Can't we get this ourselves right now with OpenBTS? Is anyone selling a cheap ($100-200) HW unit with all the OpenBTS installed and ready to connect to an Internet VOIP/PSTN gateway?
Libertarians have voted Republicans into power across the US for decades, on promises to cut government. The fact that Republicans lied, and vastly expanded government, especially its most abusive parts, has not stopped libertarians from voting Republicans into power.
You can't take credit for being too stupid to catch on to Republican lies when you keep voting for them.
These hurdles are because you're thinking in terms of the status quo in your area, not how it's actually done. Korea, Japan, Scandinavia, France etc are flooded with fiber because their governments recognized the strategic importance of that infrastructure. The US doesn't recognize the strategic importance of anything, because our people are complacent, ignorant of other countries, and vote for governments that are interested nearly exclusively in what's strategically important to giant corporations and cartels.
Not at all. I've never been a member of any political party. You can't argue the actual point, because it's true - even though you don't like it said out loud.
You Teabaggers just never run out of excuses for being wrong.
First, I didn't say Tennessee is "Midwest". I responded to a post about the Midwest.
Whatever's "clear" to you, I've been to most of the states in the Midwest. You clearly don't realize that broadband is typically delivered over fiberoptic cables, which easily span 10 miles. You clearly don't realize that plenty of spread-out rural communities do have broadband, even though not enough. Which proves it can be done. As you can clearly see in the availability of broadband in Vermont, even in many of its 0-50 people per square mile rural areas.
The arguments you're using are the same as the ones used against universal telephone service and rural electrification - in these exact same places. America excels when we insist on doing, not on looking for excuses not to do.
The only difference I see between running fibers to homes in areas where the homes are a quarter mile, or 10 miles, apart vs in a suburb where they're 100 feet apart is that the "last mile" really is a mile, or 10 miles, not 100 feet (or really a quarter or eighth mile, as that's what a "neighborhood vault" serves). But that "last mile" fiber being 1-10 miles instead of 1/4 mile is really a tiny extra cost: fiber is cheap. Running it along the utility poles to the premises costs money, but at $50 a month the few $hundred it costs to run to the farmhouse is made back pretty quick.
It's all not quite as profitable as fiber to suburbs or cities. But even in NYC there's neighborhoods where cable and/or broadband Internet is still unavailable. Because the telco/cableco are not operating on a "wherever it's profitable" business model. They're operating on a "lowest hanging fruit" model: wherever it's most profitable, and only there. Which is why the US lags behind in the world: our telecom cartels are so lazy and rich that they don't even do business where it's profitable even during a recession. They just wait until someone else makes connecting the least attractive markets more profitable later on, when they get around to it.
But I don't think your argument even applies. The areas that aren't wired aren't bringing down the average US speeds, since they're not counted. The US speeds are determined by the speed of people who are actually connected. The incremental cost of bringing them to the max of the copper, if that's all that was installed, or of the fiber, is quite small, but the telcos/cablecos don't even do that. There's little or no competition, which is all that ever gets these telcos/cablecos to spend any money, even on profitable investments. Watch as Chattanooga's other ISPs start delivering more service for less money, now that there's actual competition.
Libertarians are all just wannabe mayors of Sim City, so there's no actual reality to what would be an acceptable final result to a libertarian. There is no end to "less government" except "no government". Which is anarchy, which is always a brief period before it's replaced by warlords. That's why a lot of libertarians will tell you the acceptable amount of government would be "military and police only", because they're really just authoritarians. But "military and police only" is just a way to skip right to warlordism, or rather totalitarianism by the warlord running the police and military without the rest of the government to keep it in check.
Your particular version of moderation includes funding hospitals, schools etc. The libertarian next to you doesn't want public funding of schools. The one next to them wants to stop paying for hospitals. The libertarian next to them wants to stop paying for either of them.
Yes, there are efficiencies to be had. If libertarians actually cared about efficiency, they'd run for election to their local school board, find whether there are merger efficiencies, and convince a majority to merge. That never happens. Because there's no glory in it, and libertarians don't want to work - they want to be mayor of Sim City.
