::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

My name is David Robins: Christian, lead developer (resume), writer, photographer, runner, libertarian (voluntaryist), and student.

This is also my son David Geoffrey Robins' site.

Coffee with Conservatives: Burke and Watkins

News, Political ·Saturday February 20, 2010 @ 17:02 EST (link)

We just got back from "Coffee with Conservatives" at the Family Pancake House in Redmond—good to see Dan, Lori, Alan, and others there, as well as meet two congressional candidates, Matthew Burke (and his wife) and James Watkins, running against Jay Inslee (who had the audacity and ignorance to refer to opponents of the administration's creeping socialism as "the forces of darkness"). We got to talk with both of the candidates, and Matthew's wife Jennifer, and others, about various topics such as schools, government waste, libertarianism, and shared goals. I mentioned Freedomain Radio to Mr. Burke, and he seemed interested.

Republicans, libertarians (and Libertarians), objectivists, and anarcho-capitalists (voluntaryists) would all agree that smaller, Constitutional government would be a good start. For some, it would just be a stepping stone to a completely free society with no (coercive) government; but for each it would be an improvement. We ate there too; reasonably decent meal. We had a big room that held all 30+ of us (full count for the venue space and the meetup.com event).

The Big Bang Theory: pretty funny

News, Media ·Saturday February 20, 2010 @ 03:07 EST (link)

We watched the first three episodes tonight; not bad.

We also tried an episode each of How I Met Your Mother (thought it was OK) and 30 Rock (thought it was rather lousy; willing to give it another try, but it's definitely on notice for being deleted and forgotten).

Requisceat in pace, Joe Stack: your labors are ended

News, Political ·Friday February 19, 2010 @ 18:30 EST (link)

Rest in peace, Joseph Stack. Joe Stack, the man who, on February 18, flew a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, was so frustrated with the government—our government—that he felt he had to kill himself. He left a six page note telling why he did what he did. He was not crazy, just angry and frustrated as so many of us are. The note tells of how the government so many times oppressed him, twice taking his life savings, jailing him for no crime, remorselessly destroying his life. To ensure people would read those six pages he gave his life. He should be honored. He is a patriotic American.

In a war, the file clerks and munitions factory workers are as valid a target as the front-line soldiers; and in Joe's war, the IRS agents and staff were part of the oppressive machinery of government. They voluntarily became part of a repressive, destructive mechanism to rob the people of this nation. So let me never hear them called "innocent"; they were not.

As someone posted to a conservative/libertarian mailing list at work, said: "I consider it a cautionary tale though. Suffered what he perceived as injustice at the hands of the IRS. … This guy had a lot to lose. When he snapped, he didn't tip over a dumpster in the street and light it on fire. When college commie kids riot, a Starbucks gets burned. Curfews imposed. When responsible adults riot (who tend to be Conservatives), it's something else entirely. If enough of them do it, it's a revolution or an insurrection, and new nations may be born. Whatever you call it, it's a lot closer to actual war, than tipping over cars and burning a dumpster in the street. Not impossible, and not something to be taken lightly. It's how the United States was created." (Emphasis mine.)

Chuck Baldwin wrote an article regretting this man's death. I regret it too; I consider it unspeakably tragic that a man felt he had to kill himself to escape the violent predations of his government. But if he did not die, would we be talking about him?

He gave his life so that we'd read the six pages he wrote; he sacrificed himself, in part, for some time in the media that we would become aware of not only his complaint, but the complaint of millions, a complaint familiar to lovers of liberty across this nation and others. Government takes and takes; government is an unstoppable force of causeless coercion and robbery. It is moral to resist violence with violence; it is self-defense, and this man felt it was time to join the fight with more than (what he considered) ineffectual voting. Did he perhaps bring to mind the words of the Declaration of Independence, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives…" when he died?

So take the time to read his six pages. It's the least you can do to make his sacrifice not in vain.

Books finished: Disabling America, I Am America (And So Can You!), Bitterly Divided.

