Confirmation "hearing" (let's keep this nice)

[philbert]

I've been doing a little study of Justice Ginsberg- looks like she has written some interesting opinions on things like ... prostitution (believes it should be legalized)...

i believe history has shown that the regulation of vices and morals through civil law results in unintended consequences far worse than the "evil" the law is purporting to prevent. in this class the big one is the war on drugs, and to a lesser extent, prostitution. the laws in both cases attempt to fight natural economic phenomenon, and both have been/will continue to be wildly unsuccessful.

roberts seems to be oriented toward federalism, though perhaps a bit less so than rehnquist. both are more socially conservative than myself, but roberts seems to give deference to court precedent, (accepting that Roe is the established law of the land, despite the arguably faulty legal logic upon which it was decided), and is unlikely to cause a great shift in the court's direction. o'connor is the judge in whose opinions i most often found my views reflected. i feel unfairly criticized as deciding cases on a whim, in most respects she took a libertarian stand (federalism, limited government, respect for individual rights, etc.)

regarding the ACLU, i'm reminded of michael douglas in The American President:

For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? ...

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

the problem is that, being a lobbying force and the biggest organization of its kind, they are forced to support the most extreme of cases along with the more pedestrian ones, and those extreme ones attract the most attention (and controversy).

and concerning the Pledge, it wasn't until June of 1954 that an amendment was made to add the words "under God". President Eisenhower said "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future." i believe it should left to the individual to decide whether or not he/she wishes to affirm a religious faith, and to the extent one does wish to do so, it should be done independently or with other like minded individuals, not as a mandated daily public school ritual.

[Pete Hanlin]

Thanks for the information on the ACLU- and for some other well-thought out opinions.

Regarding "The American President," which aired again on cable just last week, it was an entertaining movie. However, it so lopsidedly- and if I may suggest with such an obvious agenda- portrayed the liberal President as being so innately loveable, and the conservative "Bob" as being so ridiculously heinous, that any point the director may have attempted to make was a bit overshadowed.

I'll buy into the fundamental purposes of the ACLU- they sound awfully noble (of course, most groups do a pretty good job of portraying themselves as being noble, so...). While I would have to agree with pretty much their entire agenda, I believe the "bad rap" they seem to have acquired may come from some of the actions they take to execute that agenda.

I particularly liked the way you so adroitly pointed out that our society is governed by a government that is simultaneously elected by the majority and prohibited from acting unjustly towards the minority. Its a pretty great system. Furthermore, you have a very legitimate argument regarding the inclusion of "under god" in the pledge. I suspect the argument that will be accepted by the Supreme Court will be that the words "under God" are both traditional and ambiguous and are therefore not an establishment of state religion. Similarly, our coinage and currency states "In God We Trust," but that expression doesn't seem to have resulted in the establishment of a state religion. Furthermore, I believe Americans are guaranteed freedom OF religion- not freedom from the expression of religion. That is, just because you happen to be offended by the statement on our currency doesn't require the government to change it.

As I recall, there was a boy in one of my grade school classes that didn't recite the pledge for religious reasons. When everyone recited the pledge, he was allowed to remain seated, leave the room, or whatever he desired. I believe most of the time he stood and simply didn't say anything. Personally, I think this case is rather ridiculous and the Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to rule on it last session. It was a lock this gentleman would bring the case to court again, and he has.

[chip anderson]

Pete: Horrible, dispicable use of the word gentleman. Sometimes it's wrong to give others this courtesy just because you are a gentleman yourself.

[Spexvet]

...the liberal President as being so innately loveable, and the conservative "Bob" as being so ridiculously heinous, ...

Art imitates life...:D

[Spexvet]

Pete: Horrible, dispicable use of the word gentleman. Sometimes it's wrong to give others this courtesy just because you are a gentleman yourself.

Chip's definition of "gentleman": "anyone who agrees with Chip Anderson".

Do you think an abortion clinic bomber is a gentleman?

[Spexvet]

I'll buy into the fundamental purposes of the ACLU- they sound awfully noble (of course, most groups do a pretty good job of portraying themselves as being noble, so...). While I would have to agree with pretty much their entire agenda, I believe the "bad rap" they seem to have acquired may come from some of the actions they take to execute that agenda.

