I've now noted at least two instances in two diferent threads where you have claimed that I (by name) and several others "dissenters" (my term) on this board are attempting to silence those we don't agree with. I've asked in one of those threads for you to back up this accusation, but in case you don't see it, I'm asking again.

As I stated in the other thread, I firmly believe that I have done nothing to attempt to silence others on this board. The only thing I have done is questioned others' claims and debated their opinions. This, I believe, cannot be viewed by any rational person as an attempt at silencing another person. Perhaps you have made this accusation based on my tone of debate. If this is the case (which I don't agree with), then everyone, including most definitely you, is guilty of attempting to "silence" everyone else. And no, "you deserved it" isn't an excuse you can use to claim that you aren't just as guilty.

Again, I believe that you have made a completely fictitious and fairly serious claim against me and others on this discussion board. I'd suggest that you either: A) find some evidence to back up your claim, or B) discontinue making this claim and stick to what people really are saying and doing.

You don't have to do either of these things, but your claim is now very much out in the open. Failure to do one of these things will make you a complete liar, and not in any position to play the moral card ever again.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000

Answers

I guess you should have waited a few more minutes for a response. You certainly got one.

Now I am a liar?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Well, in no uncertain terms, yes.

First off, claiming that when I told Rolex that I agreed that he had said enough was in fact me trying to silence him doesn't even come close to passing the straight face test. Not only do you take the message completly out of context, but the entire argument falls apart when in the next sentence I tell him that I'll see him next year.

Second, if I truly was trying to silence Rolex with that comment, how is it that I succeeded in silencing him a day AFTER he decided to be silenced??? Put another way, how could I have been trying to do something when it was already done? I'm sorry, I guess when I requested that you provide evidence that I was trying to silence people, I should have been more clear in asking for evidence that I actually CAUSED, or at least tried to cause somebody to be silenced. You know, something like telling Rolex that he's said enough BEFORE he in fact wrote that he had said enough.

Third, and this is really quite poetic, YOU yourself pretty much said I wasn't the one that you were directing your "silencing" comment towards in this thread, BB was the subject. Your original post placed the blame on "double speaking liberals" for attempting to silence Rolex. When I asked at what point I had engaged in double talk you responded "Did you take that comment to mean you?" and then went on to explain how you thought BB had engaged in double talk.

SO, by logical deduction of your own comments, one of two realities need to exist in order for you not to be a liar:

A)BB was the only one you were talking about when you originally said "double speaking liberals" were trying to silence Rolex (we'll ignore that you did contradict yourself later in the thread), and therefore, you need to provide evidence that BB in some way was trying to do such a thing.

or

B)You were talking about me when you made the "double speaking liberals" comment, and therefore need to provide evidence that I've committed double talk. Otherwise you've again made an accusation against me without any evidence.

I would hope that this has taught you a lesson on how your own comments can come around and bite you in the rear when you aren't careful about what you say about people, but sadly I imagine this will just generate another snide comment based on another completely unfounded assumption. Besides, I'm sure that if I recommended that you stop making irrational insults you'd complain that I was trying to silence you. And Lord know we wouldn't want that. I'd loose a great source of comedy relief!

So will "Marsha the Liar" work for you?

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 06, 2000.

Just the fact that you put so much energy into all this makes it worth irratating you.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 06, 2000.

Actually, Marsha the Liar, I enjoy these kind of deductive reasoning excercises. Highlighting your ignorance and lack of character is rather fun.

I will note that you seem to think it's okay to lie about someone just to irritate them is quite telling. Have fun trying to live that down.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 07, 2000.

"I firmly believe that I have done nothing to attempt to silence others on this board."

I firmly believe that you HAVE.

"Highlighting your ignorance and lack of character is rather fun."

Which is your main purpose in this forum.

AND the method you use to attempt to chase off people who disagree with your views. Your ridicule of people's opinions can be found on numerous threads.

Which probably explains your cowardice in hiding behind one or more made up identities.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 07, 2000.

Ho..Hmm.... Any real issues out and about? But...please don't discuss them without real evidence.....or should I put it

A) Evidence B) Stick to issue C) Oh....what the heck, have a nice day!

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

Actually, Doug, this is a telling exchange.

Liberals, for years, have gotten some degree of deference from the rest of us, through the technique of claiming the moral high ground. In doing this they appeal to OUR sense of fairness or propriety, values they in fact don't share.

A case in point: The Judge Thomas vs Anita Hill issue. Clarence Thomas was not only castigated for ALLEGED crude comments A DECADE PREVIOUSLY, and, were it not for him playing the race card himself (a high tech lynching) would have gone the way of Robert Bork. Fast forward to the current administration and women with FAR MORE CREDIBLE stories were unceremoniously dismissed as "nuts and sluts" by the Carville War Room, and NOW and others turned a blind eye.

Even after it was incontrovertibly established (the DNA/blue dress) that sexual exploitation of a subordinate occurred to a degree and frequency that made the Thomas ALLEGATIONS trivial by comparison, the "moral huigh ground" crowd closed ranks behind their man, essentially saying boys will be boys.

It is time and past time for the rest of us to realize that there is no moral high ground from the liberals. They are just spinning, propagandizing really, to play on our values of fair play which they don't share.

They have decided that they really don't have to play by the rules that they use to berate us, they can just LIE, often, loudly, and pretend it's the truth........and they will usually get away with it. The current debacle in Florida, an attempt to steal an election that would have had our forefathers reaching for their weapons, is only the latest time when they've attempted to "spin" the high ground (every vote must be counted) while their actions (no military votes, they vote for the wrong people) speak much louder than their spin.

Even I "informed citizen"s nom de plume is an attempt to claim this moral high ground, which his/her repeated postings have demonstrated is incorrect. Highly opinionated (and generally wrong) is NOT the same as being informed.

The time has come, my friends, to not listen to these manipulators. From Mother Theresa I might listen to holier-than-thou talk, but not from those who have demonstrated that their words have no inherent worth, but are simply tools to manipulate their audience through pressing buttons (it's for the children) that the manipulators themselves rreally don't share.

