You do understand that similar legal cases don't have to involve marriage at all?

I think we get that you don't care about this because it doesn't involve your little part of the world. I refuse to have such a limited point of view.

Even situations that have no implications for you, personally, can still be interesting.

Someone failing to use the resources that they have is something that can happen anywhere on just about any issue. I bring this point up because we should all be aware of the little details, like this one, that can change our understanding of situations. Oh and this is a situation that can easily be repeated around the country.

I guess since it's a local issue, then it couldn't possibly be repeated in other localities? I suppose none of us will ever see just slightly different issues with the same implications in different localities around the nation? That's an astounding assertion that you've made, ssewellusmc.

I think we need to look at what makes places supposedly "Safe places". Safe places in liberal ideology tends to be defined by places that are legally designated Gun-Free Zones. Time and time again, we have seen that mass shootings are either committed in gun-free zones and/or are gang-related in most cases.

Are there a number of things that could be done to destigmatize mental health problems and permit the courts to temporarily restrict a patients gun rights? Yes, but the people lack sufficient trust in the government to tolerate such measures. If we want to use gun laws to combat this violence, then we should consider enforcing the laws already on the books (against all criminals regardless of who they are) and making the federal government contract to its constitutionally designated role.

Bottom line, if you want to do something in the law about these problems, then: Enforce the laws you have and restore the government's trustworthiness.

Understanding the law and its full implications is important whether you are a constituent of this lady or not. All Americans are constituents of the US Constitution/laws and their respective state constitutions/laws. We should all get into the habit of looking into a situation fully and not making a snap judgement.

Under existing Kentucky law, Kim Davis has a right, as a Kentucky government official, to not take part in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Under existing US Supreme Court ruling, Kentucky (not Kim Davis or County Clerks in Kentucky) has an obligation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The proper place to reconcile these conflicting issues is in Kentucky state court.

Kim Davis had and still has the right to seek relief from Kentucky courts. She has not done this.



Matters of interesting applications of the law are important in my life. It is important for all of us to understand the proper and full application of the law.

We all know the story of who Kim Davis is and what she has done (refused to do). Kim Davis does not want her name or office associated with marriages that she finds wrong.

What people aren't talking about is the choice that Kim Davis could have made to fix her situation within Kentucky law. Of course, the US Supreme Court has issued their ruling and federal judges are obligated to see the ruling fulfilled. They cannot, however, impose a requirement as to how the ruling is fulfilled. On that note, some states have changed their marriage laws to state that marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the state and may be issued by numerous officials. This allows for someone objecting to same-sex marriage to pass the matter onto another qualified authority who would then issue the license under the authority of the state. Kentucky did not choose to make such changes to their laws, but they do have a Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (similar to the Federal law).

My problem with Kim Davis is that at some point before or after the federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, she would have gained standing to sue the state of Kentucky for relief. Kentucky courts could then have issued injunctions against the Kentucky marriage laws requiring the the licenses be issued under Kim Davis and/or the authority of her office. This likely would then force Kentucky's legislature to take up the matter in their next session, but the licenses would be issued lawfully without Kim Davis's involvement. She would be free to live out her beliefs within the confines of the federal court order and state law.

Fiorina tops the list for my support. Marco Rubio isn't far behind.


My biggest disappointment of the second debate was Rand Paul. I so wanted to support Rand Paul because I think he would honestly remove the federal government from as many things that it has no part being in as possible. He may survive through the next debate, but his response to military questions needs to be, "I will only use the military when we need to, but I will not hesitate when those times come. I will not draw red lines, unless I absolutely mean them. When I am president and we speak as a nation to our allies and our adversaries, they will listen and they will believe every word that we say. I won't use the military to needlessly interfere in foreign matters, so the the world will take notice when I do use it."

TAN, I said exactly what I meant to say. This was not a comparison of tensions in the US or North America to tensions in the Middle East. It was a comparison of how long the Middle East has had these tensions to how long the US has existed and, therefore, been able to impact the tensions in the Middle East. This was a time comparison not a tensions comparison.