Harper is a "Conservative". "Conservatism" is one step away from corporate anarchy: state corporatism. The state funds the corporations, but is run by them (or a select few of them). When that's enforced by terrorism, like violence and its credible threat, it's identifiable as fascism (and usually comes with nationalism, mass murder, military attack of other countries, etc). State corporatism isn't as prosperous for the corporate owners as is corporate anarchy, but it's a lot more likely to include any one corporate owner in those who get to survive and own the corporation; stability of wealth vs greater wealth but risk of none.
You just tried to argue that the fastest US states are as fast as the fastest in the EU, but that's a lie. Confronted with the facts, you're changing to some other BS argument. Typical Teabagger: you're a narcissist, to whom facts and logic are just sounds that sane people make you've grown accustomed to hearing.
I watched the video you pointed to. It cherrypicks Cuomo saying that Clinton pressured banks to loan to people banks didn't used to loan to. But it doesn't mention that it wasn't those people who failed to repay their loans. It was rich people who failed to repay their loans at seven times the rate as those poor people under that programme. It was Republicans, the people you voted for, who deregulated the banks to create the system where banks made those bad loans - but which still wouldn't have loaned to poor people who were better risks, as the facts proved. You Republicans crashed the system, then lie to blame the people you used to screw by excluding.
You're not talking to a 12 year old. You're a Teabagger hiding behind nonsense. Nobody called "your gay friends" (if they exist) anything - except you just did. You Teabaggers are stupid: do you think you fool anyone but yourselves with that inane prattle?
Yeah, and you still vote Republican. And chant Teabagger nonsense like "Clinton caused the housing crash" because you hate minorities but love bankers.
Japan "loves technology"? That's a circular argument.
The top EU states - France:18Mbps; NL:9Mbps; Portugal:8Mbps; Poland: 7.5Mbps - are faster than the fastest US states. To say nothing of Finland:22Mbps; Sweden:18Mbps; Norway:7Mbps, or Canada:7.6Mbps.
But you're the kind of person linking to Teabagger lies like "Clinton caused the housing collapse" in your.sig. Even though the Clinton administration was right to force banks to loan to people who couldn't get loans before, since those people defaulted on their loans at a vastly lower rate than the rich White people who actually caused the housing collapse. Rich White people who voted for the Republicans who deregulated banks starting during the Clinton administration.
You Republicans collapsed the economy, and you Republicans halted the Internet boom that we invented (and Democrats encouraged while Republicans did nothing). You Republicans are the problem, no matter what your bad logic and spoonfed propaganda tells you.
Then the Midwest might bring down the average speed. But there's absolutely no reason why San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, shouldn't have the same high speeds as entire countries like Japan, Korea, etc.
However, the argument you're using isn't even a good one for the Midwest. Sparsely populated places are easy to reach with long fibers, and so cheap to bring high bandwidth to. It doesn't take a huge operation or investment to bring fiber to nearly everyone in Montana or Wyoming.
The real answer is that US the telecom network cartel has never been aggressive in bringing Internet to homes. Quite the opposite: every time there's a push to increase the reach or speed of the network, the telcos have been there to push back, claiming the new traffic load will kill the existing network, or some other malarkey. What they're afraid of is that more bandwidth creates more opportunities to compete with them, and gives them less time to milk ancient services for a dragged out period of pure profitability before investing in a new generation. And that's exactly what they've got, and what we're stuck with. Except when an org not in their cartel provides some actual competition, like this municipal network operator.
They're corporate anarchists like every other libertarian. No amount of government is ever small enough. Especially when it's reduced to military and police, the usual "reasonable libertarian" utopia, where the rest of the government that can keep those forces from being nothing but private armies/security is missing.
Phased array antennas can detect the 3D position of the source of a signal, distinguished from other transmitter locations sending on the same frequency. It's how humans with eyes can tell there's two blades of grass in front of them, not just "it's green out".
A phased array could make frequency segregation unnecessary, and vastly increase bandwidth without interference. By doing so, it would completely destroy the entire basis of the FCC, except as certification that phased array devices work properly.
How far along has phased array tech come for either stationary devices like base stations, relocatable ones like notebooks, or low power ones like phones? Products with these features are long overdue, and mobile telecom will be revolutionized by them.
Some day "shipping" will come to India, and we will be able to send a package from the country without being there personally. Just like people used to do with drugs, before India's Customs agencies got their import/export perfect under the control of law and order.
