peacefuljeffrey

While that sounds a bit more convenient and instanteous than keeping one's own record of the wallet's contents, I don't imagine I would be as comfortable putting so much faith in some service, much less paying for it. Is there a monthly or annual fee? Okay, this "sentinel service" may help you cancel stolen credit cards, but will it help you remember all the other cards that were lost when the wallet disappeared? Your USPA card? Your NRA card? Your Blockbuster Video card? Your Concealed Weapons Permit? Your Driver's License? Your PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association) card? Your library card? Many of these -- and others -- I'll bet are not connected or connectable to this "sentinel card," so my system still works best. I'm talking not just about what cards will need to be immediately canceled, but also what cards you will simply wish to remember had been in the wallet and will need to be replaced through the normal bureaucratic channels. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is that why Tony Blair is fighting to do away with any right you have against self incrimination (what we in the U.S. would call our "5th amendment right to remain silent")? Oh, and hasn't the right to a trial by jury been almost done away with over there? I don't understand why a suspect has to be released on bail just because he has not been tried and convicted yet. Would it be the first time that a criminal suspect was considered so dangerous that he was denied bail? They can do that over there like they can do it here, can't they?! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

The White City, it's a joke of a name It's a black, violent place if I remember the game I couldn't wait to get out But I loved to go home Do you remember the White City fighting, yeah Pete Townshend even wrote about Apartheid. Well, Sting had already taken the rainforests, as well as Pinochet... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here in the U.S., if you go to a gas pump and swipe your ATM debit card OR credit card, you can dispense gas with it WITHOUT HAVING TO ENTER A PIN. This fact is used to steal from people. A credit card is stolen, a perp walks up to someone at a gas pump with some story about why he can't get cash with the card, Here in California, most stations I've gone too have required a PIN for designated debit card transactions. For credit cards, I've been required to enter the zip code for the billing address of the account. I don't know if it's statewide, but it's certainly a practical deterrent. Well, it ain't in place here in Florida, and it ain't in place in ANY of the states I gassed-up in on the drive to and from New York earlier in April. That would include Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, and New Jersey. I can't say about New York, because the times I got gas there I paid an attendant instead of at the pump. It's amazing that with credit card fraud and identity theft as rampant as they're making it seem it is, that there are not uniform standards like you described to help stop it! That borders on criminal malfeasance on the part of the card companies, the companies that accept cards, and the state legislatures. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I just found out what "rimming" is from looking at that link. Okay, now go do some research on "shrimping." Sex Glossary LOL! You are cute! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here in the U.S., if you go to a gas pump and swipe your ATM debit card OR credit card, you can dispense gas with it WITHOUT HAVING TO ENTER A PIN. This fact is used to steal from people. A credit card is stolen, a perp walks up to someone at a gas pump with some story about why he can't get cash with the card, but will pay for your gas with "his" card if you give the cash to him as reimbursement. He can do this ONLY because the PIN, which he does not know, is not required. This brings me to a helpful tip for you all: Take your wallet to a photocopy machine, lay all of the cards out, and take a photocopy of them. Turn each card over in its place, and photocopy the back (many cards have info on the back, particularly credit cards: this is where they list the 800 number to report theft). Make a few copies of each side and take them home and put them in a safe place. You might even keep a copy in your glove compartment. Use this copy to be able to instantly know whom you have to call if your wallet is ever stolen or lost. Cancel all credit cards immediately, and inform the DMV of the loss of your driver's license. (The copy kept in your car is because often stolen credit cards are used within minutes or hours of the theft. You can use this copy even if you're hours away from home.) I'm not sure where or when I first heard of this recommendation, but I make sure to re-copy my wallet contents every time I am issued any new card. I throw out the old copy (shredding or tearing it) and replace it with the new one. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

