Lisa said:

I'm with Paul- Matt for President!!! I like that platform you've got, sir.

Jennifer said:

Interesting!
I'm curious, though. Isn't one of the differences between Clark and Dean in re the war in Iraq that Dean was against going in, and Clark was not? I might be confused on this point, so please don't hesitate to correct me! I'm also leery of yet more military presence in our government, and whether or not Clark is *really* a democrat (he seemed to not to have been sure until about two weeks before he announced his candidacy), his allegiance will always be towards the military machine – that is part of being a general. Hell, it may be too late to even debate fending off that monsterthat the "founding fathers" warned us about, but I have to hope that it's worthwhile. Personally, I think he's a….schill? for the structure that is already in place. I am of the (hopefully educated) opinion that National Security now would dictate that there can really be no change in the executive structure of this "government". No, I am not paranoid. Really. I'm not!
Also, I tend to agree (in essence) with the ideas you posit, Mr. Coffeemonk, but I wonder about the 20k cap in income tax. Would it not possibly create a magnetic effect towards below that line? I'm not sure what the percentages are currently for those beneath the poverty line and near it, but one of the problems I see with welfare today is the necessity to do the bare minimum in order to reap the "benefits" of food stamps and public housing and the like. Many welfare recipients, in the struggle to provide the most basic need for themselves and their families, end up capitalizing on the child benefits, therefore having more babies, providing them (the children) less in the long run. Also, if they make above a certain cap in yearly or hourly wages, there go their food stamps….
The vast majority of social programs (which can be argued are built to provide for those that can not afford them) would be funded by a disproportionately smaller sector of those who for one reason or another are able to make above 20k. It could be argued that people working to make those salaries will say "what's the use of earning 25k a year when that extra 5k goes to people that don't have to pay the tax man?", and then the middle-class well of income tax slowly goes dry (hypothetically speaking, of course).
I think I would prefer a combination of the flat tax with an emphasis on sales tax (exempting food) for the funding of broad federal social programs.

Great post topic! Sorry for such a long rant, it's just that no one seems to want to argue, in the Socratic sense, anymore. There seems to be a chill so to speak. I'll shut up now.

the puffin said:

fuck the presidency!!! all hail, emperor matt!!! our leader for life!!!

m@ said:

Well, when i get elected, Lisa, you can be the head of my Department of Art and Education, and paul, you can be the head of my Department of Ass-Kicking.

Now let me attempt to address some of Jennifer's points:

I was under the impression (read it somewhere, i'm sure) that Clark had spoken out against the war. I could very well be mistaken here as well, but i do think i remember reading that… i'll have to dig a little.

I'm not afraid of having a military man in the white house, as long has he has the right sociopolitical ideals and a good grasp of internationalism and diplomacy (two traits our current leadership lacks, apparently). I could care less what party he belongs to as long as he sticks to the liberal/moderate stances he's taken.

As for him being a shill for the established govnt, i dunno. If it weren't for the fact that there was a huge popular internet movement (which i apparently didn't hear about until Clark started making noise, but that's another story) to convince him to join the race, i'd be even more worried about that. Was the Draft Clark movement an NSA plot to misdirect the American people to thinking we had *convinced* Clark to run… ? They do say truth is stranger than fiction. But i don't think that's the case. I think Clark may make a good candidate just because he appears to operate closer to the establishment, makes him more palatable for the general public who may be disenchanted with the Prez's policies and achievements.

as for most of the points in my own political "platform", as i said, they all have some detail that would have to be honed, the numbers aren't hard-and-fast, but serve simply as indicators and placeholders. the $20,000 inc. tax cap was just thrown out off the top of my head, because it's actually (surprisingly enough) less than what i'm making, and i know i'm still struggling for money a little. but, of course, the more you make, the more you spend.