The ACLU has sided with Nazis and the NRA, both decidedly conservative organizations. The problem is that people tend to support specific issues, regardless if the issue is consistent with the constitution (or their more general personal/political philosophies). The example would be a conservative republican who supports stem research when they are diagnosed with alzheimer's.

[Spexvet]

I met Peter Tork. He is a gentle and genuinely nice guy. I didn't notice any similarities to Geroge W at all.

I don't know Peter Tork, the person. Peter Tork, the character on The Monkees TV show was a dim bulb.

[karen]

Do you think an abortion clinic bomber is a gentleman?

Nope, that would make him a murderer. But I think this kind of illustrates the point Pete was talking about (in an obscure way) Us over here on the conservative side of aisle tend to view the ACLU as a bunch of nutty liberals who do crazy things like try to take crosses off of seals and outlaw the pledge of allegiance. Some of the folks on the liberal side of the aisle tend to view abortion clinic bombers as a bunch of nutty religious fanatics. I sure don't think it's OK to bomb a clinic but I understand the passion behind the madness. I can't imagine a liberal would think it was OK to outlaw the pledge but they might relate to the issues that brought it to the attention of the ACLU in the first place.

Well, I am off thi Vision Expo so I will catch up with this on Sunday!!

[rep]

The ACLU has sided with Nazis and the NRA, both decidedly conservative organizations.

An historical review of Nazi's shows that they were much more alined with liberal thoughts and views than conservative thoughts and views.

The term Nazi is short for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Socialism is much more closely alined to liberal views than conservative views. Hitler and all of his top lieutenants were hard core socialist who hated everything about old Europe including, small states, the church, the aristocracy, and the free economy of that time. They imagined themselves running a centralized, protectionist German state and constantly talked about destroying the bourgeois class (the rich).

They were also health nuts who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism, engaged in abortion and euthanasia, opposed all capitalist excess, and promoted animal rights. They were also environmentalist who locked up land to promote paganism.

They Nazi government introduced socialized medicine, and government mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun controls, and expanded unemployment insurance and social security.

Nazi make work programs had Hitler's government wanting to employ every citizen, the government was to plan every production decision and the redistribution of every pocket of wealth in society.

These are "decidedly" liberal thoughts and views, not conservative.

Rep

[philbert]

Regarding "The American President," which aired again on cable just last week, it was an entertaining movie. However, it so lopsidedly- and if I may suggest with such an obvious agenda- portrayed the liberal President as being so innately loveable, and the conservative "Bob" as being so ridiculously heinous, that any point the director may have attempted to make was a bit overshadowed.

i conceed your point, and was really only making reference to the manner in which the ACLU was presented in that speech, which i thought was good, if perhaps too simplistic.

... Furthermore, you have a very legitimate argument regarding the inclusion of "under god" in the pledge. I suspect the argument that will be accepted by the Supreme Court will be that the words "under God" are both traditional and ambiguous and are therefore not an establishment of state religion. Similarly, our coinage and currency states "In God We Trust," but that expression doesn't seem to have resulted in the establishment of a state religion. Furthermore, I believe Americans are guaranteed freedom OF religion- not freedom from the expression of religion. That is, just because you happen to be offended by the statement on our currency doesn't require the government to change it.

while i agree that is the most likely outcome, it does present an interesting compromise, at least intellectually. if the court is to rule as you say, they are, in effect, marginalizing references to God to appease those who wish not to identify/affirm such a thing. but at the same time, isn't there a risk of alienating those who believe in a certain sacredness with respect to those words? that's the rationale for my "do it on your own or with other similarly minded people" view... those who don't want any part don't have to be a part of it, and the power of the words is preserved for those who wish to say them.

while we do not have a "state religion" the way many other countries did/do, it is hard to argue that many of our civil laws are directed by a Judeo-Christian morality. having In God We Trust on our money isn't the problem, but it is one of the byproducts.

