** Sharing an entry from another of my diaries that's a response to a commenter in another persons diary ... it's all rather confusing! But I've really no patience for ignorant people who have no problem spreading it around. So, I figured I'd spread my stuff around as a sort of balance in nature. **

It seems I've more time to read than write of late but some comments just need addressing.

I'm not interested in an argument or a heated debate. Just want to toss my two cents worth in and stand back to see if anyone has more, or better, information than I do.

In addition, I'm not out to change anyone's mind about their beliefs or 'convert' them to my pantheistic views. I simply don't care what others believe, it's personal, but when they prod for a debate based on assertions and beliefs rather than facts, I take umbrage. So if you want to believe the earth or sun is young go ahead. But it is just a belief, to offer up false facts to support that belief is just wrong; a wrong that needs correcting.

This began with an innocent comment in my previous post from someone new to my diary so I went to hers his and there, I found a comment from another diarist. It's to this other diarist that I address my comment (below). I've included hers his, then my response. Just for shits 'n giggles I put it here so if I've erred in my calculations there's a chance someone will be able to correct them. With facts.

.......

My apologies, Karamisdvine, for taking up so much space in your comment section to address spiritsfire's comments. I will post this at hers his site as well as an entry in mine, to open it up to others to discuss as they wish. It seems spirits is keen on an answer and while I'm sure you can and should speak for yourself on this issue, I felt compelled to say something at this time. I suspect this sort of debate isn't the purpose of your diary. You are free to delete this comment. So, to spiritsfire's comments of:

Here is the problem; there are far too many points against evolution. The greatest being that there is no way that the earth could be over ten thousand years old. I mean, if you think about the fact that the sun is in a constant state of fluctuation, gaining and losing mass but losing 5 tons an hour more than it gains back then if the sun were even close to as old as the earth supposedly is then adding back all of that mass it would have had too of been huge when the earth first formed, so big that there would be no Mercury or Venus.

There is far more evidence but I think this is a good start.

Then later:

The thing is that I have deeply studied evolution for many years and that is how I know that it is false and I wonder that if you had all of the facts if you would still feel the same way? But if you aren’t interested in a debate then I will leave it at that.

I respond ...

The problem actually is that if you've "deeply studied evolution for many years" you've either wasted time and money or, you've not been looking at the scientific aspects of evolution. It appears, from reading your comments, that you're spouting antiquated, narrow-minded information as would be handed out by an ancient pastor from his dry-rotted pulpit.

You can't expect to have a debate on evolution if you're not willing or able to provide support for your point of view. All you've done is state your belief that the sun couldn't be older than 10,000 years, but you've not offered anything to support that statement. You've written it like it's something that you've thought up and, after exhaustive years of searching, could find no expert who could dispute you and your assertions when, in fact, what you've stated are standard xtian claims whipped out almost verbatim by those wishing to blind others with bullshite rather than dazzle them with facts.

Let's start with your greatest point against evolution. Not that the sun has anything to do with the evolutionary processes per se; it has more to do with what fundamentalists are most concerned ... creation. If the numbers and facts can be either twisted or totally ignored to show a young earth then certainly evolution didn't, nay .. couldn't! .. happen.

Let's visit our star, the Sun. It roughly has the total mass of 1.99 x 1030 kg (the superscript, 30 in this case, means the number 10 is followed by 30 zeros: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). This makes the total number of hydrogen nuclei in the sun about 8.7 x 1056 (1.99 x 1030/ 100 x 4.36 x 1028). The number of helium nuclei is about 7.5 x 1055 (1.99 x 1030 / 100 x 3.76 x 1027).

The mass of hydrogen consumed every year is about 1.84 x 1019 kg and since the total mass of the sun is 1.99 x 1030, and about 73% of this is hydrogen, it follows that the maximum duration of the conversion of hydrogen into helium at the present rate is .73 x 1.99 x 1030 over 1.84 x 1019 years which equals 7.9 x 1010 years.

