Twenty or so years ago, the hue and cry arose from the environmental community warning that the earth was doomed if immediate attention wasn't taken to stop global cooling. That's right, we were told that due to the use of chloroflourocarbins (CFC's) and other chemicals being released in aerosol form a hole in the ozone layer over the poles had been created and that the earth was headed for another ice age. Now we are being told by these same folks along with convert to the cause and leading spokesman Al Gore, that due to harmful human actions, we are heading for the apocalypse of global warming. Some in the "movement" are covering their bets through the use of the non-specific term global climate change. Recently, in response to a question, Al Gore stated that "The scientific question regarding global warming has been settled."
In the absence of any rebuttal in the mainstream media, this statement goes unchallenged. The questions that beg an answer are simple; is there a consensus in the scientific community that: A) Global warming is happening? and B) Is the cause of this climate change the result of human action?
The answer, it turns out is amazingly, not by a long shot. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has recently announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed a petition stating that "...there is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate..."
Esteemed scientist and Nobel Prize winner Freemon Dyson, professor of physics at Princeton and Cornell (ret.) has further challenged Gore's position that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is real or that it is caused by human activity. The self-proclaimed science heretic states that, "There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer but the warming is not global...and all the fuss...is greatly exaggerated."
There is, of course the major discovery resulting in the 1996 Tyler Award (the environmental Nobel) being shared by Willi Dansgaard of Denmark, Hans Oeschger of Switzerland and Claude Lories of France. The award was in recognition of their discovery of the 1500 year cycle as the only explanation for the modern warming that is supported by physical evidence.
It seems that there is a large number of scientists, disciplined to rely on replicable studies and confirmable data to concur that current climate models simply cannot be verified as accurate predictors due to lack of sufficient time and reliability of the underlying data.
Through studies of polar ice cores which can illuminate climate conditions over thousands of years and can be accurately dated scientists have pointed to natural causes such as volcanic activity and massive fires as the cause of climate changes often lasting several decades. One vulcanologist has pointed out that a major eruption can emit more carbon into the atmosphere than all that has been released by humans since the dawning of the industrial revolution.
Does all of the above mean that those who favor the research, developement and implementation of so-called green technologies should abandon their efforts? Quite the contrary, there are any number of reasons to support alternatives to petroleum based energy sources. A strong and convincing case can be made on an economic as well as environmental reasons that the future needs to be green. But to use the scare tactics espoused by the global cooling, global warming climate change proponents is inapropriate and scientifically flawed.
The Edge
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
IS THAT AN OIL SLICK (STER)?
The capitalist system is dependent on several tenets that form its support and insures its continued health and vibrancy. The foremost among these is the law of supply and demand.
We are told that this relationship is one of the only economic laws that is absolute. To challenge this is looked on as sacrilegious.
In 1999 the price of a barrel of crude oil was $12.00. In less than a decade the per barrel price topped $147.00. We are told by oil companies, economists and oil producing countries that this dramatic increase can be explained and justified by the law of supply and demand. To account for this it has been pointed out that given no change in the supply, demand world wide, would have had to exceed 300% in nine years. While demand has risen in China and India, the worldwide demand has, in reality much more modest and it should be pointed out that supply has not remained stagnant.
The most obvious example that there is something else at work is the drop in price per barrel of crude from $147 to $123 in the 10 days since the lifting of the federal ban on drilling. With just the expectation of drilling, not adding a single barrel to the supply chain, we are witnessing a downward trend that even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicts will stabilize at $100 per barrel.
Speculators have been targeted for scrutiny in the press and on capital hill. Congress is currently considering regulations opening up the process of commodity future trading including raising the margin limits to rein in what is widely regarded as as an out of control system. Those inside the futures trading community point out that their world is quite small and once a trend is started it can snowball very quickly.There is another player that requires even closer scrutiny.
Oil companies defend pump prices citing the supply and demand argument and further state that their profit margins have remained the same over the past 2 years during which the most dramatic increases have occurred. These claims have largely gone unchallenged. Not only do these assertions strain credibility on their face, evidence is mounting that revenues have been stratospheric supported by unprecedented stock price increases. It should be pointed out that these huge profits have come at a time when the companies have received large subsidies from the government.
