By Anthony H.	Star Trek: ENT Haiku	Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The prequel to all. Barely makes warp factor five. Found many species. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Star Trek: VOY Haiku	Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Lost for seven years. Escaped the Delta Quadrant. Destroyed the Borg Queen. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Star Trek: DS9 Haiku	Wednesday, March 23, 2005
In Bajorian space. Space station near a wormhole. Captain Sisko leads. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Star Trek: TNG Haiku	Wednesday, March 23, 2005
On Enterprise D. Whoopi Goldberg serves the drinks. Love that Holodeck. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Star Trek: TOS Haiku	Wednesday, March 23, 2005
The original. Captain Kirk and Mister Spock. Live long and prosper. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Program Board	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Planning the events. Live music played on campus. Fun and games for all. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Student Life	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Home of many clubs. Cubicles and computers. Rodger is the boss. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Student Senate	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Our student leaders. Bringing events to us all. Lots of work, no pay. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Role Players	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Playing roles all day. Buying cards and checking stats. Many types of games. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Los Unidos	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Latin heritage. A lot of really good food. Salsa dancing too. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Creativity Club	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Creativity. A club for everyone. Pictures and writing. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Collegian	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Black ink, white paper. News stories from our campus. Some color photos. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Campus Crusade	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
A regional group. Spends many hours praying. What would Jesus do? Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Haiku - Duck Radio	Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Internet broadcasts. DJs that play loud music. From country to rock. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Internet Politician	Saturday, July 24, 2004
Episode XXV: Melting Pot Hundreds of years ago this country was a mix of languages and cultures, but also filled with distain. This distain kept people apart and prevented this society from truly mixing. In the early twentieth century no one tried to get along and they surely did not ever consider learning a language other than English. As time had gone on various peoples had begun to mix, and as they mixed their origins had faded with the consistency of their cultures. In the late twentieth century with the advent of the World Wide Web, we have become what has been called a global community. No longer are we limited to just where we live, we can now converse to people all over the world. Yes, we had telephones, but the web was less inexpensive to use in the long run. It also opens us up to other extra-cultural experiences. In by doing so, these new experiences break down the walls of distain for one and another. It also invites unwanted experiences in the form of forced exposure to various cultures. Keep in mind I use the word culture loosely to mean a large group of people who partake in the same types of practices over the "web," in short what the World Wide Web is called. They are forced because you are witness to them and have no real control of if you see them. Let us not get into a debate of electronic mail SPAM filtering; it is not one-hundred percent accurate. One of the biggest forced exposures is that of pornography, a slow start, to say the least. Be you a child or an adult, advertisers do not care. They want your money and flashing nudity in front of you is how they think will gain the best results. Obviously, it is working; else this practice would have died off long ago. In the year two-thousand the web had shown that the pornography industry was the largest web-based industry in the world. It made money hand over fist, as some say. Obviously, other cultures such as the aforementioned passed material along, but I went with the adage that sex sells, so I chose pornography as a topic. Another of the forced exposures was once bigger than pornography, that one was religion. Earlier on in the beginning of the web masses of religiously-based material was a big issue. None of the material I ever got said I was going to Hell, but they sure hinted that I would go not be happy if I was not their religion, especially if I were to die. Personally, I find religion useless when it comes to me. I see why it exists, originally as a way to bring answers the world's uncertainties. Now it is just available to explain fear and superstition, provide comfort in a time of need and create a spiritual link with loved ones. I do not know why I rarely see religiously-based material now; I have to assume it was not practical when it comes to filling seats in churches, mosques or synagogues. On the other hand there are those exposures you can avoid, but some how are magically drawn to. For myself in nineteen ninety-seven, I avoided anime. Unknowing to me that many years earlier I was a