C James

Congratulations, Snowey!!! Perhaps GA should create a whole new user level for those with over 1000 posts.. What to call it though.. Carpal tunnel?

Hmmm, I entered a post, and the system ate it, telling me I needed to enter a post! Perhaps because I used quotes, and they aren't allowed here? (I couldn't get the automatic quote feature to work, either) Comicality, Thank you! I wasn't exaggerating, the psychology and sociodynamics blew me away, and I'm hard to impress in that regard. The dynamics within the "pack" were especially interesting, due to seeing the meld between human instinct and the "alpha male" structure of a wolfpack. I'm really looking forward to the continuation, and I'm delighted to hear that it will be so soon! I'm new to your stories, and Savage Moon was my first of yours. I am certainly going to be reading more of them in the very near future, starting today. Thank you very much for these wonderful stories!

Kevin, you made some great calls here! I do disagree on one thing, though... "well yeah, if Ryan Kills himself they're probably not going to be continuing their relationship"... That's far from a given! LB is, after all, also doing a Vampire story, and vampires are also known as the undead.. So....

This was a very, very moving and powerful chapter (Thank you LB and Kitty!).. I'm still trying to puzzle out the lyrics of that song (the one in the chapter, with Cody), and why it's significant. I'll ruminate on that more later. Hmmm.. Let's see, so far we have had, that I recall, threats to: Torture LB's cats Fly to Taiwan and hunt him down, then shoot him twice Threats of the creative use of chopsticks Kind offers to send LB a Mountain lion or rattlesnake for a new pet And now a rack!! Hmmm.. Maybe we need a whole thread dedicated to this creative cottage industry? I agree about the Evil part! I'm not so sure I agree regarding whom Maggie was calling about. I'd have thought that Maggie would have, under the circumstances, been clear if it wasn't Toby. HOWEVER, it's not explicitly stated that she wasn't. This could indeed be misdirection.. Or not...

Great chapter! In my opinion, it's a sign of very good fiction when the reader (me in this case) has to keep reminding himself "this is fiction, this is fiction!". DK's writing has that touch of realism in the details (such as the location of the debate, and much of the context) that makes one forget that this is fiction. Another favorite author of mine is a favorite for that same reason (realism in some background detail) and that's Tom Clancy. I loved the lead in! It really threw me for a loop. I really did a double take when it was mentioned that Davey's Father would be asking Bush a question at the debate. I chalked it up a different debate format in that timeline, something that would allow a non-candidate politician to ask a question at a presidential debate. It never once occurred to me that Davey's Father WAS the candidate, even though that's something I definitely had hoped to see. (and I really love that he is the candidate! I hope he wins!). One reason I had to keep reminding myself "this is fiction" is because Davey's timeline differs from our own. One obvious way is that his Father is the Democratic Candidate for President of the United States. One thing, though, that really did make me scratch my head: OK, if I'm parsing that correctly, Davey is saying that the Swifties are attacking *his father*?!!?? The Swift Boat Vets came into existence specifically due to John Kerry (regardless of whether one sides with them or not, it's absolutely factual that they were founded, and named, specifically to defeat John Kerry). Davey's father was never even in the military, let alone the "Swift boats" of Vietnam, so he couldn't have group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" after him. Or, did I just read that wrong? Davey is at first talking about the original timeline, so maybe this was clever misdirection to make us assume that, once again, John Kerry and not Jones, Sr, was the democratic candidate? As for the lies from the Republican side, if that's our (his original) timeline that he's referring to, there were certainly plenty from both sides in that campaign. Anyone remember Memogate, and the forged Bush records? Media spin also was pushed to the point of outright lies in a lot of instances. I'll use the example of Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy was largely destroyed by his infamous "I have a scream" speech, a sound clip of which played over and over in the media. The problem here is that this was a fabrication! That sound clip was punched up and otherwise altered in the studio, and then also played out of context. Result? A blatant media hit job that destroyed Dean's campaign. Make no mistake, I can't stand Dean, but he was unfairly attacked and destroyed, intentionally, by the media using trickery and deceit. I was outraged because, as much as I hated Dean, his candidacy should have been decided by the Voters, not a bunch of back-room media hacks and audio techs. Remember, they got away with it once, so any candidate (of any party) is at risk. Remember, this wasn't sone by his oppenents, but by the supposedly impartial media. The Media, CBS especially, was hauled over the coals for the Memogate fiasco, and rightfully so. However, why the heck were they let off the hook for the destruction of Howard Dean? That kind of thing must be stopped. I don't care who the target is, it's wrong, and downright perilous for Democracy itself. One thing though in the story that rings a little false for me:

