Marc said 3 minutes later

I left my opinions out of the post, but I'll put them here.

Personally, I think the Electoral College is useless. Reason being, that it makes people's vote not count when they live in a state that is predominantly one-sided politically and they oppose that side. For instance, Steve would not fair well voting republican were he to live in New York. And Michigan for that matter. :)

Without it, every vote matters.

---

Geoff said about 2 hours later

Yup, I nearly decided not to vote simply because I knew NY was democratic and that was what I was voting for, so why bother. They've won the state already.

---

GJ said about 6 hours later

How about you two read up on why the electoral college was created in the first place. Do either of you know why? Perhaps it's not valid anymore, or maybe it is.

---

Marc said about 6 hours later

I don't think it makes sense. Maybe it did a while ago, but even then I'm not sure. The idea behind it was to encourage candidates to appeal to more than the large populations.

Ok, but now instead they focus on states that are swingable. Neither democrats or republicans are going to try to swing NY. It's a guarantee to be blue on election day. So now they are ignoring places with typically larger populations to try to swing some of the smaller sparse states.

Usually I don't think it matters much, since the winner of the popular vote has typically won the presidency (Except for what, 4 elections?), but I do find it funny that a republican has won every time as a result of the electoral college instead of both popular vote and electoral college. Maybe because larger populations as a whole tend to be democratic...maybe for a reason?

I don't see much, if any, harm in getting rid of it. If anything, at least the next time we elect a moron, we can only blame ourselves. Granted, we do have to blame ourselves the second time through with this election. Well, not me... :)

---

GJ said about 17 hours later

One thing I can say that the electoral college allows, in terms of swing states, is a much smaller effort to steal an election, if one desires. With a close race, you may only have a few districts in a couple of swing states in order to tip the balance. There was much talk that this was precisely the case in the 2000 election in Ohio and Florida, but given that no one has been able to come up with much in the line of evidence over the past seven years, methinks it was just some Dems whining about a close election loss.

---

Steve said 1 day later

I have to agree, despite eliminating it potentially meaning democrats winning more often, I think the electoral college's time has come and gone. The popular vote works in every other political election in the US, so why not for the presidential election?

I'm sick of hearing about how important the Iowa caucus is, as it's the location of the first presidential primary vote. Why do you think farmers have it as good as they do? Thank Iowa.

While we are at political reform, pay all Senators $500K a year, House of Reps $300K a year, and banish any other forms of income, free trips, etc. The federal gov't should pay for a specific number of trips back to their home state each year, and should also eliminate campaign contributions and supply a small standard amount of money for candidates to spend on advertising. They should use public debates to get their word out.

---

GJ said 1 day later

Drop a zero from those salaries, and I'm with you. :)

---

Geoff said 1 day later

yeah I think they should be paid per hour myself. That might encourage them to actually show up to work and pass a bill or something.

---

GJ said 1 day later

I dunno, they pay mechanics by the hour and it took them two weeks to figure out the new onstar digital thingy they upgraded was the cause of my 500mA battery drain.

---

Marc said 2 days later

Yea, but mechanics are smarter than politicians, so they know how to work the hourly wage system. They knew all along, they just wanted to milk you for your money. :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

I paid $0. :) They don't argue so well.

Marc said 17 minutes later

The ending is perfect. :)

---

Steve said 1 day later

And blondes wonder why we make fun of them....

---

GJ said 1 day later

I'm waiting for Kristen to smack you two silly. :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

Expect to see her on Jay Leno's Streetwalking any day now.

Marc said 8 minutes later

Keep it. The extra $150 isn't going to be worth the time you'll be hating yourself for returning a super cheap, super powerful version. :)

I wish I got an iPhone in my Treo box instead...but as luck would have it, I got exactly what was in the box. Oh well! :)

Geoff said about 11 hours later

It was May early in the week, but now that it is back up to 92....I'd say August decided to wake up!

---

Marc said about 15 hours later

I wish it was 92 here. That's chilly! It's been at least 96 every day here. We've crested 100 a couple times too! And that's just the temperature, not the heat index.

---

Geoff said about 20 hours later

god, i don't know how you deal with it marc...ugh. Of course, i don't have central air in my house

---

GJ said 1 day later

Rain? What's that? All we get is lighning and wind.

