Friday, January 8, 2010


Honest to god, it's been mystifying to me why Dick Cheney would be saying such venal and demonstrably false things about President Obama. I doubt he's insane. Surely he's not stupid. So what's his agenda? Why announce to the world that the US is less safe now than when he was president? And suddenly, the answer appears. With the help of the alter kocker of the RWS™, Bill O'Reilly. One more terrorist event, says Bill, and Obama is gone. How else do you explain the falsehoods about Obama's response to the underpants bomber?

Given what we've seen from the Congressional Republicans, is it really a stretch: they'd rather derail everything this country needs, damn the consequences to America, than see Barack Hussein Obama get credit for anything. This is, most literally, party first, with country a very distant second. The point: the Republicans, the RWS™, the teabaggers, all actually want to see another terrorist attack on the US.

Come on, Cheney says, it's wide open for you. Our defenses are down. And O'Reilly, neither particularly insightful nor able to keep his ego in check, spills the beans as to why. Do it. We need you. It's our path back to the way it was. Meaning, of course, a buffet for the wealthy, get it while you can, screw 'em to the rest. Endless wars, high oil prices, unchecked executive power to arrest and torture anyone. And lower taxes for Dick and Bill.

Given that there's no way to prevent all terrorist attacks (airports are among the easiest to fix), another one is inevitable. Count on this, too: when it happens, unlike 9/11 when everyone rallied around George Bush, if it happens on Obama's watch the entire right wing of the county will take their fingers out of their (noses) and point them at the White House.

The sorriest part of the story, really, is that it'll work. Because whereas they've made a huge swath of the country stupid, the Republican leaders aren't. They've filled the air with distortions and dishonesty knowing it'll take root in the feculent soil they've spread. It already has. Perfect example: The latest lie -- there's simply no other term -- is that Obama doesn't use the words terrorism, or war. Said over and over again, people believe it, despite the reams of evidence that disproves the claim. You expect such things from the RWS™ (Hannity, after all, is still claiming 2009 was the coldest year on record. In fact, it was one of the warmest.) But it's being said in Congress as well. This, despite the fact that Obama continues to do things which strengthen us (while having to undo what Bush did to make us less safe, and to fix the communication issues that led to 9/11 and which, astoundingly, Bush evidently ignored for the next seven years.) And Obama takes responsibility, which that other guy never did!

So there it is. The fear of Democratic rule which swept the country in 2008, has caused the Republicans to drop all pretense. Whatever it takes, whatever lie, they'll say it. Whatever needed reform, they'll block it. All for one reason: to stop Obama, to regain their power to rape the country. (Believe it or not, I really hate that sort of hyperbole, usually. But at this point it seems self-evident. As stupid and ineffective as most of the Congressional Democrats are, there's hardly an instance of bald-faced lying about agendas and programs like there is from the other side. And at least the Democrats are actually trying to do things, albeit in their usual Rube Goldberg way.)

In my memory, it's unprecedented. A constant bombardment of deliberate lies, aimed only at returning to power those that actually DID bring this country to its knees. Led by the execrable Dick Cheney, forces are aligned to prevent the United States from becoming a fairer country, because were it to occur, the trough would be emptier for them. And, as I've said many times over, they've managed to get the uneducated, the credulous, the angry and fearful to act against their own interest, unwittingly furthering this greedy agenda. An agenda that, we now see, overtly encourages terrorists (who, I'm certain, would much prefer another version of Bush to more of Obama). On all levels it's deeply appalling; the most significant of which is that the most vocal and crazed anti-Obamites in the populace have no idea that they're being taken for a ride.

Update, 6 pm: I guess there are actually a few Republicans who have some sense.


  1. Glad you feel safer--no one else does. Wait--the terrorists feel safer, knowing how lightly they will be treated by Obama.

    And it was BO's DHS who calls it :man-caused disasters" rather than the T word.

    Let's see--Bush held responsible for "knowing" about 9/11 based on intel that said "something is going to happen". Obama held harmless after the panty-bomber's dad called the oval office with the flight number.

    Ain't he special?

  2. Thanks for your comment. it's precisely the sort of unmitigated bullshit that confirms exactly what I wrote.

    Actually, I don't feel safer, because people like you are, on the basis of such dishonest and ignorant claims, going to eventually re-take political control, and we'll be back where it all started, only worse.