So here's a vote for Marsha, give him Hell, darlin'. He deserves it.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

>Ho..Hmm.... Any real issues out and about? But...please don't discuss them without real evidence.....or should I put it A) Evidence <

This brings up an interesting point Doug.

Many times, I've been able to find information from various sources in print form. These I've obtained from all these open houses, council meetings and the like. I also query the staff a lot, framing questions so that I don't elicit a negatively biased response. That is to say, I don't go to the 'transit guy' and ask roadway questions, since I know I'll get his slant on it. I've found it useful to go to the 'highway guy' and get him/her talking positively about what they know. They love to share.

Unfortunately, not all of this information is available on the internet, and much of it gets worked over by commitees and politicians and interst groups before you see it published in the media. (Who by the way, don't always get it right)

That's probably why BB, and IC and myself try to encourage everyone to participate.

B) Stick to the subject? What fun is that?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 11, 2000.

Which probably explains your cowardice in hiding behind one or more made up identities.

Just how many people do you think post on this board? Certainly not enough to even begin to assume that I'm floating around with more than one identity. But you hear that Zowie? Looks like since we've made up identities we're both cowards!

Of course I'm pretty certain Marsha doesn't consider Zowie a coward. He agrees with her position, so of course he isn't held to the impossibly high standard that she holds people who do not share her view. When I challenge someone's claim, I'm ridiculing and attempting to chase them off. When Marsha responds to someone with insults and lies she's just doing what she thinks they deserve. When Zowie starts a thread with the sole intent on bashing Matt, Marsha is amazingly silent. When I start a thread to ask Marsha to defend a claim she's made against me, my main purpose on this forum is to attack her.

You know what your problem is Marsha? You can't tell the difference between attacking a person's position and attacking the person. I may disagree with Matthew on several things quite strongly, but I still respect the man because of his dedication and I know his heart is in the right place. But to you, if someone dares to challenge your assertion or one that you believe, you take it like someone is killing your first born and will stop at nothing, including being a hypocrite and a liar, to attempt to discredit and silence that person.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You've been casting a whole bunch of stones Marsha, and lets just say you ain't no saint.

Now if you'll excuse me, there are other items to discuss.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 12, 2000.

Oh, and Zowie, I'd spend some time responding to your post, but I'll make it real simple.

What were Speaker Newt Gingrich and almost Speaker Bob Livingston doing while they were speaking strongly in favor of the "Defense of Marriage" act and against President Clinton's escapades with Monica?

They were having affairs.

I didn't start the push for the moral high ground, that was Marsha. I find trying to keep track of whether "conservatives" or "liberals" have the moral high ground counterproductive. There are millions of people on either side, and sooner or later a person of some importance on one of the sides is going to screw up royally, usually right after they just pointed out how someone on the other side just screwed up. It's called karma, and it's one of the only constants in the universe.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 12, 2000.

Sounds like there are alot of Lawyers posting in here.

Do you know what the difference is between a Lawyer and a Trampoline?

You take your Steel-Toed Logging Boots off when you jump on a Trampoline....

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 12, 2000.

Zowie,

Thanks, you made me smile.

Rolex,

Ah ha! I knew you wouldn't leave!

I.C.,

How do you know Zowie is a made up name? Your assuming, like usual. (It isn't condescending, like yours.) It may very well be a nickname, how would you know?

What you got from me, was my take on your responses to me. Like it or not, peoples perceptions are what they are. You have done plenty of name calling yourself. You most certainly DID attack me personally, and, as I recall, Rolex regarding comments we made. Why is it OK for you to do so, but not OK for me? Moral high ground would be my guess.

You would love to sit and bore us all with more attacks, but it doesn't seem like anyone really cares about this little dispute.

As far as Matt is concerned, I don't always agree with him either. But guess what? He HAS earned respect from me, in spite of our differences, because he DOESN'T behave in a condescending manner.

dbvz also gets high marks. While he may be critical, he does so without being patronizing or rude. In addition, he gives us other ideas and options to consider, that are positive.

Maybe you need to examine the "tone" of your posts if what you are seeking is honest debate. So far, you've been nothing but a jerk, at least to me.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 12, 2000.

"Oh, and Zowie, I'd spend some time responding to your post, but I'll make it real simple. "
And then you go on to say something off the point?

I don't CARE about Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston. They advocated their positions, and won or lost.
It didn't affect me much, one way or the other.

What I was describing, however, is what we must all now do, now that it has become apparent that the liberals really don't care about sexual harassment of subordinates, perjury, misfeasance or malfeasance, the right (of military members who don't agee with them) to vote or even the rule of law, much less election law.

What I am saying is that people who really do have values should stop listening to the propaganda that is being put out by the liberals when they attempt to claim the moral high ground, be it "for the children" or to "count every vote."

These sayings are not even a mantra, they are merely propagandizing. Liberals want what they want, and will do whatever works to get it.

We have a choice. We can stop listening to their self-serving whinings, or we can let them continue to drag the country farther and farther into the gutter, from whence it must eventually be rescued.

Karma be damned. I believe a better analogy is that of a pendulum. If we allow the liberals to get the society too far out of whack, the reaction to put it back will be equally excessive.

I'd rather beat the idiots back at the ballot box, through social confrontation, and through things like initiatives, rather than allow things to get to the point where there was a real physical conflict between the groups.

When I was young (ie., not recently) there was a LOT of distance between the ideal and the commonplace, and even more between the commonplace and the illegal. Sometime around the 60s, someone (the ACLU I believe) managed to convince society that all behavior that was not actually illegal was just as good as any other behavior, that short of actually breaking a law, everything was simply an alternate lifestyle.

Now that, of course, is and always was bullshit. Society desperately NEEDS values to herd people back away from the line of illegality and back towards an ideal. If you make society pass-fail, a whole lot more people will fail than if you grade it. And we've seen the result of that, in illegitimacy, in crime, in wasted lives.