Geoff said 35 minutes later

Now this is one book I can read....and over, and over, and over...

---

Marc said about 1 hour later

Shotgun!

---

Steve said about 3 hours later

This thing is nuts. 1st gear runs to 60 mph. Second to 85 mph. Third to about 105. I couldn't keep it in it to see where fourth led me, but I've been told that the GM guys average about 200 mph on the dot with it on their 4 mile oval in 5th or 6th.

On top of all that, it's actually pretty comfortable to drive. Steering is a bit heavy, but the ride is decent for that kind of a car, actually quite impressive. The traction control is phenomenal, you know it's working, but it doesn't seem to slow you down much at all. And yes, this will spin the tires going into third gear at 85 mph...

---

GJ said about 13 hours later

Top Gear ran gear#5 from 0-170 the other night on this thing. Very amusing. They didn't like it at all as a daily driver, but said it was the equal of most supercars on the track.

---

Steve said about 24 hours later

Well, the clutch sucked, it was a bit heavy, and engaged at the very last 1/2 inch of travel. The shifter is greatly improved over past Vettes. I don't know how many times I missed third in some of the Vettes Dad had. I never had a problem with this one. The interior quality seemed just fine, the seats were comfortable, the ride quite good. The noise from hitting bumps was pretty loud, but just cruise with the windows down and the noise gets better (because you change the acoustics of the cabin, not because you replace the noise from the bumps with wind noise). It is way to fast to be a sensible daily driver, but otherwise I don't see why it wouldn't be fine. Heck, I averaged over 29 mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 77 mph. Of course, when you get off the highway and do one 0-80 run, your fuel economy goes out the window...7.0L is a lot of motor, espeically when it's spinning around 7000 RPM...

GJ said about 8 hours later

I've been saying they should call it off before the last accident that claimed the life of the three volunteers. Now that the mine has been shown to be just as unsafe as the day the first collapse happened, it's time to think in terms of "will we ever recover their bodies" rather than "how can we save them." Besides, it's going on two weeks--that's a lot of time to be trapped, likely injured, with water and oxygen levels of questionable amounts, in low temperatures to survive in. It's just not worth the cost of the living to try to save people that may never have survived in the first place, and are all but certainly dead by now anyhow.

---

Marc said about 11 hours later

On one hand, I'd agree with GJ, because the facts seems to point to a very unlikely case of them being rescued. On the other hand, if I were a family member, I'd be helping the rescue. There has been cases where they have found the miners within the two week range.

However, I don't know much about the other cases, does anyone know if they found evidence of them being alive before actually recovering the people?

---

Kristen said about 19 hours later

In my mind I think that it's definitely a recovery thing--but I think mine officials owe it to these families to keep searching for the miners' bodies. They were using questionable methods anyway, so now they have to pay the price. Find the safest way possible, take their time and use their heads...

---

Steve said about 20 hours later

I think they should continue, but they need to be much more careful than they apparently were being when they had another collapse killing three rescue workers.

Now, how would you feel if you were a miner trapped, were miraculously rescued, only to learn that 3 other people died trying to save you? That would also be very hard to live with.

---

GJ said 2 days later

Being trapped for two weeks, I'd be dead by now. ;)

Geoff said about 13 hours later

This is the video I saw where he talks about apes having a moral compass...in some regards. He has a second series in addition to this about religion being a virus or something lol. It's a good watch though.

---

Marc said about 14 hours later

This is an interesting video. To get right to the point, Ted Haggard is a complete idiot, and so is anyone who follows him.

As for Dawkins, I think he's not much better. Is he a delusional idiot like Haggard? No. But his ideas on some things just aren't logical.

As a scientist, the path to truth is of the most importance, yet he doesn't believe we should be teaching theories provided by religions in schools. His reasoning is that religions are based solely on myth and that they don't contain hard evidence like those that science provides. Ok, sounds reasonable, except science is based solely on myth in a lot of places too! Look at the big bang. Who didn't learn that in school? The fact is, we have no idea what caused the big bang. Am I saying some deity sparked it? No, but science can't tell us either, so how is it any better than creationism? The only reason it's considered better is that it shows prooc up until the point after it occurred. But to be honest, creationism doesn't limit the theory, it could all be sparked by a deity at that point that science cannot figure it out. So what's the harm in learning about it? It may not be any of your beliefs that teaching creationist theory in schools is harmful, but it is for many Americans. But in the case of the big bang, science is just as stumped as religions. Creationism is left out though because we don't have "separation of scientific theory and state," we have "separation of church and state."