Another question is why the price posted at gas stations across the country is changed upwards, often several times in a single day, on the announcement of a per barrel wholesale price increase while it takes several days after a decrease.
While supply and demand remain bulwarks supporting the economic system, it has to be recognized that the system is subject to manipulation and to other forces that need to be examined and understood.
The Edge
o
We are told that this relationship is one of the only economic laws that is absolute. To challenge this is looked on as sacrilegious.
In 1999 the price of a barrel of crude oil was $12.00. In less than a decade the per barrel price topped $147.00. We are told by oil companies, economists and oil producing countries that this dramatic increase can be explained and justified by the law of supply and demand. To account for this it has been pointed out that given no change in the supply, demand world wide, would have had to exceed 300% in nine years. While demand has risen in China and India, the worldwide demand has, in reality much more modest and it should be pointed out that supply has not remained stagnant.
The most obvious example that there is something else at work is the drop in price per barrel of crude from $147 to $123 in the 10 days since the lifting of the federal ban on drilling. With just the expectation of drilling, not adding a single barrel to the supply chain, we are witnessing a downward trend that even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicts will stabilize at $100 per barrel.
Speculators have been targeted for scrutiny in the press and on capital hill. Congress is currently considering regulations opening up the process of commodity future trading including raising the margin limits to rein in what is widely regarded as as an out of control system. Those inside the futures trading community point out that their world is quite small and once a trend is started it can snowball very quickly.There is another player that requires even closer scrutiny.
Oil companies defend pump prices citing the supply and demand argument and further state that their profit margins have remained the same over the past 2 years during which the most dramatic increases have occurred. These claims have largely gone unchallenged. Not only do these assertions strain credibility on their face, evidence is mounting that revenues have been stratospheric supported by unprecedented stock price increases. It should be pointed out that these huge profits have come at a time when the companies have received large subsidies from the government.
Another question is why the price posted at gas stations across the country is changed upwards, often several times in a single day, on the announcement of a per barrel wholesale price increase while it takes several days after a decrease.
While supply and demand remain bulwarks supporting the economic system, it has to be recognized that the system is subject to manipulation and to other forces that need to be examined and understood.
The Edge
o
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAGIC?
Fortune tellers and psychics have thrilled and mystified people with their ability to give insights into the future. One of the classic props used is a crystal ball into which they stare intently and issue their pronouncements. It's not unusual for the amazed patron to leave convinced of the accuracy of their prophecy. In most cases the explanation for their delphi-like performance is much more mundane.
While in Iraq, Senator Obama was asked 3 different times if knowing what he now knows about the current situation he would change his vote and support the surge? While admitting that the situation has improved. In each instance he said he would not change his vote and refused to credit the surge strategy opining that the real reason for the progress was due to the Sunni Awakening and other factors. He went on to say he didn't have a crystal ball and that no one could have predicted the positive outcome.
When Senator McCain actively lobbied the Bush administration to send more troops and more importantly change strategies, he was met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. He steadfastly maintained that a surge was the only way to turn the tide and allow the Iraqi government the breathing room to reach political stability. It is not an overstatement to point out that he staked his career on this effort. In an uncharacteristic statement he proclaimed he would, "rather lose an election and win a war."
The Sunni Awakening and the capitulation of Muqtad Al Sadr was credited at the time to the trust of the tribal leaders that the Americans were committed to stay engaged for the long haul. To disconnect these breakthroughs is imply historically incorrect.
Sen. Obama must, by his own statements believe that Sen. McCain is in possession of a crystal ball. The more likely answer is, of course, much simpler. McCain has the experience of war. He has studied war while at Annapolis. Even more telling is he knows through his Viet Nam experience what doesn't work. In retrospect he just looks prophetic.
The Edge
While in Iraq, Senator Obama was asked 3 different times if knowing what he now knows about the current situation he would change his vote and support the surge? While admitting that the situation has improved. In each instance he said he would not change his vote and refused to credit the surge strategy opining that the real reason for the progress was due to the Sunni Awakening and other factors. He went on to say he didn't have a crystal ball and that no one could have predicted the positive outcome.