This is not an exact number, I agree; it is an estimate because it assumes that all of the hydrogen currently in the sun will undergo conversion and it also makes use of a result that is itself an estimate. Regardless, the answer is sound, especially for our purposes here. More precise estimates of the suns hydrogen-fuelled lifetime gives a figure of about 1010 years and with the sun estimated to be 4.5 x 109 years old, it's considered to be a middle-aged star.

As for the luminosity of the sun, it's estimated at 3.84 x 1026 J s-1. With about 3.16 x 107 seconds in one year, it follows that the annual energy output of the sun (E) is about 1.21 x 1034 J. Assuming this energy is entirely supplied by the loss of mass from the suns core, it follows that the mass lost per year is: m = E/C2 = 1.21 x 1034 J / (3.00 x 108 ms-1)2 = 1.34 x 1017 kg. This means the sun is losing mass at the rate of 4.25 x 109 kilograms per second and will lose about 1027 kg in its hydrogen-burning lifetime; which is to say it will lose about .05% of its mass. This is a very small amount and in no way demonstrates that in the distant past the sun would be so massive as to engulf Mercury and Venus. These facts show the sun has not changed significantly during its lifetime thus far.

So I'm not sure where you're getting the basis for your statement because you failed to site your source. In addition, you have your facts wrong. The sun fuses four hydrogen nuclei to make one helium nucleus. Because one helium nucleus contains 0.7 % less mass than four hydrogen nuclei, it seems that some mass vanishes in the process. In fact, that mass is converted to energy and you could figure out how much by using Einstein's equation, E = mc2 .

Creating one helium nucleus makes only a small amount of energy (barely enough to raise a housefly .001 inch into the air). Only by concentrating many reactions in a small area can nature produce significant results. A single kilogram (2.2 lbs.) of hydrogen converted entirely to energy would produce enough power to raise an average-sized mountain 10 km (6 miles). The sun has a large energy appetite and needs 1038 reactions per second and transforms 5 MILLION tons (not 5 tons) of mass into energy every second. It does this to balance its own gravity. It only sounds like the sun is losing its mass at a fast and furious rate but in its 10-billion-year lifetime the sun will convert less than .07 % of its mass into energy. The sun produces a lot of energy because it contains a LOT of grams of matter in its core.

Look at it this way, the fusion of a milligram of hydrogen (about the size of a matchstick head) produces as much energy as burning 30 gallons of gasoline. However, the nuclear reactions in the sun are spread through a large volume in its core, and any single gram of matter produces little energy. To put this on a more understandable scale, a person of normal mass eating a normal diet produces about 4,000 times more heat per gram than the matter in the core of the sun; the sun produces a lot of energy because it contains a lot of grams of matter in its core.

I suggest you read current science textbooks such as Horizons: Exploring the Universe, by Michael A. Seeds and An Introduction to the Sun and Stars by Mark S. F. Green, which are my sources for this comment. Or you could simply google the sun losing mass and find many sites that will instruct you on the facts.

As for the earth's magnetic layer I offer this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#magnetic

Here you will find, and I quote:

"The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).

Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field."

If you are going to use science to prove your young earth creationist stance, at least get it right. Though not giving accurate information, I suspect, is the only way to adhere to your point of view. Which is fine, you're entitled to your p.o.v. but you're not entitled to pass it out under the guise of science, fact, or truth to convince others. The earth is extremely old (by our short-lived standards), as is the sun, the solar system, and the entire cosmos .. denying facts doesn’t change them. It didn’t change a 'round' earth to a flat one or cause planets to align so the sun revolves around earth.

Evolution is a matter of fact; the processes by which it happened and continues to happen, continue to be revised and changed according to evidence found and updated.

*Edited as spiritsfire is male, not female. (hers) My apologies for the error.

I don't know how it got started and at this point all I feel like doing is cursing Ken for ensnaring me into this most scary of fanatical trends: naming baby. Across the message boards the message is clear, young people embarking on mom and dadom are, well, stupid. I didn't rely on just one site, but many, to arrive at this conclusion.