    I won't address your comment further: it's so far off the rails that, clearly, nothing will enlighten you. Enjoy your fairy land.

  3. You might find this interesting:

  4. Well, yeah, to the extent that it's another screed based on complete distortion and untruth. Nor does it mention the seven years Bush had to correct this sort of thing. Or the fact that Obama actually stood up and took responsibility.

    What I find interesting is that eight years after 9/11 and seven after the shoe bomber, the evidence is that Bush did nothing to streamline information gathering. What I find interesting is that the right completely ignores this in trying to blame it all on Obama. 9/11, they'd like us to believe, was not Bush's fault (in fact, Giuliani and Matalan claim it didn't happen on George's watch). That it is on Clinton that the blame must be placed. And yet...

    Most interesting of all, of course, is that the right wingers evidence no interest in addressing any of our problems seriously. They'd rather make political hay, and do so by any means at hand; most especially by lying unabashedly. Or, like the author of that silly article, presenting crazed opinion as fact.

    We really are screwed, as a nation. Because of this sort of crap replacing desire to work toward solutions. Screwed, irretrievably at this point.

  5. "Obama actually stood up and took responsibility."

    See--now we know you're kidding. Even the AP is tired of BO passing the buck:

  6. Wow. EVEN the AP (or, more properly, and opinionator therein. Devastating.

    Or, you could read this. Another opinion.

    There's a difference between blaming the predecessor while avoiding responsibility, a lá Bush, and pointing out the nature and origin of the problems (do you deny that the economy was wrecked by Bush? That the enormous deficits began with him, and that the resulting crash needed more spending to correct? Or, like the RWS™, do you wish to return to those policies? I think pointing out origins is essential [except to the extent that it falls on plugged ears, like yours and Sarah's]) while taking responsibility for fixing them, a lá Obama.

    Editorially, with Ron Fournier as its Washington bureau chief, the AP has clearly become a right wing rag. I'm shocked... SHOCKED!.. that it publishes emptiness like that article.

  7. In your blog excoriating Republicans for unfairly blaming Obama for something, your comments are unfairly blaming Bush for our economic issues.

    As with many issues, most of our politicians share culpability.

    Obama (with Acorn's help) had his own special little supporting role in the mortgage meltdown and thus the subsequent Keynesian hangover that resulted after the bubble burst. See link below:

    I don't think either political party has the room to bash the other right now, as they both are living in glass houses.


    P.S. Dr. Sid, you've frequently expressed your discontent with government and the ignorance of the people. How do you feel about a Libertarian type government that would transfer more authority to the states and thus allow like minded people to live together and solve the problems in their own ways, on a smaller scale, in a fashion that aligns closely with their ideological beliefs? This system would certainly allow California to enact much more liberal policies, and according to your theories make it more successful and thus lead to a natural expansion of that school of ideological thought to adjacent states.

  8. PT: I agree there's blame aplenty. However, I'm talking about entirely false claims, or ones that are the opposite of their stance mere months earlier, when Bush was president. There's legitimate criticism, and I've brought some. And how nice it would be were there some positive suggestions or attempts honestly to work on solutions; it's the bald-faced lying to which I refer. My references to Bush are (at least in this post) by way of showing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the criticism. I've said many times we need a strong and intelligent opposition party, one willing and able to add positively to the political process. Clearly, we don't have one. Nor is there even the pretense of wanting to help find answers. The Rs are, currently, simply not interested in helping, lest Obama get credit for anything. It's horribly dangerous for our country.

    As to your libertarian idea: no constitutional scholar, I. I'm fine with the idea of states being given latitude, within the law, to experiment. In fact, the Senate health care bill allows that; it was the Bush administration, you might recall, that prevented California from tightening pollution laws, and Oregon from trying prioritizing (rationing) health care dollars.

    Given the ideologies we see so regularly among some on the right, in some ways it would be tantamount to sanctioning theocracy and extreme discrimination, were such an idea taken to its logical end. I'd surely be hanged in any southern state allowed free reign. Tortured first, made to declare for Jesus, then hanged. Slowly. With no trial. On the steps of the state capitol. By the governor. Along with hundreds of others: Jews, gays, liberals, atheists, college graduates (except from Christian colleges), Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists. (Muslims, it goes without saying, would have been dispatched long before.) Blacks. Mexicans. Bloggers.

