Well, I can say that if that had happened to me, I'm sure I'd freak out at first. But with the hospital quickly rectifying the mistake, no harm done in my opinion. Yes, I'm sure things could have turned out quite differently and not had such a "happy" ending (they were all reunited to were they belonged). But things did work out.

These hospital workers are only human and mistakes are just a fact of life. With as many babies that are born each day, there's bound to be a mistake once in a blue moon. I feel sorry for the woman it happened to, but I can't see them receiving $50,000 over it. That's just ridiculous. If the hospital hadn't caught it so quickly and the babies were with the wrong family for an extended length of time, I might see more of a reason for a lawsuit then. But the hospital seemed to be responsible enough to make sure by doing a DNA test to ensure the safe return of the babies to the proper families. It just happened that the one went home just before getting the results. I can see it being negligent if they hadn't followed up with a DNA test at all.

I would hope that this isn't the case, but there are just those people out there that look for any reason to sue to get that "easy money". But with the little info we've been given, it seems likely that this is the case in this situation. Personally, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that it was resolved before anything happened and before developing a tight bond with the baby. I'd be thanking the hospital for doing the DNA test to make sure of proper placement of the children. Suing would be the last thing on my mind.

However, I can see the hospital stepping up and feeling obligated to do something as way of showing their apology. Perhaps covering any charges, like co-pays and deductibles, that insurance doesn't cover. If they don't have insurance, just wiping the bill clean period. That would be reasonable, but not suing and getting $50,000. That's just greedy in my opinion.

I am sort of on the fence with this one. Firstly, mistakes do happen, it is the nature of humans to err. Secondly, Americans are definitely sue happy.

Yet, what if one (or both) of the mothers had an unsavory lifestyle before and during pregnancy? Illness, drug addiction, etc., and nursed the baby not belonging to her up until the error was discovered? That would be a huge issue for me were I in that position.

Yes, the babies were returned to the respective parents after DNA testing was completed, but what if damage may have already been done? As a parent, I have a reasonable expectation of a safe delivering environment with follow-up safety of my child accordingly.
The inadvertant switch could have put both babies at risk. Granted that does not appear to have happened, yet at what point does the legality of the issue enter?

I'm somewhere in between what Laura and Dorthy said.

On one hand, the mistake was fixed instantly, and the hospital made sure they gave the right baby to each family by having a DNA test, which is rather expensive. They tried to make it better for both families. So, I don't see the point of them suing. It is like Dorthy said: a mania to sue everyone around you for no specific reason at all. And yes, maybe these families are the greedy type who try to gain money. It was a mistake, a rather terrifying one, but I don't see how 50.000$ would make them...feel better or get over it.

On the other hand, there are the health issues Dorthy talked about. It's one thing having your kid at the hospital, where it's being protected and well-taken care of, and another being with a total stranger without your permission. The babies were not mistreated, but they may have been exposed to a disease or something similar.

What seems appropriate to me is testing the babies for free, to check how they are doing and if they have any health issues, and in case they do (which I truly hope they won't), then, the hospital can pay for medical expenses. It seems like a fair deal to me. Doesn't it?

With Zimbabwe both still in crisis after the general election and undergoing an election recount, China is attempting to find a country and a port with which to dock and offload an estimated excess of one million pounds of arms and munitions.

After being denied land travel for the cargo through South Africa, the Chinese flagged ship the An Yue Jiang is now headed for Angola.

The US is currently asking four countries to prohibit the docking of the An Yue Jiang.

What do the duellers think of the outside intervention (meddling?) of other countries into the current upheaval in Zimbabwe? Is outside intervention helpful or hurtful?

First, I got to say that it is of course right not to let this ship dock and unload the weapons and ammunition! No one can say that Mugabe is democratic and I have no illusions what he'd do with these weapons.

Yet I wonder if it's only me or if the whole situation is a bit strange. I mean the US (and a lot of other countries too, no doubt) don't give a... , no wait, they are not interested in Africa for about 360 days of the year.
There are so many guerilla wars, so many guns imported, and so many starving children, and now, because it's politically necessary, everyone asks African countries to refuse this ship's cargo. Maybe this is current becaue it's a chinese ship and China doesn't have many friends these days anway, I don't know...

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I do not support keeping this ship away from Africa and I do think that China absolutely needs to rethink its definition of human rights if it wants to call itself a democracy! What makes me angry is that everyone concentrates on this one ship and at the same time, guns can be brought to Africa on every other way. And like you can see in 'Lord of War' with Nicolas Cage, the US surely support gun dealers everywhere in the third world.
Maybe they don't fight communists anymore, but Africa has many treasures of the soil, and if one dictator doesn't want the US to have it, why not support his US-friendly guerilla-enemy?
All this hypocrisy makes me angry!

I say let people do what they want. How many countried have stuck their noses in where it doesn't belong? I'd say most of them. Us Aussies have no right to be in Iraq and those places. But we are....because of one country who decided to start a war. If the Chinese want to get involved with Zimbabwe who is America to tell people not to let them? I get that America wants to be the biggest bully in the playground but why not let another country dig itself into a grave? Why bother stopping it?

If America wanted to do something decent they'd join with the Tibetan people and free Tibet. Not stop them from giving guns to another country. If anything the Americans should eb glad they are, because it decreases Chinas stock. I'm sure it doesn't take long to replenish the stock. If China had any sense they'd free Tibet and try and take over America. Imagine that. World War three. And stupid old Australia would join in because our heads are still up Bush's butt. Urgh.

In conclusion, , I think every country should be left alone. If someone wants to wage war on someone else they should do it without outside help. And if someone wants to help someone else we should let them. Stopping people doing what they want only aggravates them and what comes from aggravation? All we have to do is look at the past few years to see that result.

I, too, wish that everyone would mind their own business. In a perfect world this would keep any country from getting involved with another country, either by taking it over or meddling. But then, what would happen when, say, a natural disaster hits (like the tsunami in SE Asia or Hurricane Katrina in the US)? Do all countries mind their own business and not send any aid, either monetary or physical labor? At what point do we stop minding our own business and start meddling?

In World War II should all the allied nations have sat back and let Germany take over Europe? Would that have been ok, to let Poland or Austria or Italy or Northern Africa be overrun by the Nazis just because the Nazis were able to do it? If another country is unable to defend itself, well that's just too bad?

Should countries that are able to assist a smaller country, whose plight may not garner the media attention it deserves, not do so, just so they aren't seen as meddlers? What if China were sending weapons to Darfur to assist the oppressive regime that is in power now? Would that be an ok time for the US and other "big bullies" to intervene? What if al Qaida bombed the Sydney Opera House or Darling Harbor or the Sydney Bridge or downtown Melbourne or the whole island of Tasmania? Would Australia want the help of the US or Britain or Japan to help it rebuild or defend its borders?