I cannot wait to have the Indians to whom my job was outsourced buy up thousands of these tablets and ship them to me for $40, so I can sell them here in the US for $150. It might make up for my lost salary and benefits.
Seriously, how will India stop me from buying a dozen of these there and shipping them back here to have a cheap tablet in every room and couch?
It's perfectly obvious the Pentagon has too much money to spend. We spent $3 TRILLION for the Pentagon to lose the Iraq War, and will spend $TRILLIONS more losing the Afghanistan War. Over $1T a year for the past decade to make the Terror War permanent, and its threat to America's security an intractable problem. After spending about a half trillion a year on military and "intelligence" for the decade before that which failed to protect us from the attacks exactly 9 years ago today.
The Pentagon shouldn't have enough money to spend censoring books that say how the Pentagon is a waste of money. The Pentagon should have $300B a year or less to spend on actual defense. Give $200-400B a year to NASA, and $300B a year to send everyone to college for free. Then watch the country's security stabilize and grow as we think up and execute actual solutions to our problems, rather than shooting everything in sight - and at our own shadow.
Censorship is simply the prevention of a speaker's words reaching a listener, without the agreement of either speaker or listener. Buying the speech without getting the speaker's agreement not to speak is censorship. It's a clever way to do it that doesn't include direct confrontation or exercise of power over either speaker or listener, but it's censorship.
I have learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath. I am like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren. Except evidently those who haven't learned.
My complaint is that the Baby Boomers put the oil in the air as CO2, and now we have to deal with both problems. All you just did was give an excuse why. Though your excuses are that Baby Boomers had to mock and beat up the people who'd been warning them since they were in highschool the consequences of their wasteful, reckless actions. Because, y'know, those Nixon/Reagan/Bush voters had to avoid some unspecified "high price" that's worse than burning all the oil into CO2.
You're an idiot. I had my station wagon running for 2 years. Yes, it had bad gas mileage, but the amount of pollution it caused compared to making a new car as the post to which I replied suggested I buy was very small. The used cars I have driven have always been above 20MPG (actual measurements), always well above the average of the new cars on the market. And they didn't take any energy to make, because they were already made.
And I drove them less, a lot less, than the average 15K miles annual in the US. And I drove a motorcycle a lot, which though you're complaining about something smelly, they still got over 35MPG, so the total emissions impact was very low. And all the commuter train riding I mentioned. And like I said, I've telecommuted a lot more than any vehicle use.
As for today's generation vs Boomers, Boomers were the ones dragracing 12MPG cars all night long. To compare that to people today who bicycle to work more than Boomers bicycled to the soda shop is purely inane.
So you're totally talking out of your ass. And sucking gas in a Jeep, the posermobile. I'm not even going to bother rebutting your inevitable BS about nukes, because you're an obnoxious jerk who refused to read anything in my post except what made you feel superior, and you posted your BS as an AC.
No I can't. Because any "inference" is yours, not mine. Look it up: inference.
Besides your problem with the language, I never implied what you inferred, either. I spoke only about myself, in response to a direct question about myself in the post to which I replied.
I hold only you, not your generation, responsible for the fundamental errors you just made to invalidate the argument you are implying.
I haven't read Fallaci's interview, so why don't you tell us exactly what these prescient comments by Yamani were, with a testable citation, and we'll see whether he said that there would be no oil by the 1990s. And if he did, we'll look at the oil there's been since the 1990s to see that he was wrong.
The Baby Boomers voted in Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, and Clinton too who didn't undo the Reagan/Bush setbacks. They bought and burned more of that oil than anyone else.
The Boomers who invented the Green movement were the tiny minority of Boomers, who the majority of Boomers mocked and beat up from high school to the country club.
I asked my Baby Boomer parents for their old station wagon, and have driven only used cars getting above the median MPG ever since. Though I've also driven motorcycles and mostly have mass transited, though even more than that I've telecommuted. My Baby Boomer parents have driven the biggest cars and trucks with the lowest MPG available, just like the vast majority of Baby Boomers. Like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren (etc), I've learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath.
But nothing amazes me about you Baby Boomers more than your deathless commitment to sticking together, regardless of how your own generation screws you.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't we get this ourselves right now with OpenBTS? Is anyone selling a cheap ($100-200) HW unit with all the OpenBTS installed and ready to connect to an Internet VOIP/PSTN gateway?