Hmmmm.. Getting your weeks mixed up? I seem to recall Davey having that same problem, for perhaps the same reason (time travel...). But, the good (very good IMHO!) news here is that we get to see DIR 16 soon! I wasn't expecting that this weekend, and given the cliffhanger at the end of Ch. 15, I really want to see what will happen! Looking forward to Dreams of Humanity whenever it appears, same with DOT... Thanks, DK!

I just went back and added an edit note (in italics, near the middle of the post) to correct an enormous series of blunders in my original post (I said Deuterium in a lot of places where I meant Tritium). I should know better than to trust my memory even on simple things. I wish that I was older so that I could blame it on a senior moment! :wacko: Very scary indeed, for a lot of reasons. I totally agree that if you go after them, and they already have the operational weapons, you had better be positive that you will get them all (which is likely impossible to do with any degree of certainty). Otherwise, they will likely be used in one way or another. The problem as I see it is that once they have them, it's very likely impossible to know where all of them are with any certainty. With a nuclear program like Iran's, you only need to take out segments of it to delay or halt the acquisition of nuclear weapons. But once they have them, your options are far fewer and vastly more difficult. It's the "what have they got to lose" part that scares the utter heck out of me. Both Iran and North Korea have massive internal problems. We also IMHO can't think of them from the standpoint of countries with national self-interest, but rather as ruling cliques with primarily much narrower interests. In the case of Iran, this entire nuclear crisis is IMHO driven by their internal political dynamic: they need it to shore up internal support. The Mullah's hold on power was shaky, and slipping before the crisis. I personally feel that this is a dynamic that the Administration is ignoring, as are the European powers trying to strike a deal with Iran. They seem to be utterly ignoring the objective reality of the situation, and are making their offers and policy stances based on what Iran claims it wants. In doing so, they ignore the underlying internal issues that cause Iran to need to keep forging ahead. This may sound like a crackpot theory, but I think I can prove it. The leaders of Iran may be many things, but they are not morons. If the conventional diplomatic view was correct and they were not primarily motivated by internal issues, it would not be in their best interest to keep stirring the pot by making provocative announcements. Yet, they do so. They do so very consistently. In fact, whenever serious doubt is voiced in the international media regarding whether Iran's program is really aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran itself usually acts quickly to dispel any doubt. Why? The only answer that fits is that they are playing to an internal audience. And that is where I see the "what have they got to lose" problem rear it's very ugly head. If one looks at things from the Mullah's (the Guardian Council, in this case) point of view, they see a very different solution set. For their internal problems, both a nuclear program, AND/OR a US attack to destroy it, play right into their hands by shoring up internal support, regardless of whether the US is successful or not. They really do have nothing to lose, as they are only interested in protecting their regime and their own power. They don't care if Iran loses a few cities. This makes them dangerous beyond measure, and the old cold-war concept of MAD (nuclear deterrence) is rather unlikely to work once they gain nuclear weapons. This is without even factoring in the element of religious fanaticism that the Guardian Council and their ilk have. In my view (and just my opinion, and I may well be wrong) the biggest problem here is that the negotiators are playing by the wrong set of rules, and thus are guaranteed to get nowhere. The only "coin" that could have any meaning in this situation is to make offers that would have the effect of shoring up the Mullah's internal position (not a good play from several points of view, but it is one option in lieu of an attack).. I hope like heck that I'm wrong, but I see only one real (but small) chance of avoiding the need for a US attack to take out Iran's nuclear program, and that is to exploit fully it's internal dissent and try for a revolution. Given the ongoing crisis and it's effect on Iran's internal politics (resistance to and demonstrations against the regime have diminished), I don't see much hope of this. All I see are choices falling between bad and worse. As for a US strike, even that is a very dicey proposition from a military point of view. Even if one assumes that the Iranians do not yet have nuclear weapons (probably a safe assumption for another year or so), We need good Intel to hit the vital targets. The main targets would be the centrifugal enrichment arrays, which should be fairly easy to find as they need enormous amounts of electricity (and hence massive power lines) They would be huge facilities, and are most likely deeply underground. Its other, smaller facilities that will be much harder to both find and hit. We would also need to hit Iran's nuclear reactors, and I believe that one of them is scheduled to go on line this year. Once it's running, destroying it will release a huge amount of radiation. Another problem is that if you don't get most of their sites, you merely delay the program. To get most of it, you need excellent intel, and if Iraq proved anything, it's that we certainly don't have good intel capabilities for this sort of thing. Ugh, what a mess.