I think if we're gonna drop religious theory out of schools, there should be no scientific theory in schools to be fair. The only problem there is, how will we ever further science without theory? So it's not a good solution. Just teach it all, let the kids figure it out, they're smart. Spoon feeding them theories we consider "logical" is just as bad as religion spoon feeding ridiculous ideas. I know the discussion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will come up here, and I know it's a thin line, but we're smart humans, let's go on statistics. If a certain percentage of people believe a theory, include it. If you want your theory to be taught in schools, find another medium to get the word out, it's not so hard to get ideas out to a large audience in these days.

As a disclaimer, I'll say yes I am religious, you guys probably knew that. But at the same time, I've been through all of these classes in school, I know science fairly well (Unfortunately!). The ideas and methods practiced by science are GREAT. Religions should take note. I don't think blind faith is a good idea, we should constantly question it.

I think Dawkins is wrong. Science and religion CAN be happy coexisting together, there just needs to be compromise. Religion needs to be more accepting of ideas and theories science brings up, and science needs to meet religion half way and stop bashing a possible deity.

Someone needs to make a video about people who have embraced science and religion, who recognize the importance of logical thinking, but at the same time embrace the good teachings and ideas that religion does provide. For instance, have you atheists ever thought about the golden rule? I'm sure you have. Treat others as you would want to be treated? It's a good idea and when you push yourself to think about it, you tend to be what most would consider a better person. Science doesn't teach that. Good parenting can train you to be like that, but sometimes religion is a good communication tool to teach those types of things. Although, I'll agree, teaching religion that way in school should probably be left out, but just because religion has its bad parts, doesn't mean removing it will make things any easier in this world.

As a final note, I know Dawkins is trying to show that fundamentalist religious people and blind belief is detrimental, which in most respects is probably true, but I think he comes off as a bit arrogant at times(Haggard was right for once!). Making claims using the "ALL Christians believe..." is VERY dangerous. All is a very strong word, so I found as I was watching this that I was thinking "Hey... that's not me, don't pigeonhole me in with the rest of them." I'm sure many other people feel the same way, which could turn people off to his good ideas. I know not to take his ideas personally, as I don't care what he thinks, it's my life, but some people will take it personally and will shut him out completely. Not too effective for a documentary at times.

---

GJ said about 17 hours later

Marc, religion does not provide any theories. If you think it does, please give me an example. As Dawkins says quite clearly, religion is built on faith, not evidence. Theories are built and tested with evidence, not faith. Thus, religion can offer no theories, only dogma.

I'll agree that Dawkins comes across arrogant. However, you don't get to be the leader of any movement by being a wallflower. I was amused watching the interchange between Dawkins and Haggard. They're both jerks. :) I just happen to think Dawkins is right.

Golden rule...that's a good one. Do you know who invented the golden rule? Who first practiced it? I'll give you a hint--it wasn't the Christians. You'll also find it present among most of the major religions, and it dates back to the dawn of civilization in our earliest forms of society. We didn't need God to tell us why this is a good idea. Think about it: who are you more likely to work with, to trust, to cooperate with? One who treats you as an equal, and values you, or one that wishes to dominate you, enslave you, or hurt you?

I have yet to see anything that current religions propose as "God's law" that hasn't been in use in one form or another over the history of man. That tells me that the current religions have about to do with God as the old pagan religions.

---

Darcy said about 17 hours later

Since the dawn of mankind people have wondered where we came from. Good question. As a result there are multitudes of explanations for our creation. These all involve something bigger than humans responsible for the creation of the earth and mankind. It may be giant turtles or the Judeo-Christian God of Genesis that were responsible for life on earth. But ultimately these were the creation of ancient peoples using the only tools they had--their imagination.

As time progressed and science developed new ideas came about evolution, the Big Bang. These things had their source in the human mind as well, but they are testable. Through the fossil record we can see the progression of our human(and non-human) ancestors. Thanks to cosmic background radiation(which is the glow left over from the explosion itself, discovered in 1964)we have evidence of the Big Bang.

Why do these subjects need to intersect? Why do we need to say "God did it" when we don't have a ready answer? Why is it necessary?