I believe that war is not a wanted option (is it ever?). I would prefer it if we could all just get along! However, that is not going to happen. There will always be power-hungry dictators and potentates that will try to oppress the masses and overtake other countries just because they can. I don't think it's right to just sit back with our heads up our rears and pretend that all is hunky-dory.

I agree that more should be done for Tibet and any other country that suffers extreme political oppression. Unfortunately, there are too many political repercussions in many of these instances. The big bad "playground bullies" have to choose their battles wisely. There are a lot of countries with newly acquired nuclear weapons which need to be treated with kid gloves. This is one reason why more is NOT being done to curb the N. Korean, Chinese and Iranian governments from much of their human rights injustices. One way to perhaps get real change is to encourage big business to stop sending/outsourcing their production business to these countries. If you hit them in the pocketbook, they're more likely to listen.

We need to encourage the media to cover more of the injustices being done around the globe. Even VTM has a link for Darfur, but do you see it in the mainstream media? No. What about Tibet? No. Albania? No. Sex trade in Thailand? No. Human trafficking from Russia or China? No. The extreme poverty in parts of the US? No. Why? This doesn't sell the news and the news only wants to report what will bring in the most money. It all boils down to money and power.

OK, I think I am officially off topic now! But what it all comes down to is money and power. If the US can't take on China directly, due to political repercussions, then they'll try to get other countries to make life difficult for China. Is this right or not? It's hard to say. This is, unfortunately, not a black and white issue, there is WAY too much gray involved. One can argue that the US should keep its nose out of other countries' business -OR- one can argue that it's not right for a country as dismal in human rights as China to be giving weapons aid to a country with a power-hungry dictator (yes, Mugabe is the president, but he tends to run things like a dictator using violence and corruption to further his role). There is much gray area between these two thoughts and unfortunately most people don't bother to look at the gray.

I'm hopping off my soap box now.
Kathleen

The Daily Prophet

168th Edition

A Wartime Recession?



THIS video shows the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), giving her opinions on the current state of the country. This address falls on the five-year anniversary of President Bush's now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" (in Iraq) speech.

Pelosi says that the war in Iraq has led the United States into a "wartime recession." She cites the country's high debts, the record-high gas prices, the diminishing unemployment benefits, the insufficient educational benefits for returning veterans, and the mortgage crisis "undermining the dream of owning a home."

Having learned in my history classes that, most times in history, wartime economies are efficient (even helping countries out of depression, i.e. WWII), I found the statement to be ironic. Has the war led to the country's economic recession? Is it fair to say that the aforementioned economical issues have arisen from the war? What is the president to do? Conine fighting, or bring the troops home? Discuss!

What a convoluted topic, David. I highly doubt I will do your topic justice, but I have my own opinions on it none-the-less.

The war in Iraq, which followed our action in Afghanistan, certainly did nothing to bolster the economy. How could it? The US government has pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into funding those wars, with what benefit? Is the middle east a safer place? Has terroism abated? No and no. Those hundreds of billions of dollars could certainly have been better spent fixing our own social and economic problems right here at home and with something to show for the expenditure. I was never for the war anyway, although I heartily support the troops that must bear the burden.

I do not understand how the housing crunch can be directly attributed to the war(s). Using my own personal experience as a guide, has anyone bought a house on credit? The house we live in now is the third house we have "owned" in the last 16 years. That being said, nothing has changed each time we have sought to get a bank loan for the purchase of any of our homes. The bank offered us ridiculously high amounts of money to buy a house. I have excellent credit, but still. The first house we bought was only $80,000, yet the bank was willing to loan us half a million at the time. Why? At that time we could never have paid a mortgage that high, yet the bank said their "calculator" indicated we could. I said no, and I firmly stuck to the budget I had for us at the time.

That being said, the banks are still practicing that same addition. Some people will believe the banker and go higher, looking for the dream home they've always wanted: destined for foreclosure. I firmly believe the bulk of the blame lies in the entire lending process in the US, and until it is revamped with reasonable expectations there is nowhere to go but further down.

Taking this into account, the price of everything is skyrocketing: groceries have doubled, gas is climbing daily, utilities are going up, and my local taxes are through the roof. Did the war(s) cause the recession we appear to be in? Doubtful, it sure didn't help, but I cannot see it as the root source. It is a comedy of errors and we are right in the midst of it.
For those that live paycheck to paycheck and were barely getting by, well this economy is a huge hardship. This is where I'd like to add my thoughts of corrective action, but I honestly have none.

The Credit Crunch is world wide and the affects are being felt in the same ways by European countries with housing loans etc who are not involved in the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan.

In the UK we are just now coming to the end of a 15 year housing boom. House prices are over 1% less than they were this time last year. The more expensive property became, the more the banks would lend you. Interest rates were at an all time low and for a long time those of us with a mortgage could fix the rate for a good few years without it going up. Those rates are disappearing now. The banks windows used to advertise these fantastic deals, now they advertise the best rates for savers. If you are a first time buyer, tough.

The first effects felt by UK borrowers were due to the Sub-Prime loans which meant that one of the UK's largest lenders Northern Rock nearly collapsed. It was only saved by intervention from the bank of England. Hot on the heals of this was the Bear Sterns collapse.

This has nothing to do with the wars, but any unnecessary spending by any government can't be helping the situation. This is to do with the greed of the banks. Like you say Dorthy, the knock on effects can be felt in the supermarkets and at the gas pumps.They wanted us to spend, spend spend, but they came unstuck and we're the ones that are going to suffer.

The video wouldn't load for me, so thanks for the summary, David.

You learned correctly about former wars fueling the economy. But many things have changed. Even when the Vietnam War was in motion, America still had a manufacturing economy. Now all of that has been outsourced. So other countries may be making some money, some big corporations may be making money, but the common man is just shelling out the taxes and watching them flush down the drain, billion after billion after billion.

This war is different too, in that many functions of war that used to be handled by the armed forces have been farmed out to corporations who, in many cases, do the jobs badly or don't finish them at all (and cost us more!). There is no oversight, no accountability. I just read an article last night that says that the showers in some military barracks in Iraq have not been grounded properly, and our soldiers are being electrocuted in the showers! Don't they have enough dangers to face without worrying about being killed while trying to wash? To make things worse, the government is lying to the families of the dead soldiers, blaming the men themselves for their own deaths--saying they brought electrical devices into the showers with them. This is just one example of the inefficiency and expense of this war. There are thousands more.