Snohomish County Council closes Sultan shooting pit

News, Political, Guns, Law ·Wednesday February 17, 2010 @ 14:05 EST (link)

The following notice was circulated by Snohomish county, making its way to local gun shows and message boards and eventually to the Microsoft gun list (thanks Jason):

NOTICE OF INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE
AND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN, that the Snohomish County Council will hold a public Hearing on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at the hour of 10:30 a.m., in the Henry M. Jackson Board Room, 8th Floor, Drewel Building M/S 609, 3000 Rockefeller, Everett, Washington to consider the following:

ORDINANCE NO. 09-151

RELATING TO NO SHOOTING AREAS, ESTABLISHING AN ADDITIONAL NO SHOOTING AREA, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 10.12 SCC

I felt bad for missing the Olympia "Push Back the Tax" event (long drive, poor parking, and couldn't any sort of speaker or event guide), so I made sure to attend this one, and speak, too. Here's the report ("Report from Snohomish") that I posted to MSGun:


I just got back from Snohomish. 3 hours of testimony, 5 minutes of deliberation, and they closed the Sultan pit to shooting. I'm not sure if that means it's already illegal or not. I am fairly sure they don't need to wait for DNR (but there was a DNR rep there who was in favor of closing it), since the particular Snohomish county ordinance is just to extend a No Shooting area. I suppose we should expect signs to go up soon. So much for March 2A day at the pit.

There was quite a parade of local rich wives who, to hear them tell it, were living in Viet Nam in the middle of the war with bullets ricocheting around them and their children every day (said tearfully with feeling, and sorrow for humanity). There were also many good people debunking the alleged safety issues so what it really came down to was (1) noise and (2) unrelated bad behavior (loud parties, drinking, trash) which really ought to be dealt with separately.

I certainly have sympathy toward the property owners about the noise—for most it wasn't as noisy/busy as it is now when they bought their properties, but of course it's been getting busier as every other local public shooting area has been closed (which several people mentioned). Really it just goes to show that the very existence of public land is a terrible idea (if it was private, then the issue would be property rights: the owner would be responsible for not interfering with others' safety or enjoyment of their property, and otherwise would be able to manage their property as they saw fit; the issues of people littering and partying are of the same kind).

Many brought up the plans for a new range down the road from the pit, and apparently progress is being made—and they're making a volunteer list—but since it has been discussed and "in progress" for literally 40 years, there isn't that much hope there. Several people suggested or indicated that the pit should not be closed until the new area was opened. Would that the council was that sensible.

I was most disappointed in the NRA guy (area technical range expert) who testified against the pit. It's not a fancy official range; nobody claimed it was. If I wasn't a life member I'd consider not renewing. Speaking of NRA, "I'm in the NRA / a NRA life member" or "I have guns and family with guns and used to shoot and really wish I still could [who broke your arms?]" was the "I have black friends"-type quote of the day, to the point it became amusing.

I did speak and mention that a group from Microsoft liked to shoot there, some of whom lived in Snohomish county, and that we were always safe (with our own range master even!) and packed out our trash and much more. I figured I'd see at least one other person from this group. On the other hand, it's a lot of time to dedicate to such an event if you work—I felt bad about not going to Olympia Monday, which is why I took the time today—and also why a large number of the testators were well to do women that didn't work, and retired people.

Books finished: The Collected Short Stories, The Probability Broach, The Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies, The Keeper of the Isis Light.

Adjusting TI-25 magazines for the 10/22

News, Guns ·Saturday February 13, 2010 @ 19:27 EST (link)

My TI-25 magazines arrived from Cheaper Than Dirt this week (25 round .22LR magazines for my Ruger 10/22). I was a bit surprised that they had to be adjusted before use, but I followed the directions and took the barrel out of my rifle as required to adjust them properly. I had finally ordered them after a miserable range session with the Butler Creek magazines (many FTFs); the Tactical Innovations magazines came highly recommended by MSGun and THR participants.