When Senator McCain actively lobbied the Bush administration to send more troops and more importantly change strategies, he was met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. He steadfastly maintained that a surge was the only way to turn the tide and allow the Iraqi government the breathing room to reach political stability. It is not an overstatement to point out that he staked his career on this effort. In an uncharacteristic statement he proclaimed he would, "rather lose an election and win a war."
The Sunni Awakening and the capitulation of Muqtad Al Sadr was credited at the time to the trust of the tribal leaders that the Americans were committed to stay engaged for the long haul. To disconnect these breakthroughs is imply historically incorrect.
Sen. Obama must, by his own statements believe that Sen. McCain is in possession of a crystal ball. The more likely answer is, of course, much simpler. McCain has the experience of war. He has studied war while at Annapolis. Even more telling is he knows through his Viet Nam experience what doesn't work. In retrospect he just looks prophetic.
The Edge
Monday, July 21, 2008
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - FUEL OR FOOD
Adam Smith, the great 18th century Scottish philosopher and economist coined the term and defined the Law of Unintentional Consequences which he applied to the building of wealth. In 1936, the American sociologist, Robert K. Merton, further codified the law applying it to political and sociologic policies and actions. He listed 5 sources for this phenomenon: 1. Ignorance
2. Error 3. Imperious Immediacy of Action 4. Basic Values and 5. Self Defeating Prediction. Ignorance and error are pretty much self explanatory and Basic Values and Self Defeating Prediction will require an in-depth discussion at a later time. The 3rd cause is the focus of this article.
Basically what is meant by Imperious Immediacy of Action is that a person or group wants the intended consequences of an action that there is willful ignorance of any unintended effects.
The word Imperious is significant because it imports to the person advocating a position, a place superior to all others. This arrogance results in the denigration of anyone who dissents or questions the policy.
In the rush to make Ethanol the main alternative fuel additive, those who raised
precautionary issues were dismissed and written off. Recent events now make those dissenters seem prescient.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 18 to 20% of the domestic corn crop has been taken out of the food chain in the last 12 months with the expectation that the figure will rise to over 25% in the coming season. This diversion has resulted in a dramatic rise in corn prices. Mexico has seen a doubling in the price of corn tortillas resulting in massive demonstrations. In the U.S. the cost of food products that use corn and corn by-products such as corn syrup has increased dramatically. The price of chicken, pork, eggs and other foods dependent on corn as feed has also gone up as much as 25%.
As these unintended consequences have become widely known their appeal has diminished even among the most green eco-activists.
Sen. JohnMcCain has joined with over 2 dozen Republican senators in opposition to the Ethanol subsidy. McCain has long questioned the governmental support for Ethanol and voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama has been a staunch supporter of Ethanol even crossing party lines to vote for the Bush administration's Energy Bill citing its inclusion of Ethanol and other forms of alternative energy.
A more comprehensive look at alternatives should include a discussion of Butanol. Offering a 20% increase of energy efficiency over ethanol with a 13.5% less evaporation, Butanol also has the benefit of compatability with existing infrastructure allowing it to be transported through existing pipelines rather than having to be delivered via truck,barge and rail. It also has the added advantage of not being an additive but a 1 for 1 replacement of gasoline. It should be clear that Butanol is made through the fermentation of grass, leaves, agricultural waste and other biomass. The only biproduct created in the fermentation and exhausted from an internal combustion engine is CO2 so is considered environmentally green.
As the infatuation for Ethanol continues to diminish and other alternatives are developed, it is hoped that there is a clear-eyed dispassionate look down range assessing those troublesome unintended consequences.
The Edge
2. Error 3. Imperious Immediacy of Action 4. Basic Values and 5. Self Defeating Prediction. Ignorance and error are pretty much self explanatory and Basic Values and Self Defeating Prediction will require an in-depth discussion at a later time. The 3rd cause is the focus of this article.
Basically what is meant by Imperious Immediacy of Action is that a person or group wants the intended consequences of an action that there is willful ignorance of any unintended effects.
The word Imperious is significant because it imports to the person advocating a position, a place superior to all others. This arrogance results in the denigration of anyone who dissents or questions the policy.