I don't know if the Iraq War is the only cause of the troubled economy, but it doesn't help. Then as Elaine said, the sub-prime mortgage crisis. I read a pretty in-depth article in the NYTimes recently, that said that not only were these adjustable-rate mortgages being made to buyers who really couldn't afford them, but that the mortgages were being joined into 'bundles' which were then used by banks as collateral for large loans for other projects, and were approved and rated for quality by three agencies that also have taken over the government's former function as a checkpoint for such. And since the banks were paying these agencies for their ratings of these bundles, how could they remain impartial? Now the rates have come full-circle, the homebuyers are bailing out, and the banks are stuck...except that the government will now bail them out the same way they bailed out the Savings & Loans, no doubt.

On top of that, there's not any really good excuse for how high gas prices are. Big Oil is raking in the highest profits they've ever had in history. How can there be such a problem that the prices must be so high, if the oil companies are making profits hand-over-fist? No reason. They can charge these prices, and no one is regulating it, so they get away with it, just like all the other corporations. It's not like OPEC is being particularly stubborn about producing oil, like it was in the late '70s. It's not like India and China are buying up all the oil and we can't get enough. There's no good excuse.

We're catching it from all sides. And that makes people nervous, and when they are nervous, they become tight-fisted, and the economy slows. Recession.

This recession started in the summer of 2001, which was a couple of months before September 11 and at least 6 months before the United States went into Afghanistan. We were in the process of selling our house in Minnesota. Around that time houses in our neighborhood were selling before you could even get the "For Sale" sign up. We had a lot of interest but things had started slowing down, even my husband had been laid off from a white-collar job due to the declining economy. Then September 11, 2001 happened and EVERYTHING stood still. No-one was buying or selling their homes, no-one was hiring. It was a huge wait-and-see game until the US knew what it was up against.

Eventually, we did sell our house, but it took about 3 months longer than we had thought it would. The housing market was still relatively good, but the recession had already started, fueled a little faster with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I have heard and seen the effects of this recession, but I do not think you can attribute it to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In reading these posts, I tend to agree that the banking industry has brought this on with poorly secured loans and encouraging borrowers to live beyond their means. I am constantly bombarded with "you have been approved" letters from various banks and credit card companies trying to entice me into opening lines of credit or taking out a mortgage with them. If I followed through on half of these I could have a couple of vacation homes around the globe ! We all need to live within our means, save for a rainy day, neither a borrower or lender be, see a penny pick it up... Or am I getting off topic?

Kathleen

Tropical cycone Nargis struck Myanmar (Burma) early Saturday morning. Relief efforts have been difficult due to washed out roads and blockages. The current story can be read here.

The devastation is compounded by the apparent lack of knowledge of the impending storm by the general population.

Myanmar's ruling Junta have appealed for international aid, but also have placed many limitations upon what they will allow.

How do the duellers feel about the situation? Discuss!

Note: I changed the death toll accordingly.

This situation ticks me off! First off, people are dying! They are hungry and homeless and cold and sick. The government is militia, so it is very stringent about what is being allowed into the country. Helloooooo! Don't appeal for aid and then say 'oops, but that sort of stuff isn't allowed'. That isn't right.
I can't imagine what would be so bad or threatening to the government rule of this country that it would actually stop it from being brought in by relief groups. Excuse me, but the last time I checked a blanket or a bottle of water didn't undermine a government...

Do I sound bitter? Shucks...I'll have to work on that. You know me guys, I get a little passionate and about certain issue and apparently this is one of them.

Oh man, this topic is making me go crazy actually! Seriously the international community is from now on responsible for every single death that occurs because of lack of food or water. In this case they should just ignore the government. Anyway how can a government be so idiotic? People are dying and all they do is to say: "Oh oops...oh well!"
I hate using force but in this case the UNO or EU or whoever should just do what they are supposed to do. Save the people, and if they have to fight against Junta.

The Daily Prophet

170th Edition

Policemen and violence: Myth or truth?

Many people believe that policemen and other forces imposing the law are associated with excessive violence, usually unnecessary one. There are arguments on both sides. However, facts sometimes prove the majority right.

This article (BBC) and this one (MSNBC) present a recent event that took place in Philadelphia. A group of policemen, who were chasing after possible suspects of shootings that had taken place that same day, were caught on tape hitting the suspects. This event has caused reaction waves among the police, which is trying to cool things down.

I'm giving the link of both articles, because I believe it's rather interesting to see how this event is covered by both an american channel and an english one.

What does the Duelling Club have to say about policemen in general? Do you support those who are against the way they're using their power? Have you had any personal experiences when it comes to this phenomenon?

Discuss!

I'm on two different sides with this story, Alkisti. I immediately want to be absolutely disgusted by the gang style beating the police gave those three men because of the heavy negative media coverage of such events in the past. But I also can see it from a different angle, which sometimes pains the mind. Without making excuses, the Officers in question had apparently been very tense due to a recent shooting death of one of their own. The three suspects they chased and beat were fleeing from a completely separate shooting. Should they rot in jail for shooting people? Yes. Should they get beat the way they did? No. Is it remotely understandable to ascertain a plausible mindset for those police officers? Certainly.

But sadly this will all be covered by the media, especially with Al Sharpton ranting about how it was a racially charged beating. There was a black officer performing the beating, so IMO that claim is negated. I think the suspects for shooting should go to jail, the officers should get heavily suspended or fired, but in the end we need to determine what punishment is appropriate for the beating of criminals such as the shooters.

Reading things like this reminds me of the Rodney King incident back in th 1990's. This case involved the LAPD and the beating of Rodney King, a black man. The beating they did on him was absolutely over the top, even though King was by no means a model citizen, but he did not deserve what the police officers did to him by any means.

With this case in Philly, it was wrong what the police officers did to the three shooting suspects. There are more tactical ways that the police could have dealt with these three suspects. Even though the officers in question were under stress because of the shooting of a fellow officer, they should not have did what they did. Yes they should be punished for what they did, being fired would be a good thing, but the shooting suspects should also be punished as well. They commited a crime so therefore they should take the punishment given to them. But the police officers should not get off with a slap on the wrist at all. In the King case the Chief of Police was fired (or maybe he resigned?? Can't remember) and the officers involved in the beating were punished as well.

Again the officers should have to pay for what they did, I don't think prison would be the answer though, like I said firing them would be more appropriate. But again with all of the "negative" media coverage surrounding this incident, the media like they always do, will totally blow it more out of proportion tahn what it needs to be.