I fail to see how this changes in any way our debate about the causes of the current Middle Eastern crisis. You're only going to see the facts that support your blame of the US for the current crisis. I could have just blamed Britain and France for drawing lousy national lines in the Middle East. Both of those ideas can be believed, but it doesn't make either idea right. Simmering tensions will either be resolved through a process of deep soul searching among the people involved or it will be resolved in violent confrontation. The idea that simmering tensions can simmer forever is factually and historically wrong. Middle Eastern tensions have simmered and flared at various times for far longer than the US has existed or Europe has interfered in the Middle East in any significant way. With or without the US and Europe, these tensions will simmer and flare at various times. That is the truth, whether you accept it or not.

Point of fact, the US did not draw the national boundary lines in the Middle East...that was done by...wait for it...Europeans (especially France and the United Kingdom) after they conquered Ottoman territories in World War One. In typical colonial fashion, victorious European powers slapped some lines on the map and said, "You kids get along, now." Then when they had to smack down some misbehavior they said, "I told you to behave." This was all well and good while France and the UK and other European powers, like the Ottomans before them, were willing to play overlord disciplinarian. As with the Ottomans, that time passed and the Europeans powers went home.

Thus, the mess we have today was created. If we want to play the blame game, we can go even further back into history and learn about why the different groups in the Middle East conflict with each other. The bottom line is that the Middle East was not a settled and stable area when the Ottoman Empire controlled it, tensions simmered under the surface. The Middle East was not a settled and stable area when European powers seized control, tensions simmered under the surface. The Middle East has not been a settled and stable area since the European powers left. With or without US intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan (both times), the Middle East was going to be chaotic in the best of times.

Millions of people died for Europe to reach the mostly stable conditions that exist today, but tensions continue to exist. The Middle East has not gone through the crucible of Hell on Earth that Europeans unleashed on each other in the two world wars of the 20th Century. The Middle East's tensions and issues run as deep as the tensions and issues that Europe was only able to set aside after looking around at destroyed nations and peoples twice in one lifetime.

Frankly, if you think that the US could impact in anyway the centuries of blood soaked sand that exists in the Middle East, then you give the US too much credit. Your blaming the US this entire problem has failed. Your blaming the US for even most of this problem has failed. You're blaming the US for a large part of this problem has failed. Another idea that failed: blaming Europe for most of the current problem. The Middle East's biggest problem is the Middle East.

This makes the assumption that without US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East would not be in chaos. That's a bold assumption to make. Afghanistan is a chaotic place in the best of circumstances and Taliban rule can hardly be called the best of circumstances. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator in a country that was super-majority against him.

We can't rewind the clock and move forward making other decisions in an academic exercise with any sort of certainty. However, before Saddam Hussein was taken out, the Middle East was still ruled by a number of dictators that oppressed significantly parts of their population (for good reason or not). Before Saddam Hussein was removed, the Kurdish Peshmerga was still armed. Before the Iraq invasion, Libya still had a WMD program. Moving forward into an Arab Spring with these facts would have been even more chaotic than it is now. The Iraqi Kurds almost certainly would declare independence in that situation and then Turkey would likely blow into chaos.

That would just add the flight time to the drive time.

No donut peaches, but that might have been due to the season.

How do we change our forum signature?

I'd like to change mine to just:

-Angel1

Today I went to visit Mercier Orchards in Blue Ridge, Georgia. http://www.mercier-orchards.com/

What did they have? Everything.

Shirts
Folksy crafts
Soaps
Baked goods
Vegetables
Some berries
A few peaches (nearly out of peach season already)
Apple Cider
Hard Apple Cider and local area wines
Apples


They had a tasting counter to try some of their offerings (free). I tried several varieties of apple and took home some Jonathan and McIntosh apples. In another room they have the hard ciders/wines with a tasting counter ($6 to try 4, $8 with a take home wine glass). The Grumpy Granny hard cider and Just Peachy wine were added to my cart. I also bought some regular apple cider and maple/praline syrup.

The best part is, most of the 4 hours of driving was through beautiful mountain forests, much of them within national forests/parks. I even had a brief bit of silent driving when the radio seek function just kept running through all the channels.

The Charleston shooting has hate crime elements and mental health elements. This situation has hate crime elements and mental health issues. It is not proper to emphasize only a single aspect of either situation. Both sides should learn to be honest. A lie by omission is still a lie.

I for one think that the police should only be using surveillance drones without a warrant in public spaces during public events when people would have less of an expectation of privacy than they they do under everyday circumstances. They should have a warrant unless their is a clear, immediate public interest in surveying a situation. If the police need to find out why traffic is at a standstill in a particular area, then a surveillance drone is an effective tool to use for the clear and immediate public interest. If there is a festival going on, then a drone can help the police direct their resources and police the event. Football (any version) game? Use the drone in the area where crowds gather.