I think perhaps the flat/sales tax combo might be *the* solution i was looking for (though i was hoping to eliminate the income tax so we could transmute the IRS into a truly Internal department, not one that gives the public trouble)

As for the welfare system, yes, that is in dire need of a complete overhaul. We need to engineer it so it *can't* be taken advantage of, at least not to the extent that it is now, anyway. Clinton's Welfare to Work program (what little i know of it–political neophyte here, and all that) seemed like a good idea that worked and did some good. In fact, all of the current social programs need a major overhaul… i was just reading an article in the Times the other day about seniors in Florida who look at visiting the doctor as a social occasion, and do it EVERY DAY. Social programs won't be easy to design, establish, or maintain, but they are the only way to truly and completely change our society for the better. Education and Employment are the first and most important points to begin to raise those in poverty up out of their gutters and hovels and to make them real, productive, contributing members of this society.

And really, *that* is what all this other stuff is about. None of us will truly be free until none of us have to struggle to meet our basic needs. There will still be those with more, those who *do* more, who devote more of themselves to improving their "station" in life. But at least all those that *can* contribute *will be* contributing, and *everyone* will have clothes on their backs, roofs over their heads, and food on their tables.

Jennifer said:

Hey Matt! Good discussion! I may vote for you yet (jk, you know i would!)

Re: the 20k income tax bracket- I understood that the numbers were a marker for debate purposes, but I hope my point about the magnetic effect drawing away the middle class, among the other arguments I made on the topic, might still be valid for discussion?

I think Clark's position was that he was in agreement with the administration's push for war, but is displeased with their handling of that war, and their "plan for peace".

Here is a summarized version of an interview with Clark on "Meet the Press", where he -softly- states his position:
http://www.polizeros.com/2003/02/17.html

I have to say that I had regrettably been a political slacker during my formative years, and am still missing the boat on most of what is going on, but several years ago (1997, I think?) I began to listen to NPR even more obsessively (with a grain of salt), as well as (with a shitload of salt) a lot of the right-wing personalities on Clear Channel talk radio (ie. Rush and Glenn Beck, et al), sometimes the religious stations – better than the finest horror flick!- and I try to catch CSPAN (the two CSPAN channels that are available on our digital cable program), the new Discover/Times channel, and PBS, and documentaries on IFC and Sundance as often as possible.

We subscribed to one of the better magazine journals out there several months ago – Harper's – and, for the most part, that has been a very good investment. Some of the contributors are not as well thought-out, but the editor, Lewis H. Lapham, Kicks Ass! (no, I don't work for them, heheh)
http://www.harpers.org/

I figure, I am an artist, and a citizen, and what I do will mean nothing if I don't get myself informed and then involved. Also, I'm beginning to see it as a moral imperative. Things are not so good.

I must admit the water is murky and I have absofuckinglutely NO IDEA where to jump in and make myself useful.

Do you happen to know where one can find out where our federal tax dollars are actually spent each year? I hear some say that whereas before this administration and 9/11, half of our fed taxes went to defense, that it is now almost 3/4.

Oh, and on the Welfare-to-Work program, something that I used to think was primarily a good thing, and am now not so sure; for what it is worth, Lockheed Martin is managing this program for a significant portion of the country:

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/14_16/state/921-5.html

re: one (of a few I just found) suit against the Co.in Florida:
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/01/15/TampaBay/Dodge__attorney_s_est.shtml

This is the same company that was involved with the $5ooo toilet seats sold to the Pentagon (ah, the good old days!). They, and others, of course insist that privatizing the program will cut out inefficiency and overspending….

I have no problem with corporations OR the military themselves, per se, but the military industrial complex, MEDIA, and some large corporations, are getting way too close to the federal government for my comfort…

http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/evening-standard-crowd.htm

Here are a couple of books on the topic of Corporate mercenaries. Did you know that they are not governed by any international laws, and that the US laws pertaining to them are basically unenforceable?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801441145/ref=cm_wl_ovu-pg.2-pos.11/002-4578664-2346412?v=glance&coliid=I2XLE61FB3X8EC&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1550548883/ref=cm_wl_ovu-pg.2-pos.13/002-4578664-2346412?v=glance&coliid=I18HUHVGFZPWXT&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Two other things, one – though I think he is clumsy with his brain, he still makes some good points – Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is actually pretty good, if you haven't already seen it.

Two – anything by George Seles. period.

http://com.castleton.edu/seldes/
http://www.brasscheck.com/seldes/

I hope that was not too much information. I swear I have a life. Really. OK, no I don't.