Libertarians have voted Republicans into power across the US for decades, on promises to cut government. The fact that Republicans lied, and vastly expanded government, especially its most abusive parts, has not stopped libertarians from voting Republicans into power.
You can't take credit for being too stupid to catch on to Republican lies when you keep voting for them.
These hurdles are because you're thinking in terms of the status quo in your area, not how it's actually done. Korea, Japan, Scandinavia, France etc are flooded with fiber because their governments recognized the strategic importance of that infrastructure. The US doesn't recognize the strategic importance of anything, because our people are complacent, ignorant of other countries, and vote for governments that are interested nearly exclusively in what's strategically important to giant corporations and cartels.
Not at all. I've never been a member of any political party. You can't argue the actual point, because it's true - even though you don't like it said out loud.
You Teabaggers just never run out of excuses for being wrong.
First, I didn't say Tennessee is "Midwest". I responded to a post about the Midwest.
Whatever's "clear" to you, I've been to most of the states in the Midwest. You clearly don't realize that broadband is typically delivered over fiberoptic cables, which easily span 10 miles. You clearly don't realize that plenty of spread-out rural communities do have broadband, even though not enough. Which proves it can be done. As you can clearly see in the availability of broadband in Vermont, even in many of its 0-50 people per square mile rural areas.
The arguments you're using are the same as the ones used against universal telephone service and rural electrification - in these exact same places. America excels when we insist on doing, not on looking for excuses not to do.
The only difference I see between running fibers to homes in areas where the homes are a quarter mile, or 10 miles, apart vs in a suburb where they're 100 feet apart is that the "last mile" really is a mile, or 10 miles, not 100 feet (or really a quarter or eighth mile, as that's what a "neighborhood vault" serves). But that "last mile" fiber being 1-10 miles instead of 1/4 mile is really a tiny extra cost: fiber is cheap. Running it along the utility poles to the premises costs money, but at $50 a month the few $hundred it costs to run to the farmhouse is made back pretty quick.
It's all not quite as profitable as fiber to suburbs or cities. But even in NYC there's neighborhoods where cable and/or broadband Internet is still unavailable. Because the telco/cableco are not operating on a "wherever it's profitable" business model. They're operating on a "lowest hanging fruit" model: wherever it's most profitable, and only there. Which is why the US lags behind in the world: our telecom cartels are so lazy and rich that they don't even do business where it's profitable even during a recession. They just wait until someone else makes connecting the least attractive markets more profitable later on, when they get around to it.
But I don't think your argument even applies. The areas that aren't wired aren't bringing down the average US speeds, since they're not counted. The US speeds are determined by the speed of people who are actually connected. The incremental cost of bringing them to the max of the copper, if that's all that was installed, or of the fiber, is quite small, but the telcos/cablecos don't even do that. There's little or no competition, which is all that ever gets these telcos/cablecos to spend any money, even on profitable investments. Watch as Chattanooga's other ISPs start delivering more service for less money, now that there's actual competition.
Libertarians are all just wannabe mayors of Sim City, so there's no actual reality to what would be an acceptable final result to a libertarian. There is no end to "less government" except "no government". Which is anarchy, which is always a brief period before it's replaced by warlords. That's why a lot of libertarians will tell you the acceptable amount of government would be "military and police only", because they're really just authoritarians. But "military and police only" is just a way to skip right to warlordism, or rather totalitarianism by the warlord running the police and military without the rest of the government to keep it in check.
Your particular version of moderation includes funding hospitals, schools etc. The libertarian next to you doesn't want public funding of schools. The one next to them wants to stop paying for hospitals. The libertarian next to them wants to stop paying for either of them.
Yes, there are efficiencies to be had. If libertarians actually cared about efficiency, they'd run for election to their local school board, find whether there are merger efficiencies, and convince a majority to merge. That never happens. Because there's no glory in it, and libertarians don't want to work - they want to be mayor of Sim City.
Harper is a "Conservative". "Conservatism" is one step away from corporate anarchy: state corporatism. The state funds the corporations, but is run by them (or a select few of them). When that's enforced by terrorism, like violence and its credible threat, it's identifiable as fascism (and usually comes with nationalism, mass murder, military attack of other countries, etc). State corporatism isn't as prosperous for the corporate owners as is corporate anarchy, but it's a lot more likely to include any one corporate owner in those who get to survive and own the corporation; stability of wealth vs greater wealth but risk of none.
