GeorgiaDon

Could you possibly be any more shallow? 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 on you. Respect! 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)

Absolute Crap. So using the Presidents example... eating ice cream with your kid. What is the legal justification for a cop to walk up to a Hispanic citizen and ask for ID? You have to get to the ice cream, and eventually leave. There's always a technical violation to cite motorists for, and pedestrian jaywalking rules are rarely followed or enforced, but still present. May not be often enforced, but they are still laws, so if you break them you are subject to being stopped. That was an incredibly poor example, you just GAVE the officer lawful justification for the stop. That can happen to any one of us; pass a cop on a good day with out your seatbelt and nothing happens, but catch him on a bad day and you get pulled over. Whether you think its fair or not that you were the one to be ticketed when the driver next to you was doing the same the fact remains that you broke the law and you will have to produce you "papers". Well OK, so say it's a hot day (in Arizona, who'd have thought that could happen) and your ice cream melts a bit and drips on the sidewalk. LITTERING. There's always something. One problem I have with the Arizona law is that is empowers anyone who believes any government agency (police, DMV, school boards, whatever) who is not enforcing the law to sue, and for significant amounts of money. On the other hand, it shields police and others from lawsuits or other legal actions that might result from them enforcing the law. Now, if your local police feel they will be sued if they are not seen by all and sundry as aggressively enforcing the law, and no bad consequences will follow from them crossing the line from time to time, isn't it reasonable to expect that the line will all but cease to exist? In Alabama, which pretty much copied Arizona's law, they are running into fun little issues like this one, where a Mercedes Benz executive was stopped (his rental car didn't have proper tags) and then jailed because his German licence didn't meet the Alabama law. Intended or not, this sends the message that Alabama is hostile to foreign investment (Mercedes built a manufacturing plant in Alabama in 1993), which may already be causing other potential investors to look elsewhere. I'm certainly sympathetic to the desire to curb illegal immigration; what I don't understand is the preference for chainsaw type remedies over a skillfully wielded scalpel. People come here for jobs. The purpose of the e-Verify system is to provide an easy, free, fast mechanism for employers to check the employability status of any applicant. Yet, the business lobby has successfully blocked any legal requirement for them to use the system, and some states have made it illegal for employers to use the system to check on the status of applicants. It doesn't help that Congress has failed to appropriate funding to improve the speed or reliability of the system. Instead, people prefer "show-me-your-papers" laws, and fences that would require expropriation of all the private land adjoining the entire border of the country, plus trillions of dollars to build and maintain. And then what? It's not like the Berlin Wall ever stood alongside the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of freedom. 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'll be very surprised if this actually gets to trial, in Texas or anywhere. I'd even be surprised if it gets as far as a grand jury. You ARE allowed to protect your kids. 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)

