GeorgiaDon

If you don't like a law, there is a process for addressing that. Death threats should not be any part of that process. I'm rather shocked you don't see that, as (in regards to topics other than guns) you come across as generally level headed and rational. If death threats are an acceptable strategy here, instead of a political solution such as was followed in Colorado, then where are any lines to be drawn? Can I legitimately use death threats to attempt to discourage people who would compete against me for business? for political office? for anything at all? Is that just "free speech? I assume (hope) you'd draw a line at actually killing people. I am being denied my right to buy a product of my own choosing, because of thugs who can't be bothered with legal means to get a law they dislike amended or repealed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So smart guns are a "dumb idea" why? Because supposedly "responsible" gun owners are threatening to kill the owner, kill his dog (!), and burn down the store if he sells one? Well there's a business model I never thought of. Open a store, and then threaten to kill anyone who sells a competing product. I mean, if death threats are an acceptable way to get what you want, where's the limit? Or more to the point, where's the condemnation from all tthose so-called "responsible" gun owners? Smart guns seem a reasonable solution to some issues. How do you keep a gun in the house so that is accessible enough for self defense, yet isn't a danger to children that might find it? Who are these people who would use death threats to keep such a product off the market? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think you'd find that a large fraction of the total cost is spent in the first couple of hours. Who will pay for that? If the patient somehow miraculously survives, can they get out of paying by just saying "Hey, I didn't ask to be treated...". Just like when my kids said "I didn't ask to be born" as a reason to not do their chores, I don't think the argument is going to go very far. Actually, if you restrict the clientele to those who can pay up front and out of pocket, I'm pretty sure prices will climb, a lot. You'll still have to have (and pay for) hospitals, clinics, doctors with lots of different specialties, etc but you'll have the cost to sustain all that divided by many fewer paying customers. Of course then you'll get the classic death spiral of pricing: as prices go up fewer people will be able to afford treatment, and with fewer patients to split the bill prices will go up again, and on and on until no-one can afford it. And the food banks well stocked with fresh meat! Bonus! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I can see your point in principle, but it could not work in the real world for two practical reasons: First, if you are severely injured you will be transported to the hospital, and then what do you expect to happen? Medical staff will in almost every case have to start working immediately if there is to be any hope to save your life. Ever hear of the "golden hour"? If you are unconscious (highly likely in a life-threatening injury) do you expect that the doctors will put you to the side and not begin to work on you until somebody has verified that you in fact have the cash to pay full freight for the treatment? In practice this would mean that everybody, including those who do have the means to pay, would be waiting for hours at least before a doctor even looks at you. In practice this would mean that almost everybody would die or suffer long term disabilities that could have been avoided had doctors not been waiting around for the check to clear. Secondly, if you limit participation in skydiving or any other activity where there is risk of injury to those who can pay, up front and without relying on insurance or credit, very very few people would be able to engage in those activities. Dropzones would be nonexistent, for example, if only the extremely wealthy could afford to take the risk of even a minor injury. A broken femur can cost over $100,000 to treat, how many people have that kind of cash on hand? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure we've all been guilty of that at one time or another. I'm sorry to have been so harsh, I'm just so used to the "Obama made it rain on my boogie" mentality that is so prevalent here. The motorcycle helmet issue is interesting, though, in that it's a pretty good metaphor for the freedom vs personal/taxpayer responsibility issue. I skydive (well, I'm getting back to it this summer), but I have health insurance and life insurance that covers it, and I pay for long-term disability, so my family is as insulated as I can manage against economic disaster should anything truly bad happen. I also use a RSL and an AAD, and always wear a helmet (Pro-Teck, nerdy but supposedly the best protection against impact to the head). The same applied when I rode a motorcycle, and I always wore a full-face helmet. In my car I always wear a seat belt. I don't see any great value (for me) in deliberately avoiding safety devices that could make the difference between eventual recovery and permanent disability. What do we do about people who choose to forgo using safety devices, increasing their risk, yet also expect that the government (Medicaid, Social Security disability) will take care of them should catastrophe strike, and refuse to pay for insurance? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Not to piss on your ODS circle jerk, but that report is about CDC recommendations of means to reduce preventable injuries associated with motorcycle use. Not a word about Obama. Is anybody surprised that an agency charged with the prevention of disease, injury, disability, and death would suggest that maybe people should wear a helmet? I mean, duh! If you believe that Obama writes, or personally reads and approves, every report and recommendation written by every agency and person in the employment of the federal government, then perhaps you also believe that when any pilot anywhere in US airspace talks to air traffic control, they are really talking to Obama. Pretty amazing how one guy can be in every control tower, every government office, be every ranger in every national park and monument, and on and on, all at the same time. It's my anecdotal observation that there's a pretty good correlation between not wearing a helmet and not having health insurance. It's surprising how many people rant and rave about the government, yet expect the government to pick up their medical and long-term disability costs. Don't wear a helmet? Fine, your choice. But that choice should include a requirement that you make provision for medical bills, and the long term disability that often follows a serious head injury. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's as blatant a shakedown as I have ever seen. That this could actually be defended by law enforcement says volumes about how corrupt the whole system of "drug seizures" has become. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Good call. Stone Arrogant Bastard. A PA, on a Mod? Wow.. You have balls, buddy ;-)Arrogant Bastard Ale "This is an aggressive ale. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory–maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beverage will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make things taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this. " Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As Skydekker says, there's more to the story. http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/30/driver-who-struck-cylcing-teens-sued-to-protect-herself-lawyer-says http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/25/driver_who_struck_teen_suing_dead_youth.html When I left Canada 25 years ago these sorts of suits were unheard of, mainly because you could only sue for actual damages (not to "punish" an alleged wrongdoer) and actual damages were almost always covered by insurance. Most provinces had "no-fault" auto insurance, where you insured yourself against damages. If someone was "at fault" that was left to the criminal justice system to sort out. I wonder what has changed, legally, in the intervening time? I don't think the Canadian people will be at all well served by an American-style sue-happy mentality. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In general I am curious about people, what they believe and why they believe it. I have no problem if people have a strong belief in God, but for me I cannot see evidence of a personal God. If God exists, why is there so much unnecessary suffering in the world, not suffering due to actions of other people (that might be explained by "free will") but random things like earthquakes, malaria, and on and on. The "it's all part of God's plan, which we cannot hope to understand" argument seems hopelessly circular and self-serving to me. A hands-off God who started the "Big Bang" and then sat back and let things take their own course is equally unsatisfactory, and unnecessary. God is not necessary to explain the good that people do, nor is the devil necessary to explain evil. Hope you didn't get hit too bad by this weather. Around here we got only a few showers, nothing like the 4-5 inches of rain that was forecast. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Fair enough, so Catholicism is not your favorite flavor of Christianity. It's not surprising that elements of Judasim would be more prominent in the Catholic faith, as that faith grew directly out of Judaism. Jesus would certainly have considered himself to be a Jew, and did followers of Jesus for the first couple of centuries. Really, it was the Romans who first made a big deal of differentiating between Jews and followers of Christ. However, the basic premise of the faith, that salvation can only be had through submission to God, and God can only be approached through Jesus, and belief in the Trinity, is all the same as what Baptists, Presbyterians, and all the rest believe. Everything else seems to me to be side issues of ritual and history. I'm sure others could do a better job than I of defending Catholicism, as I have not practiced it or any religion for 30 years. The doctrine of transubstantiation never made sense to me, not on legalistic grounds but just because I could see that the host remained "bread" and the communion wine was not blood. However, the Mass is in large part a reenactment of the Last Supper in every Christian service I have attended, and I'm quite sure the Catholic tradition is not in any way predicated on a belief that Jesus' sacrifice was temporary and has to be repeated to remain in effect. Your argument making a ritual reenactment of the Last Supper into a denial that Jesus' sacrifice was "for all time" seems to me to be legalistic hair splitting. Other issues you note seem to me to be equally legalistic hair splitting. It is true that no Biblical passage specifically mentions Purgatory, but the concept of some state between this world and Heaven is (as I understand it, and as I said I'm not the best one to explain it) logically required for two reasons. First, several passages in the old and the new testament advocate praying for the dead. If the dead are in heaven they don't need prayers, and if they are in hell prayers can't help them as they are permanently damned, so there must be some state, neither heaven nor hell, where prayers can be helpful. Why else would the Bible tell us to pray for the dead? The second argument is that all humans are burdened by sin, at least to some extent, yet one must be clean of