Actually, there was one valuable resource which was in high demand. The trees in the new world were particularly unique compared to the majority of trees in Europe at the time, which was height. Trees from the new world which had not been harvested prior to European settlement were much taller and more useful as masts.

I've been registered Republican since I started voting. Nor am I likely to change that unless another conservative party comes forward. Strategically it allows me to vote in the Republican primaries and help support the more conservative candidate.

However, in the last election cycle I voted for 1 Republican. The rest were Libertarian and US Tax Payers (Michigan Constitution Party) since they represent my views more closely.

I agree with you on the nuclear option. On the gang of fourteen issue, I would have liked to see the filibuster actually forced. Instead of a threat, I want to see a real filibuster happen. I want to see sleeping bags and hear the phone book read. Instead, because of concern of what it would look like in the media, the gang of fourteen effectively ceded ground.

Clinton had many Left tendencies, but he also had some practicality to his term. After '94 midterms he compromised with the Republicans.

Obama certainly is Left and will likely continue to push his agenda rather than compromise with the Republicans. And he will likely get support from the majority of the media (which was the real point I was making in this journal) if (hopefully when) the Republican House start using similar tactics that Newt used.

I hope the House doesn't waver when the new reports that the Republicans are trying to shut down the government start coming in. That is exactly what I am hoping for and will help the country most. The new blood probably already knows why they were elected. The old guard establishment of the Republican party however likely will bow to media pressure. We already saw that happen during the gang of 14 with Bush appointments.

One of these is not like the other two. Freer is the only one with which the state should be concerned. It isn't the state's job to ensure an individual's safety or peacefulness beyond the that which they affect others property and life. Perhaps safer and peaceful are your own personal goals, which are admirable, but it should not be the state's role to provide for those goals.

There are certainly ways in which we could proceed which would be considered in line with the original original founder's goals of limited federal government. Each state was considered a testing ground, by such folks, to try various methods of governance. Your suggestion of IRV would be an example, which would not necessarily violate the principles which many of the founders held and be considered progress.

Rolling back many of the infringements on liberty, which is what I think Bill is referring to, would certainly be a step in the right direction even if not considered progress by the left.

Perhaps a reformation (Happy Reformation Day yesterday to all the Protestants) would be a better word to describe the process. The reformation entailed rolling back many of the dogmas of the Catholic church and brought about a large number of advances in theological thought. Sadly many were/are heretical, but many brought about better understanding.

So, I humbly suggest a Reformation Party (instead of the undefined TEA Party, as thought by Bill) and reformation politics be a good description of the goals. Reforming around the principles of the founders, but also applying new methods to ideas consistent with those principles.

I can't tell if you caught the joke or not.

A better explanation can be found here: http://www.lipsum.com/

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,
consectetur adipiscing elit.
Aliquam consectetur elementum
lacus, at mollis diam ornare at.

Etiam sollicitudin euismod arcu
non pulvinar. Nullam in magna
vitae urna consectetur elementum
vel quis tellus. Sed in justo vel

Sapien ultricies placerat a vestibulum
augue. Quisque sit amet quam ligula.
Nulla est lacus, semper a laoreet in,
accumsan et magna. Ut a arcu eros.

Nullam adipiscing lorem ac tellus posuere
quis posuere dolor fringilla. Donec non
sem in nisi ultrices facilisis aliquet
feugiat nulla. Donec iaculis libero sodales.

Turpis tincidunt porta. Etiam quis enim purus,
vitae iaculis libero. Integer felis orci,
posuere ac bibendum sit amet, sodales id odio.

I suppose that is better than what I thought the title meant. Think: Fix a dog.

Congratulations. She seemed like a nice one when I met her at BarCamp. Let me tell you from experience, that you are very lucky to find a woman with similar interests. They are pretty rare, and well worth their weight in gold. Remember to treat her well.

Reading a bit or Corinthians last night I found something interesting, specifically on sexual immorality and judging. Paul mentions that he isn't too concerned about sexual immorality outside the church, as it isn't us, but God is who will judge their actions. Therefore, as Christians we probably ought not be too concerned for the actions of sexual immorality outside the church either, to the point that they do not affect us morally. We should protect our own, discerning of right and wrong, and seeking to be light to those outside the church, yes. But judgemental, no.

It sounds like a fairly libertarian policy to me. As such, I would prefer that the government simply remove itself from the marriage business and stick only to contractual business in this area, line of inheritance and the such. This may be simplified, but hopefully you get the point. As you stated, social engineering is not a business the government ought to be involved in.

On the topic of marriage being binding for the lives of the participants, well, as a Christian it seems only natural that it would be the case. From the garden, God instituted the marriage relationship to be for a lifetime. The marriage relationship is a reflection of Christ and his church, ever faithful to his people. While some might (as above) claim that polygamy was common in the OT, and therefore conflicting with Christianity, they would be misunderstanding the purpose of the OT. The Bible, especially the OT histories are not about good people and all their good works. They are histories, and one of the key points is that Israel, even a people chosen by God and blessed by God cannot live up to the perfection requirements of the law and that the need for a savior exists. Christ addresses some of the issues of divorce in a number of passages, and explains that divorce was never the plan, but granted by Moses because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. Sadly in a fallen world there will be pain in so many relationships, but Christianity is about reconciliation. Most importantly with God, but also with our fellow man.

Six men were arrested in the U.K. on suspicion of stirring racial hatred after they posted a video on the Internet in which they appear to burn two Qurans on Sept. 11, police said Thursday.

Are we not repeatedly told that Islam is not a race, but a religion (and of peace at that).

This is what you get when authoritarian leftists rule your country. Dissent cannot be allowed and must be crushed. Independent thought is dangerous to their power.

Have you been to the Discovery Channel headquarters recently?

Whine, whine, whine.

Seriously, I don't know if it is just urban living or what, but your perspective on home ownership is quite narrow. You live in hell, er, I mean California. What isn't expensive there?

5 years back we bought 12 acres, built a house, and commuted 25 minutes to and from work. We are setup in between two cities with viable jobs with a less than 40 minute drive worst case, though right now we both work from home. We never did the Dave Ramsey thing of cutting up the credit cards or other extremes, but the guy is right about debt. Don't do it (minus for a home). We've bought good used cars for the 9 years we've been married at a 1/4 the cost of new for two years old and paid cash for each. It is very doable to settle down, buy a house, and pay cash for everything outside the metropolises on the coasts.

Especially if you settle down with a wife and have some kids, you'll find your priorities change. A job becomes #2 and your family becomes #1. Staying on the cutting edge of pay rates isn't worth it. Family time and flexibility becomes the currency you deal in. By changing jobs every couple years I could probably be making 50-100% more than I am now. By staying at the same place I work from home, put in my 40 hours by working 6:30-2:30 so I can get the boy off the bus, will have 4 weeks vacation next year, and do a job I enjoy.

It wouldn't be the first time. BC has been changed to BCE and academic circles.