Jesus, Richard. If I could get a handle on what you think about anything, this would be a whole lot more interesting, but you rely so heavily on buzz phrases, and your train of thought is so fragmented, that the only picture that emerges is one of you. A highly suggestible, physically and economically sheltered, mildly obsessive compulsive man perpetually tuned into Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North,the Fox Network, and the American Spectator. I personally love debate, like I love chess, but like chess, communication has specific rules that must be abided by for it to have any meaning at all, and first among the rules is "Do Not Use Buzz Words or Phrases That Have No Meaning Outside Your Circle", if you wish to communicate outside your circle. "Barbra Streisand" in your circle means an annoying limousine liberal. In mine "Barbra Streisand" is shorthand for a difficult and unpredictable employer, with exotic and quickly-changing tastes. But to most people she is, love her or hate her, merely an estimable comedienne with one hell of a set of vocal chops, and no more or less.

I would suggest, if you wish to continue to be respected and welcomed to these pages that if you want to present an issue, or a point of view, say for instance "California's Current Energy Woes Are Caused For The Most Part By Ecoterrorists", that you present us with that specific case, without too much zig-zagging, and your reasons for coming to that conclusion, specifically. In that way, you'd be doing us all a real favor, in helping us to understand how someone could possibly think that, and by providing us with a clear argument to either refute or be convinced of. But if you're just going to ape the sentiments and rhetoric of the Fox Network and Matt Drudge and the Spectator, then all you're adding to the world is more noise, of which there is plenty already.

I enjoy your postings. Just, please, a little more focus and discipline.

Yrs,

David Baerwald