On Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 04:02 PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:

mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:

...

Our society has, for all practical purposes, endless vulnerabilities. If as each vulnerability is exploited we plan on taking drastic steps to secure it from future exploitation, the costs will be staggering and the list of unsecured items will hardly diminish. The result of the current approach is an authoritarian society with a neverending, self-justifying security project ahead of it. Sounds like a wonderful place to live if you're an insect.

The really weird thing about this whole anthrax scene is that all the spores seem to be of the Ames variety, which is a militarized anthrax developed in Ames, Iowa. It really seems suspicious to me that these are of domestic origin -- bin Ladin or whoever would be in all likelihood be using a Russian variety or an Iraqi subset.

You are astoundingly misinformed, or are just plain lazy. One minute spent searching on "anthrax ames" will disabuse the clueful of the mistakes made above. The Ames strain is _not_ "militarized anthrax." Get a fucking clue. --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001

David Honig wrote:

Personally I'd prefer a non-colonial foreign policy that doesn't generate such antipathy.

And if you believe that WTC had anything to do with US foreign policy, or that we would cease being targets if we e.g. dropped suppport for Israel, you are living in a dream world and have "bought" the terrorists' propaganda. We need to send a message that "armed propaganda" is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause. Marc de Piolenc Philippines

on Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Jim Choate (ravage@einstein.ssz.com) wrote:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

...

David Honig wrote:

...

Personally I'd prefer a non-colonial foreign policy that doesn't generate such antipathy.

And if you believe that WTC had anything to do with US foreign policy, or that we would cease being targets if we e.g. dropped suppport for Israel, you are living in a dream world and have "bought" the terrorists' propaganda.

Then why?

Read your Aesop: the thief needs no excuse.

...

We need to send a message that "armed propaganda" is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause.

Review the American revolution and the current news before you follow this little meme very far.

What goes around comes around.

I tend to think of this as similar to cancer: there's a stochastic element, but there are environmental and hereditary factors as well. I do think we'll have to give up some bad habits. Spontaneous incidents will persist, however. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

Jim Choate wrote:

...

We need to send a message that "armed propaganda" is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause.

Review the American revolution and the current news before you follow this little meme very far.

..and your point is...? Marc de Piolenc

At 12:42 PM 10/25/01 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

Jim Choate wrote:

...

...

We need to send a message that "armed propaganda" is not an acceptable form of self-expression, no matter what the alleged cause.

Review the American revolution and the current news before you follow this little meme very far.

..and your point is...?

Obvious to americans ---that sometimes arms *should* be taken up.

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

No argument there - I just have a lot of trouble equating terrorism and the American war of independence.

Why? The Americans were most certainly terrorist/revolutionaries/freedom fighters/etc.

Arms should indeed be taken up against those who wantonly murder the innocent.

And if a few innocent get caught in the wrath of your vengeance...well, God's on our side, right? -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Warning: Use of 3rd person 'you'] On Sat, 27 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:

Again, you make no distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists, which is very sad because there is a rather important difference. Being incapable of making the distinction, you are condemned to hate everybody who fights.

It's a false distinction. What it boils down to is two or more groups taking up arms to control all groups. One can eulogize about ethics and morality until the cows come home. Won't change the basic fact that any such conclusions are not only arbitrary but transient. There is no absolute right and wrong outside of human psychology. The American colonist certainly qualified in the 'terrorist' department with their burning of warehouses and physical assaults on British sympathisers. At the same time they were sitting in various political offices and economic posts. To 'hate' is the issue, the scale is irrelevent. Stop the hate. Stop the use of violence. Their failure does not justify yours. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

If you cannot tell the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, you got shit for brains.

The revolutionaries killed british soldiers in America. They did not go to england and kill english children.

Why is where they were killed important? If you kill people on your land it's ok, kill them on their land it's not? Then the Allies were 'terrorist' when they entered German territory in WWII? I hardly think so. It's not the who or where, it's the why that is important. Why could the Americans not kill British subjects on English soil? They had no mechanism to get there effectively. I'm sure the Americans would have prefered killing the British on British soil rather than American soil. Your standard of 'definition' leaves something to be desired. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 08:58:30AM -0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

It is unimportant. What matters is what those one kill are doing. British soldiers were repressing colonials. The guys in the trade towers were not doing anything to Muslims.

So what about all the civilians in Afghanistan who are being killed by American and British bombs. They aren't being killed because they are soldiers, or because they support the Taliban, or because they hate the U.S.A. They are killed simply because the U.S. and a few other countries are attacking and they happened to be sitting in their homes, caring for their children, eating, sleeping, etc. So are most of the Afghan civilians who are being killed doing anything to the U.S., U.K., Canada, etc.? I think not. The devil in this is the old cliche, "the end justifies the means". This kind of thinking allows people to destroy the WTC, kill thousands of innocents in the U.S.A. and Afghanistan, allows the police in so called "civilized" first world countries to imprison, and torture people who have been charged with no crime (let alone convicted), and allows lawmakers to pass draconian legislation that will lead to more abuses of civil rights. It is a very simple trick of the mind with devestating consequences - once you allow yourself to forget that a particular person or group of people are actual human beings, who live, experience joy, and suffer just as we all do, any sort of brutality in support of a cause (revenge, justice, freedom, etc.) becomes relatively easy to inflict. I'll end this with a pointer to a well written insightful article about "the war" - http://www.zmag.org/roywarpeace.htm --- Mark Henderson, mch@squirrel.com, mch@informationanarchy.org "Heilir æsir. Heilar ásynjur. Heil sjá in fjölnýta fold." - Sigrdrífumál OpenPGP/GnuPG keys available at http://www.squirrel.com/pgpkeys.asc

On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 12:58:03PM -0800, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Collateral damage. We are not targeting them.

Ah, so even though collateral damage is the inevitable consequence of war, that makes it all OK. I get it. So what for the suffering of thousands in pursuit of revenge? "The end justifies the means". Right. If a million people have to die, be maimed, or lose family members so that Bin Laden can be captured you're OK with that.

http://www.zmag.org are bunch of commies who have never found fault with any mass murderer, only those who defend themselves against mass murder, never opposed any totalitarian tyrant, only those who make revolution against tyrants.

That's a good defence. Just label the people whose opinions you don't like as a "bunch of commies". Then you don't need to take them seriously. I'm impressed. You seem to forget there are people in the left who are for restructuring of society so that there is much less government, and less power centralised in the hands of a few. Cheers, Mark

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Jim Choate:

...

Why is where they were killed important?

It is unimportant. What matters is what those one kill are doing.

Ah, here is the double standard in your argument.

British soldiers were repressing colonials. The guys in the trade towers were not doing anything to Muslims.

And what about the businesses that were used to support those British soldiers. Would they have been legitimate targets (which they were to the colonials)? In a parallel way the WTC is the business that supports the oppressive forces, or at least that's the way they see it. Then of course we can discuss the entire concept of 'property ownership', 'breaking contract' and 'repress colonials'. This brings up the aspect of 'self determination' that folks like yourself seem to be missing. Go read the first two para's of the DoI. Then reflect on this; The legitimate use of self-defence with respect to self-determination is from the view of the oppressed. No consideration is made for those who one fights against to end the oppression. Freedom is about the individual and what they are justified in doing if provoked. Now look at world politics since the 1850's...then consider certain rejoinders by the founding fathers about getting involved in other peoples business...then consider rampant globalization w/ centralized political and military authority... Further, you wish to us to view the WTC as a isolated senseless event, when in fact it is not. It is only one more act in a 140 year refutation of American Democracy. We reap what we sow. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Jim Choate:

...

And what about the businesses that were used to support those British soldiers.

You are digging up rationales for killing anyone anywhere. Why does this not surprise me?

Actually I'm trying to get you to be more precise with your 'litmus test'. The fact is that you draw a specious distinction as to attacking one group over a community and another. As if it's ok to kill soldiers but not their mothers. Unless of course it's us doing the killing, for whatever reason we've used to justify it.

is not always clear, but when it comes to imperial soldiers and trade towers, the difference is clear enough.

Really? How? Why is attacking imperial soldiers on land they believe is theirs any different?

And the difference is also clear enough when it comes to those people who found themselves paying taxes to support an imperial war they knew nothing of.

Seems to me that if one takes active, supportive measures with respect to their government they can hardly call themselves 'innocent'. Who were these people paying taxes for a war they knew nothing of? This certainly didn't apply to the British. The general populace was informed as to what was going on. Realistically, how is 'terrorism' different from 'guerilla warfare'? -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

If you cannot tell the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters, you got shit for brains.

The revolutionaries killed british soldiers in America. They did not go to england and kill english children.

Why is where they were killed important? If you kill people on your land it's ok, kill them on their land it's not?

Then the Allies were 'terrorist' when they entered German territory in WWII? I hardly think so.

Let's try to spell this out so even you can understand it, Jim. The distinction is between killing combatants and killing noncombatants. Do you get that? Location is incidental. Motive is irrelevant to the definition. American revolutionaries killed British soldiers and their unfortunate Hessian co-belligerents, not office workers in London (or Boston for that matter). That's what makes them something other than terrorists. Marc de Piolenc

This debate is one of my favorites: security and the role of market forces. I regret not having the time/energy to tighten and polish this essay below. Some paragraphs are almost note-like. If you can handle John Young, you can handle this. On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 04:23 AM, Ken Brown wrote:

mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:

...

Our society has, for all practical purposes, endless vulnerabilities. If as each vulnerability is exploited we plan on taking drastic steps to secure it from future exploitation, the costs will be staggering and the list of unsecured items will hardly diminish. The result of the current approach is an authoritarian society with a neverending, self-justifying security project ahead of it. Sounds like a wonderful place to live if you're an insect.

So we get either the Caves of Steel or the Naked Sun?

I'd go for the former, being a city boy, but I guess T. May, H. Seaver & D. Honig might prefer the hyper-exurbia of the latter. One step from the Machine Stops - set not in the ultimate city but in the ultimate suburb.