Marcey

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled in a 4 - 3 vote to legalize gay marriage. Stating "freedom for all' cannot be accomplished until all Americans are able to enjoy the sanctity and protection marriage offers.

Be for it, be against it, or have no opinion, this vote will weigh heavy on all fifty states within the USA, and perhaps even extend abroad. A bit more of the story can be read here.

What do the duelers think? I recognize this is an extremely volatile subject, so let's just all remember to post politely and with respect to the opinions of others. I expect a wide variety of opinions to follow.

The real issue here is just how much power should 4 people wield? Should 4 judges have the power to overturn a law that was put in place by a vote that won by over 20% of the popular vote in California?

As for the details of the issue, those who supported proposition 22 said that all people have equal opportunity to marry a member of the opposite gender. Should the definition of marriage then be expanded to also include joining two members of the same gender? If so, what's the reasoning behind this? What is the purpose of marriage? If it's an expression of love and commitment between individuals, what about plural marriage? What rationale would allow two members of the same gender be joined in marriage but not three or more individuals?

This is a very controversial topic and I can't even pick a side, because both have good arguments. I am a religious person but at the same time I am modern and don't want to allow stereotypes get in my way of thinking.

I agree with what Sam said. Can 4 people take such a decision? Shouldn't this be an issue where every person can vote freely? We're not talking about something out of ordinary, we're talking about something that may insult others and their beliefs, and change the way things are in a very radical way.

I strongly believe that this decision can not be taken so easily. And I don't think our society is ready to accept this. I know that gay people have the same rights as we do. But marriage and religion is something very different.

I don't know which is really the purpose of marriage. It may be showing your love and commitment. Personally, I would like to believe that I'll get married in order to have a family, not to be officially committed. I'm not saying that marrying without having kids is unacceptable, but to me it's a bonding I'm not sure I could keep without its turning into something greater and more meaningful.

But here comes another issue: gay couples adopting kids. (or giving birth to them if possible) This is a whole other topic.

As you can tell, I have mixed feelings. I don't know what's good and bad in this case. I know that people deserve to be equal and have the same rights. But to which extent? I'm really puzzled.

Of the two aspects of this issue, the definition of marriage and the courts' role in deciding this definition, I think the former is interesting but the latter is quite dangerous.

And when I say dangerous, I mean dangerous to both sides of the politcal aisle. Obviously this is a further blow to those who hold the conservative view that the results obtained through this decision are results that should be obtained through a legislative route.

On the other side, this could be rather damaging to those who hold a more liberal view that such decisions are acceptable in order to achieve what they believe to be a morally correct outcome, and that founding documents may be interpreted according to evolving definitions rather than original intent.

The damage is caused by the fact that this is a very high profile decision that overturns a law established by a large popular majority. By making this an issue now, it gives conservatives a stronger plank in their platform in what could be one of the most important political years in the past two or three decades in the US.

A majority of Americans perceive this as the judicial branch treading too far into legislative territory. Even many who agree with the outcome are and should be nervous about the implications of judges being able to search for ways to interpret law in order to achieve a desired outcome.

If the US presidential race is a tight one, this issue--not gay marriage but rather the role of the judicial branch in the lawmaking process--could be the one that tips the scales in McCain's favor, and hindsight may reveal that this issue is one that should have been left in bed.

The cost of crude by the barrel continues to rise and so do gas prices around the world. For those of us in the Northern Hemisphere we are entering the summer months: vacations, travel, kids out of school, family get-togethers, etc. Will the cost of driving and flying cause you to curb your usual summer routines? Will you change your travel plans to keep you closer to home, thus off-setting the rise in travel costs?

The southern hemisphere will be entering the fall/winter months bringing ski trips, travel to warmer climates, cozying up in a lodge somewhere by a roaring fire. Will the gas prices halt your usual travel plans?

How do your estimates for the cost of crude hold up? Do you believe the predictions crude may hit $200 a barrel by the end of the year? Tell us how the price has changed in your corner of the globe, how it affects your life and your activities, and what plans you may have to tackle the price rise in the future.

The trouble is, and no pun intended, they have you over a barrell here! We have our lives organised, with jobs and schools and where we live in relation to local amenities and we can't change too many of those things just because the prices of petrol has gone up.

I have recently swapped cars with hubby. He drives the mini because he's doing the long distances and when he does so for work, they foot the bill. I drive the big 4x4 subaru with the 3L engine that drinks petrol like water but because I only drive within the local area, don't use as much fuel as he would. I still however fill up once every 2 weeks.

I'll leave the cost of petrol in the UK for a shocker at the end but I will say this. The increase has had a universal knock on effect for the cost of food and domestic heating more than anything else. Our gas bills have gone up by 17% this year alone and food prices, well I can't work that out as a percentage but I know it costs me at least an extra £20-£30 per week to feed my family. That's a lot of money.

What with the decline in house prices the economy in the Uk is really in the doldrums. People are cancelling holidays in the mediteranian because of the cost of flights and the awful exchange rate with the Euro. The best place to holiday is the US this year, because the exchange rate is more favourable, but still the price of a plane ticket has gone up because of the fuel increases.

Basically, I haven't changed much. I can't use public transport for work or to get Issie to school. We live too close to be given access to the school bus, yet far enough away that we can't walk or cycle and we aren't on a bus route. My job is 10 miles away and yet again, not on a bus route. So I have to drive because the bus companies in rural areas are rubbish and are being cut because of lack of use. I say they are in the wrong places..it's nuts.

OK so the cost of a gallon of petrol in the UK.....approx £5.00 that's about $10US. Last week it cost me £65/$130 to fill my tank from empty. Scary huh?

The increasing gas prices have literally been stunning. And Elaine, those UK gas prices have me agog. It sounds like you'd be thrilled to have the prices that are driving us crazy here in the US.

You've hit the problem right on the head. Our lives are programmed around being able to travel around town in gasoline-based cars. Curbing travel plans is a minor adjustment compared to what may be needed to deal with increasing costs that may be right around the corner. The question is, are we willing to do what it takes to deal with the global increase in demand for oil?

What are the solutions, really? In the US there's a debate about drilling in ANWR and off the coasts. Is the cost worth the benefit? Some of the money being funneled into the Middle East from the increased price of oil is being used to kill our soldiers. What price is it worthy to gain energy independence?

One long term solution that has been talked about is switching to 100% electric cars. Is this feasible? A new company called Tesla seems to think so. There first and flagship car, the Tesla Roadster, is supposed to get 220 miles a charge and can go 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds. On top of that it costs about 1 cent per mile to operate. Do you see us going electric? Isn't it quite possible that there would be a number of negative consequences associated with this?