You just tried to argue that the fastest US states are as fast as the fastest in the EU, but that's a lie. Confronted with the facts, you're changing to some other BS argument. Typical Teabagger: you're a narcissist, to whom facts and logic are just sounds that sane people make you've grown accustomed to hearing.
I watched the video you pointed to. It cherrypicks Cuomo saying that Clinton pressured banks to loan to people banks didn't used to loan to. But it doesn't mention that it wasn't those people who failed to repay their loans. It was rich people who failed to repay their loans at seven times the rate as those poor people under that programme. It was Republicans, the people you voted for, who deregulated the banks to create the system where banks made those bad loans - but which still wouldn't have loaned to poor people who were better risks, as the facts proved. You Republicans crashed the system, then lie to blame the people you used to screw by excluding.
You're not talking to a 12 year old. You're a Teabagger hiding behind nonsense. Nobody called "your gay friends" (if they exist) anything - except you just did. You Teabaggers are stupid: do you think you fool anyone but yourselves with that inane prattle?
Yeah, and you still vote Republican. And chant Teabagger nonsense like "Clinton caused the housing crash" because you hate minorities but love bankers.
Japan "loves technology"? That's a circular argument.
The top EU states - France:18Mbps; NL:9Mbps; Portugal:8Mbps; Poland: 7.5Mbps - are faster than the fastest US states. To say nothing of Finland:22Mbps; Sweden:18Mbps; Norway:7Mbps, or Canada:7.6Mbps.
But you're the kind of person linking to Teabagger lies like "Clinton caused the housing collapse" in your .sig. Even though the Clinton administration was right to force banks to loan to people who couldn't get loans before, since those people defaulted on their loans at a vastly lower rate than the rich White people who actually caused the housing collapse. Rich White people who voted for the Republicans who deregulated banks starting during the Clinton administration.
You Republicans collapsed the economy, and you Republicans halted the Internet boom that we invented (and Democrats encouraged while Republicans did nothing). You Republicans are the problem, no matter what your bad logic and spoonfed propaganda tells you.
Then the Midwest might bring down the average speed. But there's absolutely no reason why San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, shouldn't have the same high speeds as entire countries like Japan, Korea, etc.
However, the argument you're using isn't even a good one for the Midwest. Sparsely populated places are easy to reach with long fibers, and so cheap to bring high bandwidth to. It doesn't take a huge operation or investment to bring fiber to nearly everyone in Montana or Wyoming.
The real answer is that US the telecom network cartel has never been aggressive in bringing Internet to homes. Quite the opposite: every time there's a push to increase the reach or speed of the network, the telcos have been there to push back, claiming the new traffic load will kill the existing network, or some other malarkey. What they're afraid of is that more bandwidth creates more opportunities to compete with them, and gives them less time to milk ancient services for a dragged out period of pure profitability before investing in a new generation. And that's exactly what they've got, and what we're stuck with. Except when an org not in their cartel provides some actual competition, like this municipal network operator.
Preapproval by the chief executive is obviously a policy to politicize science.
They're corporate anarchists like every other libertarian. No amount of government is ever small enough. Especially when it's reduced to military and police, the usual "reasonable libertarian" utopia, where the rest of the government that can keep those forces from being nothing but private armies/security is missing.
Phased array antennas can detect the 3D position of the source of a signal, distinguished from other transmitter locations sending on the same frequency. It's how humans with eyes can tell there's two blades of grass in front of them, not just "it's green out".
A phased array could make frequency segregation unnecessary, and vastly increase bandwidth without interference. By doing so, it would completely destroy the entire basis of the FCC, except as certification that phased array devices work properly.
How far along has phased array tech come for either stationary devices like base stations, relocatable ones like notebooks, or low power ones like phones? Products with these features are long overdue, and mobile telecom will be revolutionized by them.
Some day "shipping" will come to India, and we will be able to send a package from the country without being there personally. Just like people used to do with drugs, before India's Customs agencies got their import/export perfect under the control of law and order.
I cannot wait to have the Indians to whom my job was outsourced buy up thousands of these tablets and ship them to me for $40, so I can sell them here in the US for $150. It might make up for my lost salary and benefits.
