foraker

yes, Dru, i'm sure if ole Natalie had her hand around yer manhood and started doing jar jar binks impersonations, you'd toss her out of the sack. let's remember which universe we're in, shall we?

jus one observation....look around at the stupid fockers in your class. do you really want to contact any of those boneheads about, say, your homework? i didn't think so.

I don't really blame the Democrats for wanting a recount. It's close enough that any candidate would ask for one. One has to ask, though, if either Gregoire or Rossi are such great candidates, why didn't one or the other garner more votes to make it decisive? Obviously, neither has a compelling enough message, or enough personal integrity, to make a clear case.

I had a couple of experiences like this once. During the winter, I once showed up in my office and and exclaimed, 'Boy, it's a little nippy outside'. To which, our local PC policewoman replied "That's pretty racist, don't you think?"

One final humorous note

Comment would be superfluous. You just made my point better than I ever could! BTW, your rabid foaming at the mouth rants give conservatives a bad name...just as much as weeniefied living in an alternate reality rants give liberals a bad name.

Kind of like conservatives pigeonholing liberals? Nah, they wouldn't do that. Would they?

I'd love to see some examples where 1) ID proved a positive statement about itself 2) ID proved a negative statement about itself As a further restriction, said 'proof' is not allowed to use a statement akin to 'This is true because evolution theory has not explained it' This is science by assertion and is, basically, the 'adult' equivalent of the familiar playground taunt "I'm right and you're wrong, so there"

It's funny, as a scientist, I'm always reading articles where someone within the field is taking a hammer to the dominant paradigm to see if it is valid. Why do I get the feeling no one from the ID camp is doing the same thing? Actually, I look at ID as an odd mixture of christian conservatism and new-age spongethink. You have your literal interpretationists consorting with those who don't care what the answer is as long as you feel good about it.

fixed it

The monkeys aren't too thrilled about you either Personally, I think the Keebler eleves are the result of an unholy union between wood elves and the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Current Darwinian 'theory' provides no evidence to the contrary. I demand my views be taught in a 'fair and balanced' manner.....

While it might be 'foolish' to say that Ronnie did nothing, it is also 'foolish', to pump up his image so much that it makes it seem that somehow Reagan had some great plan that was solely responsible for the fall of the SU. As for which Russians I talk to, it would be Russians both here in the US, and there in the Soviet Union, covering a period from the mid-80's onward. I may have disagreed with a lot of his policies about certain things but I still voted for him. Does that muddy your little black and white impression of someone who disagrees with one of your small minded apologists? Best you brush up on some of those critical thinking skills. I might disagree with scott_harpell or old Gotterdamerung on certain issues, just as I would disagree with certain tree hugging liberals on certain issues, but I respect those willing to call bullshit when they see it. You don't seem capable of this. Well, you do but it tends to be the kind where bullshit is everything that doesn't agree with your worldview.

I love guys like this. Pretty much everything I've read and in my interactions with Russians point out that the Soviet Union was pretty much on it's way to collapse before Ronnie. It just happened to occur on his watch. Having lived through the Reagan era, I can say that people in general, and not just the false hobgoblin known as the "liberal press" were rightly concerned about his inflammatory rhetoric. Just because we happened to come out of it unscathed does not mean people's fears were unjustified, especially when you have a sitting president saying things like 'We begin bombing in 5 minutes".....

Maybe they learned about wasting money from Ken Starr. ;-)

have you been hanging out with the ham radio dweebs again? ;-)

Reaching across the aisle there are we MW? Must be that new Republican plan: "We are ALL Americans. Except for you, and you, and that weirdo in the beanie over there, that guy over there next to the tree, and...."

Monique Junot: He keeps putting his testicles all over me. Lane Myer: Excuse me? Monique Junot: You know, like octopus? Testicles? Lane Myer: Ohhhh. Tentacles. N-T.

probably hanging out with some crazy russian girls

i bet they'd understand the concept of private property quickly enough if you 'borrowed' their car or let your dog take a dump on their lawn every morning.

The only thing liable to drive anyone crazy is your incessant self-indulgence! :-)

Anybody recommend a good massage therapist in Redmond? By good I mean not situation in some new-agey Center for Well Being that smells of incense a mile off? I'm not going to drive around all the ones on my provider's list. I recall my uncle in law who is a therapist in Palm Springs. Bastard could squeeze margaritas out of a tree....

Have you been proselytizing again? ;-)

Friday - Wife and I bought our first ever set of downhill skis and boots Saturday - Checked snow reports Sunday - Checked snow reports

would be up for index on sunday. i've never been. :-)

So now we're not allowed to comment on an issue unless we've actually been there (a la Iraq)? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to comment on government until you've been to Washington DC.... AGRIBUSINESS REAPS BENEFITS OF FEDERAL FARM LAW The federal government’s biggest agricultural subsidy checks are going to the nation’s biggest farmers, according to a new report. More than sixty percent of almost $23 billion in federal farm subsidies provided under the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 went to farm operations that should be big enough to ride out the economy’s up and downs with far less help, charges a report by the Environmental Working Group. Farmers and landowners that make up that top 10 percent received nearly $14 billion in subsidies between 1996 and 1998 - an average of nearly $100,000 each. Some farms collected $1 million or more. The bottom 90 percent got an average of just over $6,900 for the three years. Farmers, investors, and agribusinesses that comprise the top 10 percent of Freedom to Farm subsidy beneficiaries were paid, on average, at least 27 times as much as the 700,000 farm subsidy recipients in the bottom 90 percent. Some states showed an especially high concentration of payments to the largest recipients. In Mississippi, subsidy inequities were the greatest. Ten percent of the participants took in 83 percent of all payments to the state – an average of $217,000 for every recipient over three years. Payments were also highly concentrated in Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina. The study looked at 30 million USDA records for payments totaling $23 billion that cover the first three years of the Freedom to Farm Act. The subsidies included market transition payments, which were capped at $40,000 per farmer or landowner, and commodity price supports for grain and cotton, which were limited to $75,000 per recipient. Last year, Congress doubled those payment caps to $80,000 and $150,000 respectively. In February, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman loosened payment limits on large farms, allowing them to get an even larger share of federal subsidies. Under the Freedom to Farm policy, subsidy recipients are free to plant any crop they wanted, or no crop at all, and still are eligible to receive subsidies. This has allowed some recipients to stop farming entirely, while still retaining full eligibility for Freedom to Farm handouts. Overall, the study concluded that the 1996 law favors large, corporate farms and agribusiness partnerships and is biased against small and medium-sized producers. Farmers that really do need the help are eligible for only minimal subsidies. When the current farm bill expires in 2002, lawmakers should entirely rewrite the formula for farm subsidies. Congress should require farm subsidy recipients to document their financial need before they receive farm subsidy payments, and aid should be targeted to small and medium sized farms and sharply reduced for corporate agribusiness.