fan of anime and did not know it. Anime when I was young in the early eighties was called Japanimation, or some form of that spelling. I fought for six months to not watch the new anime booming up in syndication and on the Cartoon Network. It was an animated soap opera with ninja action; it drew me to it as if I had no self-control. I watched the shows, bought merchandise and even picked up some of the characteristics displayed in both. As we move into the twenty-first century I have noticed that we are beginning to mix in together faster than ever before. On one side English is the most widely known language in the world, on the other hand, native speakers of English are expanding more into other languages which have become part of the American culture. Myself, I obviously speak English, but I also speak bits and pieces of Spanish, Japanese, Hebrew, Yiddish, Italian, French, etc... I just can not hold any conversation with any language but English, plus most of what I know are greetings and swear words. Back in the pre-television days Americans were lucky to know English, let alone how to read. Technology has taken America far in mixing the cultures and easing tensions. The last half of the nineteenth century was the shortest amount of time in human history that world cultures converged and intermingled. One day, much to the predictions of various science fiction writers, we will be all one culture. Perhaps we may even evolve into floating brains? Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Internet Politician	Saturday, July 24, 2004
Episode XXIV: Freedom for All Roughly four-hundred years ago the founders of this country, not those who were already living here, arrived to settle a new nation. A nation created in peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all fellow man, this was amongst other freedoms. They were escaping the tyranny and religious bindings of the European kings and emperors. One of those main freedoms was to worship when and how they liked. In Europe, Christianity was forced upon the masses and those who did not worship were sometimes considered heretics. This nation was created on the freedoms those first settlers so longingly wanted and as humans, deserved. As the centuries have passed humans have evolved ever so slightly. We have become more intelligent, more driven to succeed and we have learned to utilize the freedoms granted to use by this country's founders to their fullest. However, even as we as Americans evolve, many people resist change. In a modern era such as ours there are still racist, sexist and perpetually hateful people in this great country of ours. They feel superior to people who are different from themselves and attempt to dishonor them by taking away those freedoms fought for by this country's founders so many centuries ago. The biggest debate of freedoms in this young century is based on one simple word, the word "marriage." Marriage is derived from the term, "holy matrimony," which means the union of two beings in the vision of a divine being. The argument is mainly one of a religious nature. Those who follow the teachings of Christian religion argue this point the most. They believe that marriage is a union of only a man and woman, symbolized by Adam and Eve, of Eden fame. As human beings we have evolved and in that evolution comes some ability to express oneself sexually differently then many are most familiar with. This expression can lead to changes in sexual preferences. We as humans explore and those who explore sexually may find they are better suited to express themselves with the same gender as themselves. Homosexuality has existed way longer than humans have. It is believed that female Dinosaurs had relations with each other in such a manner most commonly associated with males and females of a species. Off topic slightly, there are creatures, such as worms, who mate with themselves, you do not see these self-proclaimed, family-friendly activists demanding all worms be hanged and quartered. Supposedly, and only because of an episode of Family Guy do I know, it is a sin for one to pleasure one's self. What many self-proclaimed, family-friendly activists have done is try to prevent those of the same gender from enjoying a union given to them by the founders of this country. It currently does not say in any national document that a man and woman can only be married, though some wish to change that. This country was built on freedom and taking one's freedom to proclaim their love in marriage of someone the same gender makes those people as bad as the former European kings and tyrants from four-hundred years ago. Consider this, homosexual couples can not procreate, however many straight couples do and sometimes they do not keep the children produced. Homosexual and barren couples are the most obvious people to would want raise those begotten children. Adoption suffers because of that narrow-mindedness of the self-proclaimed, family-friendly activists. Countless children could have homes and in turn saving the government money by not having to take care of that many more children. That is some conservatism you can take to the bank! Wait... That is right; some of the self-proclaimed, family-friendly activists think homosexuality is like the cold, people can catch it if they are too close to a homosexual. No one can become a homosexual by being in contact with someone who is, heck, you could be one and not know it. Large populations of people in this country are either homosexual or bi-sexual. I heave heard some wild estimates, but for the sake of argument I will go with fifteen percent. While many seem