So understand this, uninformed citizen. Marsha is doing her civic duty when she calls people like you on the carpet. It helps society, and helps you. Both obviously need it!
And what do you have against the name Zowie? Next thing I know, you'll be tossing ethnic slurs at my family.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 12, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "Society desperately NEEDS values to herd people back away from the line of illegality and back towards an ideal. If you make society pass-fail, a whole lot more people will fail than if you grade it. And we've seen the result of that, in illegitimacy, in crime, in wasted lives."

You're wrong. What we need is less coercion, not more. The main reason our society is screwed up is because of the illegitimate and insane war on drugs. How much money have we wasted fighting a war we can't win? How much money have we wasted trying to "to herd people...back towards an ideal"? How many lives have been lost because we've made trading in drugs profitable by virtue of making it illegal? How many employees of the criminal justice system have used their authority and influence to enrich themselves?

I don't want my tax dollars used to enforce drug laws. In fact, I would recommend giving people drugs for free for a little while, just to break the back of organized crimes and the various gangs. I recommend releasing everyone from prison who ended up there primarily because they were involved in drug dealing, especially first-time offenders.

So, you're wrong, as usual Zowie. You can't blame ALL COERCION on liberals. Conservatives are just as guilty.

Fortunately, here in State of Washington, the Republicans are fading into the sunset, and the dawn of the Libertarian age is approaching. Libertarians are opposed to coercion. Amen to that.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 12, 2000.

This Republican, "AINT" , going nowhere. especially into the sunset. Look who won the election?

One big reason this society is crumbling is because of all this politically correct crap. A janitor is supposed to be equal to a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist, with a triple doctorate. NOT! We have to get back to the old days where everyone has a place in society, whatever that may be.

Another problem is: You cannot open your mouth and voice your "TRUE" opinion, without someone suing you. No matter how trivial the insult or slight, the offended party will grab a shyster lawyer, and ruin your life. As a result, we do not even talk to our neighbors and look at all transactions, with people, weighed against the possibility of litigation.

The other thing wrong with this society is: The government is more concerned about building thousands of factories overseas, instead of building them here and giving our people the jobs. Our infrastructure is decaying from the inside out. A country's might is based on its manufacturing capabilities. We have the largest industrial base, but we do not make anything here, anymore. This should be a national crime. People are either working for the government, or they are working for Mc donalds.

As for laws and following the laws: Laws are like cobwebs to the rich and the powerfully politically connected; on the other hand , those same laws are like solid steel chains to the poor.

Our children see the politicians who are sworn to uphold the laws, simply ignore them. The kids are not stupid, they catch on quick and will act accordingly. I fear for the next generation...

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 13, 2000.

Rolex writes in part:

"This Republican, "AINT" , going nowhere. especially into the sunset. Look who won the election?"

Bush - apparently - due to the elctoral college. Gore by "the will of the people."

State wide let's take a look...

Governor - Democrat

Lieutenant Governor - Democrat

Secretary of State - Republican

Treasurer - Democrat

Auditor - Democrat

Attorney General - Democrat

Sup. of Public Instruction - Non-partisan

Commissioner of Public Lands - Republican

Insurance Commissioner - Democrat

U.S. Senator - Democrat

It would appear a bit one sided to me.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), December 13, 2000.

I am really having trouble connecting Zowie's comments to Matt's "you're wrong" position here. Is it me, or does anyone else see Matt's comments to be convoluted in the extreme?

It takes a big leap to tell Zowie he is wrong on an issue he obviously didn't directly address, and in fact the following statement that Zowie made "If you make society pass-fail, a whole lot more people will fail than if you grade it. And we've seen the result of that, in illegitimacy, in crime, in wasted lives" can not be said to be in direct conflict with Matthew's position.

One might even go so far as to claim Zowie's comment about society's pass-fail standard is in agreement with Matt's position on an insane drug war.

Since when do the terms "values" or "ideal" imply coercion?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

"How do you know Zowie is a made up name? Your assuming, like usual. (It isn't condescending, like yours.) It may very well be a nickname, how would you know?"

Well, A) yes I'm assuming that "Zowie" is not someone's real name (you're of course assuming the same about me now aren't you), and B) nicknames ARE made up names!

"Why is it OK for you to do so, but not OK for me?"

Actually, as I've said repeatedly, my main beef is that YOU'RE the one who continually attacks me and then complains quite heavily when I respond in kind. You feel the need to insult me, that's fine. Just don't call foul when it gets thrown back at you. And before you try to disprove this claim by pointing out this thread, I started it because you claimed I did something that I didn't do, NOT because I felt insulted.

"it doesn't seem like anyone really cares about this little dispute."

And yet this thread continues because.....

"So far, you've been nothing but a jerk, at least to me."

I seem to remember making the same comment to you a while back, and you responding that I deserve it. Hmmmmm. I've debated people who I disagree with many times both here and elsewhere quite civily. I've noticed that you've had a number of run ins with other people on this board as well.

Zowie, A) I didn't say I had anything against your name, just that if Marsha has a problem with mine, if she were to be consistant (for once), she should have a problem with yours too. And B) Matthew pretty much stated my point. You're railing about how liberals try to claim the high ground while turning a blind eye to their own misdeeds. But by ignoring conservative efforts to do the same, and you do this right here "I don't CARE about Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston" you are guilty of the same thing!

Welcome back Rolex. Contrary to what someone would like everyone to believe, I think your presence is helpful to stimulate the debate. Otherwise it's just three or four people saying the same things to each other.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 13, 2000.

Ah yes.... In the State of Washington we have

Governor - Democrat

Lieutenant Governor - Democrat

Secretary of State - Republican

Treasurer - Democrat

Auditor - Democrat

Attorney General - Democrat

Sup. of Public Instruction - Non-partisan

Commissioner of Public Lands - Republican

Insurance Commissioner - Democrat

U.S. Senator - Democrat

And a U.S. Constitution and a U.S. Supreme Court that protected the smaller states from "mob rule."

Now explain why the scziophrenic Washington State voters approved two conservative "anti" tax measures in the last two elections.

Because they are greedy? Or because the majority are basically uneducated and uninformed? I doubt either.