A debate near and dear to my heart. City vs. suburb, armor vs. dispersion. Closely related to issues discussed often in the "survivalist" invisible college, during war scares, Y2K, and the current situation. Some of us have taken responsibility for our own security by living in less-likely, more defensible targets. Others live in crowded areas, but have private security arrangements. Gate burb-claves, high security condominiums, etc. Privately arranged, not ordered by Big Brother. Cf. "Schelling points for terrorism" (key words, if not exact title), an item I wrote a few years ago about which targets are more likely to be hit than others. Clearly there are some places more likely for attacks than other places. And there are places downwind from nuclear reactors, downstream from dams, downherd from rampaging looters, and so on. Federalizing or socializing the costs of security is like federalizing or socializing flood insurance: it takes the efficiencies of the market away and creates distortions. What is being missed in all of the "rush to a security state" debate is the role of _private security arrangements_. Some examples, with a focus here on airport and airplane security: * one size does _not_ fit all. Not all passengers are equally likely to be security risks. This is common sense, but the civil libertarians call it "racial profiling." True civil libertarians know that owners of property (e.g. United Airlines) are free to implement security procedures as they see fit. If ABX Airlines wants to implement full body searches of passengers and XYZ Airlines wants to implement no security at all, to first order this should be a market decision. (There are interesting issues of "danger to others." Friedman the Younger covers this in his recent book on economics. "Law's Order." To wit, XYZ Airlines, with no security procedures, might be denied use of various airports, etc. A standard tort issue. The outcome is not precisely known, but a move toward "market competition for security measures" would flesh out many of these issues and outcomes.) * travel associations, with members vetted by other members, even with security bonds. Think "web of trust," but much more formalized. A "know your passenger" scheme that has no government involvement, no coercion. Those who are not "vetted" (with biometric/unforgeable credentials) are free to wait in the cattle lines with the other cattle before boarding the jets operated by private players. (Yes, this involves prying into private lives and habits, but no more so than corporations tend to do. For example, a 3-year employee of Cybergistics is "known" to many in his company. His basic interests and hobbies are known. More importantly, his coworkers and managers have a pretty good idea if he's a whacko, or a recently-arrived student from the Sudan who quotes the Koran. This company can "vouch" for one of its employees flying.) * Private security screening. Just as there are multiple airlines, in a free society, why not multiple screening companies? (No carrier would be "required" to accept the work product of a screening company, naturally. All a matter of market negotiations.) Some security screening would be done with the aforementioned "vouching." Some might be cases where customers pay several bucks a head to pass through various sniffers. Again, those who don't have arrangements with either vouchsafing entities or screening entities at the terminal can stand in the 2-hour "public" line. Akin in many ways to health care, with those having no other arrangments going to the public hospitals (not that I endorse taxpayer-subsidized public hospitals). * Close tie-ins with insurance. After all, the nature of insurance is _betting_. And it's a much better bet that a middle-aged white professor from Kansas is less likely to be a hijacker or bomber than someone like a 22-year-old immigrant from Pakistan with no career, no known associates who will vouch for him, etc. What would the "premiums" be for each of these potential travellers, and what screening steps would their respective insurance companies require? * Increased use of private charters, which already have their own security arrangements. Again, with vouching. (Some corporate travel systems already use privately-owned jets, with pickup from passenger homes. One of my neighbors works with the leading such company: luxurious jets, very fast passenger loading times, private security arrangements. They _know_ their customers, through vouching and past travel, and they don't have to have corporate travellers arriving "two hours early" for some bullshit inspection for fingernail clippers and copies of "Hayduke Lives!") * Part of the market competition is also the security policy on the airplane itself. Some companies will have titanium/Kevlar doors to the cockpit, some will have the typical aluminum foil/balsa wood consructions. Passengers will vote with their feet and pocketbooks, as it should be. Security will be driven by market forces, not by top-down, one size fits all, central planning. The basic point is to have the costs of security, of assurance, of insurance, *privatized*. Not for religious reasons of private vs. public funding, but to get the richness and flexibility that privatized, incentive-driven, risk-sensitive private markets provide. The similarity with Stephenson's "burb-claves" and with already-common private security firms is obvious. Even similarities with the Mafia. This idea is easy to implement, too. For example, let El Al begin flying within the continental U.S. Let them apply _their_ standards. Passengers can vote with their feet and their pocketbooks on whether they'll fly United or El Al. And let _all_ carriers compete on the basis of their security policies. Many of them already have their own terminals at major airports, so they can in principle easily implement their own screening policies, their own vouching policies. Lots more ideas come to mind, and are fairly easy to implement. The key is to get away from the "one size fits all." Liberty-fearing people like Reason's Cathy Young can sign up for her own security policies: no "scary" free speech, no plastic knives, no fingernail clippers, no "Hayduke Lives!" novels allowed. Sounds fair to me. Libertarians should be pushing the market approach to security. Reactions? --Tim May "Ben Franklin warned us that those who would trade liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither. This is the path we are now racing down, with American flags fluttering."-- Tim May, on events following 9/11/2001

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:

Federalizing or socializing the costs of security is like federalizing or socializing flood insurance: it takes the efficiencies of the market away and creates distortions.

A bare one objection to comprehensive market based security: a market needs private property, and other civil rights, in order to function efficiently, as predicted. Protection is what guarantees those rights. If you place protection on the market, you no longer have a guarantee that the market itself can function as originally intended. Cf. piracy (in its original form) -- an evolutionary system like pure market economy (anarcho-capitalism) will likely settle in a state with parasitic activity present. It is not clear that this stable state (you would call it a Schelling point) would not include a major proportion of rights violating commerce (like mafia protection rackets and the like). Hence it is not clear that it indeed guarantees maximum economic efficiency; it might be just a local maximum. The above, of course, has very little to do with Tim's analysis of private security of the airline industry. But it does have a lot of relevance to placing *all* of the normal police activity in the private sector. If I'm not wrong, Tim's essay is part of precisely such an agenda. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

-- On 25 Oct 2001, at 0:00, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

A bare one objection to comprehensive market based security: a market needs private property, and other civil rights, in order to function efficiently, as predicted. Protection is what guarantees those rights. If you place protection on the market, you no longer have a guarantee that the market itself can function as originally intended.

And if we place food on the market, we no longer have a guarantee that anyone will be able to eat :-) Observer that in the real world, food and clothing is provided by the market, and no one goes hungry or naked, but school and protection is provided by the government, which theoretically spends the same money protecting and educating the poor as the rich, and many people are not educated or protected. In America today many do not get an education. In North Korea today many do not get to eat. That is because in America, the state guarantees education, in North Korea, it guarantees food. If the state guaranteed sand for all in the sahara, there would soon be sand shortage. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 4fljdbeLLWox+IazJXkc65l3GbGVxFV5SIJVIO5l 4L7J488MYZF8SAQaJj89qjSWZfvLtOyMr+SHwugf4

-- On 25 Oct 2001, at 0:00, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

...

...

A bare one objection to comprehensive market based security: a market needs private property, and other civil rights, in order to function efficiently, as predicted. Protection is what guarantees those rights. If you place protection on the market, you no longer have a guarantee that the market itself can function as originally intended.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

And if we place food on the market, we no longer have a guarantee that anyone will be able to eat :-)

On 26 Oct 2001, at 0:18, Sampo Syreeni wrote:

Of course. The point is, the market can work perfectly well in the absence of sufficient nutrition for all of the participants.

But the market, unlike those wise benevolent folk who consider themselves morally superior to the market, DOES provide sufficient nutrition for all the participants, whereas whenever the wise and good have set themselves in charge of providing nutrition for all, or X for all, they have usually failed no matter what the value of X. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG uzxAd0pvJ5PX1jXw2p1edtML+I4VCxipiT4j/VrF 4V36lFs1xXlyoMvT6s5LYzy9iPrB3N+ruHLpuZfID

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

Observer that in the real world, food and clothing is provided by the market, and no one goes hungry or naked, but

A truly 'white bread' commentary. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.hungerfreeamerica.com/ http://www.uri.edu/endhunger/ http://www.secondharvest.org/ http://www.msue.msu.edu/fnh/hunger/toolbox/hunger.html http://www.brook.edu/press/books/hunger.htm I could, of course, go on and on. You are full of shit James. On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

...

Observer that in the real world, food and clothing is provided by the market, and no one goes hungry or naked, but

On 26 Oct 2001, at 20:37, Jim Choate wrote:

...

A truly 'white bread' commentary.

I observe the pigeons are just as tame in black majority areas, from which I conclude no one is hungry there either. The only parts of the world you will see hunger are not very capitalist, and for the most part they have substantial government intervention in food supposedly aimed at guaranteeing food for all: India and Sri Lanka are obvious examples, and North Korea an extreme example.

--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG G1MK7ClT1tDbskdqHX8bQYJRwIjYtmV3ySJkN7TC 4nGiO9HjEyqUrxMSTjWCbxm2I/1fcpRLV5SB/pdyW

-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------

On 28 Oct 2001, at 8:58, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

The stretches these guys have concocted to find evidence of hunger in the US is itself evidence that what they seek is not to be found. If there were actual hungry people, we would not looking for evidence of their existence in ways more suited to bigfoot and flying saucer aliens.

--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LGZpahnul7wBF6yG+R4aHi5jGJcHHhIeMyHePlWX 4gOQMnZ1ipgqBA2GHVw3bkHvAoq7xeFEjny19bXxB

Certainly individuals are pretty hungry at least some of the time. I remember a while back a way home there was an old lady bum saying "please help me get something to eat, I'm hungry". Experience told me that she would be there again the next day saying the same thing. But what made this day special was, I overheard another lady remark to her friend, "I'm hungry too, because I worked through my lunch hour". Then again, she did look like she could afford to skip a few meals. What there isn't in the US is starvation. This country has its faults, but as far as providing food goes, there are an amazing number of morbidly obese "poor" people. George