to applaud bi-sexuality as a exhibitionism, when you are just homosexual you are treated as a leper. The double standards in the minds of many in this nation are appalling. For the case of adoption, some of the most supporting family structures in the recent years have been homosexual-orientated families. It is a home where more often than not the parents seem to get along better and hence do not begrudge the child with negative feelings. Children raised by homosexual parents often grow up to be well-adjusted individuals, and yes, most often straight. Do not let Kevin Kline's movie, "In & Out," confuse you, being a homosexual it not all that sudden, scary or all that tragic. I do not know from experience myself, but I have also never heard any horror stories either. It is unrealistic to assume that when a person comes out it is all parties and joy. Traditionally parents expect grandchildren and when they are told by their children that they are homosexual, it hurts, but it is mostly disappointment in the lack of grandchildren, not in the child or themselves. It is also unrealistic to not understand what the parents wanted from their children. Grow up healthy, finish school, get a good job, meet a nice person, get married, have kids, retire and find the fountain of youth and become immortal. What else could a parent expect...? Except to share in the fountain of youth water? Going back to taking away freedom, when you say no to marriage when it involves a homosexual couple, you are saying you do not like freedom. Therefore, if you do not like freedom, you hate this country and those who founded it. Seem a bit strong of an estimate? How would you feel in the eighteenth century, stuck in pre-industrial Europe forced to worship a divine being you could care less about and forced to struggle if you want to survive, else be labeled a heretic? By denying those who are homosexual, those originally intended freedoms, you are only saying you want to go back to the way it was in the eighteenth century. If that is so, then you need to look around. The person standing near you or sitting in the other room could be a homosexual and you would not know it. They know your hate and protect you, and perhaps themselves, from the truth. It is time to accept the people of this nation as is, else die in your own pit of antique thought and despair. Should there be an amendment to the constitution protecting the right for homosexuals to marry? No, the constitution as it says now is that it is a right of all Americans to have freedom. It does not even mention marriage and by adding such an unneeded amendment you only damage what is suppose to be the basic and all-empowering rules of this nation. The constitution is the basis for all law in this country and the constitution should never state what freedoms a person can not have if it does not invade on another person. Though, it is funny that the constitution is loosely based on the Ten Commandments when the country is meant to be for all to practice their beliefs freely. Do keep this in mind, if a federal law protecting homosexual marriage is not made, then state and local governments can freely ban the rights for homosexuals to be married. On the other side, only half the nation will create such a law, so homosexuals could get married out-of-town with no problems. If the numbers are accurate, roughly half this country supports sexual preferential freedom and that usually falls in line with liberal theories. It is the majority of conservatives who wish to impede the unions of homosexuals. They are not called conservative because they are just tight with money and often very anal. Keep in mind however, I am one of those people who have certain beliefs one way or another and some fall on the liberal side and others are more conservative. Personally, I feel many of my beliefs are nicely balanced. I shall part a few upon you now, though they are not in any particular order: 1. Homosexuals and bi-sexuals should have the same freedoms and benefits as straight couples. 2. The government should force rapists to pay for abortions of children they helped create if the other parent wishes it. Then rapists should then get neutered. 3. It should be illegal for women to repentantly get pregnant and have abortions simply because they or their partner did not wear protection, the exception is if she is trying to conceive and the child was not healthy. 4. Couples are limited to three children, if they have more they will be financially penalized and be unable to reproduce in the future. 5. The voting age should start at sixteen years. 6. The selective service age should start at sixteen years and end at twenty-six years. 7. The driving age should start at eighteen years and end at seventy-eight years. 8. Marijuana should be marketed like cigarettes. 9. All tobacco-like products should not be smoked within the airspace of someone who is knowingly suffering of a lung disease, in the general public, while driving or working. 10. Alcoholic products are not to be opened or drank near children under the age of ten. 11. Littering or destruction of nature not owned by the person should have a minimum $5,000 penalty. 12. Animal, child and spousal abusers should be penalized $25,000 for the first offense, fined $50,000 for the second offense and neutered for the third offense. 13. Hate crime laws should be abolished, all purposeful crimes are done in hate, and crime punishments in general should be enhanced. 14. Move everyone out of Iowa, fence it in, and make it a state-sized prison colony. Move the entire nation's prisoner's to Iowa. Thanks George Carlin! 