In the rush to make Ethanol the main alternative fuel additive, those who raised
precautionary issues were dismissed and written off. Recent events now make those dissenters seem prescient.
According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 18 to 20% of the domestic corn crop has been taken out of the food chain in the last 12 months with the expectation that the figure will rise to over 25% in the coming season. This diversion has resulted in a dramatic rise in corn prices. Mexico has seen a doubling in the price of corn tortillas resulting in massive demonstrations. In the U.S. the cost of food products that use corn and corn by-products such as corn syrup has increased dramatically. The price of chicken, pork, eggs and other foods dependent on corn as feed has also gone up as much as 25%.
As these unintended consequences have become widely known their appeal has diminished even among the most green eco-activists.
Sen. JohnMcCain has joined with over 2 dozen Republican senators in opposition to the Ethanol subsidy. McCain has long questioned the governmental support for Ethanol and voted against it. Sen. Barack Obama has been a staunch supporter of Ethanol even crossing party lines to vote for the Bush administration's Energy Bill citing its inclusion of Ethanol and other forms of alternative energy.
A more comprehensive look at alternatives should include a discussion of Butanol. Offering a 20% increase of energy efficiency over ethanol with a 13.5% less evaporation, Butanol also has the benefit of compatability with existing infrastructure allowing it to be transported through existing pipelines rather than having to be delivered via truck,barge and rail. It also has the added advantage of not being an additive but a 1 for 1 replacement of gasoline. It should be clear that Butanol is made through the fermentation of grass, leaves, agricultural waste and other biomass. The only biproduct created in the fermentation and exhausted from an internal combustion engine is CO2 so is considered environmentally green.
As the infatuation for Ethanol continues to diminish and other alternatives are developed, it is hoped that there is a clear-eyed dispassionate look down range assessing those troublesome unintended consequences.
The Edge
Friday, July 18, 2008
TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL
Gasoline prices have apparently reached the tipping point causing an actual change in behavior. Percentages vary depending on the source but it is clear that American's have reduced their driving from 10 to 20 percent since the average price per gallon passed the
$4.00 mark.
Whether the rationale is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources or to
reduce the price at the pump, most polls reveal that the majority of Americans now favor drilling for oil. The Drill Now and We Can't Drill Our Way Out advocates have begun their campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their positions.
The anti-drilling proponents use basically 2 arguments in support of their position. The
first is that drilling will not result in new supplies for many years and secondly that there is
a significant risk of pollution. In the interest of space, I will not attempt to explore the
pollution issue in depth other than point out that there are hundreds of offshore rigs currently in use and there is no evidence that they have impacted negatively on their ocean ecology.
New Mexico's governor and former Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson said about drilling offshore,"It's a bad idea. First of all it will be 30 years before it affects gas prices". This statement is clearly at odd's with other experts even those who support the anti drilling position. The oil and gas analyst for Oppenheimer & Co, Fadel Ghett has stated that,"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil...for 3 maybe 5 years."
On the pro drilling side, arguments have been made that these estimated delivery times are exagerrated and that the actual time for intitial increase of oil supplies may be as soon as 1 to 2 years. Who ever is correct, it is clear that additional oil will not reach the market soon enough to suppress prices in the short term. But is this a good reason to oppose drilling.
Newt Gingrich, on his American Solutions website states," Opening up new fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won't actually reach our gas tanks for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil."
This argument is supported by the news that within days of President Bush announcing the lifting of the federal moratorium on drilling, the price of oil dropped $9.00 per barrel.
It is clear that even as demand for oil flags and the efforts to transition to alternative sources of power escalate, we will require fossil fuels in large amounts for the forseeable future. America cannot afford to depend on foreign governments, often hostile to be the primary vendor of this vital commodity. Drilling therefore seems to be the rational and intelligent approach.
The Edge
$4.00 mark.
Whether the rationale is to reduce our dependence on foreign sources or to
reduce the price at the pump, most polls reveal that the majority of Americans now favor drilling for oil. The Drill Now and We Can't Drill Our Way Out advocates have begun their campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their positions.