They seem to sit fairly snug now, but I won't be able to finish adjusting until I go to the range; later stages require chambering a round, and while that certainly can be done legally and safely at home, it makes sense to do it at a range with a much safer backdrop. Already, though, they load a lot better than my Butler Creek magazines—with Butler Creek's own speed loader.

Last weekend was almost entirely taken up by a large paper (one of two "state of the research" reports that make up 30% of the grade) for CSEP 504 (which I've dubbed "extremely obvious topics in software development"; although the doctoral student that presented a lecture self-organizing computing, including tile computing, was a rare ray of excellence). I wrote on Complex Event Processing (CEP); the paper was about 8000 words (10-12 pages in ACM format, although other students failed to read and submitted 10 pages double-spaced; length difference between the formats is about 2.5x). We also have to comment on other students' papers, and submit two short (200-400 word) reports on two papers chosen from a list given by the instructor every two weeks.

Books finished: Molon Labe!, Libertarianism.

DVDs finished: Every Which Way But Loose, Star Wars Trilogy.

At least socialists are honest

Political ·Sunday January 31, 2010 @ 16:46 EST (link)

If I am debating with an avowed socialist (or communist, or Marxist, etc.) at least I know where their principles lie. Nor do I need them to adhere to a particular label; as long as their principles are made clear we have a point for discussion. I can attempt to convince them that, for example, man is an end in himself—that man has a right to his own life—and not a sacrifice to the state, and that such sacrifice ends in tragedies like the former Soviet Union. I can convince them that property will always be owned, and if owned by "the state", will (and always has) devolve to ("private") control by the biggest tyrant, and that private property is a necessary extension of man's rights. I can point them to such documents as Rand's essay The Objectivist Ethics for a philosophical grounding of man's rights, and to her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for more on property rights.

But I cannot help those without firm principles. We have nothing to talk about. If your principles are, for example, encompassed by terms like "pragmatism", i.e., do what works, which actually sounds fairly good prima facie, we will have problems. First, in who is "doing"—usually some state, by force—and then in what defines good (clearly violation of individual rights must not be defined as evil in such a system, or as a goal or constraint of any sort). Then there is the problem of the first time: a "pragmatist" might claim that program X is good because it works elsewhere (for some definition of "works"), but it's never the same program in the same culture, so without precedent the pragmatist is an experimenter. Which is great, if his subjects were not men and his effects not the ruination of the lives of men, as if they were so many white mice in a lab. How many millions have died because individual rights and freedom were subjected to some vast ideal that failed?

In fact, history shows that greater freedom leads to greater prosperity (see, e.g., The Link Between Economic Opportunity & Prosperity: The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, and history in general) and higher standards of living. So by happy coincidence, supporters of individual rights are better pragmatists than most that claim that title but actually lean towards statism.

However, after a long enough discussion, one can usually tease out some principles from a pragmatist (see upcoming post on the relationship between liberty and respect for private property). Frequently these are statist: unlimited tyranny of the majority, the sacrifice of man to the (purposes of the) state, and the state as liege lord over a fiefdom of citizen serfs. I suppose I cannot complain at the work I do to tease out an unprincipled (or weakly or vaguely principled) person's values, because in doing that I also engrave, clarify, and strengthen my own philosophy and the application thereof.

Ten

News ·Sunday January 31, 2010 @ 16:20 EST (link)

My OneNote TODO list has gotten rather out of hand. I have big projects that will take more time than I have at present, and little urgencies, all on one list. So of course the solution is another list. (Hey… wait! Where are you going?)

To ensure I make progress on things, I've created a new page with a limit of ten items, and each has a date that it was added. If I go more than two weeks without making progress on an item, it gets removed (to languish back on the big list). For recurring items, like shooting practice, the date is updated whenever I carry them out. Having an item move off this list is accounted a failure; it's not something I want to happen, and by the removal policy I'm conditioning myself to not add things I can't get to soon. Crossing things off, like schoolwork, gives a certain sense of accomplishment.