Studies show the majority of us consider ourselves as centrist. I doubt it is the "age" of Liberterians. I think we will see a move to the center by both parties, with neither gaining a huge majority. (Unless the Reverend Jesse Jackson manages to alienate a large portion of "white" democratic voters with his racist remarks.)

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

" A bit one sided to me" Talk all you want, the REBUBLICANS are in charge of the COUNTRY. You wait till the next election cycle in washington state. When Locke and all the other politicians have done nothing to alleviate out tax burdens,(and they will do nothing), the face of Olympia will ring with the sound of Rebublican boots in the halls of congress. I predict a clean sweep with majorities in both houses and a Republican Governor also.

The IMPORTANT thing is: BUSH WON! God Bless America! To all you Democrats: HAHAHAHAHAHA... I Told You So......

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 13, 2000.

IC,

"Well, A) yes I'm assuming that "Zowie" is not someone's real name (you're of course assuming the same about me now aren't you)"

I can pronounce Zowie, but I am unsure of how to pronounce IC. Does it sound like "Ick?"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

Oh please dear God, don't tell me BB is short for BUBBA!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

to Rolex: You write: "The other thing wrong with this society is: The government is more concerned about building thousands of factories overseas, instead of building them here and giving our people the jobs."

I didn't know the government built factories. I thought private investors and the free market system performed that function.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "our people", since the United States is a nation made up of immigrants. Presumably, you're saying that instead of encouraging corporations to build factories in Mexico, we should, instead, allow Mexicans to more easily come to the United States. This is precisely the recommendation of the new Mexican president, Vincente Fox.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

to Marsha: You ask: "Since when do the terms "values" or "ideal" imply coercion?"

Zowie talked about "herding people...back to an ideal". The words "herding people", sure sound potentially coercive to me.

The point I was trying to make is that most of the problems in our society have nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It has to do with the WAR ON DRUGS, the ultimate example of coercive thinking. In general, I've never encountered conservatives to be less coercive than liberals. It's simply a different set of values.

Zowie was blaming our woes on liberals.

The real blame is the war on drugs, which saps our budgets, and makes criminals and/or killers out of our young. It scares me to think my kids could have their lives ruined because they make some dumb mistakes about drugs. And, the reality is that I'd probably thank the Lord that my kids were in a car with someone on a drug OTHER THAN ALCOHOL. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug of all. Ironic, isn't it. I'm not advocating legalizing drugs. Just stop spending our tax dollars in its enforcement. Of course, if you legalize it, then you're talking about huge tax revenues (taxes which are NON-COERCIVE).

Coercion should exist at the local level through zoning laws. That way, if you don't like the rules, you can move to another neighborhood (which, hopefully, is not too far away). I would rather see communities impose CIVIL penalties on their neighbors who choose to be more wild than the majority believe is responsible behavior.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

Matt,

My feeling about the "War on Drugs" is that it is a failure, and in many ways, we are turning victims into criminals. However, I am not ready to abandon it until we get consensus and a more reasonable plan in place. Just so you know, there are some in Law Enforcement who believe as you do.

How do we know that in Zowie's post, his reference to society's tendency toward pass/fail, instead of a preference for grading isn't in the same vein as your local zoning, neighborhood control idea?

I am not willing to accept "herding" as "coercion" until Zowie has a chance to respond.

However, I do agree with Zowie that liberals have been taking us down the road to a moral decline. I speak from someone who has tried on both "hats" and one of them didn't fit me very well. I have witnessed first hand, a vicious attack by liberals I was affiliated with who had no problem using threats and lies to achieve their personal goals. It was sickening to see the harm they were willing to cause, just to get what they wanted.

Every time a liberal posts in this forum just how much Tim Eyman's initiatives "harm" the innocent, I see red. They want us to pay more taxes to support transportation programs they want, but they can't convince enough of people to use it, and apparently are not inclined to do so themselves. If that isn't the height of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

We don't need more money for roads, we need the hypocrite liberals to get out of their cars and get on the busses they keep making us pay for.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

Sorry about the typo in the tag!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 13, 2000.

"You're wrong. What we need is less coercion, not more"

You have to understand that culture is coercion.
It is not legal coercion, it is the internalization in the youth of the values of the culture.

Now I have no desire to offend anyone's religious beliefs, but it is a fact that, biologically, we aren't significantly different from the people who lived on this earth in the pre-agricultural era. If we could somehow ressurect a pre-agriculture era hunter-gatherer, genetically there really wouldn't be any difference between them and us. What we are is the result of our culture and, if it is to survive to the next generation, a culture must be judgemental, and must ensure that the next generation internalizes the core values of the culture. If those values are functional, the culture will survive.
We start out real malleable. A baby raised in a culture where education is prized, will tend to value education and devote effort to educating themselves. A baby raised in a culture where cannibalism was accepted, would tend to accept the practice of cannibalism as.... normal.

The problem with our renunciation of traditional values over the past 35 years, is that it left people with dysfunctional values (or lack of same).

A case in point: African-American culture- Genetically, just as good as anybody else. Where emphasis is placed by the culture, athleticism, for example, they thrive, as witnessed by their near domination of most professional sports. But, as many African-American intellectuals have themselves discussed (read some of Allan Keyes writings, a pity he had no serious chance for the presidency), there is in African-American culture today a lack of respect for education that borders on contempt, where children taunt other children who are academically successful, accusing them of attempting to be white.
Unfortunately, success in contemporary culture is determined far more by an individual's education than by their athletic prowess (A-Rod notwithstanding). Similarly, a society that values a nuclear family produces children that are on the whole more successful. The high rate of illegitimacy in certain segments of our culture statistically dooms those segments to a lower quality of life. This is not that there is anything genetically wrong with either the parents or children, merely that they have internalized values that provide less success for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is having too many single moms raising too many kids with too few resources with no good male role models, etc., .......