Jennifer said:

I should correct that last part I wrote – it's Seldes, and I do not agree with *everything* he has written about, but he *was* one of the best and most principled journalists/muckrakers of all time.

Jennifer-the-unhappy-topic-menace said:

Damn, I hope I didn't just kill off yet another really great thread with my silly over the top ramblings. Please disregard what I said and continue if that is the case.

m@ said:

Yeah, the tax "cut-off" would certainly have to be looked at for just those reasons, too many people might want to just avoid the tax by keeping themselves below that line.

And that point is tied to the counter argument against welfare in general… the idea that anytime someone can get something for nothing, or more for less, they'll go for it and attempt to exploit it to their fullest advantage. As i was discussing with another friend this morning, er… yesterday morning… we are all inherently selfish people whose primary interest is in our own survival. There are some who are able to mold that selfishness towards positive outlets, but it's extremely easy to fall into that trap of just doing what's best and easiest for oneself. The struggle of a socialist system or programs is overcoming or counterbalancing that inherent selfishness.

Having dug deeper into the available info about Clark, it would appear that he wasn't *anti* war, he was, as you said, *anti* the administration's method of starting the war. He repeatedly talked about (in the things i read and watched today) how he would have voted for the resolution to war, but only if it was a resolution that didn't give Bush carte blanche to initiate. He would've preferred the administration to use the resolution to convince/pressure/whatever the U.N. into supporting the efforts, and, only after receiving U.N. approval, to return to Congress and *then*, with full evidence to support the push for war, to ask Congress to authorize the war. As it was Congress just said, "yeah, do whatever you want."

And yes, he also has made several comments about their poor handling of the war itself, and of the fact that they had no plan for establishing and keeping the peace afterward.

I've also been attempting, at least somewhat, to get a rounder picture of the political landscape by listening to the rhetoric from both sides. We've lucked into a subscription to the Sunday New York Times here (long story), and i've been reading that (with a strong dose of salt). My girlfriend, her family, and, of course, my own family are all more conservative than me, so i get the opinion of the right from them. And Sara's quite well-informed (better than me, really) so she really keeps me on my toes.

I never voted after i was 19 or so, i think. (and i was in the National Guard for five years!) And i was going to vote in the last Pres. election, but didn't realize the polling places were so strict about people voting in the district in which they're registered. I hadn't updated my drivers license from when i moved from the Shelbyville Rd. house, so i was still registered out there in Middletown & didn't realize it.

Anyway, i don't watch much TV anymore, so most of my political info comes from the web, the NYT, or Sara. heheh.

But yeah, like i told Sara tonight when she asked if i wasn't "making myself crazy" with this big political info glut i'm pursuing, i've realized that i've been "out of the loop" for far too long, and though it might not do any good in the greater scheme of things, i *do have* very specific views and opinions on many of these issues, and i'm not in the process of defining and enouncing them–at least for the benefit of my own mind.

I couldn't find anything substantial in a quick google for where our tax dollars go, but i'll keep my eye out. It would be interesting to see.

And yeah, i saw Bowling for Columbine, and the segment in there about the Welfare to Work program was pretty interesting. There are certainly some problems, which is why the whole thing needs really to be scrapped and redevised. Still, i think Welfare-to-work as a concept is exactly what's needed–i.e. if you're going to get money from the government, you're going to work for it. You're going to get a job, and you're going to earn that money. It probably won't be the most pleasant job either, so that maybe you'll be motivated to go out and find something better, so that the next guy that needs welfare can move into your spot while you're out being productive on your own.

And i don't think privatization is the answer either–expanded govnt programs mean more opportunities for those on welfare to earn their keep.

I have great issues with large corporations. Small businesses are really where the most extraordinary economic potentials lie. Large corporations are, like people, inherently selfish–they'll do things with full knowledge that it's not what's best for the employees or customers. While Mom & Pop will be much more likely to care about Jim & Beth's well-being. Of course, large corps are better able to swallow the cost of employee benefits and workers' comp and things of that nature, but quite frequently those programs, as implemented, are only *just barely* adequate.

With national social programs, a lot of the burden would be removed from the business owner in maintaining those employee benefits.