While it's unlikely I'd forget about the more urgent items (schoolwork, again, as an example), a short list keeps these things uppermost so they can be distributed over the time available before the due date, and adding smaller parts of larger projects ensures that progress is made on them too, a bit at a time. Or at least, that's the idea. (No, I'm not claiming a short TODO list is a revolutionary idea. I'm just making a note.)

Shuffling partitions on cirith-ungol

News, Technical ·Saturday January 30, 2010 @ 03:05 EST (link)

My 2Tb USB HD (Western Digital MyBook Essential) arrived a few days ago (with a memory upgrade for the same machine); now I can sort out some space issues I've been having with the MythTV box, cirith-ungol. The root partition was sized at 10Gb when I partitioned it originally, which is too small now (building XBMC from SVN pushed it over the limit). Most of that HD (320Gb) and another internal (500Gb) was devoted to an LVM-joined video partition using IBM's JFS (because it seemed optimal for large video files).

Unfortunately, JFS can't be shrunk to regain some space for the root partition, and I figured it would be handy to have videos on a portable drive for watching them in other places. So I moved the video partition to the new disk (keeping the same paths so MythTV wouldn't have a heart attack and crap its database), resized the old partition with GNU parted from a Knoppix Live CD (because parted can't resize a mounted filesystem, although apparently resize2fs can, but it still seems a bit dicey). I mounted the remaining internal 500Gb disk as a spare; I may move it to the server machine or somewhere else, or put it in a USB enclosure.

The first Knoppix CD I burned was some "ADRIANE" build, which I figured was just a codename and I picked it since it had a recent date and was at the top of the list. Turns out it's some sort of speak-'n'-spell accessible version, so I had to delete it and download the correct version (both 6.2 / 2009-11-18).

It's pretty baroque that the best (command-line) way to resize partitions is to use fdisk (parted supposedly can do a partition and filesystem, but it's experimental and looks scary since the way to specify "don't move the start" is to copy the value from the print command, which seems subject to failure due to rounding between megabytes and cylinders, and in this case, didn't work—some "expected to relocate 512" error—although at least it didn't seem to break anything). With fdisk, it's necessary to delete and re-add the partition (with the same start cylinder). At least resize2fs knows to default to the partition size.

Honey got me a nice card for my birthday, and some white chocolate Lindt truffles, which she presented to me right at midnight. Happy 25 to me!

Books finished: Breaking Dawn, Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, Everyday Anarchy.

DVDs finished: Babylon 5: The Complete First Season: Signs and Portents.

God, government, and liberty

Political, Theology, Law ·Sunday January 24, 2010 @ 17:58 EST (link)

Not too long ago I got a note from a friend regarding her views of Christians and their government, and it coincided with a desire to write up a note on the subject based on aggregated thoughts and conversations over the past few months. She takes what is a not uncommon view that a Christian should unilaterally and cheerfully obey all government edicts; in fact, a step further, as we will see, with an implication that government, being permitted to exist by God, has as such an inherent moral right. We will examine these assumptions herein. Naturally, this note means little to readers that do not hold the Bible as authoritative; this is not written for you; in fact this note is written primarily for myself, as a method of organizing my thoughts, but if anyone else can benefit from it that’s great. The format will be to examine a common set of verses that relate Christians to their government. There are, perhaps, more questions than answers here, although sometimes the questions are rhetorical or the answers implied.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

This is first due to its primacy and fundamentality. Obedience is called for; pay your taxes, obey the police (as, in the following verses, ministers of the sovereign), etc. The word for "submit" is the same word as Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 (wives, submit to your husbands) but those say "as unto the Lord" or "as it is fit in the Lord"; this is "for the Lord’s sake" (on his account, for his purpose), possibly in view to a common view of Christians as political agitators at the time. But it is specifically not "as unto the Lord" here; if that was intended it would be so written. Since submission of the Christian to the Lord and wife to husband is because of love, it would be confusing to write it that way anyway—most people do not love their government and to pretend so would be hypocrisy, which would be an unlikely commandment. However, obedience does not require love. (For reflection: What's "every ordinance of man"? If several warlords claim control over a territory—remembering that we have to obey tyrants like Nero, or Mao, or Stalin—does one have to obey them all? If my county declares independence from a former ruler, which do I obey? As a man, is my command as good as anyone's? Etc.)

