my wife's b'day from our younger son. We sat in the balcony. Our tickets were $67.50 each. Up front orchestra seats are going for around $95 to $100 each. Imagine what they cost in NYC.

By comparison, $9 to $10 for a movie ticket is a bargain for a night's entertainment.

I know, this is off topic, but frankly, I'm tired of arguing.

B

Indy 500 tickets start at $40. and range upwards to $150.

Wow. Vancouver Canucks tickets practically start at $150 up here. I think a beer at a hockey game is around $40 these days. I'm too much of a peasant, so I can't afford to go.

Jordan,

Keep in mind that the Indy 500 has around 250000 fans in the stands and scattered around the infield for a one day event. Even taking just the $40, that would be a $10 million dollar gate. I'm sure it's a good deal more than that. Tony George and company never release attendance records nor any info regarding how much they take in each May. Of course, now they also have the NASCAR race in August and earlier this fall, they held one of those motorcycle races. They had an F1 race for 3 or 4 years, but couldn't please that asshole, Bernie Ecclestone who runs that circuit.

Big bucks flow through the gates at the IMS.

B

I'd hardly say that the average sports fan sitting in the stands are a part of the "peasantry" considering what it costs.

Being a peasant has nothing to do with net worth.

With few exceptions, everybody (me included) in America is of peasant stock. My own ancestors on my mother's side were Irish hardscrabble dirt farmer immigrants fleeing the potato famine. If you doubt what I'm saying, log onto the Ellis Island site and look at the pictures; you don't see finely dressed, sophisticated-looking people in those pictures. It wasn't the aristocracy of all those European countries coming over here (or even the burgers), the aristocracy has no reason to leave the country in which they are the top of the pyramid.

In fact, many of the earliest colonists were the very dregs of British society (prisoners, as the first settlers of Australia were), Oglethorpe founded Georgia mostly with convicts.

America is a country of peasants, many of whom (especially NASCAR and pro football fans) act like peasants or worse, the price of their tickets notwithstanding.

"Imagine what they cost in NYC."

actually, most theater tickets are fairly decent here. i saw an off-broadway (as opposed to broadway, off-off-broadway, or "local") play recently for $25. it was one of the most heavily-touted plays to open in some time, sold out for its entire run, etc. (it was also the most fucked up thing i've seen in a while... "blasted" by sarah kane, look it up. it's no lion king. but lion king is no white lion. nor no hamlet. which it is.)

i've seen a 4 or 5 broadway shows, and they're generally in the $50-80 range... not for the best seats, of course, but the theaters aren't huge, so it's alright. the most i've seen is for young frankenstein, which supposedly sucked, which had ticket prices hovering between $150-200. that's absurd, but i think they knew the play sucked and that it would end rather quickly.

Oh, I think that is bogus. All of the so called "aristocracy" also came from similar "peasant stock." There was and is nothing genetically special about them - except possibly some of the unfortunate in-breeding that often took place amongst them. That's hardly a positive. That a few generations managed to live high on the hog owing to their usurpation of power by various means didn't change who they really were.

The first generation of a particular ruling family may have had the luxury of claiming superiority if they had attained power via victory on the battlefield. But later generations were in their position simply by the accident of their birth.

So, effectively and genetically, we are all peasants, or maybe we are all aristocrats. Um, well, no. I won't go there. But, still...

B

Clavos,

Your assesment of the aristocracy never leaving their shores is wrong. Do some research.

However, the entire matter is silly. Ditto to Baritones #122.

However, the entire matter is silly.

Only to the peasants.

If it's so silly, why'd you bring it up again?

Clav,

dije:However, the entire matter is silly.

usted dijo: Only to the peasants.

Since you declared yourself a peasant, you then must agree with my conclusion.

Maybe next time hijo....

you then must agree with my conclusion.

Well, half of me does. It's silly to ALL Americans.

Maybe next time hijo....

What next time? Are you planning on coming back as an aristocrat?

And I'm your padre, not your hijo, mija...

Proud geyser geezer I see.

Not proud, just a geezer. Being a geezer is nothing to be proud of, anybody can do it.

Being a major babe, I couldn't do it.

Come on somebody. Tell me what the banned word is.
It's not geezer, or geyser, or major babe, obviously.

Tell me what the word is, Irene, using a different spelling or a 'Taboo'-type description of it (ever played that game?), and I might be able to give you an explanation.

Dr. D, the dang thing was eight dang paragraphs long, and I didn't save it. Probably just as well, eh? :)

please mama don't take my chromosomes away?

Whew Irene,

Thanks for at least posting "the gist". I am glad I don't have to go to bed wondering what the 8 paragraphs were about! :-)

Speaking of eight paras, Cindy, I thought I overheard you, in my recent BC lurking, saying something about an article you were going to write?

Irene,

Yes, I threatened. I'm working on it.

It won't be about Dave after all LOL.

Being a major babe, I couldn't do it.

Ah, but you will. One day.

Trust me.

DrD--the offense was all mine. I just now remembered that amongst all that verbiage was the word: special!st.

Not that it would have been yours if you'd had to make a work-around for yet another instance of spam.
Anyway, sorry for the false alarm.

Ahhh Clavy the peasant who is an elitist, how utterly perrfect.