Were the women you were "slying inveigling up to your flat" for some Madiera, m'dear, inexperienced uncertain colt-like sweet young things or overly analyzing, stylishly self-conscious politically correct (as in Tom Wolfe's younger days) young moderns?

It was like, well, you know that song by Journey? "Streetlight People"? That's the story of my life, Susan. "The smell of wine, and cheap perfume"

And later, the taste of ashes in my mouth. I finally found a hypnotist who broke me of eating cigarette butts, tho.

You think I got any girls with a habit like that? c'mon. Like a said, I could've opened a one-man monastery.

I also expect the government to stop the ham-fisted interference in the marketplace and let free men and women interact in a voluntary, informed fashion.

Sorry. I thought you were a left wing nut, rather than a right wing nut. Look, I can empathize with libertarian leanings. But complaining about something you have no control over is a waste of time. But hey, it's your time to do with, as you please.

welfare for the rich

Ah yes, the root of all evil, real and imagined. Keep in mind that someonehas to pay taxes. That would be the rich primarily. Actually the best thing you could do is agitate for transparency in the off-ballot pork business. That's where pork gets inserted into conference bills without being voted on. Needless to say, if you're counting on Democrats to respect the Constitution, don't.

Sadly, you don't go to government with the politicians you wish you had, but the rather the ones you're stuck with. These days that group is getting smaller and smaller, because most don't want to deal with the kind of abuse dished out here. You're getting the kind of government you deserve.

As for 65 trilliion dollars debt... gosh. I believe I've seen somewhere that the yearly GDP of the entire world is 49 trillion. I guess then, we are going to have to go bankrupt, stop all transfer payments for pensions and SS, and start all over. Hows that sound? Surely we cannot go on with such an incomprehensibly large debt? What do you say? Let's just walk away from it, darn it all.

On the other hand (US output : public debt) is still smaller than under Clinton. I'd say there's cause for optimism.

I take your point, of course, about Ivins, and I don't want to veer off-course.

Just remember, it was F.Scott Fitzgerald who said "Don't marry for money, go where the money is, and marry for love"

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.shtml

to the interview posted and was very surprised by Glenn's voice. He doesn't sound at all like Gregory Peck!

Touch my name. You know you want to.

Ah, yes. I see! It makes sense now. When it comes to wives we are doomed to be practicing husbands. Practice makes perfect.

What I was doing was pointing out a seeming inconsistentcy in what's available in the public record. You may have noticed that's basically what's been going on here for the last four days.

I don't see any real inconsistency. I see the usual and consisent "two sides" with respect to an allleged perpetrator's charachter and psychological profile, and the real inconsistencies are the debate over the type and origin of the anthrax itself. Again, two sides in that debate and they are quite obvious to me.

"But I'm not going to leap to the conclusion that any diagnosis by of the professionals who have examined him in a clinical setting is being fabricated to frame him." -- L.W.M.

No but you are going to pretend that I made that leap in order to make my postion seem silly. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.

I was responding to Susan then, wasn't I?

So I wasn't really doing that to you. I just see that many people here came up with a particular "theory" and are now seeing the "evidence" that "proves" their theory. I'm only arguing that in my opinion the poor man was unbalanced, troubled and "not well" and had a dark side that could make him capable of this type of act. He was conflicted and had some difficulty relating to people. I get that from those who were at his funeral, which brings me to another point. It was closed to the press and the public. No one really knows what went on in there or who or how many attended.

BTW, I'm sorry I can't agree with the theory you've obviously embraced that the 250 people who came to Ivins' funeral are part of a conspiracy to discredit his psychiatrist. That's just nutbar.

See how that works?

-- Reilly

See above. I've embraced no theory. I have concluded that the reports of his emotional and psychological troubles are legit and probably much worse than we realize. See how that works?

;-)

I also expect the government to stop the ham-fisted interference in the marketplace and let free men and women interact in a voluntary, informed fashion.

Sorry. I thought you were a left wing nut, rather than a right wing nut. Look, I can empathize with libertarian leanings. But complaining about something you have no control over is a waste of time. But hey, it's your time to do with, as you please.

welfare for the rich

Ah yes, the root of all evil, real and imagined...

I'm not ready to dive in yet but I do hope you both continue this dialogue.

While folks are figuring out timelines, how long does it to drive to the mailbox from Batelle? Five minutes?

BTW, I'm sorry I can't agree with the theory you've obviously embraced that the 250 people who came to Ivins' funeral are part of a conspiracy to discredit his psychiatrist. That's just nutbar.

Consider the many people he must have known that didn't attend his funeral. Do you suppose it was more than 250? And only another clinically trained professional could "discredit" or dispute or refute his "shrink's" opinion. Family and friends don't count.