I'll hold the potato for a moment. "Pets" are actually considered property or stock in the eyes of the law. There is a disconnect in the way our society deals with animals. Jerzy Kosinski (author) pointed out that American "pets" are completely confused as they have one foot in a human world and one foot in the animal kingdom.

My philosophy on animals: We are not their "owners," they are not our "pets." We are, in the best, an animal's guardian. Charged with helping the animal survive and live in a human centric world. You can not "own" another living thing any more than you can claim to be the creator of a living thing.

The law is wrong. Animals are not property.

Rescue centers are also wrong. Animals are not people (I understand that humans are animals). They can not be adopted. They are not children.

Pet stores and breeders are wrong. Animals are not merchandise. They can not be "sold." Sure you can sell me a puppy. You can also sell me the ocean. Does either really belong to me? My answer is no.

How should we treat animals? As we would want to be treated by someone charged with our care. I would not want to be passed around from home to home. I would not want a metal pinch collar around my neck. I would want shelter, food, exercise, stability, and a social life with members of my own kind.

There is a homeless man who lives in the bushes a few blocks from me. He has a dog. I would hand an animal over to him before I'd hand an animal to most people in my neighborhood. He understands his end of the relationship between man and animal with a clarity that most people don't.

I'd love to be able to drop my service due to these infringements, but unfortunately I live in a large metropolitan city where I do not have any choice. For a nation that admires free choice in the marketplace, they certainly don't show it with regards to cable companies and broadband companies. I was a Comcast customer. I have been "sold" to the new owners 5 times since I have been a subscriber. I am now "owned" by Time Warner. They also drop peer to peer connections. How long do these cable company monopolies last? Is there a time limit? When do the terms come up and the marketplace open? These companies were originally offered these monopolies because they suggested that only one company could organize the network and lay the cable. In that I have been delivered to 5 subsequent companies, I'd say that was a lie. Better get some competition in the marketplace, or this will be the tip of the iceberg on the activities of these broadband companies. Peer to peer today, political speech tomorrow.

Then he is going to wiggle his fingers and face. Shake it off. Shake it off. Do some voice exercises. "Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." Shake it off. Shake it off. Check the mirror. "What if I were in the same situation as my character? How would I feel? You are the President. You are the President. Don't forget your motivation. I am the President."

Stay away from questions regarding god or religion. Drill him on his positions on science. He'll try to bring god into it, but don't let him and stay on the science track. He will have to admit he believes in evolution. This will not play with his kooky fundamentalist supporters. He's trying to have it both ways. Make him pick a side.

We still find ourselves in a state of war, whether it be the intellectual "liberal" or the fear mongering "conservative."

The congress, composed of both parties, authorized the use of force in Iraq. Both parties were more than pleased with the early results of the war. Both parties are pleased with the war in Afghanistan.

Knowing what she knows, being the smart woman you think she is, why all the votes in favor of Bush policies?

What is the hold up on getting them access anyway? All they have to do is run a tube from the computer to the main tube running down the middle of the hallway. Bingo, instant internets for everyone!

I watched the interview on CNN. The FBI creep refused to answer a direct yes or no question. Someone should find him in contempt of congress. Basically, the FBI has already determined that the use of torture is unnecessary and does not result in useful intelligence. It was Bureau people who exposed the CIA's use of torture in Guantanamo. If the senator could pin down the FBI representative as stating the torture is unnecessary for them, even in a supposed ticking time bomb scenario, then it would be on record that the FBI is not "with" the administration on their torture policy. The pathetic thing about this guy's dodge: The FBI is not "with" the administration on torture. They have already made that clear. What is so hard about admitting that in front of congressional hearing? I have no clue.

I watched the hearing on CSPAN not CNN. An interesting side note: CSPAN is a private corporation that owns the copyright to all the hearings and sessions that they tape. A fun fact that most people probably don't know.

"I think when Romney starts saying this stuff, sometimes it may be honest mistakes, sometimes not,..."

What a weak and soft return. Sounds like something Kerry would have replied. Good luck Obama. Someone might tell him he is in a presidential race and remind him of what has happened to those that have gone before him. This "I am above this" position will only fail him.

Interesting that the real reporters could not distinguish themselves from the FEMA administration shills.