C'mere... I'll help you relieve yourself of that sexual ignorance! Seriously, I've known of dental dams for years. I have NEVER used one. I don't believe in licking a woman's privates unless I'm confident it's safe for me and her, and if a dental dam is advisable or necessary, well, shit, I shouldn't even be down there on her in the first place! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Here in the U.S., if you go to a gas pump and swipe your ATM debit card OR credit card, you can dispense gas with it WITHOUT HAVING TO ENTER A PIN. This fact is used to steal from people. A credit card is stolen, a perp walks up to someone at a gas pump with some story about why he can't get cash with the card, but will pay for your gas with "his" card if you give the cash to him as reimbursement. He can do this ONLY because the PIN, which he does not know, is not required. This brings me to a helpful tip for you all: Take your wallet to a photocopy machine, lay all of the cards out, and take a photocopy of them. Turn each card over in its place, and photocopy the back (many cards have info on the back, particularly credit cards: this is where they list the 800 number to report theft). Make a few copies of each side and take them home and put them in a safe place. You might even keep a copy in your glove compartment. Use this copy to be able to instantly know whom you have to call if your wallet is ever stolen or lost. Cancel all credit cards immediately, and inform the DMV of the loss of your driver's license. (The copy kept in your car is because often stolen credit cards are used within minutes or hours of the theft. You can use this copy even if you're hours away from home.) I hope this helps somebody. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No, but who needs laws to enforce carrying it when daily life is made nearly impossible if you are without one, anyway? I can't believe that you can turn a computer on but can't see that there is really no practical difference. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Believe it or not, there are people who live their lives perfectly content to never read a newspaper, never watch the news on t.v., never listen to the news on the radio, never read a non-fiction book... They live lives very ignorant of the world around them, and what's going on in it, whether those events affect them or not. I always get a bemused chuckle when a newspaper story reports that some idiot was defrauded out of $5,000 or so in the following scheme: Someone approaches them in a parking lot, claiming that he has a winning lottery ticket worth millions of dollars. He can't, however, claim the prize, he says, because he is not a legal resident of the U.S. and will be deported if he comes forward -- or at least, won't be able to claim the prize money. He is willing to sell the victim the ticket for the bargain price of only $5,000 cash. He and his friend even offer to take the person to the bank to withdraw the money, which the victim agrees to do. During the course of all this, somehow the victim is distracted (by an accomplice, or a ploy) and the thieves take off with the money. I have read of this happening here in S. Florida at least twice, if not more. I have to figure that this is what people get for being A) pretty damned stupid and gullible, and B) unwilling to educate themselves and stay up-to-date by reading the newspaper. Anyone who read the newspaper would recognize this as a scam the moment it was attempted on them. Therefore I conclude that the victims are almost exclusively those who keep their heads in the sand, willfully. It's hard to pity them when their ignorance is their own fault. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Um, any comment on why you refused to respond to any of the direct questions I asked in my post? I was kind of interested enough in your response to ask them... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Is having the cookies but NOT making any comment about using them against the teacher completely benign? Is the only difference simply the comment, even though the comment was not meant to be taken seriously? I'm just trying to figure out the boundaries of your viewpoint on this. If a second kid had been in the exact same location with the first kid, with the same cookies, with the same allergic teacher nearby, would he be in trouble for having those cookies near an allergic teacher, even if he knew he was allergic? Are possessors of peanut products responsible for knowing of the allergies of those around them, and taking precautions to protect those allergic people; or are the allergic people the ones responsible for safeguarding their own well-being? I want to know how far this is to be taken... Is it the case that kids in this teacher's class will be prohibited from bringing peanut food products for lunch, but other kids will not be so restricted if their teachers are not allergic? If so, how is that fair? Why shouldn't EVERY member of the public's diet be restricted so as to protect the health of the most allergically vulnerable among us? Should the school provide a list of prohibited foods, which would be comprehensive and include ANY and ALL foods to which ANY person MIGHT be allergic? I have not seen comment on what this case will mean to anyone who wishes to bring specific types of food to school for lunch. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I want to know where this all is supposed to end. I mean, yes, there are people in the population who could suffer severe health effects (death included) if exposed to various food products. As I recall, a few years ago they stopped serving peanuts on airliners because of fears that the "peanut dust" would travel through the circulation system and possibly "infect" allergic people even if they had not had peanuts themselves. Obviously, it would be absurd to BAN peanuts, just in order to protect allergic people wherever they might go. They simply cannot make innocent possession of peanuts a crime, no matter what the reason for having them. I don't care if I had the peanuts on me because I was going to eat them, or just because I wanted to have them for the heck of it. Peanuts are simply not weapons. So, let's say I was on an airliner that stopped serving peanuts for the health reasons. What if i brought my OWN, because I simply like them as a snack, and I miss the airlines providing them? It's not like I can be charged with a crime of endangering other people. They haven't passed a law to keep peanuts off airliners or buses, etc. I suppose the most they could do is request that I don't open them. Would that have the force of law? I dunno. We cannot protect 100% of the people from 100% of the things that might harm them -- particularly if they are things enjoyed by others who don't suffer harm from them. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

That is not nearly the same. A poisonous snake would be indiscriminately dangerous to anyone who interacted with it. The nutter butter cookies are not anything that is fairly classified as a dangerous substance or weapon. They are not uniformly dangerous to all humans, such as a vial of sarin would be. Are you suggesting that NO one should be allowed to bring nutter butters ANYWHERE, because there could be SOMEONE who is deathly allergic to them? If this kid brought the cookies AND intended to throw them at the teacher or something, hoping to get his allergy to act up, that would be one thing. To simply HAVE the cookies with him because they were part of his lunch, that is nothing that rises to a criminal level. To have the cookies as lunch and to make some flippant JOKE COMMENT about what would happen if he gave them to the allergic teacher, that too is not a crime, nor should it be punished. If there was any intent to act on the comment, that begins to be a real transgression. I am not aware that the kid actually made any attempt, nor expressed a plan or intention to cause an allergic reaction in the teacher. Just what would you want, anyway? To ban all people from being able to have peanut products just because some people are vulnerable to them? What would you say if the kid, not knowing the teacher had the allergy, had gone up in genuine generosity and offered a few to the teacher? Would you see a crime committed there? After all, the same effect (severe allergic reaction) would be possible, and the intent of the kid would be irrelevant. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Established where? Certainly not here, based on the text of the Herald article. I asked several times for more detail - a picture would have been useful - feel free to provide it. Quoted from the original post: "The weapons charge against him is a felony, said Miami-Dade state attorney's spokesman Ed Griffith. Even though the toy looked nothing like a firearm up close, Villafaña said, it qualified as a weapon because it ``has a trigger mechanism and can fire a projectile.'' " Right there is the cop spokesman saying that the trigger mechanism was what made them classify this rubber band gun as a "weapon" -- "even though the toy looked nothing like a firearm up close." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Aww, come on, that red, white and blue Otter looked badass cool! It had character, that's for sure! In 2002 I was taking flying lessons, and I flew out to Pahokee a few times for practice. Once, I got there to find skydiving operations taking place, so I hitched a ride on the bus back to the Skydive America hangar and talked with Larry about learning to skydive. He was friendly, and offered me a free right-seat ride on the next load! (It was a blast, with Chad the cowboy flying!) When I finally got ready to learn to skydive, Skydive America was already defunct, and (this was August 2003) Skydive Palm Beach was running: more of a club of close-knit skydiver friends hanging on by their fingernails with a hired Caravan & pilot coming up on weekends from Opa Locka, just barely keeping people jumping! Load calls were by word of mouth, not loudspeaker. We packed and hung out in a rented T-hangar with no plumbing, just a small couch, a picnic table, a ratty couch, and some folding chairs. It was all I had ever known, and I loved it for what it was -- a chance to skydive! I made good friends there and I still have them!