    P.S: I'm sure you've heard the CRA loans weren't the problem, right?

  9. Jeez Sid, a might touchy are we??? Never thought I'd see YOU use the BS word...Next thing you'll be usin the "N" Word and I don't bean the one with an "O" in it....
    Hmm almost a year in Office and Git-Mo's still open.
    The Prison at Git-Mo I mean, I don't think even a wanta-be Marxist like the President(Peace be upon Him) is gonna give the Naval Base itself back to Castro.
    I'm sure he'd like to, but he wants to carry Florida in 12'...
    Cheney's still younger than Reagan was when he took office, and he's got the ICD and 20 yrs of Lipitor that Reagan didn't get...
    Cheney/Palin in 12'??
    Maybe Cheney/Bush(Jeb)?? Could be a tough ticket to beat in Florida...


  10. Re: CRA vs. subprime mortgages

    I was not aware there was such a large difference in default % between CRA vs subprime loans. Your point is well taken.

    Of course, that in no way absolves the federal governement and banks from culpability. There is a large tangled web that has been woven.

    1.) The Fed kept interest rates too low, which made borrowing money "cheap". This allowed people who should probably not own a home to be able to buy a home. Of course, this is the start of a "bubble". Thomas Jefferson warned us about the dangers of a central bank controlling the issue of currency.

    2.) HUD/Fannie/Freddie continually bought both CRA AND Subprime mortgages. Since the mortgage companies were selling their loans immediately to the government, it completely removed any risk avoidance pressures that would be inherent in a free market. If the govt was not buying these loans and mortgage backed securities, the mortgage companies would of had NOBODY to sell their risky mortgages too, and thus would have stopped issuing risky mortgages. This is a HUGE distortion in the market that cannot go unmentioned. Both Barney Frank & GWB are culpable as this continued under their watch. See link below:

    3.) Politicians, Banks, and Wall Street had a "close" relationship . When you know the government will buy your bad investments and bail you out, you tend to take more risks. This type of Croney Capitalism severly distorted the market.

    4.) When you have community organizers like Acorn & lawyers like Obama putting the heat on you to give mortgages to low income/high risk customers, the mortgage companies simply chose to give sub-prime mortgages which had a higher profit margin to offset the increased risk they were taking. It's either that or deal with the bad PR associated with a discrimination lawsuit. They chose the lesser of the 2 evils.

    5.) Low income people are guilty of buying houses they couldn't afford. No news there. Surely the brokers were not explaining the ARM's fully. Caveat Emptor.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, but luckily I had the intuition to sell my rather meager real estate investments at the top of the bubble and buy property in areas that didn't experience as much of a bubble. I've since taken the time to read up on this situation a bit more, along with the dangers of a central bank, fiat currency, and Keynesian economic policies.

    The result is a large amount of frustration with both political parties and a subsequent turn towards indepedence or libertarianism. Perhaps some areas would revert backwards as you jokingly described under libertarian society, however those areas would quickly disappear as they could not compete economically with more civil states. It would allow ideas to be tried and decisions to be made based on results rather than on promises from politicians trying to win a 51% majority. Had Oregon been allowed to try the changes you mentioned, perhaps we would have a more definitive answer on the pro's & con's of a single-payer system.


    P.S. Sorry for changing the topic. I agree with most of your blog post.

  11. BUSH Era Jobs Created:
    2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created.
    2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created
    2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created
    2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created
    ...2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,, Accessed 1/6/10)

    Obama--3.5 million jobs lost. Now, BO promised to create 4 million jobs. So he's about...let's see...that would be 7.5 million jobs he owes us.

    Bush deficit: too high over 8 years.

    Obama deficit: Bush times 4 in one year.

    You make the call.

  12. Intelligence is, by its very nature, fallible. There is no way that you can guarantee that everyone will be safe at all times.

    I don't claim to know much about the current American political situation (although I will catgeorically state that I am much more in favour of Obama than I ever was of Bush) but when I was at university, I did meet the head of MI5.

    I was at university between 2003 and 2006; the meeting with the MI5 lady was after the July 7 bombings in London. And she said, as do you, that it is not a case of 'if' there is another terrorist attack, but 'when'. I think that's probably universally true.