Seriously, folks, there is trouble brewing on the horizon if these immature moniker manglers are allowed to set loose upon us the names they've been calling 'cute!' and 'nice!'. First, they are in love with vowels and the letter 'y'. Kaylee, for example; though, that's a rather tame name compared to what I've seen. How about Maykayleeka. No, didn't see that one, but is a prime example of not going afoul of the vowel that is the key to naming the unsuspecting unborn.

No longer are John, Ken, Angela or Kelly good enough for the impregnated yuppie babies of yuppie grams and gramps to be. They bravely spurn thoughts of normal names others can spell and pronounce while disregarding what the child .. a feeling human being .. will have to deal with going through life with the likes of: Fenix. And Ryork. And ... Layden.

Maybe kids named thusly wouldn't be tortured because the rest of the kids would be struggling under the burden of similar tags. Let us visit them, shall we?

Fenix indeed was a name offered by a poster when a mother-to-be asked for suggestions. As was pointed out at the site, this name mostly said: I can't spell Phoenix. For my money, it looks suspiciously close to Felix (the Cat) and now, the theme song is running through my mind. Oh sure, this is a name adults and kids alike will enjoy hearing screeched out by an angry parent when the young lady is late coming in for dinner ..

Feeeeeeniiiiiixxxx!!!!

O.o

Any thoughts on nicknames? Feenie? Nix? Have to wonder now what sort of middle name this person is considering. Any bets on: Arizona? Or should that be, Airyzyonah.

Next on the list, Ryork. What the ...?! Sounds like an extinct species of prehistoric bird puke.

Cache. Is this child going to be stockpiled? Or will he just be the repository for horrible names.

River. Ah yes. Getting back to nature. A River runs through it. This River runs deep. River wide, River long. River bank. And, just a thought here but ... wild animals and yuppie tourists pee in rivers.

Kamin. The islands! The crocodilians! This is actually being seriously considered by some second generation yuppie. Scary.

Rylan. I'm not sure what that is, but it's not a name I'd give anything but a hamster. Okay no, I lied; I wouldn't. Maybe it was suppose to be Ryan but they couldn't get the el out.

Kage. Just reading it makes me feel boxed in; I can't imagine how I'd feel being stuck to that name all my life.

Kale. Lemme jess whip up some hominy grits and hog jawls to go with them there collards, baby chile!

Cade. ?? Is that the name of the drugs you're on? Or is that short for cadence? Aw, it's a girl!

Jet. Jet liner, cleaner, engines, setter, black .. wasn't there a super hero who couldn't fly called Jet?

Blaine. Why not Fabio?

Guy. This is not uncommon but do we really want to keep it alive? Why not Gal for a girl?