As I recall, there was a boy in one of my grade school classes that didn't recite the pledge for religious reasons. When everyone recited the pledge, he was allowed to remain seated, leave the room, or whatever he desired. I believe most of the time he stood and simply didn't say anything. Personally, I think this case is rather ridiculous and the Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to rule on it last session. It was a lock this gentleman would bring the case to court again, and he has.

but the fact that you recall that single boy implies that he was an "outsider" or noticeable as the one who didn't go along/participate... why should one, especially at such an impressionable age, be put in such a circumstance at a public school?

Pete: Horrible, dispicable use of the word gentleman. Sometimes it's wrong to give others this courtesy just because you are a gentleman yourself.

what do you know about this individual that makes him unworthy of being called a gentleman? he is exercising his rights to a hearing in our court system on an issue that he feels is a violation of his (children's) civil rights. there are plenty of people utilizing the courts' time on issues that i disagree with, but i don't find fault with them seeking remedies in the fashion our political/legal system provides. it's the people who take matters into their own hands that i have issues with.

...The problem is that people tend to support specific issues, regardless if the issue is consistent with the constitution (or their more general personal/political philosophies).

excellent point, which is why i had tended to prefer justice o'connor most of the time. take the medical marijuana case for example. the issue was with the commerce clause, and whether the growing/selling of marijuana within california for medicinal purposes rose to the level of interstate commerce, and thus subject to federal regulation. the "federalists" on the court, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas were in the minority that said, no, this is clearly not interstate commerce, but intrastate commerce. in writing for the minority, O'Connor laid out the rationale for the federal government not having overriding power. but in the last section of her opinion, which was not joined by the other two, she wrote that had she been a citizen of california she wouldn't have voted for the proposition, and had she been in the state legislature, she wouldn't have supported the measure. but the fact was that the people who were in those positions did vote for and support the measure, and whatever views she had on the merits of the measure itself were irrelevant at this point. all that mattered was whether the constitution allowed the federal government overriding authority.

i believe Rehnquist and Thomas were probably right to not join that part, in that the justices' personal thoughts on the issue shouldn't be a part of the court record. but the fact that O'Connor did put them in allows some insight into how she was able to put those personal feelings aside for the greater good of our system.

cheers,
phil

[philbert]

An historical review of Nazi's shows that they were much more alined with liberal thoughts and views than conservative thoughts and views.

The term Nazi is short for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Socialism is much more closely alined to liberal views than conservative views. Hitler and all of his top lieutenants were hard core socialist who hated everything about old Europe including, small states, the church, the aristocracy, and the free economy of that time. They imagined themselves running a centralized, protectionist German state and constantly talked about destroying the bourgeois class (the rich).

They were also health nuts who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism, engaged in abortion and euthanasia, opposed all capitalist excess, and promoted animal rights. They were also environmentalist who locked up land to promote paganism.

They Nazi government introduced socialized medicine, and government mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun controls, and expanded unemployment insurance and social security.

Nazi make work programs had Hitler's government wanting to employ every citizen, the government was to plan every production decision and the redistribution of every pocket of wealth in society.

These are "decidedly" liberal thoughts and views, not conservative.

Rep

the Nazi party was really more aligned with fascism, and in any case, was clearly totalitarian. the "work programs" you refer to included the inslavery of those not fitting with the concept of the "master race" and it only comes across as horribly euphemistic to refer to the annihilation of millions of people not fitting that race as euthanasia.

[chip anderson]

Philbert: What I know about this individual is that he is atheist, opposed to God in all things. Opposed to any form of the American Social Structure. A member of the ACLU (Anti-Christ Legal Underwriters). And yes this is enough to say that he is not a gentleman. He may or may not be polite, but he is not a gentleman.


Chip

[EyeManFla]

Remember, "The American President" was brought to you by the same foks that cooked up that other ongoing dribble "The West Wing".

[philbert]

Philbert: What I know about this individual is that he is atheist, opposed to God in all things. Opposed to any form of the American Social Structure. A member of the ACLU (Anti-Christ Legal Underwriters). And yes this is enough to say that he is not a gentleman. He may or may not be polite, but he is not a gentleman.


Chip

i think you would find yourself suprised to learn that a number of people whom you might consider gentlemen are atheists...