    I read this article in The Independent (my broadsheet of choice) Apparently Abdulmutallab'd father warned the US that he had become 'radicalised'.

    In another Independent article the author writes:

    'The predictable reaction so far has been the announcement of further tightening of security measures on air travellers. It is understandable that politicians and others responsible for passenger safety seek a rapid response. However, we cannot eliminate risk altogether and it is worth pausing to consider whether the benefits of ever-tightening airport security – in terms of deterring terrorists – are outweighed by the dislocation caused to global travel. After all, one of the primary aims of terrorism is to undermine society by sowing maximum fear.'

    I think the most important thing is that the Obama administration has admitted that the system is flawed. NOt many politicians would do that; generally it's someone else's fault, someone else's problem. In politics, it's all about passing the buck.

    I agree with you, though, that Obama cannot be held solely responsible for the failure of security in this instance. Increased airport security has been evolving since 2001. GIven that Obama was elected in 2008, it would be fair to allocate some responsibility for the failure to other administrations. Obama is not blameless, but frankly, with the world in the state it's in today, I daresay he had more worrisome things to focus on - war in Iraq, for example.

    All this is really just a wordy way of saying 'I agree with you'.

  13. anonymous (is it really that hard to think up an identifier so I know whether I'm addressing the same anonymi or different ones? Precordial Thump manages, why not you?)

    I WILL make the call. In the past decade there has been a net of ZERO jobs created, after Clinton's 20 million. And, of course, after his balanced budget.

    You compare apples to kangaroos. Bush squandered his opportunity by creating jobs based on sand, ie a burgeoning deficit, and by allowing deregulation to run wild. The result is what we now see and are trying to dig out of: massive job loss, the momentum of which remains. Nevertheless, the job loss rate has steadily decreased under Obama. Surely you didn't expect an actual miracle, unless you're among those who see him as the messiah.

    Virtually all economists (particularly those with Nobel prizes) and students of the Depression agree that the government has to spend to bail out the economy. There's as much criticism for spending too little as there is too much. Jobs might have turned around faster if he had spent more. Imagine the teabags.

    So: deficits created at at time of a good economy and balanced budgets, needlessly heading us into the red, vs deficits, onerous but necessary, to fix the wreckage. (If you spend more than you have on a fancy house, and then it burns down, someone still need to spend money to fix it. Trying to make the concept simple enough for you to understand.) You make the call. I don't need to any more: it's obvious.

  14. PT: I won't argue the details of the CRA, because I don't know them. But going to court to force an institution to obey the law is not exactly a sign of radicalism or poor judgment. And since we know those aren't the loans that were the problem (and that the CRA had nothing to do with the debacle of mortgage backed securities, bundled and hyped and sold by the huge banks) I can't make the leap that ACORN or Obama, to the extent that he gave them legal advice, are even partly to blame for the crash.

  15. Frankie, I'm reading and re-reading my post to see where it refers to Gitmo. Clearly your vision is better than mine. But if it had, it might have included the obvious: if the RWS™ hadn't done their usual demagoguery, based on nothing, of the idea of transferring inmates to existing super-max prisons, it'd have been closed on schedule.

    I'd LOVE to see Cheney on the ticket. Palin, too. I'm not entirely certain, but I've attributed to Jeb Bush a modicum of brainpower and self-respect, unlike the rest of the sibs. So I'd think even he might recoil at being on with either of those two. But you're bound to be right one of these days.

  16. Okay, call me jd.

    If Bush's job gain (was there or not? You assert both) was based on deficit, then Obama should have about 12 million new jobs by now, since that's his deficit record.

    And, according to his words, unemployment would have never gotten over 8.5%.

    Had the "stimulus" actually been spent on jobs, it might have done something. Had it been spent in real zip codes, we would know where it had gone. As it is, it's tough to tell what happened.


  17. jd: agree about the stimulus. The rest is nonsense on top of non-sequitur.

  18. No, you claim "Bush squandered his opportunity by creating jobs based on sand, ie a burgeoning deficit"

    You can't deny the growing Obama deficit. Would it be too much to ask to have gotten a couple of jobs out of that? Otherwise, it's simply deficit...funny how it went to a lot of democrat ideals.