My ears are usually perfectly fine when I skydive. I have had a cold for about a week, mostly in my nose, but partly in my head, and I jumped twice yesterday. I had very mild plugging in my right ear once I was under canopy, and I did some swallowing and a little puffing with my nose held, and it took care of itself. I remember one hellish experience when I was flying back from Georgia, where my mom and I were visiting my brother during his Army basic training. I had fallen asleep in my window seat, and I had my Walkman headphones on, the kind that go into your ear a bit. I awoke while we were on descent into Newark, to the sensation as though someone were using the Jaws of Life inside my ear canal. I don't know what happend, but I guess since I'd been asleep maybe I hadn't swallowed during the descent from cruise altitude, and the pressure difference caught up with me. All the subsequent swallowing I did was in vain. I don't know how long it took, but my ear didn't stop hurting for quite a while. Nothing like that's happened since then, fortunately. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My mom made a scrapbook of school papers, drawings, report cards, and stuff from when my siblings and I were very young. I was looking through it recently and found an item of particular interest to me. It was an old school assignment from 1979 -- I was 8, so this was when I was in second grade. The ditto sheet has a drawing of a girl and boy helping each other climb an object, and copy at the top that says, "This Saturday you can go anywhere and do anything you choose. Write about some of your plans." My reply was this: "If I was free on Saturday, I would go to Brooklyn, or Virginia, or Accapulco (sic), or Florida, then to the Statue of Liberty, or Buffalo, or climb trees, or go to Canada, or to my grandma's and grandpa's, or to my aunt and uncles, or out in space, or go to the mountains or beach, or maybe boating, or skydiving. (emphasis added) Sorry folks I can't think of any more." Now that I'm an A-licensed skydiver with 80 jumps, this ditto assignment is a precious, priceless document to me. Prior to finding it I had no specific memory of how long I have wanted to skydive. Now I know that I was only 8 years old and was already feeling the desire to be in the sky. By the way, apparently I listed all those other places because they were already familiar to me. Brooklyn: Dad's office was there; Virginia: g'ma and g'pa lived there; Statue of Liberty: Dad had taken us kids there; Buffalo: Dad has family there; Canada: right near Buffalo. What gets me is that I may or may not have even flown in an airplane before I wrote this. There is no date on the ditto, just "1979" in my mom's handwriting. It was not until that year (second grade), when my father's father died, that I ever flew in an airliner, and not until 1982 did Dad start flying Cessnas. So I guess I had seen skydiving on t.v. and been fascinated by it, because I knew nobody who skydived, and hadn't gone near a real DZ or airplane in my life before then. Amazing the effect that visual depictions can have. I wonder what I must have thought was involved with doing a skydive. Surely I didn't really understand the notion of freefalling and what sensations that entailed! Are we all fascinated with the idea of jumping from a plane and landing with a parachute when we're that young and we see it on t.v. or in a movie? I sure wish I could remember or discover what exactly I had seen that put the seed of desire into me. But at least at long last it's finally flowering!