But yeah, i think i may be carrying all this stuff a little far. And no, you didn't kill off the conversation, i just had to make sure that i had plenty of time to compose a coherent and complete response.

However, i think we may've scared off any other potential participants with our long-windedness. If elected, i think i'd have to appoint you as the head of my Department of Exposition.

Just Jen said:

How 'bout Head of the Ministry of Overexposure? Having learned my lesson, I will install a publicly-funded program to train people to be brief with their political arguments, until everyone chooses instead to just moon the world from the Ministry's high and narrow windows. ; )

Rock the Vote, Man!!!

m@ said:

Oh, please don't think i'm saying you've done anything wrong! I've been thoroughly enjoying the discussion so far…

Jennifer, Minister of Chaos, Pope of Kraft Singles Hats said:

heheh! Hey, only kidding, you! _I_ thought I was being funny anyway!

I'm glad you responded, cause I've been chomping at the bit to drop you some more info I have found. I forgot to mention to you that Clark is a Rhode's scholar. Is this important? Well, it may be, as there is a direct link between that accolade and "The Project for the New American Century" http://www.newamericancentury.org/
If you have not yet visited this site, you would be well served to do so – it's a summarized version of our government's "master plan". Ugh, that sounds wacko, don't it? hee hee!
Also,
Here is a link that may elucidate:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_johannsen_031103_pnac.html

I haven't yet had a chance to read the whole thing – pretty meaty content, lots to digest. There are other reputable sources, out there for the world to see, if this one turns out to be bunk, but I doubt that it is from what I've read so far. Suffice to say, this former NATO commander is "lock-step" "on message" with at least 25% of Bush's top administration members. Notably, each of those 25% (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) were most definitely "pro-war".

Hey, did you notice that blip in the news just in the last few days where Cheney made a bald-faced lie about the reasons for going to war, and Bush finally had to step up and eat crow for him?

I'm really enjoying this conversation. Wonder if anyone is listening? Guess that question could be taken 2 ways – either a call for input, or the more paranoid interpretaion…;)

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

m@ said:

wow. that's some pretty wild stuff. the New Century guys are crazy war-mongering empire builders, and the Prison Planet guys are nearly committable conspiracy theorists. I'm sure the truth really is somewhere in the middle.

What's the connection between the new century thing and Gen. Clark? Clark was relieved and retired during Slick Willie's presidency, and has been in the private sector since then. Not to mention that at almost every appearance that i've seen (so far), Gen. Clark was speaking out about the Administration's irresponsible push for war, as well as it's tactics in conducting that war.

I've not really seen any direct facts to link him to either the Bush Administration or Clinton, despite Clinton's endorsement and their recent conversations. Sure, he's a military man, but in all the talks i've heard him give, i've heard as much or more about international cooperation and "thoughtful" military action, rather than snubbing treaties and taking a "we're stronger so do our bidding" tack.

i'll readily admit that i may've been sucked in by what a strong and agreeable candidate Clark would seem to be, though i still haven't quite made up my mind whether he's really the best candidate for me*.

If you have more definitive links regarding Clark's ties to the current administration, please let me have 'em. I want the best, most complete information i can get me grubby little hands on.

Jennifer said:

It is possible to view the prison planet content as off-kilter, as some of its choices in wording are regrettably bombastic. I'm not sure how much you read, or how much you dug into who the guy is that runs that site – I had just done a google for info on Clark, the Rhodes Scolarship program, and the think tank PNAC, and formed the opinion that from what I read, I could not disprove his arguments in that analysis, nor poke holes in his thought processes. In fact, it is one of the more lucid analyses of media methods I have seen in easily accessible format.

Here is a little blip about the guy that runs that site:
http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html

As far as factual connections between Clark and the Bush administration, the mainstream press covered Clark's January 2003 retort (about giving up his membership w/the GOP) to the Republican party, when Rove and the rest denied him access to the team. Here is a little blip about it on msnbc.com:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cl=c1&cp1=1

And a little about Clark's politics:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16818

I dunno where else to go, if you found the previous article from prisonplanet borderline commitably insane conspiracy babble. I found the thinking was relatively rational; though they obviously have an agenda, that does not discredit what is written there. Everyone has an agenda. I am not here to argue for or against Clark, though – that is a devil's labyrinth, IMHO.