In our country the push for creationism is led by fundamental Christians. The ONLY creation of the earth and mankind that they will accept is the version contained in Genesis. So what do they do with the fossil and geologic records of earth, and anything else that doesn't mesh with their version of creation(I am speaking of Young Earth Creationists here, those that believe the earth is only 6000 years old)? They twist it to suit their hypothesis--which as I recall from college is a big no-no. Suddenly humans lived concurrently with dinosaurs. All fossils we find are of animals killed in the Flood. Scientists are wrong, carbon dating is wrong, geologic stratum dating is wrong, because the bible says otherwise.

Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that? If you don't believe that people think that way just go out to the website for Ken Ham's creation museum and see for yourself. That is the type of creationism they want to teach in schools, not the possibility that a deity was behind the Big Bang or even evolution(which they don't accept).

That is why I have a problem with it,they are saying "teach the controversy, but only our version of it." This is also why I say to you Marc that science and religion can not coexist in the manner you suggest.

On the matter of the golden rule. This is a widespread idea, found all over the world, and not always in a religious manner(see Confucius). We are a social animal and there are rules to live by for a well functioning society and that is the most basic of all . Quite honestly, I feel it is the only one we need. All else can derive from that.

I am not bashing religion--religion has its place in society(and has in many forms since man first sought answers to our origins. I am also not saying that God or something like that doesn't exist--I simply don't have the answer to that.

---

Marc said about 17 hours later

Theories aren't built on evidence, laws are. Theories are simply "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." as dictionary.com puts it so well. The example was fitting as well :) I'd say creationism falls under that category. Whether you agree that the ideas are coherent or not is where the statistics come in. Do enough people find it coherent? If so, you've got a theory, otherwise it's a stupid idea. If you want to get really technical, creationism is probably a theorem: an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof. What is considered generally accepted? Well, if about 50% of the population agree, that's close to a majority, I'd say that's close enough to bring about a discussion in public places.

Maybe the golden rule was a bad example, or maybe all of those morals are ideas that history has brought us without religion, but religion made it popular, just like Dawkins is making atheism popular. Sometimes being arrogant gets your ideas noticed, religion may be arrogant for stating they came up with the idea, but either way most people attribute their original knowledge of the idea from religion. Be honest, where did you learn it? Probably at a young age through religion, and you've been practicing it, hopefully, ever since. At a young age are you really capable to learn this without a bit of help? I guess you could say you learn it from a basic psychology standpoint: When you do good things for other people, you get rewarded. But it's not always the case when you do good things for others.

EDIT:

The creationism attempting to be taught by Ken Ham and friends should be rejected. Because with science we KNOW the earth is older than 6,000 years old, so their theory is disproved by fact. The creationism I'm thinking of is simply a God/gods or some deity sparked the big bang. I don't think that God having a hand to push evolution along should be taught, that's going a bit far. I'm talking simply at the very start of the universe. Nobody knows what happened, give a list of ideas that are commonly thought of. String theory, God, whatever.

I'll agree with you guys in that a lot of the creationism they are trying to get into schools is just way too whacky. Not believing evolution is pretty silly, there's very good evidence of it, so there's no point in trying to teach the Adam and Eve story in schools. Maybe some day we'll be able to say the same for God sparking the big bang, but until we've got evidence to prove that, is it harmful to throw the idea out there?

I'm not bashing atheism, I think it's a very good movement. I'd like to put myself somewhere between religious and atheist, not sure what to call that. I think the battle against fundamental Christians, or any religions, is necessary and I would fully back the atheist there if their arguments are left to facts only. I know you guys are more sensible than many atheists I've met, who tend to bash religions by simply stating things like "believing in this magical being that watches over everybody and then you go to heaven up in the sky on the clouds ... blah blah ... is dumb," is really what's hurting the atheist's case.

It's the uninformed/blind people on both sides that cause all of us toward the middle to argue this. Sorta like politics :)

---

Geoff said about 18 hours later

Cool, another religious discussion! We know where I stand, but I do want to add to the creationism theory. Just because thousands, if not millions believe it is true, doesn't make it true. For thousands of years, the whole world thought the Earth was flat. Wrong. Creationism is simply, and utterly stupid. To even consider that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is absurd. This is one of the many reasons atheists in particular are getting angry. This SHOULD NOT be taught period. If you want to say Darwin is wrong, fine. You better have proof that he is, because there is a whole pile of evidence for Evolution, and it all contradicts Creationism. Creationism doesn't have one shred of evidence, and only uses the bible as its source of information.

