tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post6544655326362394553..comments2024-03-28T06:22:23.961-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Credit where it's due...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65673127276123198782012-05-03T23:29:28.278-07:002012-05-03T23:29:28.278-07:00I've never heard of IRV being used in Louisian...I've never heard of IRV being used in Louisiana and Georgia... *searches* "The state of Louisiana has been using instant runoff voting for some overseas absentee ballots for federal and state elections since at least the early 1990s." Pretty minimal.<br /><br />"Range/approval voting systems are more prone to strategic voting than IRV, and more prone to counter-intuitive outcomes. IRV is also easily implemented. Ballots are no more complex than a first-past-the-post ballot, merely listing candidates with a square to mark for each."<br /><br />This is exactly backwards. With IRV you have to rank the candidates, and the US generally doesn't have ballot machines for that. With approval voting you just mark by each name, and we do that already for some multi-winner elections. Range voting would seem to need new machines, but can actually be faked up with the right ballot (and a limited range.)<br /><br />Every voting system invites some strategy, but the strategic form of range voting is approval voting, and with approval you're semi-honest: it's never a good idea to rank your top choice under a more strategic option. With IRV, as with plurality, you can be better off lying about your preference. And IRV looks bizarrely unstable in simulations if there are 3+ significant candidates. As it happens, Australia which uses IRV, has two major party coalitions. So much for nurturing 3rd parties...<br /><br />Anyway, even range voting leaves you electing single winners out of a district. I want real proportional representation for the House. Open party list, nice and simple.<br /><br /><br />As for the mandate... the gov't could raise taxes and buy private insurance for people. I don't see a difference.Damien Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321329197063620556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7925394276535506192012-05-03T07:40:28.359-07:002012-05-03T07:40:28.359-07:00Ian Gould:
I forget the source but somone said th...Ian Gould:<br /><i><br />I forget the source but somone said that the Civil War is why we now say "The United States is..." rather than "The United States are..."<br /></i><br /><br />Yes, I used to wonder why the Civil War-era movie was called "The Birth of a Nation" when I thought that happened in 1776. However, the Civil War was when "The United States" was affirmed as considering itself a nation state rather than an alliance such as the UN or NATO (or more contemporary at the time...the OAS).<br /><br />I've also heard that that was when the common expression changed from being "THESE United States" to "THE United States".LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42083911531016958872012-05-03T04:01:44.494-07:002012-05-03T04:01:44.494-07:00I really liked your 12:09, sociotard. Do you mind ...I really liked your 12:09, sociotard. Do you mind if I quote you? Perhaps some legislator might like to sponsor a bill such as that...Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40318950302764077592012-05-02T17:59:42.675-07:002012-05-02T17:59:42.675-07:00Over 200 years ago, our great Nation was a loose f...<i>Over 200 years ago, our great Nation was a loose federation of States and citizens might well feel more connection to their State than to the Union.</i><br /><br />Robert E. Lee was approached by *both* sides. He told them, both, that he'd see how his state (Virginia) voted.<br /><br />Regint isrie: alternate form of the Requiem Mass (aka Dies Irae)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59001972327758733272012-05-02T17:21:16.028-07:002012-05-02T17:21:16.028-07:00"People do have to change health insurance if..."People do have to change health insurance if they move to a new state."<br /><br />I think you missed my point. Suppose I don't have health insurance. If I go skiing in Colorado (not my state of residence) and get injured being in need of emergency care, the hospital is obliged to cover the costs if I can't. This behavior forces insurance costs up outside my home state. By simply visiting another state without insurance, you risk being engaged in interstate commerce, much as those sailors were.<br /><br />Now your question. I tend to take a more expansionist view when it comes to federal versus state rights. As a pragmatist, I see little advantage to states having distinct rights from the federal government, other than to serve as "laboratories for democracy". It's very different story for individual rights, which should be protected, but I digress.<br /><br />States should have the autonomy to do what they want so long as it does not contradict federal laws or the US constitution. That said, the states do have one trump card: the constitutional convention. It's the one check on federal power. Never been used because it's very risky, but the option is still there for the states if things do get out of hand.BCRionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955960949670858365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30281496431485454242012-05-02T14:48:23.887-07:002012-05-02T14:48:23.887-07:00I forget the source but somone said that the Civil...I forget the source but somone said that the Civil War is why we now say "The United States is..." rather than "The United States are..."Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04352147295160200128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81450831971593706372012-05-02T13:35:22.699-07:002012-05-02T13:35:22.699-07:00rewinn:
Over 200 years ago, our great Nation was ...rewinn:<br /><i><br />Over 200 years ago, our great Nation was a loose federation of States and citizens might well feel more connection to their State than to the Union.<br /></i><br /><br />According to Thom Hartmann, the confederate president, Jefferson Davis, actually was conflited about the Civil War. He did not necessarily want to destroy the Union, but ultimately, his first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76272332998661089122012-05-02T10:45:30.700-07:002012-05-02T10:45:30.700-07:00Now, none of the above addresses whether or not Ro...<i>Now, none of the above addresses whether or not Romneycare/Obamacare is wise policy or not, only whether it is constitutional. That the Supreme Corporate may rule that it is unconstitutional is merely a matter of the political calculations of the currently sitting majority.</i><br /><br />Granted. Just because a policy is wise does not make it constitutional, and vice versa. I guess what I'm asking is that an ammendment be passed to expand federal powers if wise rather than twisting words until they break.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34424422935869427802012-05-02T09:49:03.965-07:002012-05-02T09:49:03.965-07:00What pragmatic difference is it going to make if t...<i>What pragmatic difference is it going to make if the govt can cross-correlate a thousand phone conversations without a warrant... or they keep a battalion of "judges" on tap to approve warrants on an assembly line?</i><br /><br />(1) That sounds like a really good argument for reforming the process by which the government obtains warrants. If you really care about accountability, then why would you simply throw your hands up and claim that seeking judicial review of government surveillance is useless? Adding that extra layer of protection, even if subject to abuse, is better than abandoning it entirely.<br /><br />(2) Those who advocate for legal accountability and judicial review for surveillance ought to be celebrated by those who want transparency, not called "pathetic" for their efforts. In <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/brin_rebuttal" rel="nofollow">a response</a> to <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/03/securitymatters_0306" rel="nofollow">a critique</a> of your book, you praise NGOs as serving the "Enlightenment method." But now you scorn one such NGO -- the ACLU -- as "pathetic," simply for seeking greater transparency of how the government conducts surveillance. Amazing.<br /><br />(3) Wanting judicial review -- and legal accountability for unlawful spying -- can't be any less feasible or "pathetic" than, say, a program giving random citizens security clearance to walk around the halls of the NSA or CIA. Why would the government ever allow such a thing? Of course, if it did, there is still the question of <i>accountability for wrongdoing.</i> But even in those rare occasions when information finally flows "our way," there is still no accountability (seven years now, and there's still no accountability for warrantless spying). But there's <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/obamas-war-whistle-blowers/38106/" rel="nofollow">plenty of punishment</a> for those who expose government crimes and corruption.<br /><br />(4) In order for accountability through sousveillance to work, the citizenry has to actually push for that accountability. But, as we saw with the NSA scandal and revelations of torture, even when information <i>finally flows our way</i>, no one gives a damn. There's no real pressure from the citizenry for press the Obama administration, for example, to hold torturers accountable, or to hold those who broke surveillance laws accountable. Why would any of this change in a sousveillance society, if people are equally apathetic? Before sousveillance can be effective, people have to at least give a damn about revelations that come out. Otherwise, the government will still have nothing to fear.jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-29814338801413731522012-05-02T09:18:58.836-07:002012-05-02T09:18:58.836-07:00"...we took away the old protection of state ...<i>"...we took away the old protection of state rights: having Senators chosen by state legislatures..."</i><br /><br />The collapse of "states rights" is generally seen as a good thing.<br /><br />Over 200 years ago, our great Nation was a loose federation of States and citizens might well feel more connection to their State than to the Union. There really was such a thing as local commerce.<br />That approach died with the Civil War and the internet killed it even deader.<br /><br />You want evidence? Now-a-days, how many people would refuse a great job offer because they want to stay living in Oregon, not Washington? Vermont, not New Hampshire? <br /><br />How many economic transactions can you carry one WITHOUT some element of it crossing state lines? Maybe if you pay cash at a garage sale ... but any credit/debit transaction goes through several states at the least, as does every transaction involving medical care.