Given my general uneasiness with police use of surveillance drones, I don't think they need to be armed in any way. Drones should be used to assist with quicker, earlier police interventions instead of as a police intervention themselves.

If it's violent from the beginning, then it's not a protest and you go in to arrest everyone involved. That's the correct answer to a violent mob. I don't blame the police if they have to arrest a bunch of people, but I support active police involvement which can keep situations calm. This leads to a more general benefit of the doubt when police have to arrest violent mobs to keep the peace. Even bad situations can be opportunities for the community to gain trust in the police.


It's not for protests, but this is the right mentality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9-WlXOeaBo

The condition is that cities respond the correct way. Simply saying that some cities are incapable of responding the correct way just doesn't fly with me. All cities have the ability to get out ahead of protests to keep them orderly and peaceful.

If the rock is big enough, then that's probably assault of a police officer with a deadly weapon. People might take notice of a major felony conviction stemming from someone being stupid in a protest.

If you arrest the first person to step out of line and do more than just protest down the street, then you've probably just arrested one of the instigators of violent confrontations. A few loud mouthed hooligans going to jail and off the streets allows calmer voices to prevail. Even in the cities hit by violent protests, most of the protests were peaceful. You don't have to imagine the calming effect of removing the instigators...some big cities (Nashville included) have already shown that. Of course, the police would be allowed to do this because the liberal politicians are all to aware of the likely consequences on election day if they tell the police to stand down. Doing what's in a politician's own best interests is not what I would call "clever".

Yes, Mr. Ford, the very real possibility of getting shot dead for your attempt to loot probably plays some part in preventing the looting in the first place. You send some of the fools to jail early, then the calmer, more rational protesters make better decisions. Maybe guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is only 10% of the equation that leads to peaceful protests, but it's there. 90% is simply good police work and all the factors that go into the police doing their job in the best possible way.

As far as protesting in the streets is concerned: if the protest is taking place in the evening/at night, there are not at many people out driving. If the police keep the crowds moving, then no one particular area gets effected for too long and people can find alternative ways around. Getting police into the crowds in a friendlier demeanor allows them to direct protests through parks, down less traveled roads, and to provide an overall better service to their communities.

It's not ideal, it's the real results of early, friendly, and professional police interventions.

In those cities, it would be that easy for most protests if they responded with mass arrests when people started getting unruly. Someone throws a rock at the police, they'd better get arrested. When the consequences are made crystal clear, suddenly protesters' decision making processes become a lot simpler. Maybe Nashville didn't have to put up with some of the BS from outside influences because some of these small businesses are likely to have armed owners ready to respond with deadly force to looters, because the city went out early to the protests to make the rules clear, and because the city in general took a no nonsense stand on the protesting. I'll say one more thing, maybe the protests in Nashville were more subdued because the liberal politicians were all too aware of how easy it would be for them to be put on the unemployment line if unrestrained chaos took place anywhere in the city, so they didn't get in the way of the police.

naive? It worked more or less just like I described for Nashville. If comes to a situation where giving a little doesn't allow police to take a heated situation to calmer state, then they have to be prepared to do mass arrests and let the courts sort it out in the morning. However, Nashville police gave a little and they took control without having to arrest many people.

This is why the police should be trained to handle the situation like Metro Nashville PD has. Take bottles of water out to these protests to keep people hydrated allowed them to become part of the group moving on the streets (protesting Michael Brown) and allowed them to provide the best outcome for the people of Nashville. It doesn't mean that blocking major interstate highways isn't completely dumb. However, it takes less time to get protesters to move if they're willing to listen to the police, then it does for the police to arrest people or respond to a protester hit by a car.

If they're blocking the road for an unauthorized protest, I'm calling the cops.

If the cops don't do anything, I'm calling my elected officials.

If the elected officials don't fire someone in the police department, I'm voting to fire my elected official.

If the protesters start beating on my car, I'm driving through the protest, calling an attorney, and calling the police.


If the police, like Metro Nashville Police Department, get out with the protesters to make sure they stay peaceful, moving, and safe, then I'm going to be very impressed. Letting protesters block I-65 for just twenty minutes or so before getting them to move on provides the net best public service for some of these protests.