Elaine, holy shmolly!!! I can't even imagine filling up at $10 a gallon in the U.S. I complain that it is at $3.95!

The problem with our society is that not only are we programmed but we are not willing to make the changes necessary to help alleviate the problem. Most Americans I know, myself included, complain endlessly about the gas prices each week and the dent that puts in our budget. I complain that because of the rising fuel costs, I can't afford plane tickets let alone gas money to drive anywhere for the summer. But I feel paralyzed to do anything about it. The decisions are all up to the oil companies and the government isn't it? Are they going to start taking this issue seriously and looking for more localized ways of powering our vehicles instead of relying on foreign oil and foreign debt to get it? Or are they going to keep playing the political party game of not getting along and not getting anything done?

I don't know about others but I try to walk to the corner store. But living in a small town has its disadvantages in that the work is at least 10 miles away. My husbands job is at least 35 miles away. I could get a job but I would essentially be working just to put my daughter in daycare and put gas in the tank to get to work...better to stay at home and finish college via the internet I think

I am more conservative in my thinking and believe marriage should be "one man one woman". This rules out same-sex marriage as well as plural marriages. When one starts to argue as the California supreme court has:


Where do you draw the line? Currently polygamy is against the law. Given the great spotlight that has been put on the FDLS sects in Utah, Arizona and Texas will this now be put to the test and plural marriage be allowed? What about marriage to family members? If all persons involved are consenting adults, what's to stop any form of any combination from marrying? With the argument of "freedom for all" cannot be accomplished until all Americans are able to enjoy the sanctity and protection marriage offers. who's to say nothing is sacred anymore?

*** edit *** Sorry! I thought I had hit "last post" when I came into this topic and the first topic I saw was on the California Gay Marriage thing. If this can be moved so it's under that topic that would be helpful! I didn't mean to post off topic!

Ahem...a little bit offtopic there...

Gas is one of the biggest issues we've been dealing with lately. I know that the prices have been going up steadily the past few years, since I always hear my parents talking about that. We are kind of lucky because my dad doesn't pay his gas (it's considered a fee payed by his company) and sometimes my mother gets to fill up her car by taking advantage of this as well. Personally, I don't drive and I use mass media to move around the city. However, I'm quite angry with the government because they increased the tickets, and now, I travel the same distance by paying twice as much, which is quite annoying. On the other hand, I can't go on foot as it is far where I want to go. It's funny actually. There has been an e-mail going around that asks us not to throw away the tickets but give them to someone else. This way, we save up money and give the government a headache.

However, the fact that gas prices have gone up has also caused food prices to go up as well. Things in Greece are hectic. We pay more money for the same product than what Italians or Germans or French pay. I don't know why but I know that noone is actually doing something to put an end to it. We're talking about...ah...there's a greek word which describes it very well. We're talking about salespeople who do whatever they want with the prices of products and noone, absolutely noone, is controlling them.

Gosh, I am so angered at them. We pay twice as money as other countries do to feed ourselves and all this, but our salaries remain the same, lower than the salaries other Europeans get. I think I'll move.

It's hard doing without a car. I actually have a van that's been sitting in my garage for two years now. I kept hoping to get it fixed--the engine is great, and the body is fine, but it needs a new transmission. I no longer see fixing it as an option because of gas prices. Even if I raised the money to fix it, could I afford to fill the tank?

There are days when not having a car is very hard for me. As Elaine said, rural bus services are rubbish. There's a route in my town--one--that runs three days a week for six hours. Otherwise, you have to call in 24-hours in advance, and half the time they forget to write you down, so the driver never picks you up. In the winter, it really sucks because I can't even ride my bike. I've adjusted, but it's still very hard. I've become very homebound--my world has shrunk. It's one reason I am hoping to move to a larger city. The last time I left this town was last Summer, when Janet (Passerby) came to visit me and I took the city service down to Sioux Falls to meet her at the airport! How sad is that? Sadder still was that it had been more than a year since I had left town before she came to visit!

But, strangely enough, I have decided I don't really want a car after all. I long for one, but there has to be a better way. Even if a person could buy a brand-new car, none of the American cars have decent gas mileage. They can make them better, they just haven't. Part of the pinch is that no one can get more than 25mpg! The expenses of running a new car these days run about $500 a month, what with payment, insurance, and fuel--too rich for my blood!

To me, I'd rather just move to a more urban area where I can buy a bus ticket for $25 a month, for a service with 22 routes and a 16-hour run! I just can't help but see the prices for gas (and subsequently, as Alkisti said, the cost of everything else) getting worse and worse. There are already stories about thieves puncturing people's gas tanks to drain the fuel from them, and sales of scooters and bicycles are skyrocketing! I can't help but predict that within 5 years we're going to see a dramatic shift around the world, as the midddle classes who took driving for granted are forced to leave their cars behind, as I feel I've pretty much been forced to do.

Living in a mostly rural area puts an enormous damper on changing the general mode of transportation. Would I buy an electric car? Perhaps, if it fulfilled my needs. However, none of the electric cars currently being introduced to the market provide the power or torque necessary for my day to day living. My neighbors have a hybrid Toyota Prius, which they absolutely love, yet it only gets them to work and back on the highway to Spokane (45 miles one way). The rest of their driving is performed in a huge, Ford, 4x4 truck. In the winter, the Prius remains in the garage, as it is unusable on roads covered in snow and ice.

However, the cost of operating our vehicles, which are all 4x4s, is enormous. Diesel fuel is a dollar more a gallon that regular grade gas, and my husband drives a diesel truck. Of course, we bought the diesel for the increased gas mileage while towing (we have a travel trailer) and we are planning to buy a boat. The torque offered by the diesel surpassed that of other trucks in that class, thus we bought a Dodge. Could we give up the huge diesel? Sure, but we'd have to give up the travel trailer too, and I'm not willing to do that.

There is not much I can do to avoid the increase in my monthly gas expenses, except reduce my driving when possible. I can consolidate my trips to town. I can even ride my bike to the store, post office, bank and library using a child carrier attached to the back to haul purchases. However, there isn't much else I can do that won't change my life completely. There is no public transportation where I live. The bus runs in the city, but I live in the county.

Could I change my life that much? Sure, but I honestly don't wish to do so. In rereading my post, I recognize it makes me extremely selfish in my desire to maintain the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed.

The truth is, I expect that there's not much we can do to reverse the increasing gas prices at this point. Price regulation would only result in shortages that would cause even greater problems than the high prices. Demand for gas can't decrease much, especially since one of the main reasons for the increased demand is that fuel needs are increasing in places like China that are becoming even more industrialized.