The anti-drilling proponents use basically 2 arguments in support of their position. The
first is that drilling will not result in new supplies for many years and secondly that there is
a significant risk of pollution. In the interest of space, I will not attempt to explore the
pollution issue in depth other than point out that there are hundreds of offshore rigs currently in use and there is no evidence that they have impacted negatively on their ocean ecology.
New Mexico's governor and former Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson said about drilling offshore,"It's a bad idea. First of all it will be 30 years before it affects gas prices". This statement is clearly at odd's with other experts even those who support the anti drilling position. The oil and gas analyst for Oppenheimer & Co, Fadel Ghett has stated that,"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking we should not expect a barrel of oil...for 3 maybe 5 years."
On the pro drilling side, arguments have been made that these estimated delivery times are exagerrated and that the actual time for intitial increase of oil supplies may be as soon as 1 to 2 years. Who ever is correct, it is clear that additional oil will not reach the market soon enough to suppress prices in the short term. But is this a good reason to oppose drilling.
Newt Gingrich, on his American Solutions website states," Opening up new fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won't actually reach our gas tanks for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil."
This argument is supported by the news that within days of President Bush announcing the lifting of the federal moratorium on drilling, the price of oil dropped $9.00 per barrel.
It is clear that even as demand for oil flags and the efforts to transition to alternative sources of power escalate, we will require fossil fuels in large amounts for the forseeable future. America cannot afford to depend on foreign governments, often hostile to be the primary vendor of this vital commodity. Drilling therefore seems to be the rational and intelligent approach.
The Edge
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
When is a flip flop a flip flop?
For many years I was adamant in my support of the death penalty. My support was philosophically based on the idea that as a society we have the right and the obligation to punish people who have committed certain heinous crimes.
Cases have come to my attention over the last several years leading me to believe that our legal system is seriously flawed. Many on death row have been cleared through DNA evidence, admissions by other parties and other means.
My position has changed. While I still believe that the death penalty is appropriate it should reflect a level of proof not now required. It's really simple; There needs to be NO DOUBT. I should add, once this burden is met, it shouldn't take 14 years to execute the sentence.
The above brings us to the question framed in the title. Does my change in position constitute a flip-flop or would it more fairly be described as a carefully considered evolution of thought?
Is the flip-flop label applicable whenever someone changes or modifies their previously stated positions or should it be reserved for special cases? Is a flip-flop good or bad?
Case 1: Sen. John McCain co-sponsors a bill with Sen Ted Kennedy addressing the illegal immigration issue. Oversimplifying the bill, it basically offered a path to attain legal status. The conservatives called it amnisty and McCain almost went to defeat in the primary. He has since stated,"I got the message." He has since modified his position. He now says his first concern is securing the border.
Case 2: Sen. Barack Obama takes the position early in the primary season that he is in favor of public financing of campaigns which would limit the amount of fundraising and make for a "level playing field" in the general election campaign. He subsequently defeated Sen. Clinton and has set records in raising funds. He has recently decided that he will not abide by his earlier agreement and will not limit his campaign by living within the public financing pledge he made.
Both candidates have changed their positions. Should both be labled flip-flops? Further, is it a good or bad thing?
At issue is whether the reassessment is based on a change in the candidate's philosophical foundation or on political expedience. Has McCain altered his fundamental beliefs or is he recognizing the political reality that Americans want a secure border. Is there any doubt that McCain is still committed to immigration reform but has come to understand that the first priority must be border enforcement?
When he made the pledge and voiced his strong support for the "level playing field" offered through public financing, he was trailing Sen. Clinton and was a long shot. After a successful primary his campaign benefitted from unprecedented levels of contributions. In fairness, the question must be asked. Did anything happen that would cause Sen. Obama to reassess his earlier stated position or did the change simply reflect the reality that by foregoing public financing he would most likely have a 2 to 1 capital advantage?
The Edge
Cases have come to my attention over the last several years leading me to believe that our legal system is seriously flawed. Many on death row have been cleared through DNA evidence, admissions by other parties and other means.
My position has changed. While I still believe that the death penalty is appropriate it should reflect a level of proof not now required. It's really simple; There needs to be NO DOUBT. I should add, once this burden is met, it shouldn't take 14 years to execute the sentence.