I know that DK said "maybe", so maybe not, but I haven't heard anything yet that would preclude a look at Dreams of Humanity this weekend?? Well, whenever it arrives, I'm looking forward to it. I didn't see any mention of a new chapter of DIR for this weekend, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up.

IMHO, one of the things that sets SOOTB apart is how "deep" it is. It's all the little touches, like the song lyrics. I think I first noticed how well selected they were back when Connor and Ryan were not actually together, but Ryan came to Connor's concert. Hmmm... Just thought of something... We now know that Connor will be singing in Ch. 20. Therefor, one of his songs will, by nececity, be his final song (of that performance). I wonder if that could be the reason behind the title of the chapter (Someone's final song)? In other words, perhaps the final song of the performance is especially significant in some way? The more I think about it, the more I doubt that LB would have released the title if it was something obvious. None of his other titles have been obvious, so why would this one be? Forgetting the early release of the title, if it was obvious, it would still be a bit of a givaway, and the title is usually the first thing the reader reads. OR, another meaning of "someone's final song" could easily be that it's the FINAL chapter of SOOTB.. Or, if the story is nearing it's end, this may well be the last time that we get to see Connor sing, hence the "final song" is Connor's final song.

Much as I hate to say it, my view is that if something bad happens to a major character, then that's part of the story, just the way bad things happen in real life. The only thing that would have spoiled this story for me is if LB hadn't written and shared it, or if I'd have never seen it. Thank you LB and Kitty! I think that you have a very good point there regarding LB having to make painful decisions. My hunch is that he's already decided what will happen in the next couple of chapters, but I'm very much looking forward to hear more about how SOOTB was written. LB has mentioned that he may talk about this after SOOTB is done.

I have no idea who you could possibly be referring to? Conner, that was hilarious!!! Talk about a long-distance relationship for Cameron and Cole! Edit: I forgot to say in my original post that one of my favorite parts of this chapter was Cameron's smiling when Cole was mentioned, and hearing that Cole did the same.

That was definitely unexpected!!! I see a looming possible issue though. If Cameron and his mother bury the hatchet, what happens to Cameron and Cole? Would Mr. Harris send Cameron to live with his mother? I'm assuming that she doesn;'t live in the area. Great chapter Vance!

This is hilarious!!! Thanks, Nick! Personally, I favor the Arizona approach: No fiddling with the clocks, thanks to no DST!

I can sure understand that. I grew up in Southern California, where Earthquakes were a threat. I imagine it's the same with Hurricanes; just one of the things that go with a particular area. Heck, where I live now (rural Northern Arizona) has it's own drawbacks. I'm in the mountains, far from any town, and I get black bear and mountain lion around my property fairly often. I also get egg-sized or larger hail quite often. Those I don't mind. What I do sometimes mind is the religious demographics of the area. Many of the locals have a difference of opinion with me over whether or not I should exist. The area is close to 50% Mormon (and generally they are far more conservative than mainstream Utah Mormons) and much of the rest are Christian fundies. (I'd say Fundies are the majority of the non-Mormons here). That does not make it an ideal area from a gay perspective, but I like it here and so I take the good with the bad. However, Emoe, we aren't just talking any storm here, but Hurricane Kirk! Perhaps a vacation somewhere a thousand or more miles inland might be in order?