I have one more admission, though. While the high prices are certainly quite painful at the moment, I don't think they're entirely bad. While it's true that there are currently no electric alternatives that can replace the Ford F150s and the like, I don't expect that will be the case for long.

I already mentioned the startup company Tesla (American-based, by the way, Darcy), and if they can get an all electric car to go 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds and 220 miles a charge, I'm sure it won't be long before they'll have vehicles that can provide for a majority of our transportation needs. All we need is a little motivation and we can come up with a number of innovations I'm sure. And if there's one thing we get out of the rising gas prices it's motivation to find alternatives.

Listening to the news this morning I heard a feature indicating the USA has over 200,000 gas stations in operation. Were there to be an alternate fuel immediately available right now, would all these operators be willing to switch to the alternate fuel source? Who would absorb the cost of conversion?

Next, we enter the huge consumer market of the automakers: what becomes of the millions of cars on the roads now? Could we covert them? I have to be honest and say being in the middle of paying for a $45,000 vehicle makes me frustrated to think I may have to pay to convert it in the near future, or have it be archaic before we've gotten our usage out of it.

Yes, I am confident the automakers seeking to use an alternate fuel source will soon make a high-torque, powerful truck to meet the demands of the consumers unable to live without such a vehicle. Yet, I doubt that will drive the market, since the commuter market is much greater. The change is coming, but I honestly wonder how much the government is opposed to change, rather than supporting it.

Something has got to change as far as the gas prices go. It really is getting out of hand. But who do we go to? It has been said that Bush has gone overseas to get our suppliers to increase the amount of barrells produced per day to help bring prices back down. Their response was that they are meeting demand and see no reason to increase the barrells even more.

So, why do we rely on overseas oil so much? We have a TON of oil right here in the US already rigged. Why don't we uncap those babies and start using them? The only thing I can think of is because the politicians are getting rich off the oil and have no desires in the near future to bring the prices back down. I mean, aren't they rich enough? Guess not.

I saw something on the news Tues about truckers in England (I believe) going on strike against the price of gas. They all got out on the highways, pulled off to the side of the road, and got out and walked away. There seemed to be miles upon miles of trucks sitting on the side of the road. I hope it works. If it does, maybe we could do something like that here in the US.

Speaking of alternaties, my husband came across an article a while back. It said the Japan (if I remember correctly) was converting coal into crude oil and selling it at $40.00 a barrel. He has a friend and customer who owns 5000 acres of coal mines. He gave the article to him to see if something could come of it. It would be nice if we could do something like that, maybe, if the gov isn't going to open up some oil rigs. Granted, coal isn't the cleanest thing in the world, but maybe for a temporary use until oil prices come back down.

Well, us "western" countries are getting the shaft with this oil price hike. The countries that produce the oil pay less than $1 a gallon for gas (or at least they do in Venuzuela), so obviously there's something going on there.

I can understand wanting to protect our wilderness areas, but something's got to give as far as drilling in Alaska and off-shore in the US. Too many environmental groups have managed to put a ban on new drilling and it's really hurting us all. I don't mind having to learn to conserve energy... it's better all the way around, but not allowing us to use the natural resources we have instead of having to import oil is hurting us all.

We're looking at better fuel economy cars. My hubby would love to get a Mini Cooper (he's always loved them, and now that they're in the US, why not). I currently drive a mini-van, and the gas mileage is awful. If he got a Mini Cooper, then we'd sell my mini-van and I'd take over his current car. It'd be less room, but we could manage it. Maybe in a year or so we could then get a larger hybrid car for me to drive. I've already looked into the hybrids and think it would be a good option, especially since it would almost double my current MPGs! I'm paying almost $100 to fill my tank, so that really puts a damper on our spending, as well as any excess driving. I know Elaine's $10/gallon is a shocker, but for some reason the gas (petrol) prices in Europe have always been high. We lived in Germany in 1985 and it was almost 3 times as much for fuel there as it was in the US. When we visited London back in 1998 I notice the fuel prices were still almost 2-3 times more than in the US.

Luckily, our pool is a 5 minute walk, so other than grocery shopping or errands I shouldn't have to drive too much this summer. Our church is about 15 miles away, so we may have to consider visiting a closer church (there are a couple within walking distance!). We'll see how things go. I'd love to have better public transportation. I've lived a couple places where all I used was public transportation (Germany and Chicago) and when I lived in Minneapolis, it was there if I needed it, but you really need to be in a VERY urban area to have decent public transport. Who knows, maybe we'll move to London (or the outskirts)... a place near and dear to my hubby's and my hearts! (Of course, we'd save by using public transportation, but the cost of living is so much more, don't know if it would be worth the trade off ()

CG

There is an extremely interesting (and kinda scary) web article which really woke me up about oil production. It's right here. You don't have to read it, but it is very in-depth and helped me to understand a lot of what some of the seemingly non-sensical things happening with oil might really be about, so I left the link here rather than try to reiterate what the important points in it were for me. I haven't drastically changed my lifestyle as a result of this, but seeing his 'predictions' coming to pass made me re-think the sense of buying a car.

He explains that Washington knows the oil is running out, and why drilling places like the ANWR is pretty much a waste of time. I've actually gotten in fights with people over this article (my fault for pushing it at people, actually), but as I said, it woke me up to realize that there are few alternatives left. I should actually re-read this thing, since he updates things on it as times change. The spooky thing was that I first read this article over 2 years ago, before things got so bad here, and pretty much everything this guy predicted would happen, is happening now.

This is what he said regarding the ANWR:



It's not that the environmentalists are stubborn and unreasonable, it's that there's really no point to drilling the ANWR except to con the American people into thinking that all is well and something is being done.

Whoa. His side ads are a bit...disturbing. That's new.

Do I think it will help to hoard food and 'prepare,' like the survivalists? Beats me! But I can't help but think that this is just the beginning, unless new ways are found to keep things going. As Sam said, we humans are pretty ingenious at finding new ways!

We are supposed to be working hard to become a color blind society. Different minority groups throughout history and across the globe have fought for equal rights and equal protection under the law. People have devoted their lives to convincing the world that the color of one's skin should have no bearing on how we are perceived or treated, but is it possible that we should still allow race to affect the decisions we make?

This article cites a recent study that claims that a de-emphasis on race during the adoption process can be harmful to children involved in interracial adoptions. The article claims that a law put in place to prevent minority children from waiting too long to be adopted has caused adoption agencies to avoid talking about race so much that parents are often unprepared to raise children from a different race, in areas ranging from what sort of discrmination to expect and how to deal with it to how hair should be cared for.