  19. Quote Dr. Sid:
    "Virtually all economists (particularly those with Nobel prizes) and students of the Depression agree that the government has to spend to bail out the economy." End Quote.

    Dr Sid,
    Listening to "virtually all" economists is an argumentum ad verecundiam to which I do not suscribe.

    No one has been more correct in predicting our economic problems for years than Ron Paul and his economic advisor, Peter Schiff. They both reject Keynesian economics & embrace the Austrian school. FYI, Ron Paul has mentioned multiple times that the US exited the depression when the government BOTH stopped spending AND lowered taxes.

    Below is 7 years of Schiff's correct predictions of our current situation:

    And here is his take on Obama's economic policies:

    The economy needs a major correction. Since ~70% of our economy is consumption, this correction will be uncomfortable. Spending money we don't have is only making the situation worse. What Obama needs to do now is to stop fighting wars and instead worry about the US's internal affairs. How can the money we are spending on wars instead to be used to focus the US on being more of a producer rather than a consumer of goods.


  20. PT: I don't disagree about stopping spending on wars and attending to internal needs. Think he'd get any support from the right on that?

    I guess we can roll out our youtubes, etc. I do recall the Schiff one, and how all the Fox News "experts" literally laughed at him. Including creationist Ben Stein...

    Cutting taxes is what got us into the mess, among other things. Doing more of the same -- the only suggestion Republicans ever made -- hardly seems smart, on its face. And I've read several well-regarded opinionators who argue that when FDR prematurely took steps to balance the budget, the economy tanked again... I agree with several things the good doctor (RP) says. I don't consider him much of an economist.

  21. jd: "can't deny" the growing deficit? Why would I? When have I? Denial of the obvious is the realm of the RWS™ and the tea-baggers. I can argue why the deficits are necessary. I can point out the differences between Obama's and Bush's situation. And, by golly, I have. You're not convinced. I get it. Unless you have something new or actually interesting to say, let's consider your latest your last.

  22. While the Nobel prize has been cheapened recently (particularly in peace), if that's your benchmark, you must know these guys:

    Becker has the Nobel; Becker and Murphy both have the John Bates Clark Medal.

    The money line: "By failing to adopt a measured approach to economic policy, Congress and the president may be slowing the economic recovery, and thereby prolonging the distress from the recession."


  23. My argument, jd, is not about actual policies: I've criticized as well. The point of this post, as you may have noticed, was about substituting lies for actual discourse. In particular, lies about Obama's seriousness toward terrorism.

    I accept unreservedly that there are legitimate concerns about the recovery and the steps taken: how could efforts to deal with such a complex and disastrous mess be without controversy, and mis-steps? I wish opponents could provide help instead of attacks and distortions.

    Still, I'd argue, if you set millions of acres on fire and I'm the one on whom it falls to put it out, the blame for the fire is not on me, but you. I'll accept accountability for errors in my efforts, but not for setting the fire.

    And I'd think it would behoove to keep in mind the factors that led to the setting of the fire, as well as the mistakes in putting it out, so that it doesn't happen again. Republicans, for the most part, are attacking the firemen while arguing we should load up on wood and flood it with gas.

    And, dammit, you keep getting me off point. Terrorism. Lies. Bullshit like this. Nice going

  24. Dr. Sid,
    I'll ask a question of you that's more on topic.

    Do you think Obama could be criticized (and even considered "soft on terrorism") for releasing terrorists from Gitmo and sending them to Yemen, only to find out that they returned to jihad?


    p.s. It's an interesting coincidence that the Nigerian also made a "pit stop" in Yemen.

  25. Sure. Especially if it were true. There's no evidence that the ones Obama released have rejoined the fight. However there IS evidence that the ones Cheney released DID.

    There's also evidence that the ones released by Obama have been screened to a far greater extent than Cheney did.

    But, sure. It's a heck of a problem. It seems clear that Gitmo holds several innocents (although who knows their proclivities after what they've been through.) It's like pretty much everything else Bush left us all. Enormous problems either ignored or mishandled to such an extent that there are no good solutions. Maybe no solutions at all.

    I don't pretend to know the answer for Gitmo. As I said in a previous comment, it'd be a hell of a lot easier were the craziness about sending them to supermax prisons to go away. By breaking laws, Bush poisoned the pool.