Well, I'm the wrong one to ask about this in the first place, since I don't have others pack for me, I do it myself, but... Do people really want to (pay to) have someone who has never even jumped pack their main?? I know I sure wouldn't. I did not think it worked that way, where a person was not already learning to skydive before he learned to pack a parachute. Isn't it best to gain some of the more first-hand knowledge of the function and form of the parachute anatomy before you go packing it for someone to use? Anyway... to the original topic. It sounds as though mastadj has the spark of interest he'll need to get really into the sport, but I'm confused about one thing. At the start of the post, it seems as though he's done a jump (mentioned about the thrill of the freefall, etc.). Has he done a jump, or just was talking about how he imagines it would feel? Man, I would not like to be back in the position of being too young to skydive. My advice to you, mastadj, is this: TAKE FLYING LESSONS. You can sign up and take those at any age, just about (you're old enough), as long as you can reach the controls and pedals at the same time you're looking out the windscreen. In the U.S., you can actually fly SOLO at 16!! You can get your pilot's license at 17! Little can better prepare you to be a well-rounded skydiver more than flying airplanes can. You will arrive at a DZ already understanding weather, wind, principles of flight, airport patterns, landing patterns, flight and airport operations... You will also have little or no apprehension about being aboard the jump plane, or looking down from that beautiful beautiful doorway... Blue skies, - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I am not often plagued with sleeplessness, but I do have memory of some nights when I just tossed and turned, and sometimes came fully awake and couldn't rest again for a long while. Usually the worst sleepless nights I've had were caused by going to sleep with a headache, or developing one during the night. (The latter happens sometimes when it's hot or humid and I develop a sinus headache after spending time tossing and turning trying in vain to get comfortable. I think the headache comes in part from having my face sorta frowned and drawn in from frustration.) Usually if I can't sleep, I get up and get something to drink and something to eat. I simply have a hard time sleeping if I feel at all hungry, so most nights I'm sure to have eaten something within an hour or two of going to sleep. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

This is different from your example. If your example were more in line with the issue, you'd say that it was fair of John to require anyone coming over to play poker to whip out his dick to show there was no dog hair on it, even those not ever suspected of "shagging dogs." The problem with this attitude of forgiving infringements on privacy simply because it's going on in private institutions is that the private nature of the institution does not change the fact that the action taken is patently unfair. So who gives a shit if it's a private school? What if the private school passed a rule that each student who wishes to attend must rub feces in his or her hair every morning as the students walk through the doors? Would you excuse this patently unfair requirement merely on the basis of, "Well, they don't HAVE to choose to go to school there"? Random drug screening of anyone is just plain wrong, and goes against the principle that people are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty -- and that searches should not be conducted except where there is probable cause to believe a crime or infraction has been committed. This is not a principle that should be in effect in only the strictest possible venue -- it is one that should be effective as broadly as we can manage, because it is the only fair one. What happens if, because this one school does it, other schools realize that they can do it, too, and won't lose enrollment because hey, if all the schools are eventually doing it, where else will anybody go? It's like gas prices. Right now, if you get pissed off at the idea of spending $1.89 for regular unleaded, do you have a fucking choice about where to get it cheaper?! Not hardly! So if we allow private schools to do this, just because since they're private no one is compelled to attend there (the "Don't like it? Leave" principle) soon there will be fewer and fewer schools that kids can attend without being compelled to give up what SHOULD be an inalienable right. What if all the supermarkets and other places you could buy food required you to dress fully in drag before they would let you buy food? Would you still be "free" to shop for the food that sustains your life? The stores could still say, "Hey, we're not denying you anything. You can still forage in the forest for nuts and berries, after all. And all we're asking you to do is put on a wig, makeup, stockings, high heels..." You don't HAVE to (but the cost of deciding not to is pretty high, huh?). - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Because they're cynical, vindictive, spiteful bureaucrat pieces of shit! That's why. The funny thing about when people in the U.S. (mostly it comes from democrats and other liberals) squawk about how Canada has it so much better than we do because of their socialized medicine, is that Canada's system, from what I've heard and read, is so FUCKED that it's unbelievable, and Canadians come HERE to get health care because they aren't told they have to WAIT for a YEAR to get a friggin' MRI! Yes, that was part of what I heard. The Canadian health care system is so backed-up and understaffed that there are not enough doctors and nurses to go around -- part of what comes when people don't want to spend 12 years in school learning to be a doctor and then make shit for money in a socialized-care system. The quality of care, from what I hear, stinks, and that's if you can GET care in a timely fashion. I don't live in Canada. I'd appreciate if some of our Canadian posters would write in about what they've experienced in their own system. If it's anything like the billion dollar gun registry boondoggle (which was supposed to cost a few million), it's gotta be a shambles. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hmm. Imagine you two dudes walking through a darkened alley in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood. A few youths are walking behind you. Of course, your natural instinct would be to go into protection mode, be careful, be prepared, etc. Now imagine you overhear them talking and figure out those male juveniles are coming from a bible study. My guess is that you would not be afraid of the harm, hatred and divisiveness that they will bring upon you. My guess is you'll feel a bit better about the situation. This is sophistry. When we talk about the "harm, hatred, divisiveness," that is not meant that each individual member of a religion goes about his day spreading each of those things. Your example is ridiculous and specious. The harm done by religion is not done in an overt way, necessarily, though during the Crusades, for example, I suppose it actually was. These youths, though religous, are not going to come up to me and Wrongway and "divide" us from anyone or anything. Their religion, on the other hand, certainly does "divide" US and THEM, though, for sure. It also divides THEM and the JEWS walking on the other side of the street. It instills in each side a passionate and deep-seated distrust and/or loathing of the other, due to knowledge and awareness of the differences between what each believes about the ultimate truths of creation. I have seen this very same claim made before in other discussions of religion conducted elsewhere. It was no more valid there than it is here. You might as well be saying that while I'm walking on land, I'm still scuba diving: I'm just using the atmosphere instead of an air tank, and wearing flip-flops instead of flippers, and wearing sunglasses instead of a mask! I do not follow any kind of proscribed array of dogmatic principles akin to a "religion" but laid out instead as, "How to be an Atheist." There IS no "HOW" to being an Atheist. But if you wanna be a Christian, you most certainly do have certain things you must believe, and adhere to doing, in order to truly qualify for that appelation. I simply do not believe in a god. I do not CLING to a lack of belief in a god, and that's part of why it's not a religion: and if a god came around and made himself known to me, I could believe in him. I feel it is foolish to believe in much, if anything, on faith. Even if you say that it is "believing on faith" when I believe that, for example, when I call for a pizza, someone will soon show up with one, that does not make me religious simply because I believed something on faith. Believing something as serious as how the UNIVERSE got created on FAITH, based on something other people told you was told to them was told to them was told to them... is, to me, ludicrous. How on earth is there any way to know whether someone along that exceptionally long line was not a total bullshit artist, or manipulator (religious history is replete with those). It seems the epitome of suspicious, to me, that god has seen fit to refuse to prove his existence to the very people he really wants to love him. Talk about passive/aggressive manipulative behavior! What purpose is served for god, when he stipulates that we must believe in him without any proof, otherwise we "fail" the test and we go to hell? As was said, I don't WANT to believe in that kind of a petty, vindictive god, particularly not if he hypocritically claims to be infinitely loving and forgiving. The same sort of specious logic is used to assail those who would use violence in order to stop someone else's violent rampage. It all has to do with initiation. If some psycho comes down the street killing anyone he encounters, and he encounters me and I kill HIM, ending his rampage, you can't truly call me a violent person in the strictest sense of "violent." I did what had to be done to punctuate the violence, to end it. Likewise, those who "blast" religions are not "religious" just because they may collect a set of organized thoughts meant to express why religion is a problem. Just because it, "sounds a lot like Christians blasting Jews, Muslims blasting Christians, etc. One belief system blasting another," doesn't mean it is the same thing. Have you never heard a bird chirping quickly and steadily to another bird in a tree? It could "sound a lot like" what a caricature of a nagging woman sounds like when she's lacing into her husband. Does that mean there really is anything related between the two, apart from that they're both making sound? The problem between religions really does not come from arguments they have about the niggling details of what they believe. The problem comes directly from the fact that when people of different believes become cognizant of the fact that there are differences between what they believe, they feel set apart from each other, distanced, and they come do DISLIKE each other. The dislike grows into the form of actual malice, actual actions taken to spite or harm the other. The problem has virtually nothing to do with the actual differences in details of religious tenets -- it has to do with the fact that there are differences at all. The differences don't amount to religious strife. The strife arises from the fact that because of the differences, the groups simply come to DISLIKE each other. "Ooooh, they're different. They're not like us. How can we trust them?" Come on, didn't you ever know kids in school who had no real reason for not liking some other kid, but disliked him just because he was somehow different? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