Most people hope for an end of discrimination, but can we ever forget race completely? Should race be one of many considerations used in the adoption process, or is the government right to penalize its use? Should race be used in other decision-making processes like college admittance, hiring, or deciding the appropriate treatment for diseases and disorders?

Please remember that this is a discussion and not a debate. Our goal is not to win but rather to gain a better understanding of the issues by examining them from the many different perspectives represented by the Dueling Club.

Adoption is a very subtle issue in many ways. It is very hard for the couple to accept the fact that they can't have a child and that they'll adopt one. They may love it and take care of it like they'd do with their own kid, but there will always be something missing. I believe that couples who consider adoption want to have a kid close to the way they are and look, so that the transmission will be easier for both. I can imagine how weird it would be to wake up one day and have a kid of a different race. The love they'd give would be the same, but there would be many problems, like the ones stated in the article. I don't know how open-minded is our society nowadays. I feel that if someone Greek adopted a black kid, many people would react. And the kid would find it hard to grow up in such an environment, surrounded by white people only.

However, despite all these, I think it is very wise of the legislators to give everyone the chance to adopt kids with a different race than theirs. Every child deserves to have a family and there is no reason to keep following the stereotypes imposed by previous generations.

In order to face the problems stated above, I believe that the government could offer the parents some help, mostly practical one, so that they adjust to the different everyday needs a black kid may have, like the hair issue. This way both the parents and the kid can adjust easily to their life together without letting such things get in the way.

Adopting a kid is a blessed act. Adopting a kid of a different race is one of the best things a man can do in his life. It is a crucial step towards a free of discrimination society.

This is indeed a sensitive topic, and one which I do not have much personal experience. What I do know is that my husband works with a man that adopted a baby last year. The man is married and they were unable to conceive, thus they determined adoption was their next course of action.

A baby was available in Florida for them, so off they flew immediately. Up front I have no problems with the adoption. However, I have to wonder what the child's life will be like, as the couple is white and the baby is black. Is that an issue? Not at all. However, living in North Idaho as I do, the population is 99% white. Period. End of story. North Idaho has an enormous stigma as being the long seated home of the Aryan Nation. The leader is now deceased, the group is now located in Alabama (I believe), yet the social stigma remains deeply routed.

What I wonder is how the young boy's life will or will not be affected by a lack of black members in his life. A human is a human, we all look different, but this is not a normal town with a varied populace. So, is it wrong to place a child in an environment such as ours?

Personally, I know I make jokes from time to time about how boring everyone looks here, as we are all white with more than a normal share of redheads and blondes. It's just not what my life has given me to expect. I call it "too vanilla" here, because I am used to living in a place where a variety of races co-exist: I miss the diversity.

I know the baby is in a loving, happy home and he is deeply cherished. I just wonder what life will be like for him, or if he will feel unusual or odd as the years progress being different.

That's what bothering me as well, Dorthy. He may be treated as someone special by the rest of the community, and mostly the other kids, but he may also be treated as someone who's inferior to them. Being different is never accepted easily by people and this kid may find it hard to adjust. I hope that people there will be more open-minded and caring.

I want to add something I read today and had me laughing so hard. It was voted as the best poem and it is written by a black kid. It goes something like this:

When I'm born, I am black.
When I laugh, I am black.
When I sit in the sun for long, I am black.
When I'm in pain, I am black.
When I'm sick, I am black.
When I die, I am black.
You white man, when you are born, you are purple.
When you laugh, you are pink.
When you sit in the sun for long, you are red.
When you are in pain, you are yellow.
When you are sick, you are green.
When you die, you are grey.
And you're calling me coloured??

I thought it was cute and kind of...true!

Last round I touched on the gas prices and how they are affecting each of you, this round I wish to tackle the soaring food prices, and the alleged shortage.

Here you will find an article indicating that food production must increase by 50% by the year 2030 to keep up with world demand.

For the last few months there have been reports that rice is in short supply. I, personally, noticed a sign at my local CostCo store yesterday indicating no more than five bags of rice may be purchased without prior purchasing history and management approval.This seems a bit odd to me, as I generally purchase rice in 25 pound bags, which were nowhere to be found: there were only 50 pound bags. All rice was long grain white. I generally buy long grain white, brown, and jasmine; the latter two types were not present for purchase.

Prices in my local store for everything have risen at least 30%, doubled for a few common items: bread, eggs and chicken.

How do the duelers feel? Are you witnessing huge price increases for groceries? Have you seen any notifications on rice limitations? How does this affect your family in conjunction with the rising cost of gas? Are you cooking leaner these days?

I haven't heard of rice shortage in the news. Maybe because we don't eat that much of rice.

The positive and negative at the same time, issue with Greece is our climate. The good part is that because of the good weather conditions and the gentle climate, we are able to make our own vegetables and fruits. This means that we don't have to import big quantities of doubtful quality of products. The negative part is that the gap between the prices given by the producers and the ones we buy them is huge. If a producer sells potatoes for let's say 0.10euros a kilo(I can't find the symbol in my keyboard ), the guy to sell them will raise the price to 0.50euros a kilo, which is 40 cents more. If you buy ten kilos, it's four euros difference. This is a big problem when it comes to more fragile products, like tomatoes or peaches.

I heard on the radio the other day that even though people get more and more poor and hunger is becoming one of the biggest problems, food industries have increased their income by 30, maybe 40 per cent.

On one hand, the gas prices are responsible for that. On the other hand, it is people's greed that causes such a rise. Where there is no control, people are allowed to do whatever they want. The buyers have no option. We need food to survive. It's not like luxury items we can deny. Even the simplest food today, like bread, is expensive.

Things are really getting out of control. No wonder why obesity is an issue. If you can buy a burger with 1 euro, you will do so. Much cheaper than making one on your own.

Sports are a good way to both exercise and have fun at the same time. They are great to keep friends in contact and enhance family bonds. But how dangerous are they?

Forbes.com had conducted a survey trying to figure out which sports are the ones to cause the most injuries. According to this article, basketball is ranked first, followed by bicycling and football. Other sports that led to many injuries are riding an ATV/minibike, and playing baseball or softball.

The reasons for these results are several: some players get over-excited and stretch themselves to the limits, others are reckless, and some get violent. The article proposes a few ways people can use in order to prevent these accidents.

What do you think Duellers? Have you had accidents while playing a sport? Which one is the most hazardous according to your opinion? Share your experiences!