Is the command absolute? Prima facie, yes. But there are opposing commandments that could conflict. For example, as if one was necessary, if government orders one person to kill another (stipulating that they knew and even admitted this person was innocent of any crime), that would bring a believer up against the commandment not to murder; and so on regarding commandments not to steal, lie, etc. More about this later, but it’s important to bear in mind that there are superseding edicts.

Government is not held up as by definition "good"; it is just "the system" in place (in some cases, just the biggest gangster or strongest tyrant; there can only be one in ultimate control of a particular region, even with subsidiarity, and always through violence); we are to pray for, but not (hyperbolically) to government (no divine right of kings exists). We are to pray for the wellbeing of governors, that is, individuals with power of force over others, and for their salvation, and for the righteous fruits of that salvation; but not even necessarily for the continuance of their reign if they are unjust. To quote a devout believer, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master"; and also, "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible." (This believer was, of course, George Washington, first President of these United States.)

1 Peter 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

In what sense is "free" intended there? Free in Christ, of course, but what is the practical outworking of that freedom? I would suggest freedom to do Christ’s work, whatever it would be for us. Never, of course, for evil, in an "ends justify the means" manner—hence the immediately-following admonition.

1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

In what way should all men be honored? Do we honor equally the saint and the pornographer, the murderer and the healer? Or do we honor them as children of God, made in his image? Does it mean we obey every man equally? Of course not; honor where due (flowing from what? a God-honoring life, reasonably).

Romans 13:1-3 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

Rulers frequently are a terror to good works, or to works that are not evil. What then? Is this all null and void? Was it necessary to follow the tyrants of the time when they commanded evil (or called evil good, or caused evil, or punished non-evil?) It is arguable that they should be paid taxes, but is it necessary to show them where the Jews are because that’s what they or their agents demand if you know said Jews will then be killed? We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Was the American Revolution and War for Independence (and other independence, such as Canada's, which changed government even though no war was required) evil? The American revolutionaries contained among them many God-fearing men.

Romans 13:4-7 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

When is tribute due? Is it due, for example, to a highwayman in a lawless region (as the most powerful force therein, hence as ruler over it)? Are the dishonorable due honor? Rhetorical questions, of course; the answer is no. When a government does evil, is it due tribute, custom, or honor? This passage appears to indicate not. In a similar vein:

Luke 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

What is Caesar's (government's)? Payment for services might be legitimately claimed (in Jesus' day, the pax Romana, roads, and such things; in our day, similarly national defense, roads again, and other useful services that government provides, at a reasonable rate, that is, as if they were provided on the free market). But there is so much we are mulcted of that is not merely a fair payment for services used; and so, even as the proceeds of the robber do not belong to him, those do not belong to government, but we pay from fear—of further theft, or of violence.

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

This is tangential to the issue since it does not bless the actions or rule of Pharaoh, just God’s use of him. Cf. "Our God turned the curse into a blessing" (Neh. 13:2), or Corrie Ten Boom’s thankfulness for the lice in their cells that prevented the guards from abusing them. Neither is stating the subject as an unequivocal good.

1Timothy 2:1-2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

I try to refrain from unwarranted personal attacks against anyone in authority and will continue to do so. This does not mean that it is wrong to speak the truth when they fail. And I pray that my government—and all government—will become a godly government.

Now, how about a verse that applies not just to individuals as subjects or citizens, but also to governments (which are of course composed of individuals). Disobedience would certainly make them unworthy of honor or even tribute, and aiding in these would make one partake of the guilt: Matthew 19:18 … Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. But government, that is, the individuals with the power of legitimized violence, do all these things:

Murder: Consider the killing of innocents, whether through the legal system, sending troops to unnecessary wars, sanctioning of abortion, or "collateral damage" in wars and police misconduct, to just name a few. (I will not extend “taking of life” to the Randian extent of taking away the right to life and all that entails, since only physical murder is implied, although it would be quite legitimate to take it to the “whosoever hateth his brother” level.)