I really, really wish that I could disagree with you on that, but all past behavior by both parties points unequivicably in that direction. I sincerely hope to be wrong on this, but I'm not overly hopeful. I've been growing more and more disgusted with the SC in some of it's decisions in recent years. As an example of different philosophies attacking different rights, I'll mention the eminent domain case of Kelo Vs. New London (three of the five justices supporting it are liberals) and then the abominable ruling (mainly by conservative justices) that the commerce clause of the constitution (giving the Feds the right to regulate interstate trade) could be used as the basis for the Feds prohibiting the legalization of drugs WITHIN a state. This is IMHO one of the most appalling ruling of all time: using this as precedent, there is literally nothing that the Feds can't claim to have power over within a state, based on a clause that clearly does not apply. I shouldn't be surprised, though... This is, after all, the same SC that has allowed some justices to use FORIGN court precedents and even foreign (overseas) public opinion as support for certain rulings. That was beyond absurd. Unfortunately, The Patriot act is IMHO even worse in that regarding it's genesis. It wasn't done in just a couple of weeks by panicked politicians. I might understand it (though not agree) slightly more if that had been the case. The sad fact is that it had been around in the form of a right-wing wish-list for years. 9-11 was used as the excuse for enacting it. If it had really been about 9-11 and terrorism, most criticism of it could have been quashed by simply making it apply only to terror investigations and prosecutions. They did no such thing, and as I recall the first use of one of it's powers was against a Casino owner in Vegas, in a case having absolutely nothing to do with national security. This, I believe, is true of the vast majority of it's uses. I don't know which I despise more: the law itself, or the use of a downright Orwellian name to make it look like something it isn't. That is very interesting! Thanks! I like the way that seems to work. It also sort of plays into a pet theory of mine: that divided government (no one party in control) is far better than either party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. If one looks back at the budget for a few decades, there are interesting correlations between divided control and lower pork-barrel spending. BTW, have Swiss gun laws changed much? I always liked the way that Swiss military and reservists (in a country with compulsory universal military service, that's a lot) were required to keep fully-automatic assault weapons in their homes. It was IMHO a very pragmatic policy considering Switzerland's geography. Last I heard, about 20% of Swiss households had a fully-automatic weapon in them. Just my opinion, but I feel that the Press is a huge part of the problem. Due to the nature of Television news, and declining attention spans, there is a tendency to focus on soundbytes: a quick phrase or sentence that is newsworthy. This does not make for good or accurate coverage of complex issues such as the budget, or specifically when a congressman seeks to raid the treasury by earmarking funds for porkbarrel projects in his or her district. It's so common that the media pays little attention. The sad state of our media is best summed up by this disgusting fact: On the day that Israel bombed Syria a couple of years ago, the lead headline on most news outlets was not that, but some drivel about Michael Jackson (a singer). Another problem is that the politicians find it far easier to co-operate, as most aren't direct rivals. So, get them supporting (or at least not objecting to) each other's raids on the treasury. This is made worse by the budget process itself: each congressman can add "earmarks" for funds for their pet projects to ANY bill, without debate or discussion or other review. The only chance of stopping it is if the entire bill is voted down, or vetoed. This is one reason why many (such as myself) favor the concept of the line-item veto. It would enable the President to remove selected financial items from bills, instead of just being able to kill or approve the entire measure. Most state governors have this power, and it seems to work quite well at the state level most of the time. What I would really prefer to see, though, is the end of the "earmarking" process itself. This could be done without a constitutional amendment (which a line-item veto would require) and would force all these pet pork projects to go through the committee process, including public review.

OMG!!! ROFL... That is fantastic... On the other hand though, since we're there in just a little over 2 weeks, it's not likely they'll get up to "K" by that point as they've only had Alberto so far. Egads, you mean that Florida might get hit by Kirk TWICE this hurricane season!?!?!?! What is that sound I hear? Could it be Emoe packing up to move to Nebraska? It's odd, though, that the R storm for this year is Rafael, not Robert... Who did you have to bribe at the NHC to pull that off?