With regard to the complaints against the war on drugs, I have no particular problems with the legalization of drugs if you do not take resources from me to support these people when they or their offspring wind up in pitiful condition economically, medically, and in other ways, relative to the rest of us.The problem is that the liberals in the crowd, seeing these people in wretched condition after making not one, but MANY p*ss poor decisions, will say that they believe it's only fair to use the police power of the state to deprive the rest of us of our resources to "share" with those who "have less" because they've frittered away their opportunities, their resources, and their lives.

And that's why values are important, and why the anti-drug campaign is justified.
If you can come up with a scheme that ensures that I won't be paying the cost of their mistakes, I'll agree that these people can have all the drugs they want (and can afford to pay for).

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "And that's why values are important, and why the anti-drug campaign is justified."

No, the anti-drug campaign is not justified at ANY cost. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis which shows society is significantly better off fighting the war on drugs, despite its high costs.

Your nonsense about "cultural values" is ridiculous. We are a product of Western Civilization. Nothing has changed that, despite your paranoid assertions about liberals. Our nation is built on a foundation of at least three pillars: choice, competition, and compassion. With choice comes the necessary corollary of personal responsibility. The principle of choice is expanded in greater detail by the U.S. Constitution, and, to a lesser extent, by each state's constitution. The principle of competition is rooted in an economic system known as capitalism, which basically says your reward is based on how much you produce. If you produce less than the next person, you get less than the next person. The principle of compassion is rooted in the Old & New Testaments, which provide clear-cut examples of how the strong defend the weak.

Now, the three pillars may be perceived by some as being contradictory, since the principles of competition and compassion may clash from time to time. That's why moderation is always the best policy.

But, you are wrong when you blame the ills of our society on a lack of cultural values. The values have been there, are still there, and will continue to remain. The liberals place too much emphasis on the principle of compassion. Conservatives place to much emphasis on the principle of competition. And, neither group places the correct amount of emphasis on choice coupled with personal responsibility.

Many of the ills our society are due to the war on drugs. Not due to dysfunctional values. Once we end the war on drugs, we will have more money to build roads, libraries, research cures for cancer, etc. Furthermore, we will have taken a big step toward ending racial profiling against ethnic groups which are disproportionately represented in our prison system, which themselves are disproportionately filled with drug-related offenders.

Once we stop treating certain minorities like wild animals, maybe they'll be less angry and less motivated to strike out with rage.

It's not our values that are the problem, it's our policies. There needs to be a greater emphasis on cost-benefit analysis.

To paraphase you, Zowie:

"Screw values, perform more cost-benefit analyses!!!"

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 14, 2000.

Matt,

I have a hard time reconciling all of this. When I make a mental comparison between illegal drug use and legal drug use, (alcohol and nicotine comes to mind) I see a huge cost to society regardless of the legality/crime issues. I don't see your scenario as making any change in how many lives are destroyed by drugs. It would seem to me that it would also lead to an increase of unproductive worker bees being supported by the nanny state.

There is promising research being done on drug addiction and brain chemistry, and many scientists believe a breakthrough is only a few years away. The information I read contends that addiction will be curable with a pill. Sounds better than your free for all, anything goes locally controlled neighborhoods, which I might add, sounds like it would lead to more segregation and disenfranchised citizens. Sort of treating them like wild animals.

As far as minorities are concerned, those that do poorly have only themselves to blame. This is a land of opportunity, and many minorities have excelled. Those that have not, need to work harder at changing their values and choosing leaders that don't keep reinforcing stereotypes. All I should do as a citizen is to level the playing field for educational and economic opportunities. If parents of minority children cannot instill the proper values for success, how do you expect ending the drug war will?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 14, 2000.

"Once we stop treating certain minorities like wild animals, maybe they'll be less angry and less motivated to strike out with rage. "

EXCUUUUSE ME?

Where did you get that one?

The last minority that we "treated like wild animals" were the Japanese- Americans that, despite their citizenship, and their loyalty to this country, were incarcerated in internment camps.

We still discriminate against them. We have "affirmative action" programs that DECREASE the number of Japanese-Americans that get to go to UCLA, the U, and other institutions. Meanwhile, they are significantly more successful than the average American economically, despite having been treated like animals, because they have traditional values that work exceedingly well.

But as you said, if you come up with a scheme where individuals can take their drugs while I am insulated from the economic and safety risks of their behavior, have at it. Maybe we could subsidize all the dopers to relocate to Tasmania, and let them do anything they want there. It's far enough away that it won't affect the rest of us.

But don't expect me to support them, and don't expect me to not care when they are driving on the same roads as my family.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 14, 2000.

I am sure the Chinese would beg to differ about Japanese Traditional Values- when mentioned to say, The Rape of Manchuria... Or to those American soldiers who were cordially invited to the Bataan March. I believe the Japanese have a word for Americans- Iteki..If I am not wrong, this word means "SAVAGE" in japanese. Every culture is not perfect. I love their cars though.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 14, 2000.

The Japanese-Americans did not participate in either the rape of Manchuria, or the Bataan Death March, Rolex.
They did participate in the campaign in Europe, and were the most heavily decorated (and heavily wounded) unit in the Italian campaign.

They have shown that, despite prejudice and maltreatment, appropriate values lead you to be successful in our culture.

I personally am very tired of people (and groups) who make continuous bad decisions regarding how they need to behave and what they need to do to be successful in society, and then blame others for discriminating against them. The Chinese were discriminated against, when they came here (many against their will), they seem to be doing OK. The Irish, the Polish, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, ........., all were treated pretty shabbily initially. Guess what? In one or two generations, they were doing as well as anyone else. Why? Because they helped themselves, valued such things as education, a work ethic, stable nuclear families, etc., that contributed to their success.

People who embrace ideas and values that foster dependency, rather than success, will never have their fair share of the American pie, and there's nothing you, me, or anybody else will ever be able to do to change that.

These people need to change themselves.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 14, 2000.

I agree with people pulling their own weight or they get what they deserve. As for discrimination, people think there is one race that is the "Grand Discriminator" and the mother of all racism. That just is not so. All races have their prejudices and are racists in their own rights.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 14, 2000.

to Marsha: You ask: "If parents of minority children cannot instill the proper values for success, how do you expect ending the drug war will?"