These comments are some of the exact things I detest most about religion, and by extension, religious people. First, there is this exceptionally arrogant statement: "...Everyone knows in their heart of hearts that there is a God and because of the sin of man, that some have rejected this belief." In my "heart of hearts" I most certainly do NOT, as you claim, "know that there is a god." In fact, I really believe that there isn't a god. Who are you -- or any religious believer -- to try to tell me that I really believe there is a god? What if I told YOU that I believe that in YOUR "heart of hearts," YOU really believe there is NO god?! The topic is, "How do you feel when people talk religion." When they talk about it like you do above, I feel irate and insulted -- the recipient of the height of arrogant behavior. You state pretty clearly that Christians are supposed to go out and evangelize and convert, and that some "have to be approached carefully so as not to turn them away." Can't you realize that those very people are so easy to turn away because they simply don't want your fucking religion?! THOSE are the people that you should LEAVE THE FUCK ALONE. God did not come down and personally speak to you and tell you that even though I may object and be offended, to keep trying, being delicate and careful, and not give up until you've succeeded in converting me to Christianity. Do you do the same to people who ARE religious, but just members of other religions, like Judaism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam? Do you not realize that it is YOUR behavior (you in the sense of you and other religious people behaving like this) that STARTS WARS when (historically) you go around telling (and often FORCING) others to adopt your religious beliefs?! MILLIONS OF HUMANS WHOSE SOULS YOU SUPPOSEDLY CARE ABOUT HAVE DIED THROUGHOUT HISTORY SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE YOU SAW FIT TO PROSELYTIZE AND CONVERT THEM. I also offer that religious people attempt to convert people NOT because they care and are compassionate for their souls' fate -- but because they believe that doing so is one of the surest ways to curry favor with their "god" and secure a place for themselves in heaven. It is one of the most selfish motives that exists. What would be wrong with a religion that simply said, "Live a good life"? This religion would not require that you arrogantly attempt to steer the lives of others in ways that seem necessary only to YOU because YOU believe some book. In fact, you would be forbidden to presume that you know so much that you could tell others that they're on the wrong path. THAT would send you to hell ("pride," don'tcha know?). The greatest good would be to live a peaceful life, loving and being good to others and to yourself, enjoying the wonder of being alive, eventually dying with dignity, and never having harmed others or forced yourself or your beliefs on them, for that is the dignity of being a sovereign individual -- the right to be left alone to live your life as YOU see fit. Christianity has not brought peace anywhere it has ever gone. I see it (and all religion) as a human plague (like how the human race is said in The Matrix to be a "virus"). The sooner we move past the silly and pathetic dependency we have on what religion supposedly gives us, and stop turning a blind eye to what religion actually inflicts on us, we will begin to progress as humans. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What do you do with the DEA and the rest of the drug war infrastructure? Most of the barriers towards legalization come from them, and certainly they'll continue to act in their own self interest. I suppose we could just redirect their efforts to our new external threat. At the very least let's decriminalize pot to the standard of tobacco. CA is running out of smokers to tax; it needs a new revenue source. You're thinking along the right lines when you say we could redirect that resource in some other way. Who says that people who now work for the DEA etc. have to always work for the DEA etc. in perpetuity? If we legalized drugs, and put the DEA workers out of business, then they could... build houses for the homeless sell life insurance haul nets on fishing boats teach math in high school be police officers be firemen design airplanes perform music in a band Let's not pretend that if someone's job dries up, he has to just stand there looking stupid and being useless. Just because someone currently is in a given job does not mean that he must always do THAT work, or that there's a big tragedy in one having to switch, get retrained, and start at something different. Yes, there would be a period of adjustment. What do you think happened to the guys who used to shovel horse shit in NYC, after the automobile took hold? -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"