Adultery: More difficult, but in the same sphere (sexual crimes) we can certainly point to government’s tacit consent to prison rape, and lay the guilt for it at their feet (e.g., under James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.).

Steal: Any time an agent of government takes anything, a liberty, property, time, involuntarily, it is theft (or more accurately robbery, if done by violence or threat of violence as it always is).

False witness: Government cover-ups and lies are legendary.

There are many verses that condemn bad government, and many that praise or demand good government, such as Deuteronomy 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. In the Bible, judges are called "unjust"; kings do "that which was evil in the sight of the Lord"; is that criticism? Is it wrong? We are commanded to not bear false witness; sometimes speaking truth will result in criticism of government. God clearly does not approve of all government. (It seems the idea of government in the Bible is simply "Whoever has the most power in a region"; regardless of how legitimately acquired; it is a fait accompli. Does this mean we should not try to do better? Of course not! And we can do that while paying taxes and obeying the just laws.)

God is far more concerned with individuals than groups or societies. Individuals are to resist evil and do good, speak truth, eschew violence, etc. (cf. OT and NT commandments). "Government" as a group cannot be saved; rulers as individuals can be. Government is background noise to most (being inured to it by indoctrination from birth), or repression to be borne stoically, but some few are called to resist evil in it, or reform it, or even to establish new more righteous governments.

My friend wrote "you obviously feel very strongly about political things." I do, because politics is not some theoretical science; it is ultimately individual—the smallest minority and the most neglected. Must the future be "a boot stamping on a human face—forever"? Perish the thought! Politics is about rights, and a government that violates them can be no minister of God for good. In the same way, a Christian that supports, aids, or silently condones such violations can be no representative of Christ.

A couple of other good Christian commentaries on Romans 13 and government: preacher and Constitution Party 2008 presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin's Romans Chapter 13 Revisited, and Greg A. Dixon's Rethinking Romans 13.

Books finished: The Virtue of Selfishness.

DVDs finished: Gone in 60 Seconds.

Lively politics lively luncheon

News, Political, Work ·Friday January 22, 2010 @ 22:04 EST (link)


(Not from the Tap House) Today was the "Lively Politics Discussion Forum" (short name in the internal AutoGroup list manager tool: "politics") luncheon—the second one—also at the Tap House Grill in Bellevue (near 106th and 8th); they make a pretty good BBQ burger (and they offer a Prime Card discount: second entree is free). It went about 1230-1430.

And like last time, only four people showed up. We had others interested but unable to come due to meetings. And it's possible that some of the liberals were scared that if the discussion got heated the gun rights folks would turn the place into the O.K. Corral, or something. I gave Paul (founder of the group) a ride since he'd ridden the connector in, and Brian and Tony showed up. Brian had been at the last one; Tony I hadn't met before. I'd say Paul's a moderate conservative (Republican), Brian a moderate liberal (Democrat), and Tony and I hold more libertarian views (with me moving toward anarchism due in part to Stefan Molyneux's persuasive arguments; recommended reading: his book Practical Anarchy).

The discussion was animated but not heated. In fact, as much as I'd like to see more people attend, I think four people is a good number for a conversation; when a group gets too much bigger people are left out or splinter off multiple discussions. Let's see… some of the topics: Sarah Palin (too bad Kevin missed it), property rights, the military and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown, the administration, etc.

It's great to be able to put faces to names, and to know the kinds of people one is "talking" with in the forum (especially in regards to "not sure if serious" wonders, which are easier to resolve after meeting someone).

Books finished: Eclipse, A Farewell To Alms, The Dream Catcher, Rogue, Going Rogue.

<Previous 10 entries>