15. Make non-fossil fuels available to the general public as a fuel alternative. 16. Create public work projects more readily in times of recession or depression by keeping an active list of the backlogs of work to be done in all communities. 17. Create a government-supported healthcare system. 18. Prevent politicians from having any controls over political processes. In closing, the last I checked homosexuals are not breaking into straight people's homes and having sex right in front of them. Also, homosexuals are human beings and do not like being touched, taunted and prodded like some oddity and in that respect they do not do it to others... Well, unless they ask, then again that goes for anyone straight or homosexual. The stereotypes of homosexuals being sexually explicit and publicly inconsiderate are also untrue. Although, just like with straight people, a few homosexuals may stray from the block of sanity and decency, it happens. You only really hear the bad stories, as some people say. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Internet Politician	Saturday, July 24, 2004
Episode XXIII: Popularity Contests I, like most of you, at one time felt the political system of today was modern and up to date, therefore is must be more fair than previously ever considered. I believed that a majority of the people who could vote and did vote were of an informed public. An informed public, one who reads, watches, listens to the news and knows the difference between good and bad. I also believed that as adults of legal voting age we were capable of making adult decisions on what candidates we wanted for select positions. These decisions were based on how well a candidate could handle a specific position and the previous experience which proves they would most likely stick with the job through all its highs and lows. In many cases these candidates have even proved they had the dedication, drive and intuition to stick with the position for the long-haul. In today's world the political environment is not idealistic. No one really seems to care about overall performance; they just want to know what can be done for them today. Previous experience and the qualifications that come with knowledge no longer apply. It is a game of popularity now. Popularity looks at the more superficial outer structure of what a person is, rather than what a person can do. Popularity is based on self-gratifying desires for instant relief. No one wants a fair plan for all; they want a fair plan for just themselves. For many of the candidates it is all about fulfilling one of their basic psychological needs, the need to be socially accepted. These candidates only really know that they like being around others and thus apply for strictly that reason. In some cases people are asked to apply to be a candidate for the fact that the only other decision is for a candidate no one wishes to make. In other cases the candidate may have a more basic desire, one in which few can live without, for monetary compensation. People have the psychological need to eat, drink, sleep and feel secure and money can normally help in those situations. Where is the candidate with honorable intentions today who would do the job for free, not knowing or caring it was a paid position? A person, who helps for the sake of helping, sees the benefits of social interaction and monetary compensation as bonuses rather than incentives. I know of only a few and I can bet they are disappointed with the current political system. The politically uninformed majority should know that not all candidates are one in which the public chooses, sometimes other politicians must pick candidates to fill open positions. These positions are left open when other candidates leave office for whatever reason. Often these are position unfilled at election time. These remaining politicians act much like the uninformed public, not really doing their homework and leaving the decisions needed to fill an opened position to non-uniform methods. The end result often becomes one in which the most popular is selected, rather then the most qualified. Why you may ask? Well, perhaps to simply retain outer appearances and the interest of the public. There are those times where no one wants a position and it comes to people being generally bribed into politics. That type of methodology is a mockery of the political system this nation's founders had intended. People should want to get involved and want to better society as a whole. When it comes down to bribery the results are never one-hundred percent, now the bonus is simply an incentive for minimal performance. It is sometimes better to leave a position open and split up its duties amongst remaining politicians than mock the system they are suppose to support. The processes of politician selection outside elections are not even open to the public scrutiny like they are supposed to be. The electoral process itself is flawed inside and out for it requires management by politicians, so I propose changes to the system. - The entire elections process turned over to a non-governmental source. One in which is also not controlled by the government. These sources are often referred to as either agencies or independent counsels. - Elections should occur once a year with plenty of open media coverage. All positions should become available at the time of elections for candidates to run. Voting should be done in a secure manner accessible to a majority. - In no way can any currently elected politicians or officials of a local government ask of anyone to become a candidate for an office. - In no way can any currently elected politicians or