response 50 of 76:

Jul 24 18:05 UTC 2003

I was at fault in #43 for giving such a terse and incomplete response
where I wrote, in response to

#42 of 49: by Sindi Keesan (keesan) on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 (20:22):
 Yellowstone was not.  Which parks were donated?

#43 of 49: by Rane Curl (rcurl) on Wed, Jul 23, 2003 (20:45):  
Almost none. National and State parks are created from federal and state
lands.  Sometimes inholdings and adjacent properties are purchased to
complete the parks. Some very small parks have been created on donated
lands.

and I appreciate tod's more complete exposition.

However my statement was essentially correct - for example, Muir Woods
(cited first in the above) is 295 acres. Yosemite National Park, created
from federal land, is 770,000 acres. 

But while donated parkland is a tiny fraction of the total, I fully
support such donations and, in fact, have played a role in this. I was a
founder of a non-profit 501(c)3 land trust in Michigan that now owns and
manages 520 acres, purchased with (small) public donations. But I would
still say that is "almost none" compared to the conversion of federal and
state lands to parklands. They all play important roles, however, in
saving unique lands for public enjoyment. 

response 52 of 76:

Jul 24 18:24 UTC 2003

(It sure is hard to show contrition around here without having to suffer
more lumps.....)

response 54 of 76:

Jul 24 19:25 UTC 2003

Re #47: If wealth gets concentrated enough, the wealthy can buy
political power.  We're in that situation now -- by making a large
campaign contribution, you can have vastly more of an affect on what the
government does than by voting.  In fact, we have a situation right now
where the President has stated he's going to veto a bill that a majority
of Americans support because it's opposed by some rich business
interests.  (I refer to the bill that would reverse the FCC's rule
change on media ownership.)

response 56 of 76:

Jul 25 04:25 UTC 2003

re #53:  <lol>

response 58 of 76:

Jul 25 16:15 UTC 2003

If this is in refernce to our post #55, please note that I did not 
refer to the legislation as "the president's."  As with the education 
bill, he appears to be willing to consider whatever compromise that 
emerges from Congress.

Insofar as what the majority of Americans want, the Gallup Organization 
reported:

"POLL ANALYSES, 7/7/2003

"Public Endorses Need for Medicare Reform, but Is Skeptical of Recent 
Legislation

"Generally oppose putting senior citizens in managed care plans

"Most Americans believe major changes to Medicare are necessary and the 
public strongly endorses adding a prescription drug benefit to the 
Medicare program. However, the public generally opposes a proposal that 
would enroll senior citizens in private managed care programs . . . ."

response 60 of 76:

Jul 25 17:06 UTC 2003

How, may we ask, does one arrive at that conclusion?

response 62 of 76:

Jul 25 19:46 UTC 2003

And, precisely, how is it that you know this?

Perhaps there is not a majority in favor of any specific "plan"; 
however, is it not entirely possible that a majority may be supporting 
a compromise legislative package?  

response 70 of 76:

Aug 8 02:54 UTC 2003

For some reason I give the WWII Japs more credit than J. Edgar Ashcroft.
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Ashcroft made it up for his own purposes.

Doesn't it strike anyone as *strange* that we have a huge ramp-up in
demands for surveillance of the population everywhere, all the time
to catch terrorists before they can hijack airplanes, yet the
government is cutting the funding for air marshals?

The current administration seems to have gone into complete paranoia;
it is not trying to protecting us, it is trying to protect itself
*from* us, the citizens.  That's just wrong.  Bush has gotta go.

response 72 of 76:

Aug 8 21:23 UTC 2003

Re #69:  Even the Japanese would realize that the USA wouldn't
put people with top-secret knowledge on the front lines where
they could be captured.  That would have been a Stalin trick.

response 74 of 76:

Aug 9 21:03 UTC 2003

Re #73:  If you read about the actual handling of the bombs, you'll
realize that the reality was substantially different.  The first
bomb wasn't even certain to go off, and its shipment and preparation
were a very well-kept secret.  When you consider how badly things
had been going for the Japanese for the previous year or so (and
how few POWs they were capturing), the idea of a POW having any
information about the Manhattan project isn't realistic.

Which isn't to say that a POW wouldn't make up whatever he thought
would intimidate the enemy.  Read _Wasp_ by Eric Frank Russell.