Sorry to hear your marriage turned out so badly. Do you actually know if you are or are not the genetic father? I assume the son is around 20, so he and you could consent to a paternity test. If the relationship with your ex is that bad, she could be talking shit to get at you, or to try to separate you and your son. One thing I always wonder about in these cases, is donating a sperm that only thing that makes someone a father? What kind of person would cut off ties to a child who he has raised, and who regards and loves him as their father, even if they do find out the sperm donor was someone else. I'm not saying you have or would do that, as you say you still regard the boy as your son, but that is definitely an undercurrent to the whole paternity issue. It sounds as if you have a lot of anger and bitterness about the situation, and that's understandable. But consider, that is allowing your ex to continue to exert a lot of control (all negative) over your life. Fuck that. Do you love the person you raised as your son? If so, savor that and don't let anyone else dictate the quality of your relationship. Do you really want to spend possibly years in court, confronting your ex and in the process compounding your bitterness, just to punish her by extracting a few dollars? Will that really help you to be happy? Maybe you're in a bad situation, if your profession surrounds you with broken families that serve to remind you of your own tribulations. I've seen family break-ups that become so pathological that by the end everything the couple has worked for all their lives is taken by the lawyers, the kids are scarred for life by being caught in the middle, and the parents end up so bitter they can be eating filet mingion and all they can taste is dog shit. Do you really want to spend the rest of your career reliving that over and over and over, even if it is a "good living" financially? Take care of yourself. Life is short. You deserve to be happy. 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 don't work in the field so I don't know, which is why I'm asking this as an honest question. Don I guess when you say it's a moronic idea and undoable you should qualify your statement by saying you don't really know what you're talking about. Not really. Everything I have read about the issue indicates that problems with scale-up to an actual production facility (as opposed to a very small scale pilot plant) make the process unfeasible. Kind of like, just because I can jump over a three-foot hurdle doesn't mean I can jump over the moon, or even a small building, or maybe not even over a SUV. It's telling that no commercial oil company has developed a commercial shale oil production facility (as opposed to oil shale and fracking, which is a different resource and process altogether). Since StreetScooby has worked on the process, I suspect he could offer an informed opinion on the magnitude of the problems with the resource. What is "moronic" is favoring an energy source that is fraught with problems (water consumption, waste production, having to strip-mine thousands of square miles) while denigrating energy sources that are proven, renewable, and generate far fewer waste and land use issues, such as solar, wind, etc. What is "moronic" is doing so for obviously political reasons ("if Obama is for it, I'm agin' it" and all that.) Of course, if you can figure out how to get the kerogen out without using much water, generating excessive waste, or using more energy than you get back, you'll be a very rich guy. I'm much less optimistic than you seem to be though, as it seems petroleum engineers have been working at it for some time and we still don't have a commercially viable process. Also, I still can't for the life of me see how your thread title is not a jab at Obama. 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 you get the water from, and what did you do with the waste? Do you think it would be feasible to run a full-scale production facility and not take up all the water needed for agriculture, household use, etc in much of the area where the shale oil is accessible (almost all semi-arid high desert or grassland)? My understanding is that the Alberta oil sands (which is bitumin, much closer to useful oil than kerogen is) require a LOT of water to extract, and an enormous amount of waste tailings and contaminated water is produced. Water is not nearly the limiting resource in northern Alberta that it is in Wyoming and Colorado. Sometimes economies of scale work for you, and sometimes against. Enough water for a research-oriented pilot plant may not be an issue, but things can be quite different if you want to scale up a thousand-fold or more to a production facility. I don't work in the field so I don't know, which is why I'm asking this as an honest question. 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)

By any reasonable measure Jesus was a liberal; indeed He was clearly a communist, as he urged the rich to give away all their possessions, and urged us all to work every day to help the less fortunate. It seems odd to me that a person who claims to be a Christian, and who holds all who differ in such contempt, would desire an America that would exclude Jesus Christ and all who practice so much of the actual message He preached. Really, Ron, you'd better hope that come your judgement day you're not held to account for the deep hatred you so lovingly nurture in your soul. 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)

Have at it. All those petroleum engineers must be stupid, or perhaps they're secretly Kenyan muslims who've been working for a century (since the oil industry first started trying to tap shale oil) to ensure that America fails. Anyway, I'm sure if you train your vast intellect on the problem you'll have it licked in no time. What is moronic is to favor a "resource" that costs more energy to harvest and process than it yields, and along the way requires strip mining of tens of thousands of square miles of land and far more water than is available in that arid landscape. Kerogen isn't fluid, so the rock has to be mined, ground to a fine powder, mixed with a lot of water, and heated to several hundred degrees to harvest a low yield of kerogen (several tons of rock per barrel of kerogen). At the end of the process you have to figure out what to do with the waste; the pulverized cooked rock takes up a lot more volume than the original rock, so you can't just put it back in the hole, and the waste water is so contaminated it has to be held in leak-proof containment ponds essentially forever. Tell you what, why don't you volunteer to have your home/neighborhood/state strip-mined, pulverized, then buried under hundreds of feet of rock dust and irretrievably poisoned water. Since you wish this for the residents of Kansas and Colorado, it's only fitting that you should offer to go first, don't you think? Yet for some reason you chose to title your thread "200 years of oil and we hear squat from Barry". So you use this astonishingly ignorant article to criticize "Barry", then claim you weren't making a jab? Maybe you're so blinded by your ODS you can't even see how ridiculous your statement is. Or maybe to you being honest just takes second place to stroking your obvious hatred. 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)

