Well, as usual I've managed to stir a hornets nest. I might be old but I'm not elderly. I've run a few marathons, and I'm considering getting into half iron-man competitions. And if my wife didn't keep me fully occupied I'd probably screw a couple of those young honeys in their 40's.

As for the muslim solution, I didn't recommend it, and I sure as well would not want my daughters to live ins such a society. BTW, the fundamentalists in this country would love such a solution.

As for sociobiology, it's offensive to those who believe that humans are born as tabula rasa, and that society is resposnible for the formation of human behavior. The bolsheviks claimed to believe the same thing, but actually operated an incredible survival of the fittest society. But fit for what? Not for competition with a more free society.

I've known quite a few men who married very young women and got them with child. Wealth and power may not be handsome. but they appear to be very attractive. And since those who leave behind the most progeny are winners, they are winners.

But I think it's time to stir up a hornets nest in some other area. See you around.

approves of Bush. You have to remember that Idaho and Utah are heavily Mormon, and the Mormon church is essentially Republican. We also have one certified idiot senator, and the other one sold out to Texas a long time ago. In a state that votes Republican reliably, the only vote that counts is in the primaries. Any Republican that strays into anti-Bush territory will have a primary challenger, funded by Texas oil money, who will prove that the incumbent is at best a liberal and maybe a communist, and is certainly pro-choice and loves queers. The other result of being so Republican is that the Congressional delegation does not have to deliver much pork to the state. So the net reult is that being so Republican works against the interests of the average citizen. But it is a lovely place to live. Within an hour or so of our house we can be in wilderness where there is no one else for miles. And the more liberal denizens are the few, the proud, etc....

on the planet to supply biofuels for the present population, let alone any increase. Waste agricultural products could be used to produce fuel, but maybe those "waste" agricultural products would be better used left on the land as mulch. What is realy going to happen is that the US and China, and anyone else with lots of coal, will start doing coal to liquid fuel conversion on a large scale. This will produce lots of CO2 and exacerbate the greenhouse problem, unless there is a low-cost way to sequester the CO2. The present population is already too large for any steady-state solution. I believe that a huge population die-back is inevitable and those with wit and luck will survive. But that is the way it has always been, so what else is new?

So it might be time for short-selling ag-based ethanol companies, but they might have a niche market and survive quite well. There is no way that ethanol will become a major energy source in the US, unless it comes from coal conversion. We have enough coal for a couple of hundred years, so some future generations will have the problem, unless the likely ecological catastrophe intervenes.

We live 50 miles downwind of a site where over 50 nuclear reactors operated. We also got heavily dusted by Mount Saint Helens, and got hit with a 7.3 earthquake. But no one here feels threatened by any of those. The Three-Mile Island damaged reactor is stored nearby. Every source of power has its problems. Nuclear probably has the least environmental problems of all of them. Nearly all the propaganda against nuclear was developed in the 1960's when it appeared that nuclear might threaten the fossil fuel producers. Most of the so-called environmental protection groups are fronts for economic special interests. If Exxon-Mobil and a couple of big coal producers start investing in nuclear we will see the environmental groups auddenly finding that nuclear is wonderful and much better than anything else.

Keep in mind that the air pressure changes during flight can cause pain. Most adults can alleviate that by yawning or holding their nose and and compressing the air in their throat to open the eustachian tubes. Babies don't know that and can't be taught very easily. The Benadryl might also open the eustachian tubes as well as causing drowsiness.

A few years ago I read a survey of Harvard grads. It turned out that the ones who confessed to eating chocolate lived an average of five years longer than those who didn't. Dark chocolate (and coffee) contain lots of important nutrients, which is slowly being recognized. Just because it tastes good doesn't make it bad. But it is a good idea to avoid processed and fast food, where chemists have learned to trick our tastes into eating stuff that is bad for us.

Well, the Air Force pilots need training and flight time, so those intercepts might not really cost as much as you think. When I owned a single engine Mooney we flew to the Bahamas every year. I was always intercepted by F102's or F106's. One time Miami approach control asked me exactly where I was because the Air Force interceptors couldn't find me. It was essentially a CAVU day and they had me on radar. They finally found me, but I suspected if I had been a Russian bomber that I would not have been so helpful. It was fun watching a supersonic interceptor trying to match our 150 knot airspeed by hanging out his gear, flaps, kitchen sink, etc. They would wave and smile after we saw them and fly off. That was a much better time, without the paranoia that surrounds us today.