Have any of you really read the bible? Some of the "teachings" of God are quite horrific in the Old Testament. Why do we omit those teachings, yet we still think he created Earth because Genesis says so. I mean, if you believed in the bible, well then it would be the Baumbach Family's job to kill GJ and myself with your bare hands according to the old Testament. I'll have to get the verse for you to read, it is quite amusing.

When it comes to moral teachings, much of this is instilled in us by nature. I can tell you, when I was a kid, the Golden rule didn't enter my mind much when I played outside with friends. It is built into our brains to coexist, or else we would have never survived this long (or short if you think about it). Our parents help nurture this, and I don't think you need religion to be rewarded for good behavior. I would be very interested to see how a wholly atheistic society would function to compare.

We may never realize how everything started. We are so young as a species, statistically we are non-existent if you look at how old the universe is, or even the planet for that matter. I could say that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That is no different than saying God created the universe. You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong, and neither of can scientifically prove it true. And one last punch to religion for fun, what the hell took God so long to create us anyways?

---

Marc said about 18 hours later

Maybe I'm killing my argument by using the word creationism. Is there a better word for "deity started big bang, that's it."?

Trust me... the whole 6 days, then resting thing. I never believed that. I think even the youngest child nowadays questions the silliness of that.

I agree the Bible should be kept far from schools, I never said it should be in schools. It's a good morality book when explained by an intelligent human being. That's about it.

EDIT:

Geoff pointed out that "deitism" is what it would be called I believe. So yea, how about deitism in schools?

---

Geoff said about 19 hours later

This still assumes a higher being is responsible for everything. Without proof, one could say Elvis created the universe. I think we teach kids what we know and what is acceptable scientific theories and proofs. They may change over time as we discover more and more. Telling our children, "oh God is responsible for that" doesn't help. Why bother to figure out the real reason? If we tell them we don't know, hey, now that kid has a mystery to solve. That kid, 20 years later, may discover what that mystery is. We can not assume anything, other than Rush is the best band ever. No question there! ;)

---

GJ said about 20 hours later

See, Geoff, the lack of evidence for the supremacy of Rush is what makes your claim a belief.

Marc, the whole 6 day thing is believed by a LOT of Americans. Fully 46% of adult Americans polled recently honestly believes the world is less than 10,000 years old. That is frightening.

The "big bang was kicked off by a deity" has a name--it's called Intelligent Design. The folks behind ID? Creationists.

---

Marc said about 20 hours later

I thought Intelligent Design included God aiding in helping evolution, am I wrong?

---

Steve said about 20 hours later

Glad to see Marc filling in for me when I'm too busy to respond properly. And heck, he does a better job then me, so I'll just let him continue to argue my point.

---

GJ said 1 day later

ID is God doing all sorts of things, including "guiding" evolution but still insisting that evolution doesn't really happen quite the way Darwin says it does. Not that they have any proof, mind you. And yes, they also claim he started the big bang, but if you question them enough they start to squirm, because they're really mostly Young Earth Creationists (YECs).

---

GJ said 1 day later

Marc, I'll see your definition of theory and raise you one from Houghton Mifflin:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Let me emphasize a part of that: "especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Creationism absolutely, positively has NEVER been tested. It is widely accepted, but it CAN NOT be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In fact, the fossil record contradicts the bible's account of the world's creation across the board.

Time to refute another one of your statements: Be honest, where did you learn it? Probably at a young age through religion, and you've been practicing it, hopefully, ever since. At a young age are you really capable to learn this without a bit of help? I guess you could say you learn it from a basic psychology standpoint: When you do good things for other people, you get rewarded. But it's not always the case when you do good things for others.

Where did I learn it? Same place you did--from our parents. Not from the Church, although they did broadcast the same message. Our parents taught it to us when we were very young because it is required in order for you to function in modern society and be a positive contributor. If everyone was doing the "me me me me" thing, society as we know it would come crashing down. Don't mistake atheism for anarchy--they are two very different things.

