masterrig

I understand! Chuck

NO! You have the 'edge' Chuck

18/20... crap! Chuck

Denny Crane? NO way! I'll be honest, I didn't much care for William Shatner till 'Boston Legal' aired. The guy is a hoot! My wife was able to obtain the wet-suit he wore on one 'Boston Legal' episode! Chuck

Really interesting! I recall, as a kid, seeing the first jets. At the time, I really liked the Delta wing jets. When the B-52 made it's appearance, I was totally awe struck! I grew-up near an old 'SAC' base. It was free seats for the air shows! Chuck

I've thought for a long time, John McCain should just find a front porch, rocking chair, an afghan and a cat! Chuck

Chuck

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven I just got to thinking about how everything is videoed... everything. It's not the government spying on us, it's our fellow man. In turn, they make it very simple for law enforcement. Photos and videoes are admissable in court, after all. I think too, all the paranoia is mis-placed. Chuck Can't even make a skydive these days without someone videoing you and likely posting it on Youtube. It's just gotten totally out of hand! Chuck

You're wrong in several points. Head scarves are not banned here - at least in my country - except for teachers in schools, nursery nurse, churches and such. The rest of them may wear it wherever they want; they do. Like some colleagues in my bank, like my hairdresser etc. Which one? What? How? Have been in the US several times, hopefully I never screw up anyone I doubt very much, that you could! Chuck

They still teach science and history. I do know, they list the winners of science fairs and the like in our newspaper. It's like I said, teachers can't teach because of state required testing. A good friend of mine, who was on the Texas State School board, told me that. He said it's all about the money and teachers here are frustrated by it. The one's I've talked with have told me that most of their day is spent working for the TAKS tests. We can thank H. Ross Perot for that! There was a vote in one of the school systems recently, in regard to teaching a religion related program... it was voted down! The problem with our schools is the politicians sticking their noses into it. They want to know why, students do poorly. Well, they are the one's responsible for it... it's not the teachers. The students are the brunt. Chuck

Is that why so many Californians are moving to Texas or because they've screwed-up California so bad they need a re-start? You're talking about Texas schools... I've talked with several teachers over the recent years and they see the problem is with the TAKS tests and other required tests. The teachers complaints are that they can't teach anything but what is on these required tests. If, a required number of kids, through all grades, pass these tests, the school gets money. They fail... no money. Teachers can't really 'teach'. Chuck

Interesting point. If memory serves, I think some of the hard evidence the led to the conviction of Timothy McVeigh was surveillance video from a 7-Eleven I just got to thinking about how everything is videoed... everything. It's not the government spying on us, it's our fellow man. In turn, they make it very simple for law enforcement. Photos and videoes are admissable in court, after all. I think too, all the paranoia is mis-placed. Chuck

I'd be more concerned with all the video phones in this country! People now days can't take a squat without fear of it showing-up on you-tube! There's your 'Big Brother'! Law enforcement agencies are using You-tube to find bad guys. You can't walk into very many businesses without being videoed. Does that keep you out of the 7-11 for a Big Gulp? I think, collecting DNA is the least of our concerns. Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not? Chuck Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect? Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to? Chuck Sorry, I thought the point would be clear If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion I usually have a better 'eye' for the obvious. My opinion is and I don't know if it's good or bad is, building a data base for DNA can possibly be of greater help to law enforcement than a fingerprint data base. Since it's been pointed-out that there are 'problems' with DNA testing, seems like, they need to get it right and more 'quality control'. I don't see any difference in taking a 'swab' for DNA purposes any different than taking fingerprints upon arrest. Seems less messy, if anything. Chuck I know and agree with you points I know there are holes in my opinion because after all, one is finger printed with booked into jail. Not much different in the end To me, it's just a 'tool' to help law enforcement. Not unlike anything else, there can be flaws in it. The way I see it, we pay these guys to fight crime and get bad guys off our streets. They gotta try something to do the job right. Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not? Chuck Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect? Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to? Chuck Sorry, I thought the point would be clear If you are convicted (and not until then) I have no problem with a DNA sample be taken. But until being convicted, innocence is assumed and I can not see how the law can claim any right to it. But that is just my opinion I usually have a better 'eye' for the obvious. My opinion is and I don't know if it's good or bad is, building a data base for DNA can possibly be of greater help to law enforcement than a fingerprint data base. Since it's been pointed-out that there are 'problems' with DNA testing, seems like, they need to get it right and more 'quality control'. I don't see any difference in taking a 'swab' for DNA purposes any different than taking fingerprints upon arrest. Seems less messy, if anything. Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not? Chuck Are they guilty when arrested? Or just a suspect? Supposedly, they are innocent, until proven guilty. Could be, just a suspect. What're you leading up-to? Chuck

Oh no? Oops! I have been enlightened! Never mind! Chuck

Arrested? Cant agree with that. Convicted? with out a doubt If, someone is arrested for a crime, why not? Chuck

I agree with taking a DNA sample upon arrest. It can work both ways... hang your ass or prove your innocense. Just going by newspaper and t.v. news stories about the number of innocent men who have been released from prisons because of DNA, I can see the good side. Can't really see a bad side. Chuck

And clowns. Don't forget clowns. MIMES! Don't forget mimes! ...and big hairy spiders! ...and things that go bump in the night! Chuck

Depends on their bathing habits... and activities! Chuck

1st.... the build-up! Then... the big let-down! Chuck

Portugese was my first guess. Too cool, Wendy!!! Chuck

'Animal Style'! That raises a lot of questions with me too. Does that mean it's 'like' animal meat but is really some other substance with animal flavorings? Is it really meat and if so, which kind? Possum, squirrel, armadillo, lizard, etc.? I'm not so sure about that name. Their ad folks could've done better. I guess, that's why I don't go to fast-food burger joints. Chuck

Rodney Carrington is a hoot! Chuck