officials of a local government endorse or encourage voting of a specific candidate for an office. - In no way can candidates of any office utilize the same resources, including staff and monetary backing. If candidates share resources, it is called ticketing and thus is not permitted. - No more than two parties with the same affiliation can run for any combination of offices, for such actions would be considered a ticket. However, this is not limited to committees. - Monetary backing for a candidate's campaign can not exceed specific guideline amounts and all purchases must be open to public scrutiny. - In no way can interested third parties assist in campaigning for candidates. To allow such actions would inevitably and unfairly influence popular vote. - Positions that are not filled prior to election should remain open to candidates who do not win their originally intended positions. A public forum with uniform questioning should be enacted and public vote made to choose a selected candidate. - Formally non-interested parties at the time of election will not be considered to fill office positions which remain open, but can be considered for open committee positions. - The filling of open positions should be done in a timely manner and the selected candidate should receive all monetary compensation in tact. - Positions remaining open after all all steps have been taken to fill them will remain open and the duties split up and assigned to current office holders. - If a position is deemed undesirable, unfilled after two terms, that position will be liquidated. Its tasks will be absorbed into the tasks of other offices. - Political terms will be limited to two in the same office and political time overall in any combination of offices be limited to four terms total. - Politicians can not hold office in government as well as in other local environments for it can and may bring conflicts of interest. - Once in office candidates must select chairpersons for all committees under their direct influence. Chairperson nominees should have been chosen and approved by the nominees and candidates by election time. - Committee chairpersons are voluntary positions with limited budgets for meeting and project expenditures. - All monetary expenditures made by officials or committees must be open to public scrutiny. In the end the wording above states that the process should be fair, public and uncorrupted. It gives a little of that fair play everyone wants but never seems to get. It will hopefully reward those who put the most effort into running for office with an office. It also ensures that someone can not hold two positions of importance at the same time, be it inside of outside of the government preventing conflicts of interest. So, what do I believe now? I believe the political system in this environment needs to be and can be reformed. No more can the decisions of who can run and be chosen for an office be left to the politicians. The politicians are supposed to work for the citizens; the citizens do not work for the politicians. That means we pick who should work for us, no one else. Register | Post | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Internet Politician	Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Episode XXII: FCC'd Up WARNING: The content that follows uses extremely foul language. Every so often the United States Federal Communications Commission undusted their books of penalties and dreamt about the next big fine they would issue. Presenting two cases in point, I call them Seven Words and Boobgate. While this topic may not be directly related to the Internet, it is surely political. In 1973, George Carlin was threatened and in 1978 was fined for reciting the list of what he calls, "the seven dirty words the FCC won't let anyone say on radio or TV" on live television. The list has come back up time and time again for review by the FCC to see if any of the words could be permitted over the air. Carlin has actually built and modified the list and it has expanded beyond seven entries, as one would hear in Carlin's most recent version of the comedic act titled "Words." The word "*ss" used to be censored and was one of the more recently permitted foul words. "*ss" has a few stipulations to use however, this includes adding the word "hole" to the end. Over the airwaves people can say "*ss" and "hole", but never "*sshole" together. The words "sh*t, p*ss" and even "f*ck" are in consideration of becoming permissible. Again, the use of these words would require that they not added to certain other words and that these words could not have certain suffixes added if they were to be aired. So, what were Carlin's seven dirty words? Sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cksucker, motherf*cker and t*ts. While the last one is probably not considered bad by many of us, it is supposedly insulting to women of high statue. Take that Hillary! Super Bowl XXXVIII, another championship game between the American and National Football Leagues. Produced by MTV, the half-time show was promised to be bigger and better than ever with a huge surprise. In the midst of a song with Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson had the cup of her brazier torn off by Timberlake, thus revealing her right breast. Previous to the Super Bowl pre-game programming, Nickelodeon utilized the time to introduce children to the sport of football. Millions of children gathered around televisions for Nickelodeon's programming and many stayed for the Super Bowl. Many of the parents of these children were outraged and there was talk of a suit against those responsible for