For the purposes of clarification: This is not an attempt to enforce political correctness on the forums, correct? For instance, would this be okay?

The US can solve the anchor baby problem by simply letting illegal immigrant parents make a choice to take their child with them, assign custody to someone they know in the US, or to put their US Citizen children up for adoption. This would subordinate the US born child's rights to the parental rights which the US constitution already holds as being above the rights of minor children.
*Move the another thread if you want to talk about immigration, but don't expect a timely response necessarily. Used for example purposes.*

Would the use of the terms "illegal immigrant" and "anchor baby", which have been criticized in the media recently, be grounds for a ban under your rules?

It's a great idea. Convince certain politicians to engage their brains by showing them an alternative that they like even less and can do absolutely nothing about.

I just looked up where this was, this occurred less than 10 minutes (five miles) drive from where I work and was today.

From some of the news coming out, this guy lived less than 30 minutes from where I live and probably 20 minutes at the most from where I work.

If anyone here remembers me, I live in the Chattanooga, Tennessee area and I fish in the Tennessee Riverpark. I just want to let everyone know that during the attack, I was at work on the other side of the Tennessee River. We first heard about it from customers that were on Amnicola Highway and Lee Highway; they talked about never seeing that many cop cars before and how long it took them to get away from the area (significantly longer).


Fox News is referring to police being in Hixson, Tennessee across the river. So that everyone here knows, most (if not all) of Hixson, TN is Chattanooga, Tennessee. The only difference is per the USPS.

I had many conversations with Rainbow. Good luck on your recovery, Rainbow. Get well soon.

I have made a politics blog to take my political posts off Facebook.

http://pragmatistpolitics.blogspot.com/

Twain: In a general election, you are correct. In a general election, common core will quickly fade to a non-issue. However, that's not Jeb Bush's first stop. Jeb Bush's first stop is to win the Republican nomination. This is an issue that riles up Republican voters. He has to knock this issue out or it will nag him and cost him a few votes here, a few votes there through every Republican caucus or primary. He has to face this issue face on and put it down quickly and permanently or it could end his campaign for the Republican nomination by a death of a thousand cuts.

Some Interesting Notes:

Racing:

1. 19 Overall - Lewis Hamilton - 64m
2. 21 - Fernando Alonso - 62m
3. 28 - Dale Earnhardt Jr. - 51.8m
4. 42 - Jimmie Johnson - 47m
5. 83 - Sebastian Vettel - 38m
6. 86 - Jeff Gordon - 37.4m

I suspect this might make the Hendrick Motorsports Cup Team the highest paid (Drivers) team for any motor sport series. (It would be interesting if someone found out or I did later...maybe).

1. Baseball - 27
2. Basketball - 18
3. Football - 17
4. Soccer - 15
5. Tennis - 6 (Tie Breaker = Total Earnings)
6. Racing - 6
7. Golf - 5
8. Boxing - 4
9. Cricket - 1
10. Track - 1


Endorsements Top 5.
1. 6 - Tiger Woods
2. 3 - LeBron James
3. 7 - Roger Federer
4. 8 - Phil Mickelson
5. 5 - Kobe Bryant


http://www.forbes.com/athletes/list/#tab:overall

Defense is a reactive action and not an active action, but I really don't like the duty to retreat nonsense. When you are in your home...you have already retreated. Of course, that doesn't mean it's the wisest idea necessarily to just get your gun and sit on the couch waiting for the person that's breaking into your home or that it's a good idea to confront them in your home. However, it does mean that the assumption should be that you are reasonably afraid for your life if someone breaks into your home. It means that barring evidence to the contrary, no one should second guess the beliefs that someone has as they confront an intruder into their own home (car or business).

As far as how we can know that the guy set a trap, apparently the prosecutor presented enough evidence to prove their charges. The jury must have believed the prosecutor's theory beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.foxnews.com/...n-exchange-student-death/

First to anyone, such as the Associated Press: STOP CALLING THIS A STAND YOUR GROUND CASE. Having shouted that out, let me explain. Stand your ground laws have only come into existence in the last 10, maybe 20 years. Stand your ground laws mostly govern the use of force to defend yourself outside of the home and business. They came about largely as a result of state legislators deciding that local and state prosecutors had not used their prosecutorial discretion appropriately in deciding whether or not to prosecute cases where an individual felt threatened and defended themselves against an attack. Legislators mostly decided that in instances where an individual that did not instigate violence is confronted with violence, they're actions to defend themselves should be questioned with regard to their ability to retreat. Legislators decided that you shouldn't have to think about your ability to retreat in the heat of that moment because in that moment you may not have the time to think about retreating. This is an individual protection that applies to the individual and the possessions on their person. In stand your ground cases, there's the victim and the perpetrator, that's it.