I'm no conspiracy theorist – People are always making deals out there, as that is the way the world works. I don't believe that our government has been anything near what we have wanted to believe it is for quite some time, if ever. The Constitution is an idealistic blueprint, and the house doesn't look familiar. It's nothing new that the world of politics has been full of rotten behavior and personal and/or corporate empire building, as well as a few with truly good intentions, such as Sen. Paul Wellstone (RIP) that get jumbled up in the process. I'm starting to wonder whether there is even a point to my debating, as I don't know how that could ever change. I don't believe there is a voice at the polls.
The Project for the New Century is not up for debate. It is not a conspiracy, it is foreign policy. As is much of what is taught at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Rhodes scholarship's principles, for which you have to dig very deep to find anything specific. Sorry, I guess I'm tired. I better go eat – I forgot to have lunch, and it's 7:39 PM!

Javan said:

just like to draw attention that some of the choices that you would immediately change might not be with the "will of the people"- just like some of the things you accuse Dubya of doing.

And, Mr. Rasnake, what about our insane nat. debt? Cut taxes? A problem I have w/ Dubya: pour 86 billion into Iraq when we have a, what, 6.5 Trillion dollar national debt?

peace.

Javan

m@ said:

i'm gonna respond to Javan first, 'cause he's my bro, 'cause he's just joining us, and 'cause my response to him will probably be shorter. 😉

Yes, some of the things i would immediately change might not be with the "will of the people", but i have that luxury since i'm not in office and am just going off on *exactly* what i believe *needs* to change. There are levels within levels, and many many details in what i've been talking about that have been glossed over. Still, the only points i made that i can even conceive of people not agreeing with me on are the tax thing and the economic sanctions for human rights violating countries thing. There are other issues that i didn't mention where my positions probably would be different from other's.

But that is one of the perilous aspects of a representative government–the leaders we elect probably won't represent the will of the people in every decision they make. Hopefully, if they don't follow the will of the people (where such will is or can be expressed) then they will make decisions that are truly in the best interest of the country, the world, or humanity. This is where i take issue with many of Bush's policies and decisions. Him not following my "will" wouldn't be a big deal as long as he could prove that his decisions were truly in the best interest of the country and it's citizens, or in the best interest of the world community.

As for the record national deficit we now have (which was previously a record national surplus under the previous administration mind you), of course cutting taxes is not the answer. That's partly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Now, i've come to understand in the course of my "research," that running a short-term budget deficit can certainly help to stimulate a weak economy, and that sometimes this is warranted. The problem is that we currently have the largest national deficit EVER, with no signs that it's going to start going down any time in the next 10 years. In fact, all signs point to its getting worse for at least the next five (if i remember correctly, which i may not). I'm too lazy to go re-read the reports at the moment. 😉

We need to rescind a majority of Bush's extravagent tax cuts, and initiate a policy of strict fiscal responsibility, price controls, and reduced govnt. spending, while at the same time giving adequate funding to programs that will truly benefit the citizens that pay the goverment to do just that. A great deal of the national deficit could be eliminated by radical restructuring of many of the existing social programs to eliminate waste, ensure the people who need the programs have access to them, and prevent those who abuse them from doing so.

perhaps that response was longer than i intended it to be. ah well. more fuel for the fire, where's my pyre?

Jennifer said:

I'm a little confused, Javan. Did I accuse President Bush of something?
Perhaps you meant Matt – we've been carrying on a rather long dialog here (did you happen to get a chance to read it?) – but you didn't speak to him directly until after that comment…

Matt,
Still looking for a good, simplified break-down of federal tax spending. The best I've been able to find – lame, I know! – is right from the horse's mouth:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004

Javan,
I believe the number that's been bandied about like a sparkly badminton birdie these days is $87 billion. There is a recent "Voice of America" article about the numbers here:

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=8FC72980-27E3-44E5-AA02EAC63889C1E1

m@ said:

Jennifer:

I probably overstated my reaction to the prisonplanet article, but then, i'm kind of a conspiracy theorist in my own right, though i'm trying to be as objective as possible (even to the point of defending the few positive things Bush has done–don't ask, i can't name them now… 😉

To offer an alternate interpretation of Clark's petition for involvement in the Bush "team," i'd say that, considering the man has 34 years of experience in the military, and *direct* experience at running an operation like the one in Iraq, my guess is that he was offering his expertise because he felt that he could really help. From everything i've seen/read, he appears to have a patriotic streak like 16 bazillion miles wide. He's dedicated pretty much his entire life to service for his country.