  26. And, PT, since this thread is a mishmash already, after you absorb the above comment, I'd like to know, vis á vis Ron Paul, why we should return to the gold standard; what happens if we do away with the Fed; how unfettered free markets are better than regulations, given what happened in the last years of Bush.

    I'm being serious. Enlighten me about the gold standard arguments; convince me we're better off without the Fed, and that "the market" will always be right. These are Paul's positions. Even Greenspan admitted he'd been wrong about the wisdom of free markets. I admit to knowing zero about the gold standard issue.

  27. Wow, Dr. Sid. You've been on a Blogging Warpath the past few days!

    Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and many others warned us about the dangers of a centralized bank/money supply and their warnings have been accurate thus far.

    A central bank that prints our fiat currency at will allows the "creation" of money where no value has been created. The only ultimate result is a devaluation of the existing dollars, but the problem is that the common man is stuck with that devaluation when it shows up in the economy later on. When the money is first printed, those "in the know" (Wall Street, Big Banks, Bailed Out companies, Big Corporations) get to enjoy the pre-inflation use of that money and thus have an upper hand in the "unfree market" created. As we saw with Derivatives and Mortgage backed securities, corporations/banks close to politicians can be comfortable taking otherwise suicidal risks to chase obscene profits because they know the government will be there to bail them when something goes wrong. For the market to free, you have to capitalize losses as well as gains. A system where the largest companies in the marketplace are afforded a safety net that allows them to take financial risks that smaller competitors cannot is not a "free market".

    By replacing fiat currency with backing by gold or another precious commodity, the creation of credit comes from true savings. To create savings, value must have been created somewhere in the market previously. This differs greatly from the Fed printing dollars, which stimulates/rewards consumption rather than production. A shift back towards prodcution in our economy would help create both jobs and wealth (We are ~70% consumption right now).

    Dissolution of the central bank would remove the power of control of the money supply away from the hands of a few men and distribute it into the hands of a greater pool of people. How's that for "spreading the wealth"? (The fair and just way) Credit would be given only to those who are underwritten and deemed to be creditworthy. In this economic system, Derivatives and Mortgage Backed securities could even be sound investments because the risk of mortgage holders defaulting is at acceptable levels for those financial products to work.

    Lacking the ability to "create" more money, politicians would be forced to pay for their ideas, rather than borrow or create money to pay for them. This holds true for both entitlements, wars/nation building, and maintaining bases in foreign countries. Neoconservatives would have a much more difficult time convincing the public to go along with their nationbuilding, as it's cost would be evident much sooner.


  28. One of the main benefits of a commodity backed currency is protection from inflation. This would increase the ability of the common man to save meaningful amounts of capital. The ability to save meaningful amounts of money would reverse the growing gaps bewteen the rich/poor and instead create an extremely large middle class in a generation or so. Can you see the benefit of a money supply were your retirement income will be worth in 30 years close to what it's worth today. Wouldn't the ability to amass that savings in a lifetime allow people to invest in other areas or pass it along to their children to give them a jump start in life? A stable money supply with low inflation would help create a larger middle class in this way. With inflation, we're like hamsters on a spinning wheel when trying to create any real savings.

    Think of how difficult it is for banks to make long term loans since they have no way to know how much inflation will occur during the life of that loan, thus they don't know how much to charge their customers to cover both inflation and make a profit. This makes the extension of credit more expensive and volatile, and thus makes it harder for the common man to create a business enterprise and thus more likely to remain an employee of corporations.

    What we are doing now is printing money to pay for wars, bailouts, and subsidized healthcare. The result is that whatever we save now will be worth next to nothing in real dollars by the time we retire. It's a "hidden tax". Nothing is free. Whatever our government subsidizes today, we pay for later in the form of a lowered standard of living.

    You mentioned Greenspan's comment on free markets. I find it interesting that he, a fan of Ayn Rand and free market thought, failed to (or chose to) acknowledge that the markets are so distorted that they cannot be considered "free". Maybe it had something to do with his employer?

    There are many other sources that make the case for a commodity based currency and dissolution of a central bank more eloquently than me. I just tried to touch on a few major points here.


  29. Thanks, PT. Much food for thought, which I'll try to digest.


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts