We almosts match . . . .

Easter may be late

Sorry.....

My cent & a half ->

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant"

is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

I profit from my spouse's misfortune!

Gotta know the opposition you know.

-------------------------------------------

Dear -------- ,

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. Your gift will be worth double when you give to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.



You can also mail a check to:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyz
Washington, DC 20005

-------------------------------------------------------

I'm no rocket scientist nor played one on TV but most intelligent people
don't blame inanimate objects for things people do.
-
-
-
-

Spring appears to just around the corner

I guess an indication that spring is almost here, the dUMB aSS was driving through the parking lot announcing to the world he/she has a 4-wheeled stereo system.

Couldn't miss it.

In fact it could be heard a few rows away and then as got closer, it's windows rattled.

I'd love to put a Louisville slugger right through the side window just to advise the driver that a stereo is no big deal. Most every car has one now days. Even my 8 year old suburban has a pretty dang good system. No problems at all hearing the words while listening to MacTalk or Rant of Dakota, I just don't share with everyone in a 50 foot radius.

Makes me cringe knowing it's almost time for the the 2 wheeled mufflerless leg removers to start cruising.

I used to live on a street corner with a stop sign. Never failed whenever the 2 wheelers stopped at the sign during the night they couldn't leave quietly.

The person that invents a muffler that cannot be removed will be a millionaire.

I wonder what happens when the dUMB aSS meets the loud 2 wheeler?
(can't hear the other one since they are already deaf ? )

-

-

This is not new, but it's still a very good explanation of our tax system and very relevant after the last election.

This is a really good explanation of how “tax cuts” really work! Lets put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten men comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh $7.

The eighth $12.

The ninth $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers, “ he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.

So, now the dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being PAID to eat their meal.

Finally, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the sixth was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But, once outside of the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10.

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money to between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean if you don’t like the food in the United States.

SB 2254 Rejected in committee 7 to 0

So what are the supporters of this bill saying about the rejection?

. . . .the legislature doesn’t represent the majority of North Dakotans.

The legislature is nothing but grain farmers and retired people.

This puts the fox in charge of the hen house.

We'll just take this to a referendum . . . you will hear from the true majority.

People just don't pay attention. . . .

The legislature is full of big business buddies . . . .

Money is the only thing the legislators care about.

I wonder what they would say if it went their way?


This legislation was mainly "mandated ethics" but the problem being "ethics" are not a measurable item and means different things to different people.

Example:

Hunting some game with dogs in unacceptable in some areas and is accepted in other areas.
Using some bait scent is okay with some and not with others.
Using bait itself is okay with some and not with others.


We can go on and on.

Stuck in the middle of the ethics argument are the "property rights" of those farmers/ranchers that were advised, encouraged, and financed by government agencies to start up their non-typical livestock farms/ranches could have been told to stop.

Some will say this bill only limited the hunting/shooting on the non-typical livestock farms/ranches but it was seen by the legislative committee for what it was, just the beginning of the actual ban.

Thanks to those legislative committee members that were able to see through all the BS smokescreen of "mandated ethics."

Fresh air on SB 2254

Sometimes it's hard to find articles even when linked. For educational purposes I have pasted the entire article here. It came from the Viewpoint Section of the Grand Forks Herald on 01-31-07. I know it's long but something this important requires a little time to counteract the emotional rants that have been seen everywhere else.

VIEWPOINT : High-fence hunting: Honest, ethical, fair By Oren Krapp, Published Wednesday, January 31, 2007 PINGREE, N.D. - At 9 a.m. Thursday in the Brynhild Haugland Room of the Capitol, the Senate Natural Resources Committee will be holding a hearing on Senate Bill 2254, the high-fence hunting (elk farming) bill. I urge Herald readers to attend or to contact their senators and ask them to vote “No” on SB2254. SB2254 was introduced by a Fargo senator and is being backed by those who, in the past, supported various measures that would bar nonresident hunters from visiting the state. Make no mistake: On the surface, this bill may seem to seek only to bar “high-fence” hunting by putting elk and deer ranches out of business. But the gist of it is still another attempt at keeping nonresident hunters out of North Dakota. The bill prohibits owners of nontraditional livestock operations from allowing fee shooting. Proponents say their reasoning is threefold: disease, genetics and ethics. But the first two of these arguments are easily rebutted by a few facts. -- The domestic herds of elk and deer in North Dakota are free of the main disease in question - chronic wasting disease. The present system of regulation by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department is working very well, and the North Dakota state veterinarian agrees. The threat of CWD is not irrelevant. However, CWD is just as likely to be brought into the state through the wild herds. Tight regulation and monitoring - not banning an entire industry - is the answer. -- Genetics inside the fences of game preserves are the same, if not better, than outside the fence. States may regulate and monitor the genetic purity of any nontraditional livestock. Again, tight regulation and monitoring is the answer. As for ethics (the third reason mentioned above), it's based on emotion. And proponents of this bill are no strangers to pushing their legislative agendas purely on emotion! But this time, they have taken the low road and are making a pact with a curious partner: animal rights activists. It is almost hard to tell the proponents of this bill from members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They talk about “Bambi in a barrel,” bringing up issues of animal cruelty. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? What about all the animals that are wounded by hunters in the wild (as the result of “fair chase”) and never see a clean and humane death? Have you ever encountered a wounded and limping Bambi? If you live in North Dakota, you probably have, and chances are it was the victim of a hunter's errant shot. Ban hunting? So, should we just ban hunting in North Dakota, period? After all, what is ethical? Isn't a harvested animal, whether on a preserve or in the wild, just as dead? What about all the man-made gadgets that give hunters an advantage over animals? Does an animal in the “wild” on North Dakota's flat, treeless plains (where you can see for miles) even stand a chance against the over-equipped hunters that Cabela's turns out these days? Whose ethics should we choose, yours or mine? If a hunter - whether he is a client of a hunting preserve or hunting in the wild -breaks the law, he needs to be reined in. Again, regulation and monitoring is the answer, and our Game and Fish Department is doing a very good job of this. As an owner of a bison-hunting operation, I have guided dozens and dozens of clients over the past years. The people I have met are some of the best I have met anywhere, and they certainly don't fit the profile cast on them by some proponents of this bill. They are honest, decent, hard-working and law-abiding people who are here mainly to bond with their fellow hunters, and I think that's what most people in this debate forget. The hunters who have visited my ranch typically have never visited North Dakota before, and they go away with a piece of its history, culture and flavor when they leave. And they have a great bundle of meat with them, to boot! Try telling one of my hunters, after he has stalked a bison with a long bow in minus-60 degree wind chill all day in my 1,200-acre pasture, if he feels like an unscrupulous murderer. If my guests want to come and pay to experience something besides asphalt and concrete and traffic, who should tell me I can't let them harvest the animals I have raised myself? As for the ethical issue, I cannot fathom a more humane way to harvest my bison. Make no mistake: They are produced for their meat, just like the thousands of cattle in this state. But their harvest is performed in their natural setting, and we've never wounded an animal and then left him to go off and die an agonizing death. We don't have to rile them up to get them into a chute, and we don't have to prolong their agony by hauling them in a trailer. They are treated just as humanely as I can treat them as a producer, or I wouldn't be in this business. One hundred percent of my guests are nonresident hunters. I think that is what the “beef” is about in this debate. This legislation is just another way to keep nonresidents from coming to North Dakota. The nonresident issue Let's be direct: Some people are worried that while they're here, these hunters may shoot a duck or two. It's true, they buy the appropriate licenses and, during the season, they do hunt other species. Thus, this legislation. For years, North Dakota encouraged the development of hunting lodges and bed and breakfasts as “value-added” economic development in the state. The state Extension Service held seminars on how to open businesses such as hunting lodges, and MarketPlace even held a seminar titled, “Market Buffalo Hunts on E-Bay.” They did all this and more with state funds. But now, the state is being asked to actually sponsor the destruction of businesses it advocated? Mind you, bison hunting would not be banned in this particular legislation because bison are classified as a domestic animal. But we've been through a lot of legislative issues in this state, and I have a hard time believing that the proponents of SB2254 will not find a way to work it so that any type of high-fence hunting is banned. Please contact your legislators at (888) 635-3447 and ask them to vote no on SB2254. You will be asked by the operator to state your name, address, phone number and one reason why you think it should be voted down. I've given you several. Krapp owns a bison ranch near Pingree.

Some pros & cons of SB 2254

The biggest objection seems to be what they call 'canned hunts' or 'high fence hunting'. When asked, nobody that supports this bill has been to a deer/elk ranch or participated in one of these hunts. Their response is usually, "Meth is against the law and I don't participate in that." Nothing like sending a subliminal message that deer/elk ranchers are involved in meth. Some of the deer/elk ranches have many hundreds of acres of land to have their animals roam on. My question is instead of banning a completely legal activity, why aren't rules established where it can't be called "hunting."

The next objection seems to be there is a disease problem with confined deer/elk and there will be a big problem with the spread of CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease). Well deer/elk ranchers are very concerned with protecting their investment and most states have very strict rules about the health of imported deer/elk. It seems that CWD is the disease of the moment and has not been found to affect humans. In fact the deer/elk ranchers are more concerned with TB and other diseases affecting their herds than with CWD, not that they are haphazard about it. There are always going to be the jerk that isn't as careful as we would like, just like there is the slob hunter that we wish didn't exist.

Another objection is the property rights issue. Deer/elk ranches have been encouraged in North Dakota and our politicians talk about contributions they make to our state's economy. When this is mentioned to the supporters of SB 2254, they call the deer/elk ranchers whores who will do anything for money and it's just too bad if they get closed down. Remember, SB 2254 doesn't ban the deer/elk ranches, it establishes and changes some rules for notification of escaping animals, catching escaping animals and fence heighths.

What SB 2254 does ban, is any shooting of any animals/birds raised on the property of the non-typical livestock or elk licensed property. It does not prevent the licensed property from raising the non-typical livestock or elk and selling it to someone else in North Dakota for shooting. And remember if this passes, there will no longer be any bird preserves left that raise pheasants on the same property they hunt them for money.

Another objection I've heard at least on a local radio-station-rant is the tax dollars that the elk/deer ranches are paid and a lot of people wouldn't like their tax dollars to support these types of activities and all the money it will take to administrate any rules. I guess I can't blame the radio-station-ranter for this one since the supporters of SB2254 claim a bunch of Game & Fish money goes to the ND Board of Animal Health just to administrate the non-typical livestock. The non-typical livestock used to be under the Gamd & Fish Department with allocated money to administer. A few years ago the non-typical livestock were moved to be administered by the ND Board of Animal Health and the allocated money went with the move. As per tax dollars being used to administer the rules for the non-typical livestock radio-statio-rant, take a look at the FCC Budget allocation to administer the rules for radio-station-rants, $304,057,000 (that's 304+ BILLION of yours and mine tax dollars)

Don't take my word for it, check it out:

FCC Budget

North American Deer Farmers Assoc.

Deer & Elk Farmers Discussion Board spend a little time here clicking through some posts and learn a little about some junk science and other things

A ND Legislative Bill Forum

Another forum

Another Legislative Bill Forum

CWD-Info.org

aphis/usda/CWD site

-
-
-

Is it ever as it appears to be? ? ? ?

Senate Bill 2254 2007 ND Legislative Session

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities; facilities; to amend and reenact sections 36-25-05 and 36-25-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.

The second part of the bill doesn't seem to bother those people affected the most unless I've just not heard about it. (to amend and reenact sections 36-25-05 and 36-25-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.)

The main part of the bill is the most controversial:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is
created and enacted as follows:
Nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities - Fee shooting prohibited -
Penalty. After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited. A person who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

The bill is known as the "ban canned hunting" bill or the "high fence shooting" because those supporting it are insinuating to people that all animals shot at the deer/elk ranches are tied to a post and someone walks up, shoots them and then claims they spent many days in the woods hunting. The high fence part is mostly from the requirement that deer/elk ranchers must have a minimum heighth to their fences

Lets take a look at this bill,

First thing is what is "nontraditional livestock" in North Dakota Century Code?

It is defined in Title 36 Chapter 36-01: State Board of Animal Health

TITLE 36
LIVESTOCK
CHAPTER 36-01
STATE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH
36-01-00.1. Definitions. In this chapter unless the context or subject matter otherwise
requires:
1. "Board" means the state board of animal health.
2. "Commissioner" means the agriculture commissioner.
3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
4. "Nontraditional livestock" means any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite boundaries or an animal that is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture.

My interpretation of this says all pheasants, chukars, pigeons, ducks, deer, but not including elk are "non-typical livestock."

I was able to find the license requirements for non-traditional livestock:

36-01-08.1. Nontraditional livestock license - Fee. The board of animal health may
require a license for nontraditional livestock maintained within this state. The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars. The annual fee for a license for any other species required to be licensed is fifteen dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for nonbird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one nonbird species license is one hundred dollars.

As you can see by the second and third sentence:

The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars.

The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars.

Now lets go back to the wording of the bill:

After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited.

So basically all bird preserves will be banned if there is any birds released to be shot. Of course if they wish to do it for free, that is okay.

....for a fee or other remuneration.....

The part of the bill relating to bird preserves has not been publicized and most suporters have neglected to mention it. Why? They know there are a lot more people that participate in bird preserve shooting than participate in big game shooting. It's the old "divide & conquer."

I hear people say on various web boards that they don't care because only the rich folks participate in the big game shooting. When told this affects the bird preserves some will say they don't care because they don't do that either.