And the list goes on ... Gage (good for checking that air pressure in the tire), Macray (Mcreedie Macray that is), Ridley (Riddle me an answer batman), Bridon (of the unbridoned passion), Layden (laden: to burden or oppress), Reece (love reece's pieces!), Maverik (Country hick much?), McCoy (the real one!), Raegyn (she said her name is 'just like the presidents' .. last time I checked his name was Ronald ... Reagan; and he's an ex-president. A dead ex president), Rylie (my sister named her dog this, only she spelled it correctly), Ranson (pay it now or I kill the kid! Well, it's just one letter off ...), Colt (horse, gun?), Dabney (a little dab'll do ya), Jaxon (jaxoff), Raleigh (Carolina!), Rhealon (WTF?), Raffaello (turtle envy), Ty (dye and ty a yellow ribbon 'round the old oak tree), Conun (joint nuns), Conan (the barbarian and he'll be baaaack and pissed off that you stole his name), Seropuin (please tell me it's a common name in Greece or someplace ..), Hunter (me kill, you cook .. ugg), Trapper (me catch, you cook .. ugg), Tanner (it's what I does with the dead things I kilt and you cooked .. ugg!), Kade (too close to Kate when yelled across the play ground. I checked. And besides .. Kade??), Kaden (just as bad as Kade; the 'n' didn't improve it any), Track (is how I hunt and trap so I's can tan! ... ugg), Cole (another name for kale .. more from the mustard family!), Dagen (the dragon), Dade (WTF is that dad-e?? or dade, which has no more resemblance to a name than sog), Hayden (Fox! I liked that show ..), Royce (Rolls! just can't stop naming kids after cars, can you. So sad.), Sydni (Sydney Australia but not a feckin name for cryin out loud. At least spell it normal. Sydni. Why not Sidknee or Cidnea??), Flare (No, you do NOT have a flare for naming a child), Pine (nut, tree, sol, needle, away .. really people, do you not even think about thinking??), Sage (the perfect herb for the turkey .. or very wise, unlike mummy and daddy), Cloud (are you .. Sioux?), Bolt (which your child will do the second he or she realizes what a completely stupid name you struck them with), Polie (want a cracker), Ryker Teagen (m) (Commander Ryker! Brain fart there on 'Teagen', eh), Bracken or Thaddius (Thad or Tad for short) (Bracken is a fern you idiot! Thad?? Lisp much?), Tripp (and hit your head, which explains the name), Taycee (What?? Taser victim??), Tathan (No, no .. that's Nathan, you consonant confused person), Griffin (you do realize this is a fictional beast with the head and wings of and eagle and the body of a lion, don't you? No. I didn't think so), Creed (you want your child's name to be a word used to declare a system of belief, you cretin), Trevon (blonde moment while watching the soaps, or reading a romance novel?), Stran (oh, wouldn't it be grand if Stran's middle name could be Dan? Last name Ed? Stran D. Ed), Carsyn (city or, the host of late night, Johnny!), Stormy (nature at it's most broody, great name for a kid .. *sarcasm*), Caun (huh?), Legend (get real .. you liked the movie THAT much??! Poor kid will go around saying I am Legend and be compared unfavorably to Will Smith), Brison (That's bison, deary .. BISON), Braylon (Bray .. the sound an ass makes. Yup. You know people, if you like these names so much why don't you change YOUR name and call your child Kathy or something that won't cost you a fortune in psych visits for the kid), Kilan (Kill Lynn? What did she ever do to you ..), Zachariah (Biblical is worse than cars), Davin (rhymes with Gavin which stands for Dumb because the kid will have to say that the rest of his life. Imagine having to explain your name your whole life. HEY! I said IMAGINE! That means, put yourself in your child's place when you think Grumbalina is a cute name.), Kimela (couldn't decide between Kim and Imela, eh), Brion (bree-un, the un-cheese), Kyler (Tyler ran smack into Kyle and neither have been the same since), Karsyn (see Carsyn), Nicale (f) (Nicale's Navy!), Dalnic (m) (isn't that a penile disfigurement?), Saxon (No, Anglo!!! Death to Saxons, those filthy Germanic tribes), Slade (Sly Slade. Slade is a LAST name, not first, idiot you.), Rider (of the storm .. and get off that other kid, now!), Keslar (Kezlar) (sounds like it'll stop bullets if made into a vest), Alden (reminds me of Alan Alda .. say, why don't you name the kid Hawkeye!), Quinton (Some names just don't belong on anyone under 60), Denver (yet another city; and singer to boot!), Dallas (CITY! Wasn't that Bruce Willis' name in Fifth Element?), Bronco (a vehicle, and not a very impressive one either .. or, a wild horse! Yes, that's the name I would have been grateful MY parents named ME!).

My advice to you who think the names above are cute! or clever!:
BUY A DICTIONARY. And use it ...

Check these names, and comments, out at:

http://boards.live.com/Lifestyleboards/thread.aspx?threadid=509915&boardsparam=Page%3D61

I'm Thinking of a Number

I know every person on this planet at this very moment is the oldest they've ever been and the youngest they will ever be ... it's a constant duality which should keep us perplexed without end. We aren't, however - perplexed - because there are jobs to do for pay so that we can feed family and selves and keep us all in shelters with clothes, education and entertainment. We hardly think of the passing time, it's water moving swiftly under the bridge that divides life from death, and one drop looks much the same as the next. Unremarkable. Until we hit up against our self-imposed landmarks.

Birthdays.