Uhoh.. A technical discussion! I have a grave weakness: I can't resist kibitzing on things like this... I'm not taking issue with anything you said on the technical side, but I feel an irresistible urge to expand a bit on a few points, so on with the kibitzing.. A "Fusion" bomb, also known as a hydrogen bomb, is a design that utilizes fusion in some way, through the actual definition is rather vague in practice. The US began using fusion-boosting in fission weapons in the 1950's, basically a standard plutonium implosion core with some fusion from deuterium injected into the pit, mainly to increase the levels of high-energy neutrons to enhance the fission reaction. This allowed the use of less plutonium and also boosted the yield. A "true" hydrogen bomb is actually a three-stage device. A plutonium fission (usually fusion-boosted) primary, a fusion secondary, and a fission third stage. The fusion reaction releases the majority of it's energy in the form of high-energy (10 MeV or higher) neutrons. Those Neutrons can cause fission in Uranium 238 (also called depleted uranium) and therefore the bomb casing on a three-stage device is usually made of that material. That's why, although it is a difficult metal to work with, all US ICBM and SLBM launched warheads use U-238 for the warhead case. The interesting thing is that in a "Hydrogen" bomb, up to 80% of the energy yield is actually fission, not fusion. Deuterium is not, so far as I know, used in the current US inventory for pragmatic reasons: It's use requires frequent and costly servicing of the warheads. Deuterium has a half-life of about 12 years, and it's primary decay product is an isotope of Helium (I can't recall which one offhand, and I'm too lazy to look it up). Helium is very fusion unfriendly, so helium contamination of the deuterium is a big problem. Therefor, Lithium 6 is often used instead, as it in part converts to Deuterium under neutron flux and serves a similar role. Edit: I goofed. For some reason (although I do know the difference) I referred to Deuterium where I meant Tritium. It's Tritium, not deuterium, that has the half-life of 12 years. Only very early experimental US hydrogen bombs used Deuterium, though both Deuterium and Tritium are in a sense used in more modern multi-stage devices: The Lithium 6 converts to some of both. I have no idea why I mixed up Deuterium and Tritium throughout this post, but it only occurred to that i had done so while typing an utterly unrelated post. Duh! Well, I could edit this post and just correct it, but I think it's better to leave it alone and let everyone have a laugh at my expense. I sure did when I realized what I'd done! IMHO, the main reason the "Neutron bombs" were retired from the US inventory was their maintenance issues (they needed Deuterium, as they relied upon a massive initial boost to the fission reaction). As for the EMP, it's actually more a function of altitude than yield. I'll be happy to get into the physics if anyone is interested, but the short version is that at very high altitude, more of the energy from the bomb yield is converted to an electron cascade in the atmosphere, and from there it propagates down. It's only a factor at long range (outside of the direct effects zone) when a detonation occurs in the far upper atmosphere. That's why some of the Soviet warplans were based upon a FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) with the first detonations occurring in the troposphere inland from the US East and West coasts. That would effectively blind and cripple the US (even most hardened communications and radar systems would be impaired), opening the way for the main strike. If a terrorist or enemy really wanted to do the most damage to the US, a single device in the 100kt range (boosted fission would suffice for that yield) detonated about 100 miles up over the central US could fry around 90% of the electronics in the country. Vehicles (anything with electronic ignition) wouldn't work, as indeed very little else would. This would be vastly more damaging than taking out a single city, as it would cripple the entire country and also destroy our economy (including the ability to grow and transport food). This is why Iran's satellite program makes many so nervous. The argument has long been that it would be OK for Iran to have a few nukes, because they would have to be insane to trade one US city for their whole country. The problem with that theory is that with a satellite launch capability, they could effectively wreck the entire US with one bomb, and they wouldn't even have to design a re-entry vehicle for the warhead. We also probably wouldn't know that their launch contained a bomb until it detonated. It's scenarios like this which cause some people (such as myself) to take a differing view on nuclear bunker-busters to your own. It's often not possible to use conventional munitions to take out a deep underground facility, so a ground-penetrating nuke might be the only way. I realize that many people have different opinions on this, but mine is that absolutely anything is better than a nuclear Iran. I'd sure prefer it to be done conventionally, but if not, a nuclear ground-penetrator might be the only option short of a megaton-range surface detonation, and for a truly deep complex in rock such as granite, a ground-penatrator might indeed be the only option in case of an emergency. There are practical deterrents to the use of ground-penetrating nuclear devices, the prime physical ones being reliability. I don't know what design concept they are using, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a Uranium explosive-assembly core, rather than a plutonium implosion core. Implosion requires incredible precision, and the G-forces encountered by an earth penetrator could, I'd think, cause the explosive lenses to deform or change alignment slightly. The problem with that is that unlike plutonium, which is somewhat volatile and could disperse and thus be unrecoverable, the core of an undetonated Uranium-based weapon would be far more likely to be recoverable, and that type of core is far easier to build than an implosion device. Thus, if your ground-penetrator fails to detonate, you may well have just handed the target the raw material for an easy to make nuclear weapon. Plutonium, due to having a volatile isotope, must be imploded, but Uranium 235 can be used either by explosive assembly or implosion. There are already plenty of low-yield tactical nukes in the arsenals of several nations (including the US), the only difference with a ground-penetrator would be the ability to take out a deep bunker with a low-yield below-ground detonation rather than the present option of a high-yield surface detonation (which would have far greater fallout). Another way of describing it is primarily based upon throw weight. In the dawn of the missile age, The US could make a warhead of equivalent yield much smaller and lighter than the Soviets. Therefor, the Soviets had to build much larger and more powerful missiles to deliver similar yields. They did so, which is why they had such a big early lead in the space-race: they had bigger more powerful rockets due to having to design launchers for heavier warheads. As Soviet physics advanced, they already had the greater throw weight, so they were able to compensate for their lesser CEP (Circular Error Probability, a way of measuring accuracy) via larger yield. One conundrum that I've never understood: The M-1 tank was designed for the European theater, to fight the Soviets, in an environment that had a high probability of being both chemical and nuclear. Tanks are normally excellent protection against some nuclear effects, and in this case need to be. So, why on earth did they include depleted uranium in the armor composite?!!?!?!? If you hit DU with a neutron pulse (such as from a neutron or other nuclear weapon anywhere in the area) the resulting fission in the DU would bombard the crew compartment with levels of radiation far in excess of what they would receive even unprotected outside. For this reason I felt is was insane to use DU in the Chobham armor of the M-1, and I've never been able to find a good enough reason for it?