<br /><br />Structurally, our Constitution can support both a highly-centralized and a highly-decentralized approach; it's that flexible. It is an historical accident that the Commerce Clause has turned out to include just about everything and the Third Amendment has shrunk to include nothing, but so what? The Supreme Corporate may invalidate Congressional enactments based on limitations that it discovers in the Constitution, but such limitations are founded only in the personal political philosophies of the currently sitting "justices", not in the plain text of the federal Constitution. That text, and the continually-increasing volume of court opinions, can be mined for snippets that support ANY political philosophy at all, and it should surprise no-one that a body of clerks whose job it is to go quote-mining can come up which whatever may be necessary. (And, where necessary, they can just make stuff up, as in the head-note that initially established court personhood.)<br /><br />Now, none of the above addresses whether or not Romneycare/Obamacare is wise policy or not, only whether it is constitutional. That the Supreme Corporate may rule that it is unconstitutional is merely a matter of the political calculations of the currently sitting majority.rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62720741458095179322012-05-02T07:52:30.750-07:002012-05-02T07:52:30.750-07:00"The earliest version of Federation of coloni..."The earliest version of Federation of colonies was "Australasia", which was to include both New Zealand and Fiji." <br /><br />I believe at one point we also tried to nick Malaya and Singapore.Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32418529362958100392012-05-02T07:50:48.931-07:002012-05-02T07:50:48.931-07:00sociotard:
Are there any powers that State govern...sociotard:<br /><i><br />Are there any powers that State governments should possess that the Federal government should not possess? If so, what are those powers?<br /></i><br /><br />Trivial examples come immediately to mind. State governments have the responsibility of licensing drivers, licensing doctors, licensing lawyers, licensing marriages, etc. I'm not sure what would happen if the fed tried to usurp that role, but it doesn't seem to come up.<br /><br />If I'm not mistaken, corporations are chartered at the state level as well. I'm not sure that's a good thing, as corporations clearly engage in interstate commerce (as well as global commerce), but there you have it. <br /><br />Perhaps more to your point, I seriously believe that if California or Orgeon or any State decides to legalize marijuana or to allow physican-assisted suicide, the federal government shouldn't be interfering in that decision. I actually oppose the use of the interstate commerce clause the way it has been invoked to restrict marijuana grown for personal use on one's own property (which is not really "commerce" at all). But given the fact that the USSC is just fine with the interstate commerce clause being invoked that way, I find it hypocritical that they might make a stand against ObamaCare.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15172482688645406722012-05-02T07:31:38.859-07:002012-05-02T07:31:38.859-07:00sociotard:
"But in the specific area of Obam...sociotard:<br /><i><br />"But in the specific area of ObamaCare, do you really see it as a states' rights issue?" <br /><br />Yes. Having a mandate or not is a State issue. Or, if it is not, it raises the question of what are solely state issues. I read an article about the supreme court case going on now, and one of the judges asked the advocate "if the government can do this, what can't the government do?"<br /></i><br /><br />I've heard the "brocolli" argument. But even one of the Justices (Kennedy, I belive) made the counterpoint that the mandate to purchase insurance is quite intertwined with the other mandate that companies <b>provide</b> insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions. And they're both intimately connected to the fact that hospitals are (even now) required to provide certain types of care to the uninsured anyway, even if they can't pay for it.<br /><br />Whichever Justice it was seemed to indicate that there was a quite specific problem that ObamaCare and its mandates address quite specifically. It's not simply a case of the government randomly inflicting mandates on the public.<br /><br />I think the pertinent question is whether the federal government has the power to act as an insurance company of last resort--whether this is accomplished by a "Medicare for all" system or by a "private insurance for all" system seems irrelevant to the question. The mandate is just a mechanism for implementing the "private insurance for all" option. And since Medicare hasn't been ruled unconstitutional in over 45 year, it's a bit late to be screming that a federal role in insuring a vulnerable population is beyond the pale.<br /><br /><i><br />Again, I firmly believe there should be some division between power between the state and federal levels. I wouldn't mind an amendment to reestablish the issue. Perhaps, some rule that every 50 years the division would be revisited and renegotiated.<br /></i><br />Note that I'm arguing that health care, by its nature is a special case, not that the fed should have unlimited powers. On the broader philosophical issue, I agree with you more than I disagree. I just think that ObamaCare is a poor place to make the stand, for pragmatic reasons AND philosophical ones.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88811711129025235972012-05-02T02:00:54.376-07:002012-05-02T02:00:54.376-07:00Sociatard,
Re: Australia and state's rights.