Lance Armstrong, Warren Buffett, Albert Einstein...

here are 3 from very different places in life/history that many wouldn't have suspected (with the exception of einstein, who didn't really hide it).

i doubt that you know exactly how the individual in question views all parts of his role, or lack thereof, in the "American Social Structure" as you put it. and given the dialog taking place above concerning the ACLU, that you refer to it as the "Anti-Christ Legal Underwriters" tells me that you are more interested in throwing mud than participating in an intelligent debate.

[chm2023]

Re Pledge of Allegiance issue. Is this really all we have to worry about in this country?? I would be perfectly happy to keep it as it is, perfectly happy to remove the "under God". (My preference would be to keep the phrase but move it: it reads better and is clearer as "one nation, indivisible, under God, with liberty etc". But then I'm sort of a freak....)


ACLU defends the rights of the individual/minority against the rights of the majority in most cases. This makes their positions unpopular, pretty obvious if you think about it.

[chm2023]

An historical review of Nazi's shows that they were much more alined with liberal thoughts and views than conservative thoughts and views.

The term Nazi is short for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Socialism is much more closely alined to liberal views than conservative views. Hitler and all of his top lieutenants were hard core socialist who hated everything about old Europe including, small states, the church, the aristocracy, and the free economy of that time. They imagined themselves running a centralized, protectionist German state and constantly talked about destroying the bourgeois class (the rich).

They were also health nuts who banned cigarette smoking, promoted vegetarianism, engaged in abortion and euthanasia, opposed all capitalist excess, and promoted animal rights. They were also environmentalist who locked up land to promote paganism.

They Nazi government introduced socialized medicine, and government mandated vacations at government spas, imposed handgun controls, and expanded unemployment insurance and social security.

Nazi make work programs had Hitler's government wanting to employ every citizen, the government was to plan every production decision and the redistribution of every pocket of wealth in society.

These are "decidedly" liberal thoughts and views, not conservative.

Rep

Read Mein Kampf. Hitler was wildly anti-Bolshevik, wildly anti-communist, wildly anti-socialist---to the point that he committed the single biggest military blunder of his career by invading the USSR.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bourgeois

"Bourgeois" refers to the middle class, not the rich, and was first used pejoratively by French aristocrats mocking the merchant/crafts segment of society--something they later regretted as they were marched into the Place de la Concorde!!! It was Marx who railed against the bourgeois, on the other Hitler was a big supporter of the middle class. (The term has evolved to
meaning middle/ruling class as opposed to the have nots, has a distinct Babbitt connotation in modern use).

Conservatism taken to horrible excess results in fascism; liberalism taken to horrible excess results in socialism/communism.

This will be on the exam.

[chm2023]

Sorry Chm but I couldn't resist: She is hardy funny farm material.

Well I thinking of saying, she is hardy, but actually she has a very frail, bird-like quality. (And you could have resisted if you tried.....;) ) OK, hardly. Happy?

[spartus]

Yeesh, what a wonderful, rational, civil debate. Good stuff. I'll try to be brief, but I doubt I'll succeed.

i believe history has shown that the regulation of vices and morals through civil law results in unintended consequences far worse than the "evil" the law is purporting to prevent. in this class the big one is the war on drugs, and to a lesser extent, prostitution.

Exactly. I'm inclined to support decriminalization, at least, of both of those current offenses. As the great comic Bill Hicks pointed out years ago, people on drugs aren't criminals, they're sick. Does putting them in jail (or ridiculously punitive rehab) cure them? Of course not.

the laws in both cases attempt to fight natural economic phenomenon, and both have been/will continue to be wildly unsuccessful.

The more thought I've put into it, the stranger it seems to me that the free-market-über-alles crowd works so diligently to try and stifle obviously popular segments of the market.

the problem is that, being a lobbying force and the biggest organization of its kind, they are forced to support the most extreme of cases along with the more pedestrian ones, and those extreme ones attract the most attention (and controversy).

You put, much more succinctly than I managed, what with all my tap-dancing around the topic, this perfectly. Since they're out for everyone's rights, not just the people they happen to ideologically agree with, naturally they will be stuck with some toughies. Those, of course, are what garner all the bad press.

