Posts Made By: Mike Hart

The one compelling reason Bush gave in his speach to the U.N. was that if the body was to have any value in preserving world peace, it must enforce its actions. I can't help but agree with that logic and Bush made a good arguement for multi-lateralism in making the U.N. live up to its mandates. Of course the U.N. behavior pretty much approaches the effectiveness of the League of Nations with Kadaffi in charge of Human Rights, and ten years of failed Iraqi disarmament.

So Bush now appears bent on going it alone and that seems to be our new foriegn policy. I don't like it, I think the trajectory we now are on is wrong, but so was the previous one. Perhaps it is a no-win.

If war does happen, I think that is what will shape how the U.S. is percieved in the future. Not that we went to war with Iraq, but that we decide what is in our interest and the U.N. be damned. I think for this reason, it seems inevitable and the world and the Mid-east will be a less stable place for Americans for the foreseable future. I think we get the opposite of what we are aiming for in terms of security.

I also think Bush is also assuming that in the event of war we will be hit with chem and bio weapons which will vindicate his choice, but it could leave a lot of egg on his face if Sadaam doesn't react as expected. Seems like a risky policy move to me.

Though no U.S. administration (R or D) would ever do it, I think we should broker a trade off, Saddam gives up his power in exchange for Isreal living up to U.N. resolution 242 (requiring the formation of a Palestinian state). Yes it would make Sadaam a hero, but it would have the same effect as removing him foreceably without the body count. More importantly, instead of alienating islamic extremists to want to kill americants perhaps they would see our actions in the Mid-East as more in their interests as well.

I realize I am way naive on how this all works, but I think I trust my gut better than I trust our Presidents.

I realize this would never happen, but that's what i would do if the Supreme Court elected me President.

My guess on the cab would be a Penfolds out of the McLaren vally. It is a well estapblished and excellent winery known for the quality of their cabs. They can be pretty spendy, particularly Bin 707 which can go from $100-500 a bottle. Just trade a Nagler :-).

There are quite a few other great wines from Oz but the Penfolds is exquisite.

I'm not anti-hunter morally, but as an avid outdoorsman, I find that I am pretty judgemental about the camping practices of the lot in general. Lots of fire rings burned plastic, glass and aluminum. ORV tracks everywhere "why walk when you can drive." Most of them seem pretty unfit and unskilled in camping craft that doesn't involve gasoline and motors. I'm sure a lot of people say that the bad rap is from a few bad apples, but I view hunters like lawyers - 99% percent of them give the other 1% a bad name ;-)

When I lived in Colorado, one rancher would go out with fluourescent orange paint and spray the "COW" on the sides of his animals.

I'm a new comer to this discussion area, and though I didn't join in the Elizabeth Smart discussions, though I was moved by the news as well and called my wife to tell her the news.

I too have enjoyed the excellent cvility of this forum. There is arguementation, good natured jabbing and clash of ideas without the vitriol and positional crap that invades the mass media's current definition of balance (someone FOR and someone AGAINST a proposition interupting each other).

There seems to be a good balance of liberals, conservatives, hawks, and doves and mostly well reasoned people with different views that aren't black or white.

Since I'm a newbie, it seemed inappropriate to post a thank you to all out there, but thanks to the posters on this forum. You have kept me entertained and made me think. That is quality I appreciate.

Unfortunately, the war on terrorism is destroying many of the fundamental rights and freedomes that our constitution is supposed to protect. I blame Congress and their haste to pass the "Patriot Act" as a knee jerk response that gives sweeping powers of investigation, incarceration with little pretense and even less due process.

Considering the fundamental shift away from liberty Congress took, there was damn little debate about the substance. Worse yet, historically the Judiciary, whose role is to be a check on the other two branches, tends to get swept up in the moment of the times and defends such crap (McCarthyism, Japanese internment and the Sedition Act are just a few examples).

I hope when the war on terror is over we haven't lost track of all the fundamental freedoms we beat our chest about. I'm not real happy with the trend. Labeling public dissent as unpatriotic, secret tribunals, indefinite detentions without charges. Those are pretty bothersome to me. I used to think the arguments for the second ammendment were specious and the the 1st and 4th were the most precious. I am beginning to understand the value of the 2nd as well.

I agree with you on the UN's impotance. When Khadafi was elected as the head of the UN's Commission on Human Rights you know the organization is singing more than a bit out of tune.

You may claim to not be an anti-semite, but I don't know which is worse to be Sadaam or one of his empty-headed lackeys.

Tom, this post make's you look like that pathetic Iraqi information minister, who claimed U.S. troops had been destroyed on the outskirts of town as the tanks rolled a few blocks away.

The sad thing is that thousands of arabs have been duped into believing thae Iraqi version because it tells them what they want to hear. What is it you wanted to hear? What is it in the article you believed? What "truth" were you hoping to see verified?

What you are willing to believe speaks volumes about your character, Tom - VOLUMES.

The growth of the 4th branch of government is another Major factor.

Non-elected, non-appointed civil servants are clearly now a 4th branch. I have been a consultant to various federal agencies as they try to get support for $100-500M research programs and one thing that is clear is that each agency has its own personality, goals, politics, proclivities and direction. They are always trying (and often succeedign) in furthering their agency's mission by getting "new money" added to their budgets. Have you ever heard of an agency person (whether it is DOE, EPA, NASA, etc.) call for staff and budget reductions?

Administrations come and go, but the "weebees" (we be here when a new Administration takes office and when they leave) are the one's who run the government . To a degree, they are responsible for substantial growth.

Also, each agency's people look out for their agency's interests and keep projects alive by repackaging them so they are palatiable to each new administration. Since these folks have the most experience and knowledge of their agency's mission, perhaps this is good, but it also creates unchecked growth.

Congress has an amplifying effect on this "agency self-promotion" Does Congress ever remove responsibilities from agencies? Do Congressmen create Pork projects on their own or do they get fed off a menu of projects promoted by agencies and the contractors who support them? I would bet you could pull a string on every pork-barrel project and find it was promoted or even fronted by an agency "champion" who recieved the benefits.

These two factors really create a feedback growth spiral. Congress adds more and more to the job description for each agency and agencies grow to fit these changes in scope.

Since the 4th branch is outside the system of checks and balances, and there is no such thing as a fiscal conservative in congress when it comes to pork, I see no end.

For me the clamshell was the best solution.

After toying around with the concept of a rotating dome,I bought a used Astrohaven and am extremely happy with it. I prefer it to the rotating dome for a number of reasons.

My main purpose for having a dome was to keep the scope out of the elements but easily accessible and always set up. I could have done a roll-off roof, but it would have been a pain to engineer one for my roof. The clamshell seemed lots easier.

After installing it we had 2 months of rain and some 50MPH winds. No problem with the dome so I am pleased with the weather seal. Mine is only 6' so it is pretty easy to open.

The nice thing about the clamshell is that if am out under the stars, I want to be under the stars not a roof. Yes you loose a bit more heat, but you don't have to keep moving the slit plus you get to see the constellations.

If it is windy, you can put up one shell or even two as wind blocks. Finally, for a variety of reasons, I am not able to have an isolated heavy pier, so I mounted the pier to a set of independant joists that are separate from the floor joists. I think rotating a dome might have created vibrations that would have shown up in the mount. The clamshell avoids that.