the nudity. The FCC had been throwing around numbers as high as six million dollars as a fine for CBS. Rumors have stated that Viacom was considering the sale of MTV as a result of recent compounded incidences. Viacom owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon as well as other related networks. I am a bit more aware of my language in my old age, perhaps it is because I am around children quite often. When I was a teenager I was as vulgar as the rest of the teenagers around me. I could make a sailor blush when my mood inspired me to do such. Now I find "doh!, fudge" and kid lingo, such as "tummy," as replacements for other words, obviously except in writing this story. The side effect, I have discovered, is a lack of tolerance for those who abuse language and get a bit too descriptive. I am all for good-natured ribbing, but sometimes it goes a little too far and gets a little too harsh. I have no real opinion on this matter, maybe I felt like writing some news? I think having "sh*t" and "f*ck" becoming permissible on television is bad. I can easily tolerate "p*ss." I guess this is my opinion, so I was wrong about not having an opinion. I think actually hearing the complete words without a beep would make them seem less crucial over time. When it comes to humor, they would just seem less funny and less taboo. As a great man once said, "Quit your f*ck*ng swearing, there are damned children about!" I also enjoy, "Shut your f*ck*ng mouth Uncle F*cker!" Take that Queen and I do not mean the band, those guys rock! The FCC is one of those groups which are delegated some legislative power to enact and enforce laws pertaining to airways. The problem is that while they seem to do a good job with the big offenders, they also go after the little guys as well. The nudity at the Super Bowl is a good reason for the FCC to act. Though, if CBS had not allowed Nickelodeon programming to promote a violent sports event such as the Super Bowl in the first place, six million children would not have gotten an eyeful of Jackson's right breast. Then again I am jealous seeing as how I missed it, damn Timon and Pumbaa marathon. Back in 1973, Carlin was a small-time comedian and unless I am mistaken, his comedic acts were shown hours after most children would be in bed. Dragging this man through courts, even up to today for something done when his name was unknown is stupid. This is the reason why Republicans hate government interference. The FCC does not know when to stop and when not to begin. Programming in this day and age has known to be fairly dirty and they get a bleep and a pat on their backs for good work. It is those who are alone who are slowly tortured. Register | Post | Comments | Search | Archives

By Anthony H.	Internet Politician	Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Episode XXI: Mars or Bust-ed While I do not consider myself a nerd or science buff, I do watch a lot of programs that deal in the exploration of far off planets. Programs such as Star Trek, Stargate SG-1 and Buzz Lightyear round out my days. I have found myself once or twice weekly watching the Science channel. In more recent times on the Science Channel much of the programming has been focused on that little, red, planet Mars. Mars, as we all should know, is the next planet furthest away from the sun, 100,000 miles away from earth. The mission, as stated by the second President Bush and a NASA representative, is to get a human to walk on the surface of Mars. While they offer no guarantees, they would hope to have someone on the planet by 2025. Once on the planet they will search for water by drilling. How will the astronauts make it to Mars? One scientist says that NASA should build two ships that are exactly the same. They are lightweight, well shielded and small. It takes three months to get to Mars currently. It would be a test of wills to prevent the astronauts from going stir crazy. The ships would be similar to the design of the early pods, such as the one that returned to Earth from the Moon. In the case of getting people to Mars, a first pod would be sent with no people and some supplies. It would then land and inhale some hydrogen from the Mars atmosphere. The hydrogen would then be mixed other chemicals to create fuel for the ship's return to Earth. A second pod would be sent later with the crew and more supplies. The crew would do their tests and using the fueled pod, return home. What is the problem with the plan, you say? NASA has saved numerous sums of money by building reusable spacecraft. Why not build a Defiant Class ship from Star Trek to get to Mars? If you have ever seen a Defiant Class ship, then you know it is small and has not extended nacelles. Sure, it does not need titanium hull covering, but it needs to be able to be re-used, have the comforts of home and still have what is needed for storage and work. I know since I have been going to college that I am not as big a contributor to the tax effort. I still pay taxes on much of my purchases and maybe I have a little say about where it goes. Recycling is good for various reasons, but in this case it saves everyone money. I understand that on the way to a reusable craft there will be experiments, but the overall cost will mean savings in the future. I am not going to argue national debts with you, because any economist knows the United States can clear it's own debt to itself anytime it wants. Why doesn't it? Because doing so would allow less cautious spending and create a new debt and more inflation. I would hate to one day see a loaf of bread that costs two dollars. Register | Post | Comments | Search | Archives