Regarding "The American President," which aired again on cable just last week, it was an entertaining movie. However, it so lopsidedly- and if I may suggest with such an obvious agenda- portrayed the liberal President as being so innately loveable, and the conservative "Bob" as being so ridiculously heinous, that any point the director may have attempted to make was a bit overshadowed.

Now, now. Don't kill the messenger. Of course the movie was very slanted--Rob Reiner's not exactly shy about where his political beliefs lie. For the sake of argument, if a character in The Omega Code quoted something particularly nice that, say, Jesus said, I'd be foolish to write it off just because I happen to not be, uh, quite in line with the filmmakers' beliefs.

Pretty good flick, though. For mid-90s movies about presidents, I think I preferred Dave. Kevin Kline always kills me.

I particularly liked the way you so adroitly pointed out that our society is governed by a government that is simultaneously elected by the majority and prohibited from acting unjustly towards the minority.

It's a weird thing. People think that because majorities win elections, the majority "rules". That's not our system. That's called "mob rule", and it's not really effective in safeguarding everyone's--the majority, the minority, the majority of the minority, et cetera--individual civil rights. Or anything else, really.

I suspect the argument that will be accepted by the Supreme Court will be that the words "under God" are both traditional and ambiguous and are therefore not an establishment of state religion.

I sincerely hope not. Traditional...nominally. Ambiguous? Not to an agnostic or atheist.

Similarly, our coinage and currency states "In God We Trust," but that expression doesn't seem to have resulted in the establishment of a state religion.

Are we required to recite "In God We Trust" at every time we handle money and as we complete every financial transaction? The comparison is silly.

Most recent presidents have concluded their addresses with "May God bless America". Does that constitute the imposition of a state religion? If we had to say "Amen", it might.

Furthermore, I believe Americans are guaranteed freedom OF religion- not freedom from the expression of religion.

Personal religion--have all you want, in public, private--go for it. State-sponsored or (particularly)-enforced religion, lordy (forgive the expression ;)) no. Freedom of religion, for some people, is freedom from religion.

That is, just because you happen to be offended by the statement on our currency doesn't require the government to change it.

My only source of offense in regard to our currency is that I don't have enough of it. Most of the time, my manners are good enough to not complain about it. :p

Very briefly about Eric Rudolph, the lately-sentenced bomber: I found it interesting that most of the news coverage of his trial focused on the Olympic bombing, not on his abortion clinic bombing(s). Our coverage of domestic (ie. home-grown like Timothy McVeigh) terrorism is...interesting. That's a topic for a much different discussion, however. :)

About Nazis...*sigh* Eh, it's largely already been covered. Godwin's Law tells us that there's not much constructive down that road for us, conversationally. However, a tool that's helped me understand politics much more fundamentally is The Political Compass. It's germane to the greater topic(s) at hand, and I'd suggest anyone interested to take the test (be sure to not read the analysis until after you take the test). It's brief--it takes just 10 or 15 minutes, and it's a remarkable new way to think about...I'll just leave it there and discuss with anyone who takes it. :)

...he is atheist, opposed to God in all things...

It is worth noting that atheists don't believe in any form of deity. It's difficult to oppose something you don't believe in. And what's "Opposed to any form of the American Social Structure" mean, anyway? He lives in a cave and wears licorice for underwear?

Conservatism taken to horrible excess results in fascism; liberalism taken to horrible excess results in socialism/communism.

Take that Political Compass test. This facet conversation will get significantly more interesting.... :)

Finally, reading the paper today, I found an interesting letter to the editor. The first one in particular (though they're all thought-provoking for different reasons) caught my eye. I'll repost it here, because I think the LA Times has one of those annoying username/password firewalls (those who want to see the other letters can get a free user/pass combination to give them access at bugmenot.com):

As a Christian, I do not say the Pledge of Allegiance because: (1) I cannot pledge to a flag; (2) I cannot pledge any allegiance to an earthly kingdom without substantial caveats, and (3) I resent a country presuming an association with God or God's mission.

These are all biblical principles, and they would be true for me in any country. It therefore remains a puzzle as to why it is not the Christians who are bringing these lawsuits.