The above brings us to the question framed in the title. Does my change in position constitute a flip-flop or would it more fairly be described as a carefully considered evolution of thought?
Is the flip-flop label applicable whenever someone changes or modifies their previously stated positions or should it be reserved for special cases? Is a flip-flop good or bad?
Case 1: Sen. John McCain co-sponsors a bill with Sen Ted Kennedy addressing the illegal immigration issue. Oversimplifying the bill, it basically offered a path to attain legal status. The conservatives called it amnisty and McCain almost went to defeat in the primary. He has since stated,"I got the message." He has since modified his position. He now says his first concern is securing the border.
Case 2: Sen. Barack Obama takes the position early in the primary season that he is in favor of public financing of campaigns which would limit the amount of fundraising and make for a "level playing field" in the general election campaign. He subsequently defeated Sen. Clinton and has set records in raising funds. He has recently decided that he will not abide by his earlier agreement and will not limit his campaign by living within the public financing pledge he made.
Both candidates have changed their positions. Should both be labled flip-flops? Further, is it a good or bad thing?
At issue is whether the reassessment is based on a change in the candidate's philosophical foundation or on political expedience. Has McCain altered his fundamental beliefs or is he recognizing the political reality that Americans want a secure border. Is there any doubt that McCain is still committed to immigration reform but has come to understand that the first priority must be border enforcement?
When he made the pledge and voiced his strong support for the "level playing field" offered through public financing, he was trailing Sen. Clinton and was a long shot. After a successful primary his campaign benefitted from unprecedented levels of contributions. In fairness, the question must be asked. Did anything happen that would cause Sen. Obama to reassess his earlier stated position or did the change simply reflect the reality that by foregoing public financing he would most likely have a 2 to 1 capital advantage?
The Edge
Friday, July 11, 2008
LET ME INTRODUCE MYSELF
It seems that the motivation for starting a great number of projects arises from anger, frustration and the feeling that someone just has to do something and it may as well be me. This is true in the case of this blog which I have named for what I believe is lacking in the main stream as well as alternative media including the blogosphere, ie: intellectual honesty.
Call it spin or quotes (soundbites) taken out of context, it infuriates me when I hear purposefully interpreted comments from clearly agenda driven pundits and show hosts when I and frankly any fairminded person knows what was actually said and more importantly what was meant. I am left shouting at the radio or TV or slamming the paper down exclaiming "That's not what he said!". This practice has become so prevalent across the idealogical and political spectrum that I have reached the point that I decided I had to speak out.
I'm not so vain as to think this effort will change the way the media personalities ply their trade but I am hopeful that we can start to discuss the news and issues of the day in a rational and truthful way.
I have been told that to gain an audience I need to stake out and advocate certain positions and have a clear point of view. Well here's my position; Words are important and have power so they should be treated with respect. I will focus my efforts at being ethical and intellectually honest. When I hear a persons words being treated unfairly, I will use this forum to point it out.
There may be some folks that want to read and comment. I look forward to the discourse.
My first blog entry is complete. Hey, this wasn't so hard.
The Edge
Call it spin or quotes (soundbites) taken out of context, it infuriates me when I hear purposefully interpreted comments from clearly agenda driven pundits and show hosts when I and frankly any fairminded person knows what was actually said and more importantly what was meant. I am left shouting at the radio or TV or slamming the paper down exclaiming "That's not what he said!". This practice has become so prevalent across the idealogical and political spectrum that I have reached the point that I decided I had to speak out.
I'm not so vain as to think this effort will change the way the media personalities ply their trade but I am hopeful that we can start to discuss the news and issues of the day in a rational and truthful way.
I have been told that to gain an audience I need to stake out and advocate certain positions and have a clear point of view. Well here's my position; Words are important and have power so they should be treated with respect. I will focus my efforts at being ethical and intellectually honest. When I hear a persons words being treated unfairly, I will use this forum to point it out.
There may be some folks that want to read and comment. I look forward to the discourse.
My first blog entry is complete. Hey, this wasn't so hard.
The Edge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)