Did you read the comments following the article? Actually they are quite well informed, for a change. Here are some examples from the very forst page of comments: Comment 1 (the very first one, right there at the top of the list): "oil shale is neither oil nor shale, it is a waxy carbon substance called Kerogen. I’m not aware of any refineries currenlty tuned to refine kerogen into oil. Except for a few small experiments where kerogen has been heated to a few hundred degree C and some condensate has been skimmed off, it has never been done. To be a proven reserve it must be technologically recoverable. The technically recoverable oil from oil shale is exactly zero until you invent a way to do it and build the machine to do it." Comment 3: "I’m sure there are many trillions of barrels of oil in Green River. I’m equally sure that it doesn’t matter at all. The reason for this, is that there’s no such thing as magic. It takes energy to get the kerogen out of shale. Lot’s of it. You have to grind rock and heat it. The energy return, is, to put things mildly, lousy (http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/land/oseroi.php). It’s barely above 1:1, making it as big a boondoggle as ethanol. In all probability, you couldn’t even make drilling and production energetically self-sustaining, much less produce enough excess energy to run and industrial civilization. As it stands today, the place only serves to generate penny stock to sell to suckers." [penny stocks to suckers! I like that.] Comment 4: "the USGS very carefully qualified their estimate by saying AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY, not today’s technology. Nor, did they say economically recoverable. I was assigned to a team that worked on a US government shale oil project at Rifle, Colorado in 1950 while I was employed by DeGolyer & MacNaughton (world renowned petroleum consutlting firm located in Dallas, Texas). Even then, we found it was possible (not practical) to process, refine and obtain crude oil from the oil saturated shale. However, a larger problem was how to get rid of the enormous amounts of powdery flour-like residual material. I am sure the kerogen can be processed and refined for maybe couple of thousand dollars per barrel. I am still at a loss about how to dispose or make use of the residual material. I’d bet some starryeyed academic will come up with the idea that it can be made into some sort of solid material by using water. This is desert type country – where is the water?" One more for the moment: "There are massive barriers to this, as a mix of both technological and regulatory. The regulatory ones stem from the technical barriers – simply put, there isn’t a way to produce the oil at scale without causing significant pollution or using up massive amounts of water that the region doesn’t have. This is a major limitation holding back output levels from Canada’s oil sands as well – its a hugely water intensive process. Given that the Colorado River has routinely failed to reach the Gulf of California in recent years, among other regional water issues, the odds that the volume of water needed to produce this resources at a scale you are suggesting is highly unlikely with current technologies. Many of the regulatory barriers that are in place revolve around these water issues – interstate water agreements are highly complex and centered on protecting water suppliers for agricultural and direct household consumption." There's a lot more in the comment section for those who wish to read. It would behoove some people to dig a bit deeper before succumbing to the knee-jerk impulse to post any and all crap, no matter how moronic, just to get a dig in at Obama and/or "liberals". 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)

Got it. Thanks. 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)

One or two caveats: what percentage of people who earned undergraduate degrees in these fields actually found work in the discipline? Are these incomes specifically for those with undergrad degrees, or do they include masters and PhDs? I think a large proportion of those earning chemistry or accounting degrees actually find work in that or a related field, but I don't think that's true for some other degrees. If 100 people get poly sci degrees, and five get jobs at $75,000/yr but 95 end up in the service industry, maybe the average salary in the field is #75,000 but the average ROI is a lot less. In some of those fields, real employment requires an advanced degree. Just saying, those numbers have a pretty big fuzziness factor. 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 idea. A really deep well, preferably abandoned. Then several bags of lime, some dirt, and several yards of concrete. That might contain the stench. 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)

Thanks Wendy. 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)

You can't prove it. You can't disprove it. _____________________________________ 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)

