What are you talking about? I remember getting punished in grade school when a kid pushed me into a puddle and then complained that the mud he'd thus gotten on himself was there because I'D pushed HIM... nevermind that he was a known troublemaker and I was a quiet bookish type. The post 9/11 idea I was referring to was the accelerated undermining of the Constitution and strengthening of the police state. Although I guess most grade schools are like a police state.

"Funny, I would have assumed that people who commit illegal acts because they feel strongly enough about their chosen cause to break the law on its behalf would EXPECT that jail might be one of the possible consequences of their actions." I'm assuming that part's not related to anything I said, because it's not related to anything I said.

My problem is with the government obtaining convictions based on flimsy evidence. You know, sometimes when the govt. obtains a conviction using flimsy evidence and coercive tactics against someone who INSISTS they're innocent , it later turns out they're actually innocent! Uncle Sam has been known to railroad people. Hell, nowadays they use 'secret' evidence that no-one's allowed to see. Imagine that, invisible evidence. Now THAT'S funny.

Anyway, trying to frame someone because you're reasonably certain they're guilty ISN'T ACTUALLY JUSTICE. That's the problem here! Someone, hypothetically speaking let's say, convicted on this sort of evidence despite their protestations of innocence, MIGHT POSSIBLY ACTUALLY BE INNOCENT. We used to theoretically have a legal system where guilt was supposed to actually be PROVEN.

I'd be tempted, tempted to plant a little MaryJane in the yuppity neighbor's yard.

Planting poisonous plants in an old lady's yard is not the kind of thing one wants to just let slide. Seriously, what if some neighborhood kid gets poisoned? Who gets blamed? What if the roots get into the sewer line as someone else suggested? Who pays for that? This uppity neighbor sounds like the type who will claim she was doing the LOL a favor, and since she didn't complain or remove the plants she thereby accepted responsibility for them. I think she needs to be put in check ASAP so she'll move on to being the petty dictator of (hopefully) her workplace or (unfortunately) the local schoolboard.

I suppose you're lucky there's no neighborhood association or board, you know who'd end up running it and making up the rules.

I saw the thing about the nipple rings.... if only she'd thought to have someone draw a hand grenade pattern on each breast we'd really have a story!

Anyway, here's a link to the AP story in our local 'paper': http://tinyurl.com/39l6db

Can anyone explain why it's not a good idea to leave some oil in the ground here in the US? What's the argument for pumping it all up NOW? We don't have that much left here, relatively speaking, and we will need oil in the future. I just don't understand people who have fits that we aren't pumping Alaska dry ASAP. Shouldn't oil remaining in the ground in the 50 states all be thought of as a strategic reserve?

Chiefpayne's statement that the "LOGICAL solution would be for the US to drill for more oil here at home" would seem to require draining every last drop we have NOW, which I consider to be a highly imprudent move. Priming the economy by scraping the bottom of the barrel will only delay the inevitable crunch and make it worse when it finally happens.

It seems to me that this is flawed logic or worse, magical thinking. Drilling for oil does not MAKE oil appear in the ground! Are you going to do an Oil Dance, Chief?

Oh good lord.

Just tell people you met at the STD clinic, then.

Har!

Oh, sorry, laughing at the punchline...

That Hillary is so evil! There, that's better.

Your Mother-in-law is definitely a wicked witch!

DeeMom nailed it, except that for part one I would say 'have him arrested'.

Throw him out! Brutally, unconditionally, immediately.

There's no hope that I can see for this loser, he'll play the victim until the day he dies. Meanwhile, you're ACTUALLY the victim. Why is that, again?

He "treats me good." - no, he treats you well. Sorry, but egregious grammatical errors are not allowed in letters about undereducated boyfriends.

But anyway, the question is - Will I be happy with this person in one year, five years, 10 years down the road?

Good Lord. Ordinarily, that question is unanswerable. But in your case, the answer is probably No. Break up with him and let him go be happy, healthy and secure with his sound mind and supportive family while you move forward with your ambitious life.

Now then, I would really like to know how one 'makes the best of it' when those are one's circumstances. I somehow thought that that stuff IS 'the best of it'. Your boyfriend sounds like he would make a good Buddhist.

You sound like a nice enough person, but I hope that deep down, you are in medical school because you truly want to be a healer. If you're just there because you've been programmed for ambition and 'success', let's hope you develop some legitimate reasons for being a doctor before too long. Otherwise, it sounds like you'd make a good plastic surgeon.

I'm getting WaMu, Obama, Acuvue, AND Russian babes...

NONE of which I have any interest in.

Nor am I interested in the latest 'indie' film or joining the USAF.

The whole Torch Relay thing was thought up for the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

And we all know who was in charge of thinking up publicity for the German government back then, don't we?

They're probably just too fat to run. Jackie will rip 'em all a new one given half a chance.

She's one of a very few elected officials I've always respected. I actually can't think of any others right now.