any sin to enter the presence of God. By this logic, no-one has ever made it to Heaven and every human who has ever lived and died is in hell. The only logical alternative is that there is some intermediate state where slightly imperfect souls can repent of their minor transgressions and be cleaned up before entering Heaven. As I recall Catholics also believe (or believed, I'm not sure if it's still taught) in another state, Limbo, for souls of children who died before baptism, and people who were basically good but never heard of Jesus. Again, this was a logical construct to deal with the question of what happens to people who never have the opportunity to accept Jesus or be baptized. The alternative would seem to be that they go to hell, even though they haven't actually done anything to reject Jesus. I don't know how your flavor of Christianity deals with these issues, but it seems to me you must either have something similar (although you may call it by a different name), or you believe that everyone including babies who die in childbirth goes to Hell. I hope someone more familiar with the issues can speak up, because I'm not very comfortable discussing things I no longer believe based on things I learned as a child. I just find it strange that people really believe Catholics are not Christian based on such legalistic differences. That's an argument that I never heard when I lived in Europe or Canada; it seems to be unique to American evangelicals, and (it seems to me) goes back to politics (anti-Irish, anti-Italian etc sentiments) more than theology. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He really nails it. Plenty of muck to stick to all sides. Some commentator on NPR said that if Sterling is forced to sell, he could get up to a billion (with a "b"!) dollars for the team, and he bought it for $12 million. Definitely makes a $2.5 million fine look like lunch money. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So is it your argument that the false positive rate was not so high that the police demanded a unit be removed? Or that the unit requires less frequent field servicing than the CBO report suggests? It's one thing to demonstrate sensitivity and specificity under controlled lab conditions, but the field can be very tough. Do you know for sure that your luminex bead assay doesn't cross-react with any environmental contaminants? Also the same for the TaqMan PCR? There are a lot of bacteria out there, do you know that your target sequence is not present in any other species? All you need for amplification is a close enough match for your primers to anneal (1 or 2 mismatches at the 3' end would probably be tolerated), close enough and in the right orientation for a product to be amplified. Unlikely, perhaps, but given the diversity of bacterial genomes available in the environment even unlikely events become probable. There is such a thing as being too sensitive, if it causes false positives and a major (and expensive) reaction each time. All in all it's an impressive feat of technology for sure! However if it really costs 4X the present system to install and maintain it would have to offer some real advantages. A 3 hr response time vs 2 days would seem to be an advantage, but it seems to me a bioterrorism attack in a subway station, for example, would consist of a single release and probably of fairly short duration. People who passed through that site during the release (say, ~30 min) would be exposed and carry the agent on their clothing and such to other sites. How much difference would it make if the authorities could put out the alert 3 hrs down the road or 2 days? Either way the same number of people would have passed through the station at the time of the attack. Although it's true those people would have been able to interact with more people in 2 days than 3 hrs, how much increased transmission would result? If we're talking about an infectious agent (say, aerosolized plague) people would have to get infected and have the pathogen proliferate to the point where they become infectious, unlikely in just a couple of days. I suppose it might be different if we're talking about anthrax spores, though people would have to be pretty contaminated to continue to shed spores in infectious levels for days vs hours. Any monitoring system that is not "real time" would require everyone who was at the site around the time of the attack to self-report and voluntarily come in for treatment/quarantine. My point is, would the shorter timeline reduce the risk enough to justify an additional expenditure of 2-3 billion dollars/year, especially considering we're taking about a rare event? For less money, I'd think you could vaccinate a lot of people against anthrax, or ensure hospitals had enough drugs on hand to treat anyone who did get infected. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, first he finds a warm sandy beach to bury the eggs. It is a shame so many of the little babies get eaten by gulls and racoons and such when they hatch out... Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He said no such thing. His full quote is quite clear that a few people may be Christians in spite of being Catholic. It's nowhere close to a statement that Catholics are Christian by definition, and in fact he says the opposite. I'm in no position to defend JW, as I have no experience with that belief. Perhaps someone better able to explain the JW concept of Jesus will speak up. From my understanding, they believe Jesus is the son of God, in the sense of being His first act of creation, and lived in heaven as the Archangel Michael before His human incarnation. Church teaching on many of these matters has changed since the Council of Trent in 1551! It is my understanding that the parts you put in bold were added into the King James Bible and are not present in the original Greek texts. The whole King James version, which seems to be considered "divinely inspired", is well known to have been based on earlier translations, not on the original texts, and was heavily modified to reflect the political leanings of King James. Some others who post here are more qualified than I am to speak on the books of the New Testament in their original language. I do not recall at any time in my Catholic education being taught that Mary was a "co-redemptrix". The only thing "special" about Mary was the teaching that she was taken bodily into Heaven, which always seemed (to me) to be nothing more than a tidy dodge against the idea of the mother of God being eaten by maggots. For me, this is not about judging those who identify with other religions. I do not presume to know what, or how much one actually believes in their heart, nor do I presume to know if they are going to hell or not...so please, just stop it. All I can really do is put forth my perspective on faith and how it has come about...and if that somehow resonates with someone and encourages them to reexamine the faith and make up their own mind, great. What, to your mind, makes Catholicism a "completely different religion"? I am unaware of any papal edicts that Jesus is no longer to be followed, and that Bob the Boatbuilder is the new Messia, for example. Catholic teaching is that Jesus designated Peter as his heir, and the authority of the pope follows from direct lineal descent from Peter. The structure of every organization reflects the times in which it was founded. The Church is over 2,000 years old and at the time of it's founding the only model for a large organization was "monarcy", so it's hardly a surprise that as it grew the Church assumed the same sort of organizational structure. Much more recent Protestant denominations are mostly of American origin, and their dispersed organization with no single leader and each congregation more-or-less independent reflects the American experience of casting off the British King and placing power in the hands of the "common people". Even so, it's interesting to note how many of these denominations have felt the need to create a council or committee, or even designate a leader, to maintain coherence. Regarding papal infallibility, every faith has leaders at some level, even if just the local minister, who believes he (or rarely she) is right because God speaks to them, either directly (like Oral Roberts, who I recall claimed to talk to God on the telephone) or in their heart. The Book of Mormon makes Mormonism distinct, a descendant of Christianity just as Christianity followed from Judaism. Judaism left us wanting. Christianity is the fulfillment of God's promise from the Old testament texts...the only thing left is for the return of Christ, not Joe Smith. I tend to invite the Mormons in when they come by and we discussed this. We found that we are in agreement when it comes Catholicism, so I said : "You guys obviously understand the problems with the Apocrypha and Papal Infallibility, and you seem to agree that the Bible is sufficient...so do you see why I would reject the book of Mormon for the same reasons? They shook their head yes, and went on their way... _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There are different versions of "selfish", though, that depend on people's perspective of how things work directly and indirectly, and over time, to benefit them. For example: Selfish A: I don't have kids in school, why should I pay taxes to support education? Let parents pay tuition, and if they can't afford it too bad, not my problem. Selfish B: I benefit from living in a society with an educated work force. Our economy would be out-competed economically and become a backwater, and would be vastly less interesting, and crime would likely be even more of a problem than it is already if education was limited to children whose parents could pay private school tuition. I'll pay my school taxes. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Where did he demonstrate exclusion and hate? Was it the part where he said that he believes some Catholics are Christians? He said no such thing. He said definitively that Catholics and Jehova's Witnesses are not Christians. He followed that with "..in terms of eternal life, we should talk", which reflects his often stated conviction that anyone who doesn't follow his particular flavor of religion is condemned to hell. Personally, I take a threat or eternal suffering and torment as an expression of hate, though I realize some of you manage to twist it in your mind to an expression of love. Catholics and JWs follow the same bible, believe in the same God, and believe Jesus is the son of God, just like all the denominations you listed above. Catholics believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity, as do the denominations you listed above. JWs do have a different concept of the Holy Spirit. Catholics are close enough to Anglicans that practitioners of both are free to attend services and receive communion in one another's churches. Do you also argue that Anglicans are not Christians? Are all Anglicans also going to hell? Neither Catholics or JWs have added more recent texts to the Bible, unlike the Mormons. The Book of Mormon makes Mormonism distinct, a descendant of Christianity just as Christianity followed from Judaism. Exaggeration or outright falsehoods about Catholic theology by Evangelical sects stems from old power struggles, rooted in politics and the collection plate. White on the right vs black on the right kind of stuff. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Jack Chick is a reputable Christian scholar?? You remind me of this Star Trek episode. How do you guys ever find it in your hearts to pervert Christianity into such a travesty of exclusion and hate? You're no different from the Sunnis and Shias who hate each other because of trivial differences in history, each denying the other is practicing "real" Islam. I'm glad that I know 100 decent Christians for each one that follows your twisted beliefs. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Schools are about teaching. People are constantly demanding that schools teach "life skills" such as basic economic skills. Why not healthy eating? Or to put it another way, why should schools be enablers of bad nutritional habits that tend to have lifetime consequences as bad as being unable to "balance a checkbook" (so to speak, I do realize only a few of us dinosaurs still use checks). BTW nice misleading title to get "looks". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As might be expected from a 10-question quiz, highly nuanced issues are represented by an incredibly simplistic question with only yes/no/maybe as possible answers. Even if you agree with a statement for 99% of the cases you can think of, if you know of even one case where you disagree with the statement you have to choose "no". I think the quiz is at least as much a measure of selfishness as it is of political leaning. It's easy to say government spending and taxes should be reduced by 50%, who wouldn't want their taxes to go down by 50%. It would be more interesting to have a series of questions, each one addressing a specific government department, the service they provide, how much that costs the taxpayer, and the consequence and cost of shutting down that service. For example, you could ask: "Do you favor eliminating the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees safety testing and registration of pharmaceutical drugs and the safety and security (against bioterrorism) of the nation's food supply at an annual cost to the taxpayer of $2.5 billion (about $20/taxpayer), if the alternative is self-regulation of drugs, without oversight, by the pharmaceutical industry and a food supply that is not monitored for contamination including bioterrorism attacks such as anthrax." At least, that might make people aware of what they are getting for their $20, and what keeping that $20 in their pocket might cost them. If you went through all the government services, one at a time this way, I wonder if you would be able to get close to a consensus on how to cut spending by 10%, much less 50%. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This is messed up. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? I'm reminded of civil forfeiture laws, where your property can be seized based on only a "suspicion", with no need to even file charges, much less obtain a conviction. I don't know if Justice actually runs these sort of initiatives past constitutional experts first, but if so maybe they should also consider a "focus group" of citizens as well, because this initiative doesn't pass the "smell test". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How do you even know about this stuff? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I live in Georgia. You must take a 0 minute course to own a hand gun here. It takes you at least 0 seconds to get into the course, because there is no course. No-one gets to publish your home address, because no-one knows it as no records are kept. Oh, and then there is the Castle Doctrine, which in Georgia means you can kill anyone who wanders onto your property, whether or not they are an actual threat. Minimum $0, and no prosecutors will be coming after you. Just remember to say "I felt threatened". How much will this new law change things? I don't really know, as Georgia already had some of the most "liberal" (not in the political sense) gun laws in the country. I guess we will see. Here is an opinion piece written by a Georgia police chief, which points out some interesting consequences (intended or not) of the law. It's interesting that the police can now be sued for just asking someone if they have a permit to carry a gun. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Rivers meander. Whether the boundary is the high water line, or the normal water level, or the middle of the river (the rules vary from state to state) it's to be expected that property lines will shift around over time. Surely there are laws that cover ownership of the "new" land that is deposited, just as laws apply to loss of land due to erosion. Does anybody know what the law is in Texas, or in any other state? I'm pretty sure no state would say the "new" land is federal by default. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The article presents only one side of the issue (the Texas Attorney General), but even so this one looks like nothing but trouble. From a second Briebart article, it seems (as far as I can understand it, without any explicit explanation of the BLM position), that the BLM is using uncertainty about the exact placement of the Texas/Oklahoma border (which the two states dispute), meandering of the Red River creating and consuming land, and legalistic arguments about whether or not Texas had authority to deed land that was covered in the Louisiana Purchase, as a basis for contemplating taking control of 90,000 acres. I think it would be a huge mistake for the BLM to attempt to use technicalities to seize land that has been deeded for 200 years. Despite the amount of smoke and noise generated by anti-federal-government hotheads over the Bundy issue, I believe most Americans see him as land-grabbing tax avoiding nutjob. If the BLM moves to take over private land, where people have deeds and actual long history with the land, I doubt there will be any sympathy at all for their position, only anger that could result in the political destruction of the BLM. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)