This case centered on a much older defense doctrine...the castle doctrine. The castle doctrine in most states says that your home, your car, and your business is your castle and you have the right to be secure in your castle. The castle doctrine says that if someone breaks into your home, you may reasonably assume that they mean to do you harm and you have the right to defend yourself up to and including the use of lethal force. That being said, the castle doctrine can be overcome if the prosecutor is able to overcome the assumption.


This case is now (@~12:30 pm eastern time) in the sentencing phase, but the defense has already announced their intentions to appeal the verdict. I'm no lawyer, so I can only respond as a citizen. I do not believe that someone should be able to set a trap and then claim castle doctrine. It is one thing to set up security systems and respond to them if they're triggered. It's rather a different situation if a person sets up security and some bait and an open door and them arms themselves for a confrontation that they are expecting to come. That sounds like a police sting operation to me and a police sting operation must be operated with the intent of capturing and prosecuting a suspect.

Justice has been done in this case. The prosecutor has overcome the castle doctrine assumption. This was murder, plain and simple. Right up until Markus Kaarma fired his gun in anger, he was a victim; he could have chosen to remain that way by calling the police and by ordering Diren Dede to get out of his garage and off his property. Mr. Kaarma could even have issued those orders with weapon drawn and scaring the stupid out of Diren Dede, but in his anger he chose not to pull back from his trap.


Stand your ground laws pulled back on overzealous prosecutors, but prosecutors must still make sure that the public understands where the limitations are, where their rights end and the rights of other people (or society at large) begin.

Jeb Bush has several issues to contend with:

1. Common Core: Jeb Bush is a big proponent of common core which is seen as a major federal intrusion into state affairs. This is actually easy to side step. By simply declaring that education is a state issue and that he would not intrude from the White House.

2. Comprehensive Immigration Reform: This will hurt with those further to the right. No Republican that is completely honest is going to win easily with the far right on this issue, but a carefully worded position could be a winning argument with libertarians, moderates, and centrists without doing too much harm on the far right. By declaring a position that he believes in the right comprehensive immigration reform, not just any comprehensive reform, Bush could stake out a good position here. Part of this would be to say that we can't just deport all the illegal immigrants because this would take too many resources to achieve and would be fiscally irresponsible. Another part would be to say that the law should ensure that this is the last time we normalize the status of millions of illegal immigrants and this would be achieved by security reform and legal immigration reform.

3. Bush name: Legitimate or not. Regardless of how you personally feel, there are enough people who have a visceral dislike for the Bush name to cause problems in the general election. This will be an issue in the primaries because of electability. To counter this, Bush will have to stake out more moderate positions to show that he's electable, but this will lose him the far right. He's going to have to get the middle of the country to treat him as separate from his brother and this will not be an easy task to do without losing too much credibility within the Republican Party.



Overall, his chances of winning are not as high as they should be based on the merits, but he could very likely gain enough of a following to play nominee-maker by bowing out and throwing his support behind one of the remaining candidates after the first few primaries and caucuses.

All these protests against the Ferguson police officers may backfire in a huge way. A community that hates its police department also hates the men and women that are police officers for the community. Would you work for someone that hates you?

I'm not equating the evils of climate change with the evils of government intervention. I'm saying that if you are concerned about climate change and want to fight it, you will get better results by focusing on the negative health effects of pollution (which have been proven) and by looking for incremental gains so as not to disrupt too many people's lives too much.

I'm also pointing out that the earth is change. Climatically and in every other way, nothing stays the same. To say that humans cause global climate change is factually wrong. To say that humans are accelerating climate change is a hard argument to prove at the ballot box.

A much easier thing to prove at the ballot box is that pollution is bad for health. A much easier thing to create and show is that recycling is relatively easy and can save you money. I basically don't remember a time when I didn't recycle. I don't really remember a time when I didn't look for ways to reduce or reuse items. These things which things which could have a positive impact on human caused climate change and improve individual lives regardless are a lot easier to prove.