Ack!! But.. But.. I don't wanna be barbecued! Maybe I just need to appeal to LB's kind, gentle, and forgiving nature? But... Does he actually have such a nature? Hmmmm, I just read his chapter 13 of Vampire Jarred 2.. I'm doomed.. doomed!! Nick, that's a very intriguing idea!!! The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Lomax might react that way, especially if his friends are making fun of him. And indeed, Conner would feel responsible. Good one, Nick! Now that's a good point, too! LB did say, quite a while back, that he had this plotted out to so many chapters, but I can't recall how many he said. It could very well have been in the very low 20's, though, so it's conceivable that this or the next chapter might be the end. Another possibility: What if it's Connor's final song at the Piano? Maybe he gets injured, or loses his love of it for emotional reasons?

The stories are actually my second-favorite thing at GA... Forums being the first. I've been a message-base hound since the days of the dial-up BBS boards. Yet oddly enough, I don't like live chat. BTW, Remember Dan saying that he was heading for Orlando? You had best take my evacuation warning seriously, because even the NHC (national Hurricane center) concurs. It's official: Last year's K storm was Katrina... This year it's Kirk. For those who don't believe me... HERE is a link to the official list of hurricane names for 2006.

I recently read "Savage Moon" and it really impressed me! It's one of the best literary studies on group dynamics and the psychology of power that I've ever seen! It's one heck of a good story, too, with the way it's told (keeping so much unknown for so long). In some ways, it reminds me of the psychology in "lord of the flies". Very, very dark, but a real in-depth exploration of unbridled power in adolescents. Those are my interpretations of it, anyway. Thank you, Comicality, for one heck of a great story! I hope it will be continued at some point in the future.