I'll bet PETA is laughing.

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

-
And we haven't even started in on the pro's & con's of this bill other than what the proponenets have not told everyone.
-
-
-

Citizen's arrest

From GF Herald 01-25-07

By Susanne Nadeau, Herald Staff Writer

Published Thursday, January 25, 2007

A Grand Forks man tracked down and detained another man he believed stole his snowmobile early Wednesday in a south-end neighborhood.

Police don't encourage citizens to make their own arrests, but in this case it worked. Matthew Howard Walsh, 23, was carted off about 1:30 a.m. when police arrived on the scene. He was charged with possession of stolen property.

Apparently, police say, the snowmobile owner was awakened by a family member who heard something and suspected the sled was being taken. The snowmobile owner, who police declined to name, called police and then took a separate vehicle on a search for the snowmobile. He was able to follow the tracks left in a sprinkling of snow that fell over Grand Forks on Tuesday night.

He found Walsh, the suspected thief, and the snowmobile “disabled” in the street around the 5300 block of Chestnut, according to Grand Forks Police Lt. Jim Remer. The owner then held Walsh until police arrived, Remer said. He wouldn't say how the man detained Walsh.

“Obviously, a citizen should be very careful in a situation like this,” Remer said.

Gathering information for law enforcement is fine, but people should never put themselves in danger to retrieve stolen property. People have a “natural inclination to respond that way,” Remer said, but he's “definitely not recommending that they do.”

“We have had instances where a subject lashed out at the person confronting them,” Remer said.

Nadeau reports on public safety, crime and courts. Reach her at (701) 780-1118, (800) 477-6572, ext. 118; or snadeau@gfherald.com.

"He wouldn't say how the man detained Walsh."

If someone is out stealing another person's property, they should not complain about a little soreness when the police arrive.

Not that I would ever encourage any type of physical altercation but I do hope he was complaining about something.

More of this type of thing would help curb the crime rate.

Sure is better than crying to the police after watching your property disappear.

Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing

North Dakota 60th Legislative Session -2007

Are you curious to see what the legislature is doing
this year?

Go to the 2007 Major Topics Index and click on a topic
you are interested in.

For example Counties. Then pick a bill like Eminant Domain
and click on the bill number. In this case it's SB 2039.

There will be some numbers on the left side of the page like
these:

70124	.	0100		INTRODUCED

Click on the 0100 to read the bill.

(To read the actual bill you'll need Acrobat Reader which I
think everyone has by default.)

IF you want to know any actions taken, click on the link to
the right and a little above the other link.
In this case it looks like this: » SB 2039 Actions

Take some time and look around.
After all, the legislature only does things that affect us all.

Let's get this over with.

Threats are being made that if Saddam Hussein is executed the United States will be targeted for more attacks.

I would think if the USA would grow some "orbital fortitude" this could be taken care of in a matter of weeks.

Target every single mosque in Iraq and let the terrorists know they are targeted. Let them know that for every American death, a mosque will disappear from the landscape and then follow through with it.

Not fair to target religion you say?? Well if we are attacked in the name of a religious jihad, the religious icons need to be removed. If there really are moderate Muslims out there, maybe they should come forward and stop those that have supposedly "hijacked their religion"

MN Gophers are giving up???

The Grand Forks Herald said today:

"The University of Minnesota won't compete against UND in any sport except men's and women's hockey because of UND's continued use of the Fighting Sioux nickname, the school's athletic director said Monday."

Well, if ya can't beat 'em on the playing field, beat on 'em in the boardroom?

Angels at the post office.

This came in an email today:

A friend forwarded this to me and it's such an adorable little story that I had to forward it on....

Our dog Abbey died Aug. 23, and the day after Abbey died, my 4 year old, Meredith, was SO upset. She wanted to write a letter to God so that God would recognize Abbey in heaven. She told me what to write, and I did.

Then she put 2 pictures of Abbey in the envelope. We addressed it to God in Heaven, put two stamps on it (because, as she said, it could be a long way to heaven). We put our return address on it, and I let her put it in the drop box at the post office that afternoon. She was absolutely sure that letter would get to heaven, and I wasn't about to disillusion her.

So today is Labor Day. We took the kids to the museum in Austin, and when we came home, there was a package wrapped in gold on our front porch. It was addressed to Mer. So, she took it inside and opened it.