...Sociatard,<br />Re: Australia and state's rights.<br /><br />If you're curious, our equivalent of the commerce clause is notably more generalised: <i>"S.109 When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."</i> But apparently was intended to be used sparingly and immediately, ie, it was intended to ease the transition between the original six colonies and the new Federation, not to be used as a general bludgeon by the Fed against the states. Yet it has always been interpreted by the High Court in the broadest terms.<br /><br />Personally I wish someone would get creative with Section 92 (<i>"On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free."</i>) "Absolutely free", there must be something a clever lawyer and an few activist Justices can do with that.<br /><br />[The earliest version of Federation of colonies was "Australasia", which was to include both New Zealand and Fiji. And further to what Ian said, most of the states making up Australia were as independent as New Zealand is now. Colonies with full autonomy. In other words, sans Federation, they would have evolved into regular countries.]<br /><br />(gove aswaym: When governments exceed the supposed limits of their authority. ("And if the Sky gove aswayn, would not the Sun cleave to anger, my Prince?" Lady Macbeth. ActI, SceneIV.)Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32829929942800933532012-05-02T01:23:00.333-07:002012-05-02T01:23:00.333-07:00Sociotard
Firstly, a geenral comment. There's...Sociotard<br /><br />Firstly, a geenral comment. There's an assumption that the United states is an anomaly in that it was a union of preexisting states with sovereign powers. In point of fact, Australia - where several of the colonies were effectively independent states prior to Federation - is an even more extreme example.<br /><br />Despite this, Australia is far more centralized than the US and I can't say we're any the worse for it.<br /><br />State governments control schools and the police here, for example, and I don; seen any evidence that local government control of their US equivalents improved their performance any. <br /><br />Then too Australia is small enough - six states, two territories - that we can indulge in what's called "Co-operative Federalism" where the states and the Federal government operate by consensus and effectively pool their powers.<br /><br />So if there's a perceived need fro a perceived need for a consistent national approach to an area where the states have jurisdiction, one state develops template legislation which the other states then adopt.<br /><br />(To complicate matters further, New Zealand frequently sits in on the Ministerial councils that develop the co-operative approaches.) <br /><br />To be honest, having looked at various jurisdictions around the planet in some detail (former government policy work, remember) I see little reason to decide a priori that most government functions are best performed by a particular level of government.<br /><br />The assertion that government functions are best performed at the lowest possible level sounds pretty but there's precious little empirical evidence to support it and plenty of counter-examples.Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70069124526352802782012-05-02T00:09:27.610-07:002012-05-02T00:09:27.610-07:00Okay, I looked it up. The article refered to the ...Okay, I looked it up. The article refered to the Militia Acts of 1792. These acts didn't just force people to buy guns. Actually, it was a draft. Every able bodied man was drafted into a nearby militia and, yes, ordered to buy a firearm.<br /><br />This did not use the interstate commerce clause. The Draft is usually interpreted as being constitutional because of the directly declared power to raise armies.<br /><br />Again, those framers in that congress <b>did</b> care about limitations on federal power. They didn't think the Fed could just order people to buy anything. They had to link it back to the Constitution.<br /><br />I suppose this means that we could get instant constitutional socialized medicine by drafting all persons into an army reserve of some kind that would never get called up. Odd, but possibly constitutional.<br /><br />Ian, you are Australian, correct? I'll tweak the question for you, since you aren't in my country. Do you think there should be a clear seperation between the federal and state levels? What powers should go to which level, and how should that line be maintained?sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43198519095402326902012-05-01T23:58:33.484-07:002012-05-01T23:58:33.484-07:00Huh. I was wrong. That is interesting. I'll...Huh. I was wrong. That is interesting. I'll have to check and see if that one ever went up against judicial review. If it didn't, we might not know if it was constitutional.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52112150157381172532012-05-01T21:30:40.291-07:002012-05-01T21:30:40.291-07:00http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individ...http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act<br /><br />"IIn 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. "Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27590537846541675042012-05-01T21:24:55.496-07:002012-05-01T21:24:55.496-07:00"Those were State Regulations. State. Not Fed..."Those were State Regulations. State. Not Federal. State. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing States from requiring all men to buy firearms, or guns, or gummy worms."