ACK! Oops! That's the second time this week that I've made an error like that! Oh well, at least I'm consistent in my shpelling errerrs. I couldn't agree with you more on that. And thanks!

I listed a few in the first post on the thread, but I'll try and be concise here with my guesses. Assuming that someone actually dies (who isn't already dead, IE Connor's Mother), Highest probability: Toby Close second: Ryan Possibly both? The story is told from Connor's perspective, so I think he is fairly safe. Maybe About the only character that I am positive isn't going to die is Elanor Van Epps, because we know that she goes on to great things in the literary profession. I'm thinking Mikey might be at risk too. As for how it would affect the story.. That's even harder. If it's Toby, that will have an enormous impact on Maggie, Ryan, and Connor, but most of all on Ryan as he would have (likely) massive guilt feelings due to being "distant" recently. It might also lead to a break-up of Ryan and Connor.

Emoe, I think that you had an excellent idea here.. So I thought I'd make my next major milestone post here, and, well, here it is.. A new tradition in the making? Post #500

Bob wrote: Thanks.. I enjoy our conversations very much, too. Don't worry about disagreeing: Heck, I don't even agree with me sometimes! BTW, I wasn't arguing that impoverishing nations would be a way to combat terror, just opining that the demographics and the economics do not fit the premise that economic disadvantage is a main cause of terror. That looks like an interesting book, but unfortunately I don't speak french so I couldn't figure out too much from the text. I'll see what I can figure out for a translation... I'm absolutely no fan of the so-called Patriot Act. As for me as SecState, that would indeed be my dream job! Might be everyone else's nightmare, though, as I can be a bit of a hard liner on some issues. I'm not that much of a hard liner though.. For example, I am in most cases opposed to the use of Strategic Nuclear Weapons as the first step in resolving a minor trade dispute... Edited to add:: Bob, I thogght you might be interested in this, due to your interest in USA politics (and this is an example of it at it's worst) I'm very ticked off right now, at my local congressman. Ok, some background: In the US, there is an enormous problem regarding Federal spending. Due to the nature of the budgetary process, individual congressmen can add in "earmarks" for pet projects in their district, basically federal grants of money. This is what we call "pork", as these projects are usually little more than ways to bring Federal money home to their districts (and thus buy them popularity and re-election). It was this sort of wasteful corruption that got the Democrats in hot water when they controlled Congress, and was instrumental in getting them tossed from power by the Republicans, who ran largely on a platform of budget-cutting (there were other aspects to the Contract with America, but that was a huge part). So, what happens once the Republicans have held power for a while? They go and do the same darn thing that got their opponents tossed out! Not clever at all.. So, back to why I'm mad at my Congresscritter. Basically, I think that he's an idiot, because he just sent out a campaign mailer that is bound to enrage his own political base. He's also a liar, because he campaigned on a promise of ending this sort of nonsense. So, what is in his three-page flyer? It's literally nothing but item-by-item examples of all the federal money that he's "Secured for the district". In other words, 148 million dollars of loot, for projects that are nothing that the Federal government should be involved in, and are often blatant featherbedding if not outright graft. His name is Rick Renzi (Republican), and I deeply regret ever voting for him. I won't make that mistake again, and I hope his opponent in November uses this campaign mailer to ram it down Renzi's throat. Bob, how is this issue dealt with in Switzerland? How do you stop politicians from looting the national treasury to bring home money for their district (to buy themselves re-election?) Here in the US, our system seems designed to favor the biggest thiefs in this regard.

I'm not psychic (just psychotic) and even I can tell you, without any doubt whatsoever, what is in Chapter 20... It's words! Lots of 'em, too... And Kitty didn't tell me that. And, Nick, if you are implying that the title is a plot givaway just to get LB to BBQ me, I'll haunt you! I suspect some misdirection regarding the tile.. LB's work is many things, but predictable it isn't!! Ahhh! I think I've got it... Did they ever have the service for Connor's Mom? That would fit!