Inside was a book, When Your Pet Dies, by Mr. Rogers (Fred Rogers). On the front cover was the letter we had written to God, in its envelope (opened). On the opposite page was one of the pictures of Abbey taped on the page. On the back page was the other picture of Abbey, and this handwritten note on pink paper:

"Dear Mer,
I know that you will be happy to find out that Abbey
arrived safely and soundly in heaven. Having the
pictures you sent to me was a big help! I recognized
Abbey right away!

You know, Mer, she isn't sick anymore. Her spirit
is here with me (-just like it stays in your heart-)
young and running and playing. Abbey loved being
your dog, you know. Since we don't need our
bodies in heaven, I don't have any pockets to keep
things in-- so I am sending you your beautiful letter
back with the pictures--so that you will have this little
memory book to keep.

One of my angels is taking care of this for me. I hope
this little book will help. Thank you for your beautiful
letter. Thank your mother for sending it. What a wonderful
mother you have. I picked her especially for you.

God blesses you every day and remember, I love you
very much. By the way, I am in heaven and everywhere
there is love.

Signed,
God, and one of his special angels (who wrote this letter
after God told HER the words)."

How wonderful is that! I never knew there were angels working the post office!

keep yer eyes dry !

C. Y.

Here's my solution to:
#1, what to do with smiley? see 2E's Blog and VOD's Blog and
#2 What to do with the Gateway entrance to GF? see 2E's Blog again.

How many cities have a landmark water tower held up by their namesake Grand "Forks"?

Just bow out or . . . . . .

It's now Sunday afternoon and I've been gone for a few days. Had or maybe still have bronchitis so can hardly talk (as if anyone is listening) and I'm really tired. After this past month or so I was thinking about dumping this blog. It's not like there is any information here that can't be found anywhere else. The only real reason for this was to be able to post comments on a couple of blogs that don't allow anonymous comments and like this couldn't be anonymous anyway. :-)

Even though it's been interesting to spread a little discontent on a few blogs, it's only a small, very, very small, item in the whole grand scheme of things. It's not like we will change each other's minds, it's more like giving our side to the post via a comment.

If you wonder about the avatar at my comments or the photo in my profile , they are two of our dogs. This hound has let me support him on numerous searches, the most recent was Thurs, Fri & Sat on the Red Lake Indian Reservation and before that, near Fourtown, MN. As a team, we are only two of many searchers, with & without dogs, that have been involved in trying to bring some closure to these families. You have to be affected when you deal directly, face to face, with people that have come together, to help someone, even on a day of Thanksgiving. Interacting with the victim's families also has an affect.
And then come home and read the blogs.

I like the blogs that pass on info. That expand on info available elsewhere. Of course, those things that interest me are what I pay more attention to, just as I suppose other things interest others. Some blogs seem like they are just there to expose what they think are injustices and I guess they are interesting too, but I think they suffer more from a lack of facts than lack of justice.

What is the point?

Well it's all interesting but what's interesting? Where does it all fit in the grand scheme of things? Big deal if there's a new restaurant coming to town, but I've met a couple of families that won't be together again to even eat at the same table.

There's always a place for everyone and their thoughts, but we can't take ourselves too serious.

Even those of us that spread a little discontent.

Something completely different.

(stole a line from Monty Python)

I'm sick of politics. They make everyone "irritable" and "testy." Including me. Especially me and I tend to take it out on blog comment sections. (some are just plain fun though) Political commercials get sickening when seen/heard over & over. At least "2E" at the City Beat had a few humerous ones linked on his blog.

I know John Kerry was attempting a joke, but I also know it was one of the stupidist things I've heard this entire political season. Why did everyone jump on his case? For the same reason Quayle get so much crap about his spelling. It's politics and if a Republican had said it there would have been an earthquake while the main stream media types stampeded to tell the world instead of apologizing for Kerry's mistake.

NOW for the something completely different.

My father has been in and out of an assisted living facility and a couple of nursing homes in the GF area. We are extremely lucky as he prepared for just such a thing with insurance and savings so that isn't as big a problem as it could be. (Not that it has anything to do with the following.)

What I'd like to bring up, is the people that work in these facilities. It has to take a special person to work at this day after day. Like anywhere else, there's always a couple of patronizing personalities, but for the most part, our experience has been positive. I'd especially like to mention Tufte Manor and the Northwood Deaconess Health Center and the staff at both places. Smiles all over the place while I know they constantly deal with the very things that brought us to bring our elders to their facillity in the first place. And it's everyone. Not just at the front desk where it's expected, it's the person running the vacuum cleaner, delivering the laundry, nursing staff and aides.

I'm sure none of you get the credit you deserve.

My hat's off to you folks as I know I couldn't do it.

Thank you,

Happy Halloween

Click for Halloween Humor