When we're young, we take no notice of them except for the anxiously awaited cake and gifts. When a little older, we want to rush through them so we can 'grow up' and have all that freedom. When we're in youth, that span between 20 and 30, we start to take notice; our lives are changing fast as we start working, marrying, having children, and getting into huge debt with that first house. That little stream of passing time under the bridge has become swelled with years that suddenly carries us fast and furious through a decade with each year becoming more pronounced, more note worthy, until we think we're old ... at 25.

This is just a number, we old folk say. 50 is just a number too but it comes with failing eyesight, knees that sound like breaking stalks of celery when we use stairs, arthritis and children who are busy with work, marriage, children, houses and just now looking up to realize they are hitting the quarter century mark. Wide-eyed they are where I was a quarter century ago, wondering where the years went, feeling old, and beginning the mourning dance for their youth.

How can I let them glimpse the view of their place in the line of time from my perspective so they can understand just how young they really are? So they can see just how much time there really is and how precious it all is because I can't lie, it all goes by extraordinarily fast. But the water under the bridge can't be grabbed and held, it can't be stopped so we can inspect it's intricacy and wonder how it is unique to us. It is its nature to be elusive, and to pass by unnoticed. That's the way it is.

Now I know how my parents felt when they were 50, standing firmly within their well constructed boat and watched me, a newly sprouted seed, stretching along the edge of youth and balancing my boat in the waters of time. As they acknowledged my efforts with a sage nod, they knew .. each of us was feeling the oldest we've ever been, and the youngest we'd ever be ....

Maybe it'll attract them and then again, maybe it won't. I followed the instructions; filled the container 1/3 with water, opened the pellet backing half way, put the latter into the former and swirled. So far I had to kill two yellow jackets with an envelope because they threatened to entangle their buzzing selves into my hair. Can't have that. So, squish. However, now I'm not sure if the bee trap is working or not. But at least it's a nice, bright yellow to contrast the jumble of paperwork on my desk ...

Bush was busy kissing rich arse at the Heritage Foundation - leadership for america. (http://tinyurl.com/3b5oyt ) Yeah. Right. Just the kind of leadership I want that aids the rich to become more rich. And they sit around looking smug, all with their brown noses and clean arses.

Let's see what bushbaby had to say these rich cats sitting in litter boxes made of gold ...

"One of the interesting things about the Heritage legacy is that the folks here have been tireless advocates, tireless champions of liberty and free enterprise and democracy and religious freedom."

Champions of liberty .. as in warrentless searches? no habeas corpus? mandatory passports (as in, Herr, let me see your papers)? Did you know that one of the meanings of the word "champion" is a person who lacks morals or principles? Forgive me while I thesaurusize .. villain, blackguard, bastard, evildoer, heel, knave, miscreant, reprobate, scoundrel and son of a bitch. I see bushbaby and I can agree on this, he and his go-to-guys are definitely evildoing bastards. What an odd feeling knowing this engenders. But democracy? I thought this was a republic and religious freedom? Yes, as long as we bend knee to the favored, dominant god and don't pay attention to that "damn piece of paper" we real Americans call the U.S. Constitution. Which god? Whose god? Why god? This is not and never has been a nation founded on any religious edicts, let alone xtian.

What else did bushbaby have to say ... ah here, regarding liberty, free enterprise, democracy and religion. They are all values. I didn't know this; last time I checked values meant a principle standard or quality considered worthwhile or desirable.

Okay, I agree, liberty is both worthwhile and desirable but we don't have liberty. Any more.

Free enterprise? Sure, as long as it's a fully owned subsidiary of the great and wonderful Monocorp ala bush abiding by its rules and bushs' circumscriptions we are free to think private businesses are able, and indeed encouraged, to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation. Or, have we already forgotten what free enterprise really means.

Democracy. What does that mean anyway. I know it's suppose to represent a government by the people either directly or through elected reps, that the majority rules with principles of social equality and respect for the individual but seriously, when was the last time this country resembled that or more so, when was the last time anyone has pointed out the pledge of allegiance which states, at one point, ".. and to the republic, for which it stands ..". Republic. Non-religious republic that shuns royalty. We are suppose to have a political order whose head of state is NOT a monarch and in which the supreme power lies in the body of CITIZENS who are entitled to vote for officers and reps responsible to THEM. I ask you, is this what we have?