Does religion reinforce this message? Yes, it does--and it does a pretty good job of it, most of the time. Until it gets polarized, and the us-vs-them mentality sets in (i.e., muslim vs jew, protestant vs catholic, etc.) Then, the golden rule only applies for those like us. The heathens get the heel of our jackboots.

So...can we learn it without religion? Sure we can. In fact, a lot of religious folk believe we atheists do all sorts of nasty, bad stuff because we have no "moral compass." That's pretty funny. It means, in effect, that without a God there to bully them into behaving, they'd be out raping and pillaging the neighborhood, like they claim we're doing. What total BS. Society cannot exist as a cohesive bond of humanity without a population that cares for its members. That's why societies tend to be made up of similar individuals, people that we can find something in common with, be it our skin color, our values, our income levels, our recreational interests, political views, etc.

---

Marc said 1 day later

Pfft, Houghton Mifflin is certainly no dictionary.com. :)

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Did I mention aliens do exist? :)

---

GJ said 2 days later

Yeah, they're in that teapot circling the sun. Didn't you watch the video??

---

Geoff said 2 days later

Nah, the teapot is the alien, it is just a big government cover up.

Steve said about 1 hour later

I'm game for playing another year. Speaking of Fantasy Sports, any chance you can bring that Hockey trophy to the wedding weekend? I'd love to see it.

---

Marc said about 2 hours later

I might as well give it a shot, give you guys another opponent in yet another fantasy sport to beat up on. :)

---

GJ said about 11 hours later

I do plan to bring it to the wedding and hand it over. It's been back in its box since the day you won, since I lost the right to display it in my office. ;) I'll see if I can finally get it engraved, too.

I need at least one more to join in to make this a go. More would be more fun, of course. Dad? Eric? Geoff? Kristen? Gina? Darcy?

---

Darcy said about 12 hours later

IF you need another person I am in

---

Abby said about 15 hours later

I'll join again. =)

---

Geoff said about 16 hours later

Im in!

---

GJ said about 16 hours later

Steve, Marc, GJ, and Abby so far, with Darcy waiting in the wings to make the number of teams even if need be. Awww, c'mon...six is way more fun than four!

---

GJ said about 16 hours later

Oops, and Geoff, so we're up to six with Darcy. Aww, cmon, eight is way more fun than six!

---

Kristen said 1 day later

Hey I'd play--the football one was less maintenance than the hockey! I need to get those dirty germans in shape again. They've been slacking.

---

GJ said 3 days later

Oh, and by noon tomorrow I meant Friday at noon, haha.

---

Steve said 4 days later

Slacker!!!!

---

GJ said 4 days later

:)

---

Steve said 4 days later

Oh boy, real slacker, it's 5:35 on Friday, still no email!! Of course, how can I complain, since GJ's been running these leagues out of the kindness of his heart for the past 7 or 8 years...

---

GJ said 4 days later

yeah, I'm trying to take vacation and of course we had a zillion emergencies at work this week. I wanna be a freaking garbage collector on days like this.

---

Steve said 5 days later

Any chance we could push the draft back to later in the evening, like, say 8:30 PM? Or put it on a weekday evening? I am the chairperson for an autocross that day, so there's no chance I could participate in a 3:30 PM draft.

---

GJ said 5 days later

Sure. What say the rest of you? The sooner you ping me, the better a date I can set.

---

Geoff said 6 days later

Don't matter to me!

---

Marc said 6 days later

Works for me

GJ said 1 day later

Now, see if you can guess when Dick became the head of Halliburton? 1995, anyone? Could THAT be the reason for the change of heart?

And yes, Steve, I'm fully insinuating here. :) However, this isn't a GOP thing, this is a rogue administration who the GOP hasn't (or has refused to) take to task for their irresponsible actions. Now that the Dems have the Legislature, I'm equally peeved with them. It does nothing about the illusion that many have, believing big business really runs the government.

Marc said about 2 hours later

Those videos rocked! I'm not sure what the issue was with the Flash button in the editor for the blog. I simply put in the code after the v= parameter for the YouTube URL and that fixed it.

---

GJ said about 2 hours later

Hillbilly golf was hilarious...only a true moron would do that.

---

GJ said about 2 hours later

And thanks for the help, Marc. I was refusing to dig out my HTML book, as my back is sore and that damn book weighs about 100 lbs. A cursory glance didn't tell me offhand what was going on.