And the fish are biting! Anyway, I hope I'm not trolling. I don't disagree with the statement that science can't disprove the existence of God, I'd just add that that isn't a question that science is even concerned with. Science only comes into it when religion makes assertions about the physical world, things that can be observed, measured, and experimented on. Hope you're doing well, Andy. Cheers, 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 agree. But it seems that the concept of a spiritual reality is a total anathema for most atheists in this forum. ... Hey Max! I'm not so sure, I think there's something about the anonymity of the online world that makes people act more strident than they are in real life. At least I sure hope so! Thanks for the photos and videos on the Monroe FB page. Nice beard! I've got a PhD dissertation to finish reading, and a grant due next week, but I will make it out there sooner rather than later. 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'd first like to see a more complete description from the police describing and supporting the actions taken. I have great issues with mass detentions, esp for a crime that has already occurred. This is not too much better than no knock raids where innocents can and have gotten shot. I can't disagree with any of that. I wonder about the nature of the anonymous tip, they seem to have given it great credibility. Still in principle, if we assume that they knew the tip was solid, and there was a virtual certainty that one of the 19 cars at the intersection contained an armed bank robber, what should they have done? If we say they should have done nothing, that detaining 19 vehicles (40 people) is too big an imposition, then where is the line to be drawn? If they know the robber is in one of only two vehicles, but they don't know which one without looking, do they have to let both vehicles leave rather than inconvenience one innocent citizen? Or is the line five cars? Or 50? Me, I don't know the answer. Also, once the vehicles are detained I assume they would get a warrant to search them, or they'd risk not being able to use the result of the search in court. It'll take time to get a warrant, so there's probably no way to do things quickly and minimize the inconvenience to the innocent. 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, yes and no. Science is solely concerned with the physical world, which is at least potentially subject to observation and experimental manipulation. Questions such as the "meaning of life" are deeply important to many people, and science doesn't touch this issue. If people derive happiness from their belief that their life is guided by some divine mandate, more power to them. If people derive comfort from a belief that they will see their deceased loved ones in the afterlife, great. I (at least) can't prove that these things are untrue, and I see no value in trying to strip people of a belief that gives them purpose and comfort, as long as they don't try to force me to believe the same way. The problem is that religion is never limited to the internal experience of the mind. Certainly, virtually every variation of the Judeo-Christian faiths state that the world was designed and created by God, and that God intervenes in the physical world to make things happen. Almost all Christians believe that when good things happen to them God has caused it, and that God challenges people with trials and tribulations. Some believe He cares about the outcome of sports competitions. Once you start in with a God who makes things happen in the physical world, you are saying something about the nature of the physical world, and so are crossing into the territory of science. If God can make things happen, then either there should be detectable evidence of that or else our notions of conservation of mass and energy are incorrect. A God who can move things around but never be seen, uses no energy, is not detectable in any way even in theory, pretty much implies that reality itself is not real, but is just a reflection of the whims of that God. If God so wished, the sun would rise in the West and set in the East tomorrow, without us suddenly finding ourselves smashed to bits as the rotation of the Earth is instantaneously reversed. Even the notion that it is possible for God to do this, which is pretty much fundamental to Judeo-Christian faiths, is an inherent conflict with science. On the other hand, if we were to say that God could not do this because of the laws of physics , that would put science in conflict with religion. Maybe some religions do pertain only to the mind, and so pose little conflict with science. Buddhism come to mind. I suspect for many Christians, the conflict doesn't seem very obvious mainly because they don't think about it except on a superficial level. Doubtless there are many who are comfortable with the idea of the physical world as the false one, a veil that can be pushed aside to reveal to "true" world. Others just accept that God wrapped His hands around the baby in the plane crash, protecting it from injury while everyone else dies, without bothering to ask why God didn't just prevent the plane from crashing, or maybe why He made the plane crash in the first place, and how He could do that without leaving the slightest trace. A world where there is really no conflict between religion and science would be a world where God speaks (perhaps) only in the mind, providing meaning and comfort, but who never intervenes in the physical world in any way. When good things, or bad things, happen to people it's just random, and has no relation to the Will of God. The baby survived the crash because some engineer designed a good seat, or by sheer chance no chunk of metal or burning jet fuel happened to intersect the precise point in space that the baby was occupying. I don't think that sort of belief would be very appealing to many who call themselves religious. Now, if we were to talk about science vs spiritualism I think the discussion would be quite different. But spiritual is not the same as religious. I know a lot of atheists who are quite spiritual people. 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)

Govt backed student loans should only be for degrees like engineering, liberal arts do not have the ROI. Heard an interesting comment on NPR the other day, to the effect that a big problem is that banks have successfully lobbied congress to pass laws that ensure student loans can't ever be discharged, not even by declaring bankruptcy. Banks love student loans, because the student is forever tied to paying them back. Maybe if student loans were like other loans, where there is some risk to the lender that the borrower will default, then lenders would be more diligent to ensure they don't get in too deep with students in majors that give a poor return on investment. The government distorts the market by protecting the banks in this case. 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 wondered that too. It seems the police had an anonymous tip that the bank robber was in a car stopped at a red light at that intersection, but didn't have a description of the car or the robber, so they blocked off the intersection and searched every car. According to this article, evidence was found in the 19th and last car searched that tied the occupant to the robbery. About 40 people were handcuffed and detained. I'm not comfortable with the way the police responded, but I also don't know what they should have done instead. An armed robber can certainly reasonably be seen as a threat to the public. What do people think should have been done? Should the police never stop or question anybody they don't already know for sure (or think they know for sure) is the actual perp? If you have 40 people detained, and you have solid reason to believe one of them has just committed armed robbery, wouldn't the police be negligent if they just said "stand over there while we search your car", and then had the actual perp pull a gun and take people hostage? Just what exactly do people think should they have done? 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)

You are misinformed. Three days before the April 20 bond hearing, in a phone conversation with his wife from the Seminole County jail (so the conversation was recorded) he told his wife where to look for the passport, and she told him she already had it and had put it in a safe deposit box. (Link here). Do you actually believe that on April 17 he discussed the passport with his wife, and specifically told her to hide it, and then only THREE DAYS LATER, when his lawyer assured the court that he had no other passport besides the almost expired one he turned in, he had completely forgotten about the conversation, or that he ever had the second passport at all? It's now being claimed that he gave the second passport to his lawyer, who somehow then also forgot about it. When was the second passport turned over to his lawyers? Why did he not remind his lawyer about the second passport when that lawyer wrongfully assured the court there was no other passport besides the on that was turned over, which had only one month left before it expired. Does anyone believe in an amnesia-inducing passport, that somehow both Zimmerman and his lawyer forgot about despite discussing it (in Zimmerman's case) only 3 days before? Isn't it more likely that Zimmerman turned over the passport after it's existence was revealed by the prosecution, and his lawyer is put in the position of taking responsibility for it because to do otherwise would be to concede that his client lied to him and to the court? One more time, he turned control of the account over to his lawyers five days after the bond hearing (so on April 25th). On April 12th he discussed with his wife (again, the call was recorded; same link as above) how she could get access to the account. On the 16th in another recorded conversation with his wife, who is at the credit union, he assists her to change the password so she can access the account. After that, she transferred $135,000 from the paypal account to her own account, and that money was later moved into other accounts controlled by family members. Yet, at the bond hearing on the 20th, his wife testified that the family was indigent, and Zimmerman sat there and said nothing, because he had orchestrated the scheme. I don't know who is legally culpable in the Martin/Zimmerman incident, the courts will have to try to sort that out. However it seems quite clear that Zimmerman lied to his attorneys and to the court, to get favorable bail conditions. He seems to have you bamboozled, too. 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)

To use a medical analogy, bottoming out might be a good option in the case of a disease that is self-limiting, is very unlikely to result in death or permanent disability, and results in immunity against reinfection. Treating the disease, rather than letting it run its course, would result in a slightly faster recovery, but usually at the cost of subsequent immune protection. On the other hand, letting things bottom out would be unwise in the case of a disease that would be likely to result in death or permanent disability. The question is, was the recession a case of a bad stomach ache, the flu, malaria, ebola, or rabies? Reasonable people might disagree about the diagnosis. Doing nothing for a stomach ache or flu has a good chance to be the best course of action. You might die of malaria, probably will from ebola, and definitely will from rabies, if you make no effort to treat the disease. A doctor who mistakes rabies for a stomach ache is certainly guilty of malpractice. Evidently you feel the economy had a self-limiting condition that would spontaneously heal; the patient might lose a few pounds in the process, but they needed to lose weight anyway so it's all to the good. What if the economy had ebola, as many (including the present administration) believe? Would you still say "do nothing"? 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)

Like watching Shah give relationship advice. 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 haven't found any reference to that online, could you point me to one? It's clear from the transcript of the phone conversation between Zimmerman and his wife that they discussed the second passport three days before the bond hearing, yet at the hearing Zimmerman testified that the surrendered passport was his only one. Even if he had given it to his attorney by that time, he lied to the court. Agree about the media. I don't know about the "hard time suspending"; when I was a teenager you could be arrested for possession if you had a single seed in your pocket, and it seems to me the local schools suspend kids for a lot less that suspicion of drug possession. Schools aren't held to the same standard of proof as the legal system is. Yep, he's legally entitled to that. Now that he's shown himself to be willing to deceive the court, he may have a harder time of it, we'll see. I can understand how people could be on either side of the fence about the initial charges. I really don't understand the knee-jerk defense of everything he does, though. Funny how it seems some of the same people who think Clinton should have been removed from the Presidency for lying about whether or not he had sex with Lewinski are willing to completely overlook multiple instances of lying to the court by Zimmerman. 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)