Ending the drug war may mean less racial profiling, not more. Ending the drug war may mean fewer minority relatives in prison, not more.

There is a perception that the war on drugs disproportionately and ADVERSELY affects minority groups. Or, are you suggesting that minority groups consume more drugs because of their "LACK OF VALUES"?

I believe the war on drugs is racist and discrminatory. So, ending the war will make the lives of minorities a lot more pleasant. That doesn't mean that realities of the ghetto are going to change over night. But, it will give society some moral high ground to encourage people to pull themselves up, now that we've stopped terrorizing them as a police state.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "The last minority that we "treated like wild animals" were the Japanese- Americans that, despite their citizenship, and their loyalty to this country, were incarcerated in internment camps."

That is absolute B.S. The treatment of Japanese-Americans occurred during war time. It was an anomaly. I grew up on the South, and I know virulent racism when I see it. I saw it growing up, and it continues, today. Racism against African-Americans in no anomaly. Why do you think the South voted for Bush? Why do you think the South is more Republican in terms of Senators and Governors? It's all about racism. Or, are you suggesting that the people in the South are more enlightened than the rest of the nation?

If you're a young, African-American male you're perceived as a criminal. It's unlikely young Japanese-American males are treated in such a similar, harsh manner. But who knows, maybe the Japanese-Americans are consuming and/or selling drugs, too, no differently than any other ethnic group.

You also write: "I personally am very tired of people (and groups) who make continuous bad decisions regarding how they need to behave and what they need to do to be successful in society, and then blame others for discriminating against them. The Chinese were discriminated against, when they came here (many against their will), they seem to be doing OK. The Irish, the Polish, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, ........., all were treated pretty shabbily initially. Guess what? In one or two generations, they were doing as well as anyone else. Why? Because they helped themselves, valued such things as education, a work ethic, stable nuclear families, etc., that contributed to their success."

For most of the groups you mentioned, their ancestors came here voluntarily. And, in any case, whether they came here voluntarily or not, they were allowed to keep the trappings of their ancestral culture and language. They know where they came from. Unfortunately for most African-Americans, their right to ancestral knowledge was deprived from them. They have very little idea of what tribe they come from. What language did their ancestors speak? So, how are they able to perpetuate the values of their culture, when they were prevented from being free to make choices as part of their cultural expression?

I'm not an advocate of affirmative action, although I have no objection to geographical or economic quotas. Helping poor people is the RIGHT THING TO DO.

But, I've seen racism. I know it still goes on in the South, in a big way. And, the war on drugs is a means to inflict additional pain and misery on minorities.

And, I don't advocate the legalization of drugs, although I would accept my fellow voters' decision to legalize it as a means of raising revenues without COERCIVE FEES OR TAXES. I just want the government to stop spending money on waging the war on drugs. I believe spending money on roads, libraries, parks, scientific research is a much better investment. People who use drugs will still lose their jobs; they'll still have their dirver's license taken away. Nothing will change, except the prisons will be less crowded and there will be fewer murders.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

Matt,

I wonder if you are able to see the big picture. The war on drugs is not a cause of society's ills, it is an effect.

"Ending the drug war may mean less racial profiling, not more. Ending the drug war may mean fewer minority relatives in prison, not more."

Racial profiling is not a cause, it's an effect. Minorities in prison is not a cause, it's an effect.

"There is a perception that the war on drugs disproportionately and ADVERSELY affects minority groups. Or, are you suggesting that minority groups consume more drugs because of their "LACK OF VALUES"?

In part, I am suggesting that. If you hadn't totally ignored the medical connection in my post, you would realize that scientists suggest a pre disposition in some humans for the need to consume drugs. Self-medication as it were.

If there is a difference between the proportions of drug use between races, (which I doubt) it is possible to have more than one cause. Like lack of values, economics, lack of education or a physical pre-disposition. I think there is a bigger connection to economics than race.

Drug use and the war on drugs is not always a minority problem. Where I live, minorities are not black. They are of Mexican or Guatemalan descent. Most of the drug crimes here are not minority related, white persons perpetrate them.

There are far too many reasons for drug use, but you can bet one of them isn't the "War on drugs." I understand it is a waste of resources, but until we come up with a better plan, (like medical intervention) it will have to suffice.

I have to tell you though, that your attempt to discredit "values" is of major concern to me, since you are a parent. I tried to instill proper values in my son when I was raising him and despite the fact that he had many friends using drugs and ruining their lives, he remains drug free. (Unless you count caffeine) He never allowed peer pressure to override the values and common sense he learned at home. I may not be the most successful person in the world, but I am damn proud that I was able to raise a fine young man with values. He even surprised me this year and registered as a Republican!

Most of a person’s politics are based on his or her own experiences. I am beginning to wonder about yours.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

Let's take a look at values a little closer. We have two mythical children of about 3 years in age.

Child A lives in the suburbs. His father has a traditional job that he commutes to daily. This child's mother operates a day care out of her home. This child has access to his mother on a constant basis. This child must share his mother with others, but in the process, learns to socialize in an acceptable manner. He is taught not to hit or hurt. He is taught to be helpful to others around him. He is given love, affection and material items for his pleasure. His mother realizes that although she could make more money doing something else, being home with Child "A" is more important. In other words, this child has the advantage of being taught values that will ensure success as an adult.

Child B lives in a run down apartment in a city some where. His father is unknown. His mother is addicted to drugs, and often leaves him unattended, without enough food, and little to occupy his young mind. When she is home, she may have someone with her that does not want to see or hear the little boy. He is pushed away and told not to bother them. He may be hit, and yelled at as his only form of connection with others. This child has only learned anger, hatred and fear.

Your assertion is based on a false premise that society's values haven't changed and that the drug war is the problem. YOU are WRONG! The parents of child "A" have not changed their values, but the parents of child "B" have. If we end the drug war and remove more barriers to drug use, we will wind up with more Child "B" and fewer of Child "A".