Religious freedom. Oh, to be free to practice what I believe, or more accurately, what you may not believe .. to believe nothing, or everything. It's a pipe dream and bushbaby has the lips of a god flapping in his ear telling him how righteous the bushes are in making sure we all are thought to be xtians .. like them. Good 'ol xtians and their forgiveness and love and sword welding and torturing to convince us all of our latent love for their god. Belief. It can not hold a candle to knowing and the religious right can't know, they can only believe and have faith. In my book, those two things are earned ... hard earned. And easily lost but not by gods or ethereal spirits floating about the oval office whispering 'axis of evil' into the ear of a drunken, doped-up, monarch wannabe; they are earned or lost by corporeal beings ... people.

And we've not gotten past the first few lines of bushbaby's speech to his Heritage buds. What more is there, you ask.

"Our nation was attacked by a brutal enemy that despises freedom, that rejects tolerance, that kills the innocent in the pursuit of a dark vision. These folks believe that it's OK to subjugate women and indoctrinate children and murder those who oppose their harsh rule. They have stated clearly they want to impose this ideology on millions. ..."

I am so tired of the 9-11 pill being shoved down our throats. It was a horrible tragedy, an attack to be sure but who were the all really behind it? It has the smells and tastes of Pearl Harbor. Bushy spoke no lies only he and others are still pointing across the ocean (to those nasty dogs who will follow us home if we don't play with them in their yard as if their flying two planes into two buildings in New York City didn't show they already know where we live ..) instead of at themselves. The description fits when the digit is aimed properly.

I'd go on but it's tiring and I'm preaching in the dark to a crowd of deaf people. One of bushbaby's speech writers did get it right when they wrote, "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake."

Point taken, bushbaby, I will strive to not underestimate your words ... they're all the buzz. And, the trap.

They, the ubiquitous They, are everywhere. But of course They are all over because They are .. ubiquitous. Enough of chasing my own tail when I could be chasing the pick-up that passed me in a tight curve in spite of the fact no passing was allowed. They are in such a hurry so They pass others, and me, and end up just a few feet from my front bumper at the light. They remain in front of me as glaring proof that the few seconds gained add + up to = nothing, even in the short run.

But They aren't getting it. Even when I wave happily at them at every stop, for miles, to remind Them of Their awesome gain. I suspect They don't check Their rearview's, but mostly I think They believe They are either the most important people on the roads ("Outta my way, I'm in a hummveeeee!!"), or the ONLY ones on the roads.

The rest of us peons just don't exist. Which may explain why They don't seem to notice my hand gesticulations.

It used to be a nice drive here; could pull out of my driveway onto the road and never look, there were that few vehicles. Now, I need a freakin' light if I want to cross. A regular speedway going on with the idiots ripping up air east and west at 80 mph passing each other and sometimes, ending up in a ditch. Nice, deep ditches since the county came through and volunteered 365 hard-earned dollars out of my pocket into theirs so I could have: a deep ditch. A good thing to have while in a drought and even better to have in conjunction with the new culvert so copious amounts of dust can billow in and out instead of being forced through by high winds like a sand blaster.

You'd think more of Them would be dead. Sadly, They cause the problems and, due to Their great speed, are gone in a flash happy belted tightly to Their arrogant ignorance of the consequences to Their actions.

I used to ride my bicycle on these roads. Used to be a safe pedal, the five miles to the nearest town, but no longer. Huge tractor-trailers by the hundreds bang by at the mandated break-neck-speeds mowing down raccoon, rabbit, deer and bird alike as if they were but snowflakes not worthy of notice. However, this manner of traffic doesn't dissuade yuppies from gaggling into bicycling groups and taking up a quarter of the road in Their annual joy ride "in the country". I am torn between who, trucker or yuppie, I'd like to prevail when the two meet in a tight curve.

At the end of the day what I'd like each and every motorist and bicyclist in a fifty mile radius to know is: Get the FECK off my planet. You're driving me mad!