Fundamentalists seem to have a strong impetus toward a "God and country" mentality. This attitude demeans their faith and complicates life for their countries. It's not a major issue. I won't be filing suit any time soon. I can continue to pray silently. But I am really quite puzzled by the Christians who will pledge their allegiance to any country or flag. I am just as puzzled by their desire to impose their views on others.

CRAIG A. REPP
Rancho Santa Margarita

His name gave me a chuckle, too. Sorry, rep.

[shanbaum]

Darling, are you saying that I don't know how not black and white the world is??????????

I was referring to your comment about judges making law, which I took to be a recitation of the oft-repeated "legislatures make laws, judges enforce them" mantra, which is wrong in about three ways, but which does afford an appealing dichotomy - kinda like, you know, "black and white".

But more importantly, where were you on Friday at 3pm? I know where I was, and where Karlen, and Jimmy Herman, and J.R. Smith were, but as for the rest of you slackers...:(

I attended a class given by the magnificent Laurie Pierce; if you ever have the opportunity to do so, do not fail to avail yourself. She's an event.

[Pete Hanlin]

I sincerely hope not. Traditional...nominally. Ambiguous? Not to an agnostic or atheist.
Sorry, I just had to point out that the term "under God" is certainly ambiguous to an agnostic- which is rather the point! By definition, agnostics are ambiguous concerning the identity and nature of God, god, gods, etc.

Regarding the atheist, one would almost be able to argue that the Constitution doesn't specifically defend the right of someone to be an atheist (and it certainly makes no provision for the eradication of religious influence in society based upon the objections of those who believe in no religion). After all, the guarantee is freedom of religion- which rather assumes most if not all citizens will be religious! Atheism is not a religion...

Just to spur on the discussion- and provide an open, undefended broadside to those who would disagree... I believe the assumption of the framers of the Constitution was most likely freedom of "Christian" religion. After all, they were trying to avoid the government becoming identified as either Catholic or Protestant (which had been a bit of a problem in Europe- from whence they had come). The intention, then, was for the government never to become officially Catholic or Protestant. This is not to argue that- in today's society- freedom of ANY religion is anything other than proper, since the original drafting of our founding documents was accomplished in a time very different than our own. Its just a consideration when regarding the "freedom of religion" statement.

[karen]

I was referring to your comment about judges making law, which I took to be a recitation of the oft-repeated "legislatures make laws, judges enforce them" mantra, which is wrong in about three ways, but which does afford an appealing dichotomy - kinda like, you know, "black and white".

But more importantly, where were you on Friday at 3pm? I know where I was, and where Karlen, and Jimmy Herman, and J.R. Smith were, but as for the rest of you slackers...:(

I attended a class given by the magnificent Laurie Pierce; if you ever have the opportunity to do so, do not fail to avail yourself. She's an event.

I had an appointment with a vendor at 3pm. I had NO IDEA you were going to be there or I would have made a point to set up some time to meet you. I did wander by the booth to see if you were there but did not see you. Now I am majorly bummed....
You could have crashed the Laramy K meeting, Pete and I made that one!

[Spexvet]

I attended a class given by the magnificent Laurie Pierce; if you ever have the opportunity to do so, do not fail to avail yourself. She's an event.

I agree. I had the pleasure of attended her Sept 11 New Jersey classes. She was great.:cheers:

[shanbaum]

I had an appointment with a vendor at 3pm. I had NO IDEA you were going to be there or I would have made a point to set up some time to meet you. I did wander by the booth to see if you were there but did not see you. Now I am majorly bummed....
You could have crashed the Laramy K meeting, Pete and I made that one!

What's a "Laramy K"?

[karen]

What's a "Laramy K"?

Our friend Keith Benjamin's family owns a lab called Laramy K and he set up their website and there is a forum there where us conservative folks sometimes hang out. (You don't have to be a conservative but it seems we all are!) A few people who used to hang out over here but don't anymore frequent that site as well as some of us who still hang out over here (like myself and Jacqui) so we wanted to meet while at the show and we set that up. Truly if I had known you were at the show I would have rescheduled my appointment or set something else up with you, I really would like to meet you in person. Maybe next year.