If child "B"'s mother had better choices for educational and economic opportunities, and she had been taught the "values" she needed to prevent drug use and other crimes, child "B" would be similar to child "A"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

OK, Matt, I am getting more irratated by the minute. Your position almost seems like a slap in the face to your own wife's choice.

It is women like your wife who are undervalued in this society. Her contribution is IMO, far more important than your own. Not only is she attempting to instill proper values in YOUR children, she has taken on the care of other people's children. What could be more noble and valuable to our society? Yet there are millions of selfish and self centered women who choose to leave their children's care in the hands of strangers, so they can have a career and the glory that goes with it.

So if your claiming society's values HAVEN'T changed for the worse, your wrong. It may be an economic neccessity for some women to work, but not all. We now value women like Hillary more than women like your wife, and that is a serious mistake.

Excuse me while I step down off my soapbox.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

Matthew, if your eyes aren't brown, it's because you are a quart low today. "For most of the groups you mentioned, their ancestors came here voluntarily. And, in any case, whether they came here voluntarily or not, they were allowed to keep the trappings of their ancestral culture and language. They know where they came from. Unfortunately for most African-Americans, their right to ancestral knowledge was deprived from them. They have very little idea of what tribe they come from. What language did their ancestors speak? So, how are they able to perpetuate the values of their culture, when they were prevented from being free to make choices as part of their cultural expression? " I was born in Wisconsin. Many of my neighbors ancestors were originally from Norway. They came "voluntarily" in much the same way the "volunteers" from the Irish potato famine came "voluntarily," one step away from famine. Norway, if you've never been there, is a pretty desolate country. Lots of rock, little arable land. Their "cultural expression" historically, in order to survive, was to go Viking. That was a verb, not a noun. The oldest son inherited all the land, it wasn't subdivided among the children, because arable land was postage stamp size to begin with. Daughters were married off, and aquired the property rights of their husbands. Second (and later) sons would go viking, banding together with similar to go down to England, Wales, Ireland, and even up the rivers on the continent to make their livings in the culturally acceptable fashion of beating the other people up and taking their stuff away.
But these people seemed to prosper in the US without resorting to their cultural heritage of going viking. Outside of the odd old-timer in their Sons of Norway club, the language died out. Outside of eating Lefse and some kind of stinking boiled fish, their culinary cultural expression has died out. But you know what? They prospered in this country.

Same can be said of the Irish, who were driven out of their country by famine. Same can be said of the Cuban Americans, who were driven out of their country by Communism, same for the South Vietnamese.
Heck, you can look internationally. Most of the inhabitants of Australia were involuntarily placed there, as criminals, transported from England in chains. Many of the people in Canada had ancestors who were driven out of the US because they were Tories, who had objected to the US Revolution.

And worldwide, the situation is the same. People succeed by having values that predispose them to success. They DO NOT succeed by whining and trying to play on the guilt of people who have values that permit them to be more successful. They succeed because they have internalized successful values.

It's no different than any other form of education. If you learn as a child the values that lead to success, whether or not people like you is not a big factor.
Look at what's going on today in technology. It truly is "the revenge of the nerds." Some of the more prosperous people in the new economy are the kids that everyone made fun of in high school. But the laughs on us. They aquired the skills, knowledge, and yes, the VALUES that let them be successful.

So whine if you must, but anyone who thinks that fostering more dependency is a way to help people, is wrong. And ancient tribal ways, like going viking and speaking Old Norse (which survives today only in Iceland and a few Scandinavian university linguistics departments), aren't necessarily at all applicable to life today.<

As long as you make excuses for failure, rest assured, you make it easier for people to fail.


-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 15, 2000.

And just to drive Zowie's point home;

BRUSH PICKING - THE SILENT INDUSTRY A look at Latino families in the county: Community within a community By Chris Henry, For the North Mason Sun

• Though cut off and isolated, South American neighbors happy to be here. You see them in the grocery store, in line at the bank, playing soccer at the park. Their facial features and the occasional brightly embroidered blouse or hand-woven skirt proclaim their Mayan heritage.

Latinos in Mason County make up a growing segment of the community (increasing from two percent of the population in 1990 to three percent in 2000), and they play a major role in the region's economy, providing much of the raw labor on which the brush picking industry depends.

Like other immigrants before them, they've traveled a long way from their homelands — Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador — and they've sacrificed much in exchange for a toehold on the American Dream: the promise of physical safety and financial security.

• One family's story

Fifteen years ago, Domingo Pedro Salvador, now of Belfair, fled his small village near Huehuetenango, Guatemala because guerrilla warfare in the region posed daily threats to his safety.

Salvador's own nephews gave him two choices — join the guerrillas or be killed.

He made a third desperate choice, escaping through Mexico to the United States.

Salvador left behind his wife, Manuela. He supported her by sending money he earned working construction in California. The couple sent news back and forth on cassette tapes but never saw each other for seven years.

In 1988, Salvador, then an illegal alien, was deported back to Guatemala.

Within eight days, he had once again made his way north. In 1991, he learned of and applied for political asylum.

Within a month his petition was granted. The biggest irony, Salvador said, is that his case went unusually fast because the Immigration and Naturalization Service already had his photo and fingerprints on file.

• Living in peace

Things are looking up for Salvador, who moved to Mason County in 1996 and is now a brush picker. He was able to send for Manuela in 1992, and they have three young children, Rosa, 8, Zacharias, 6, and Paulina, two months old.

Asked about the quality of his life here as compared to Guatemala, Salvador said, "Aqui es una vida mejor, porque no hay muchas problemas." (Here life is better, because there aren't many problems.)

He and his family have experienced their share of discrimination. One neighbor put up a yellow rope marking the boundary between her property and theirs. Some children teased Zacharias meanly and sprayed him with a hose.

Salvador is nevertheless grateful to be here and eagerly awaiting permanent resident status.

• A better life

Indeed life here is "mejor" (better) for the vast majority of Latino immigrants, said Sister Siena Schmitt, a Dominican nun who lived in Guatemala for 18 years and who serves the Hispanic population through Belfair's Prince of Peace Catholic Church.

