...why not use stilts? These can be chopped out of tree branches, and at the end of the day, used for firewood. Remember, the longer the stilts, the fewer steps you'll need to make to reach your destination.

If you're lucky enough to have trees all along your route, you could try rope swinging like Tarzan. However, ropes are fairly high tech (at least good ones are) and also people do steal them, so be sure the ropes you expect to be there are really there.

Then there's the dependable old Roman way of getting around, which is to use a litter. These can be very comfortable, but require getting enough slaves to carry the thing. You'll need at least eight or so and you'll need to keep them somewhere. Try your back yard or your basement. Slaves can be a very low tech investment, assuming all questions of humanity can be left aside.

And finally, speaking of Roman ways, one might try a catapult and a parachute. Not only could you use all natural materials (for the catapult, not the parachute--unless you want to try making a parachute out of old sheets or big leaves or something), this has the advantage of being a naturally air conditioned method of travel and thus the need for a shower at the end should be eliminated.

No doubt about it, there really are greener alternatives to biking.

...was they put out a lot of wink and nod garbage. People were left to draw their own conclusions. They never really spelled anything out, hence they now have deniablity.

The speech quoted below bears that out. It's just a bunch of disconnected assertions. The explict assertion that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in cahoots is not stated. In fact, no conclusion of any kind is explicitly stated.

"We know Mary often likes to wear sexy dresses and/or high heels. And John has free time after work. Mary has been involved in previous relationships and now both Mary and John have been spotted speaking together." That is exactly how the Bush administration made its case against Saddam--by making eyebrow raising assertions and leaving the listener to form an incorrect impression.

Why did they do that? Most likely because they had lousy evidence that they wanted to believe in anyhow. They were simply sweaty, dirty minded gossips with a hot story to tell but no actual facts to back their fantasies. They ended up deluding themselves along with the rest of the country.

IMO, Bush & Cheney should be impeached for being foolish dunderheaded asses rather than actual liars. They just aren't even smart enough to lie, if you ask me.

If there was a REAL lie, IMO, it came when Bush asserted that all options were on the table and that going to war in Iraq would be a last resort.

...I don't know why. All my speculations seem to make people angry at me. But it's true.

It might be worth an article; ask various people why the Democrats seem to be so afraid of their own shadows most of the time. Incidently they've been that way at least since Jimmy Carter's presidency.

...is nursery, playground, and bank.

Such is the result of the Republican 'strength' doctrine.

...is that people are only worth as much as their jobs are worth. That people with top level jobs are worth more than people with lower level jobs or with no jobs at all.

That if you're not raking in the corporate bucks, and turning over 90 percent of your hours to some corporate endeavor, you're nothing and your productivity is 'wasted.'

That's really why so many people dislike feminism and don't like being identified with it: because too much of the time, as in this dumb article, feminism really means corporationism: it means turning your life almost entirely over to your job. And that's just ugly.

...that Bill Clinton turned down a lot of offers to sit on boards and the like so that he could support his wife in her two runs for the Senate and now for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton, btw, is now doiing a lot better for herself than she ever would have by remaining a partner in an Arkansas law office.

This premise of this article is just silly. Michelle Obama has a chance to play a deciding role in history much bigger than any dumbass corporate job she could ever have.

And furthermore, isn't it HER choice to do what SHE wants? Where is anyone getting off telling her what to do?

So tell me, what does that imply? Does it imply that we can do whatever we want with them? Does it imply that we can send them back to a pointless war year after year after year until they all die or are permanently impaired or go crazy? Does it imply that we don't have to care what happens to them?

When someone volunteers to do a job, that doesn't mean they signed away their rights or their humanity. If your mother signs up to bake cookies for the church society, that doesn't give the church society the right to keep her under lock and key until she drops dead from baking cookies.

Remember, without these volunteers, we'd have to have a draft. Only libertarian pinheads think it's OK to just dimiss whatever happens to volunteers--because without them, it might well happen to you.