Seriously, how will India stop me from buying a dozen of these there and shipping them back here to have a cheap tablet in every room and couch?
It's perfectly obvious the Pentagon has too much money to spend. We spent $3 TRILLION for the Pentagon to lose the Iraq War, and will spend $TRILLIONS more losing the Afghanistan War. Over $1T a year for the past decade to make the Terror War permanent, and its threat to America's security an intractable problem. After spending about a half trillion a year on military and "intelligence" for the decade before that which failed to protect us from the attacks exactly 9 years ago today.
The Pentagon shouldn't have enough money to spend censoring books that say how the Pentagon is a waste of money. The Pentagon should have $300B a year or less to spend on actual defense. Give $200-400B a year to NASA, and $300B a year to send everyone to college for free. Then watch the country's security stabilize and grow as we think up and execute actual solutions to our problems, rather than shooting everything in sight - and at our own shadow.
Of course it is. Censorship is often legal.
Censorship is simply the prevention of a speaker's words reaching a listener, without the agreement of either speaker or listener. Buying the speech without getting the speaker's agreement not to speak is censorship. It's a clever way to do it that doesn't include direct confrontation or exercise of power over either speaker or listener, but it's censorship.
I have learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath. I am like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren. Except evidently those who haven't learned.
Who's "we"? You, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes?
My complaint is that the Baby Boomers put the oil in the air as CO2, and now we have to deal with both problems. All you just did was give an excuse why. Though your excuses are that Baby Boomers had to mock and beat up the people who'd been warning them since they were in highschool the consequences of their wasteful, reckless actions. Because, y'know, those Nixon/Reagan/Bush voters had to avoid some unspecified "high price" that's worse than burning all the oil into CO2.
Dick Cheney, is that you?
You're an idiot. I had my station wagon running for 2 years. Yes, it had bad gas mileage, but the amount of pollution it caused compared to making a new car as the post to which I replied suggested I buy was very small. The used cars I have driven have always been above 20MPG (actual measurements), always well above the average of the new cars on the market. And they didn't take any energy to make, because they were already made.
And I drove them less, a lot less, than the average 15K miles annual in the US. And I drove a motorcycle a lot, which though you're complaining about something smelly, they still got over 35MPG, so the total emissions impact was very low. And all the commuter train riding I mentioned. And like I said, I've telecommuted a lot more than any vehicle use.
As for today's generation vs Boomers, Boomers were the ones dragracing 12MPG cars all night long. To compare that to people today who bicycle to work more than Boomers bicycled to the soda shop is purely inane.
So you're totally talking out of your ass. And sucking gas in a Jeep, the posermobile. I'm not even going to bother rebutting your inevitable BS about nukes, because you're an obnoxious jerk who refused to read anything in my post except what made you feel superior, and you posted your BS as an AC.
No I can't. Because any "inference" is yours, not mine. Look it up: inference.
Besides your problem with the language, I never implied what you inferred, either. I spoke only about myself, in response to a direct question about myself in the post to which I replied.
I hold only you, not your generation, responsible for the fundamental errors you just made to invalidate the argument you are implying.
I haven't read Fallaci's interview, so why don't you tell us exactly what these prescient comments by Yamani were, with a testable citation, and we'll see whether he said that there would be no oil by the 1990s. And if he did, we'll look at the oil there's been since the 1990s to see that he was wrong.
The Baby Boomers voted in Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, and Clinton too who didn't undo the Reagan/Bush setbacks. They bought and burned more of that oil than anyone else.
The Boomers who invented the Green movement were the tiny minority of Boomers, who the majority of Boomers mocked and beat up from high school to the country club.
I asked my Baby Boomer parents for their old station wagon, and have driven only used cars getting above the median MPG ever since. Though I've also driven motorcycles and mostly have mass transited, though even more than that I've telecommuted. My Baby Boomer parents have driven the biggest cars and trucks with the lowest MPG available, just like the vast majority of Baby Boomers. Like the rest of the Boomers' children and grandchildren (etc), I've learned from their mistakes as I clean up their mess and learn to survive the aftermath.
But nothing amazes me about you Baby Boomers more than your deathless commitment to sticking together, regardless of how your own generation screws you.
This decision has nothing to with Obama, yet it's tagged obama.