Guatemala's 30-year civil war, fought between a militaristic government and the indigenous people clamoring for land rights, left the country with a legacy of fear and economic instability.

Workers in Guatemala City take what they can get, said Schmitt. The typical job pays the U.S. equivalent of $4 or $5 for over eight hours of work, and there is "terrible, horrible" discrimination against the Mayan Indians, Schmitt said.

Here Latino immigrants can earn enough money to live in modest comfort, although their living conditions may seem meager by American standards.

It's not uncommon to see two or more families sharing a residence due to lack of affordable housing and a strong loyalty to extended family members.

• A strong work ethic

As a group, North Mason's Latino citizens are described as "hard- working," "close-knit" and "proud."

Dick Berg, owner of Pacific Coast Evergreens of Port Orchard, sung the praises of his Hispanic employees saying, "They're much, much better than whites. The average guy will double the production of a white guy."

gloria (sic) Marshall-Perez, administrator of the state's Department of Social and Health Services' Shelton office works with migrant Latino families, some of whom travel as far as California and Florida, before returning to North Mason for the Christmas greens season.

"So what does that tell you?" she said. "There's a real strong work ethic that people would be willing to travel to be employed. That's what."

Dick Ross, manager of Belfair's St. Vincent de Paul, said local Guatemalans are some of his most loyal thrift store customers, but they don't take advantage of the emergency food vouchers offered free on request at the store.

"They buy here, but they don't use our resources at all. They never ask for anything," said Ross. "Sometimes I think their pride gets in the way."

"It seems like they really take care of each other," Ross added. "It seems to me like when a new family comes into town, another family will bring them in and help them get household goods...They're wonderful people, very polite."

• A community within

Cultural barriers have hampered local Latinos' assimilation into the community at large. Many cannot read or write either Spanish or English, and, for many, their isolation is compounded by a double decker language barrier.

The Salvadors, like most Guatemalans in North Mason, grew up speaking "Kanjobal" (Can-Hoe-Ball), one of the country's 22 indigenous dialects.

Spanish is actually their second language. Domingo Salvador said his work leaves him no time to study either Spanish or English.

The Salvadors maintain ties to their native culture by speaking Kanjobal at home and meeting with their compadres at a monthly mass and dinner at Prince of Peace.

• A woman's place

Guatemalan culture may seem old-fashioned by contemporary American standards.

The women are primarily homemakers, although some take part in the family brush picking business.

Most depend on their husbands for transportation, and so they are extremely isolated, Schmidt said.

Women defer to their husbands when it comes to interfacing with the world at large, and many have yet to learn the mechanics of basic tasks such as depositing a check in the bank or calling from a pay phone.

Speaking for his wife, Domingo Salvador said, no, Manuela doesn't get lonely or bored while he is off in the woods. The children keep her busy, he said, gently stroking his infant daughter's cheek.

Published in The North Mason Sun: 12/14/2000

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 15, 2000.

to Marsha: You write: "If we end the drug war and remove more barriers to drug use, we will wind up with more Child "B" and fewer of Child "A"....If child "B"'s mother had better choices for educational and economic opportunities, and she had been taught the "values" she needed to prevent drug use and other crimes, child "B" would be similar to child "A".

You may be correct. But, until we end the war on drugs, we'll never know if your assertion is correct that we'll end up with more Child "B"'s than "A"'s. If you are correct, then we'll have some data with which we can perform cost benefit analysis. I'll be the first to admit it is a good use of our resources if the data prove it. But, I remain skeptical until I see the data.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself, since you talk about "better choices for educational and economic opportunities". Well, if society is throwing money away on a losing war against drugs, then society has less money to promote "better choices for educational and economic opportunities."

I'm not saying that values aren't important. I'm saying we still have the same values we've always had. But the war on drugs is steadily dragging us down. It simply is a poor use of our resources. It perpetuates a mentality of coercion and racism.

End the war on drugs. Build more libraries. Build up the transportation infrastructure. Stop throwing my money away.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 16, 2000.

to Zowie: You write: "As long as you make excuses for failure, rest assured, you make it easier for people to fail."

I'm not making any excuses for failure. I'm simply advocating an end to the war on drugs, since it is wasteful and PERPETUATES RACISM.

You analogy about Vikings is not particularly useful. I've never witnessed people encountering obstacles because of their blonde hair and blue eyes. Quite the contrary, in fact. Our society idolizes such attributes. I'm willing to agree with you that Nordic people are more likely to be criminals (along with Australians), but is people who descended from American slaves who are assumed to be the criminals. It's racism, pure and simple. And, the war on drugs is a means of power for racists.

The values of our country remain strong. Liberals are responsible for social security, strong civil rights, and leading the people to oppose the war in Vietnam. If our country is falling apart, it's not because of liberals. But it might be due to our failed war on drugs. Of course, now that we've had a strong economy for several years, we can better afford the war on drugs. But, I still think it's a waste of money. I have no objection to you and others spending your OWN money to fight the war. Just don't waste mine.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 16, 2000.

"You may be correct." No kidding Matthew.....

"Furthermore, you contradict yourself" Like how? Do I need to post a link to webster's for you? We spend billions on welfare, so maybe welfare is the cause of drug use. When you try to make a connection from one program to another like you are doing, then you could say the money we spend on NASA is causing the drug problem, but as usual, you would be wrong. Since you obviously read some crap somewhere about the "war on drugs" and like what you see, you make claims you can't support. You don't know enough about it.

"I'm saying we still have the same values we've always had." No, we don't. Even you once posted on the topic that I cited about women being more concerned for a career than their offspring. For you to deny THAT makes you look, well.... At the very least, a person who does not understand the importance of values.

Building more libraries and a better transportation infrastructure will not end drug use.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 17, 2000.

To Marsha: You write: "Building more libraries and a better transportation infrastructure will not end drug use."

Apparently, fighting the war on drugs hasn't ended drug use, either. Unfortunately, we have nothing to show for it, except a police state and institutionalized racism.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 18, 2000.