From what he said in an interview i just watched (filmed recently, so it could simply be a statement intended to cement his bond with the part), he voted for Gore. In other interviews i've seen/read, he talked about how he was really a political independent (being a military head honcho puts you largely at the mercy of the party in power, so it doesn't pay to be partisan.) though he'd voted republican many years ago. Aparently, some of Clinton's campaign speeches made him consider the Dem's side way back when. But still, largely independent and ready to offer his services to whomever most needs or can best use it, for the good of his country.

And the statement that you're referencing, according to the article you linked was ?I would have been a Republican, if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls." which doesn't so much indicate he *had been* a republican, so much as he *would have been* if they'd shown him some respect. I do however, sense a hair being split, and i might be the splitter.

Also, the alternet story you posted is captializing on a statement made post-candidacy which actually exactly mirrors a statement made two or three months ago pre-candidacy in another of those video interviews i've been watching, which i mentioned in one of my previous comments (paragraph starting "Having dug deeper…").

And yeah, the make-up of our government, specifically the people who run it, is almost completely suspect. When you get to the point where the only people who can reasonably expect to get elected are from a minority of a population (the rich–the only ones able to afford a campaign), how can you expect the majority to really be fairly represented. The lobby system and campaign/party finance system in place now almost guarantee that special interests will win out over the interest or (as my bro put it) will of the people. It's a big stinky mess, and it really does seem fairly intractable.

Part of the reason i didn't vote for nearly 10 years, i guess. But still, the reason we debate is to further hone our own understanding and position on the issues at stake, so that, if by some distant chance we *can* effect change, we will be able to do so in an informed and responsible way. No two people will ever completely agree on every point that can be discussed, but… that's what keeps life interesting!

PNAC is scary.

What i was able to dig up on the Rhodes scholarship is pretty dirty, from the standpoint of the "spirit" in which it was initiated, but i don't think you can necessarily blame a brewery for creating a drunk. Just because Clark (and Clinton) were Rhodes scholars doesn't mean (necessarily) that they're all part of the same cabal.

BTW, i do recommend if you have some time to watch that video from 6/15/03 Meet the Press.

also BTW, i'm trying very hard not to come off as a steadfast proponent of Clark. I'm *still* reserving final judgement until i get some more firm ideas of his stances on certain issues.

and finally, since you posted your last response while i was still typing mine: i didn't find much on tax spending either. if you do find anything more, keep us posted!

now, it's way waaaay past time for bed. g'night!

Jennifer said:

"BTW, i do recommend if you have some time to watch that video from 6/15/03 Meet the Press" – thanks – i will look into that.

I guess it's obvious I wore myself out talking ;).

I have no idea who the heck I might vote for (-if- I do), but I know who I don't want, so I guess that's a start!

"Toynbee ideas in Kubrick's 2001 resurrect dead on planet Jupiter"

Jennifer said:

Hey Matt,
For what it's worth, the more I hear/research, the more it looks like Dean is a close match with your wish-list.

I still think it's best to vote for who you agree with, rather than who you think has the better chance of winning – the latter tends to, more often than not, play right into the hands of the opposition….

Ciao!

m@ said:

i still haven't made any final decisions as far as which candidate i support, though obviously Clark is very high in the running.

and, perhaps unfortunately, "beating Bush" is a fairly important wish-list item for me–especially if the candidate is "close enough" to the kind of candidate i'd like to see running.

i'm continuing to watch all the candidates to (hopefully) zero in on exactly who i most want running my country. once i "run the numbers" on Clark again, i'm going to post a copy of the ratings table i used to narrow down my top candidates. fun for the whole family!

Sara said:

Wow.

Can I get the Cliff Notes?

m@ said:

of course not! you have to work for knowledge like the rest of us! lazy new mother.

your loving supportive brother,

m@