<br /><br />Actually according to the article cited it was a Federal law, not a state law.Ian Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07666385933765478081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6153464776778805212012-05-01T20:51:27.633-07:002012-05-01T20:51:27.633-07:00And health insurance isn't? Pretty much anyone...<i>And health insurance isn't? Pretty much anyone who travels to another state ever for any reason is at risk of needed emergency medical care there. It's not really something you can opt out of should you go to another state. Should the burden then only fall on those who decide to enter another state?</i><br /><br />People do have to change health insurance if they move to a new state.<br /><br /><i>More prevalent was the requirement that all men had to purchase a firearm. This sounds like the government forcing you, under penalty of law, to participate in the economy (an effective tax). Yes, it was for "the common defense and general welfare", but considering the percentage of the economy that is health care and its associated costs, one can make a similar argument for the "general welfare" of the nation.</i><br /><br />Those were <b>State</b> Regulations. State. Not Federal. State. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing States from requiring all men to buy firearms, or guns, or gummy worms.<br /><br />There is, however, the line that says that all powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government belong to the states. In order to require men to buy guns or health insurance, they have to bend words in that little tiny section so that it is legal for the federal government to do so.<br /><br />Here's the question I want you to answer:<br /><b>Are there any powers that State governments should possess that the Federal government should not possess? If so, what are those powers?</b>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51736308046157252672012-05-01T19:34:15.994-07:002012-05-01T19:34:15.994-07:00Well, yes, I suppose continuing to fight delaying ...Well, yes, I suppose continuing to fight delaying actions on that front can do a little good. <br /><br />Still, I find all this quibbling over arbitrary lines in the sand to be barely worth my attention. What pragmatic difference is it going to make if the govt can cross-correlate a thousand phone conversations without a warrant... or they keep a battalion of "judges" on tap to approve warrants on an assembly line?<br /><br />I have learned that bickering and focusing on these matters serves as a lovely distraction, keeping us occupied while surveillance spreads by a thousand means and hardly anyone pushes to other reaction, sousveillance, that might actually make a very real difference.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38910682810772571512012-05-01T18:57:05.819-07:002012-05-01T18:57:05.819-07:00jmHenry you keep missing the point. I am almost co...<i>jmHenry you keep missing the point. I am almost completely indifferent toward what the govt knows about me.</i><br /><br />Actually, Mr. Brin, I do understand what you're arguing. I wasn't arguing against surveillance, or for making the government "blind." I was actually <i>reinforcing</i> your point: that the government constantly conducts its surveillance (1) in violation of Constitutional checks, and (2) by ensuring that information flows only toward the government.<br /><br />Standing up against warrantless wiretapping isn't "pathetic." No more than it's "pathetic" to stand up against, say, the police bursting into your house and searching your home without a warrant.<br /><br />Accountability through sousveillance seems interesting, and I understand your argument there. At the same time, I don't see what's wrong with insisting accountability for unlawful surveillance through the rule of law (like Obama is fond of saying, we're a nation of laws).jmhenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10108615537455993311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32374360787420775362012-05-01T18:14:55.255-07:002012-05-01T18:14:55.255-07:00Interview of me by George Dvorsky, on io9, is more...Interview of me by George Dvorsky, on io9, is more about science fiction, science and the daunting challenges and amazing opportunities in front of us. Piddling things like... destiny. <br /><br />http://io9.com/5906672/david-brin-on-the-need-to-restore-optimism-to-science-fiction <br /><br />http://io9.com/5906672/david-brin-<br />on-the-need-to-restore-optimism-to-<br />science-fictionDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18389804608933939262012-05-01T18:14:18.232-07:002012-05-01T18:14:18.232-07:00jmHenry you keep missing the point. I am almost c...jmHenry you keep missing the point. I am almost completely indifferent toward what the govt knows about me. I cannot prevent it and I would rather it be made legal, so we can observe them watching. Folks like you and the ACLU mean well. You sense that we need to control the watchdog...<br /><br />...and you keep hollering at the parts of the Patriot Act and other changes that (a) cannot be stopped and (b) don't threaten us!<br /><br />I care far more about what the govt (or other elites can DO to me. And to prevent malignant action, I want the ability to LOOK at THEM! My safety is not enhanced by (pathetically) trying to blind elites. It is enhanced by stripping them naked so that I am not blind.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52093032986952472072012-05-01T17:50:11.558-07:002012-05-01T17:50:11.558-07:00David,
"oops that was 3 years ago...."
...David,<br /><i>"oops that was 3 years ago...."</i><br /><br />Happened in 2006. So 6 years old. It was three years old by the time the now also three year old article was published about it.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.com