If you want things to go your way, make the right arguments and ask for the right sacrifices. The wrong arguments and asking too much is a good way to lose entirely.

If you want to stop and even reverse global climate change, what are we going to do with all the Scandinavians when their countries get too cold to live in?

Yes, climate change is real...it's been real for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years. It will go on long after we're all gone.

The much better arguments to reduce pollution are the health effects. Of course the health effects of poor nutrition due to no jobs due to too much government intervention is also bad, so maybe we want to work diligently and with regard for jobs and the economy. This is where you'll find a lot more agreement...by tempering ambition with reality.

*double post, moderator please delete.*

I do have a problem with the appearance that whenever a man is seen hitting a woman, everyone automatically takes the woman's side. My first reaction to these videos is, "That's interesting, I wonder what happened?" A video tells the facts of what you see on the video, but it doesn't tell the whole story. In this case, Ray Rice has admitted to being in the wrong. However, we could just as easily have seen that first video and then found out that his then fiancee had been wailing on him and he reacted once and it knocked her out. Circumstances are everything. In this case, both sides were involved in the argument and physical confrontation that occurred before the punch came, so Ray Rice doesn't get to claim self defense and should be punished fully. In other cases, where the man is being victimized (before a single reaction ends the physical confrontation), he shouldn't suddenly go from victim to abuser just because he reacted. The line between acceptable argument and unacceptable confrontation exists for men, women, and children. The line between acceptable reaction and unacceptable reaction exists for men, women, and children.

Men should never hit ladies. Women should never hit gentlemen. This is my philosophy because: The labels lady and gentleman are based upon behaviors that are lady-like and gentlemanly. The words men and women simply refer to gender.

Is it bad that I find that tweet hilarious...and I'm an American? No need for apology, just a little explanation that's it's a little humor.

Congresspeople are too valuable. It's time to slash their pay and increase their numbers. Let's increase the congresspeople 10 fold.

Each state gets 20 senators

Each state gets 10 representatives for each current representative.

Each congressperson gets paid $17,400/year (part time job, part time pay) with no benefits.

The majority and minority leaders get $27,100/year (the congressperson's new pay + half the current difference between regular congresspersons and the majority/minority leaders old pay)

The speaker of the house gets $42,150 (congressperson's new pay + half the difference)

We build dorms to house the now 5,350 Representatives and Senators in which they can live for free. The dorms will be like college dormitories and include a communal kitchen. They will be permitted to live in the dorms while congress is in session.

This is why Nascar Drivers throw their helmets at other people's cars when they're angry. Let the helmet get hit by the car...while you stay well away.

I saw in my local paper that Tony Stewart might get charged on recklessness grounds or that a prosecutor might want to let a jury decide. If the other evidence and videos are consistent with the evidence and video that the public has access to right now, then the recklessness and negligence was on Kevin Ward Jr.'s part. I don't see charges in the evidence the public has.

Fighting Aids in Africa helps stabilize Africa's many peoples. Fighting Aids in Africa makes the US look good in a developing part of the world. Fighting Aids lends hands to secure Africa from radical forces that would take Africa backwards. Fighting Aids in Africa is good for American security.

Stronger, healthier people create more stable countries. These countries remember the nations that helped get them to this point and are stronger for the help. By leveraging the good will generated from fighting aids and adding other appropriate measures, these countries are more likely to fight radicalism (whatever form it takes). Since these organizations get fought, they don't gain and lose the footing needed to attack outside of Africa.

It will take more than simply fighting aids to see a return to the US, but it is a good starting point whose costs are a drop in the bucket to US Government spending and this spending sees many multiples returned to the various stakeholders in Africa. $48b a year for fighting Aids is a darn good use of money.

Marshal, sounds like your country needs a Castle Law. Frankly, it sounds like a human rights violation to say that someone can't defend themselves.

When you call to cancel your Comcast service, remember to be firm with the customer service agent.

Comcast and AT&T fought like hell to keep Chattanooga's Electric Power Board from installing fiber optics television and internet. They lost...and now they have to behave in Chattanooga. Oh, and if you live in TN, EPB Fiber Optics could be coming to you soon...as they're expanding their Fiber Optic service beyond their electric service area.