I played football for almost ten years and wrestled for four years and I have broken four bones and had one major cut. I cut my forehead while spinning around in my living room when I was 3 or 4. I broke one ankle playing frisbee. I broke my other ankle learning to paraglide. I broke one thumb skiing and the other one rollerblading. I broke my jaw playing catch.

Football and wrestling weren't really that dangerous for me. Injuries do occur with some frequency in football, I guess, but they happen less frequently if you wear proper equipment, keep in shape, and use proper technique. In my experience, I'm far more likely to get injured when I'm not playing an organized sport than when I am.

I couldn't agree more with you, Sam. The only injury I recall because of a sport, was when I was 14. I was playing volleyball during the gym class and I fell and kind of hurt my ankle really bad. It turned blue and I couldn't walk properly for a week or so.

The greatest injuries I've had were caused when I was playing at random times. I remember hitting my head against the walls several times (and I wasn't even doing anything! I was watching tv!), I had my hand caught in a door, I have a scar at my right leg, I have burned my hand at specific spots twice, I have a small scar at my head (my stupid cousin threw me a rock)..None of them because of sports.

So, maybe if people were more careful, they'd have no injuries while playing football etc. I realise the dangers pros have to go under, but it's not the same for the rest of us. It's a matter of security.

Recognizing this will not be a "Dueling Club" quality post, I have to preface this post with a reminder that all posts are from our own perspective and experience.

I am the biggest klutz I know. I am the one that skews the danger quota of any sport or activity, because I can get hurt doing anything at all. It's a curse! So, I am sure in all sports there must be someone like me that increases the percentage for number of injuries.

Obviously, there are more dangerous activities with which people are inclined to participate, yet I can take a perfectly safe activity and turn it disasterously dangerous for myself. It's not that I don't follow rules, or use safety equipment, or take risks, or that I'm unco-ordinated: I'm just a klutz no matter how hard I try not to be.

That's very funny, Dorthy.

You bring up a good point that the statistician in me will always pounce on. Is anyone else surprised that football has fewer injuries than both cycling and basketball? Likewise, it's surprising to me that baseball is so high on the list.

If you look at it a little more deeply the picture becomes clearer. This article is looking at frequency of hospital visits related to the various sports. There's no adjustment for the frequency with which the sport is played.

So here are some things that mess with the numbers--some were mentioned in the article, some were not.

1. Participation. If one sport is played more than another the chances that an injury will occur go up. It's so easy to play a pickup game of basketball that it's no surprise that it's at the top of the list. I know people that play basketball every single day. I know even more people that play at least once a week. Cycling doesn't even require others to participate so people can do it any time they want. Football, on the other hand, requires a little more effort to persuade people to play and I guarantee you won't be able to get people to play more than once a week.
2. Organization. If a sport is well regulated--coaches, referees, regular practices, proper equipment--the chances of injury decrease. Football is far more likely to be played in a regulated environment than most other sports. Basketball only needs a ball and a court. Baseball requires a field, a ball and bat, and mitts. Biking requires a bike and a place to ride. Soccer needs a ball and field. If you want to play football properly you need lots of equipment that most people don't have so it's usually played in a controlled environment.
3. Temperature. This is a big one for baseball because it's a summer sport. I'd be willing to wager that a great number of baseball hospitalizations are heat related--dehydration, heat exhaustion, heat stroke.
4. Type of participant. Different sports attract different participants. Some can take more of a beating than others. The average person who plays football is quite a bit different from the average cyclist or ping pong player. If people were randomized to the different sports rather than being allowed to choose I think the number of football-related injuries would go up even if the level of participation was the same.

I'm sure there are other factors that would mess with the numbers, but I think everyone gets the picture. I guess the point is that we shouldn't let a list like this have much influence on our decision of whether or not to participate in a sport since without additional information we have no idea which activity is least likely to result in our injury based solely on the information from the article.

Hey! Is anyone still reading this?

I am! I am!

This was so cool Sam! I hate statistics but I love all the little details that can mess up a research! hehe

It is true that there are many side-factors that altered the actual results. Personally, it'd seem more reasonable for me to find, let's say, hockey, in the first place. It is more violent, even though people are well-equipped. They look like closets.

Also, take in consideration that they probably counted only the visits at hospitals. What about people who hurt themselves but didn't bother to go to a hospital? What is more, we always have side-injuries, meaning that people who don't participate can actually get hurt. When my brother learned to ride a bicycle, he stepped on my uncle's foot and hurt him. He still has a scar I think.

We can't really trust statistics published by magazines. Journalists have no idea what it takes to conduct a survey. If the knew, they'd never have one. But they don't really care about the accuracy as long as the results are satisfying.

I think the most dangerous sport is Badminton. The first time I played I ended up with this massive blood blister on my finger because one of the stupid people on my team thought we were still playing a round when it had actually finished. So when they threw the shuttlecock over the net she went to hit it just as I caught it.......lots of pain. I never played again.

I don't like sport. I think it's a waste of time. And I don't get why people get riled up over it. Like come on! They act as if it's the most important thing on the planet! Rioting, bashing people who barrack for the opposite team. And what's worse is they're encouraged then hanged for getting to passionate. I say we ban all sports!!! That way people don't get hurt and TV isn't taken over by sporting shows 90% of the year.

I played Volleyball in high school when it was compulsory to do something. I'll admit I didn't mind it. It's slow enough to not hurt people and fast enough for me to not get bored. That and the fact that everyone I played with was enthusiastic and I never laid a finger on the ball helped a lot! The only major injury I've ever had was when I tore the ligaments in my left wrist back in 96. I was mucking around at lunchtime when I fell backwards and put my hand there to save me. Of course that helped me in my quest to never play sports again. It's still my weak wrist 12 years later.

So anyway. Ban all sports!!!!!

Dancing, as I am often informed with some derision, is not a 'real' sport. However, as a dancer for twelve years of my life, I must beg to differ. The most serious injuries I have received (and at times, given!) occurred when I hadn't warmed up properly or was dancing with a partner without enough practice. I have torn both hamstrings, pulled ligaments in my left knee that even now, years later, mean that I can't sit cross-legged for a long period of time without it seizing and becoming extremely painful. Eight years of tap dancing caused serious damage to both ankles. I'm only lucky that I didn't continue ballet! Most members of the Australian Ballet have to resign after the age of 30 due to rheumatoid arthritis.

Soaring world-wide gas prices have consumers jumping onto mass transit systems everywhere, and this is causing congestion.

Do you use mass transit? Does your city or area have mass transit available? Do you like it?
Weigh the pros and cons of utilizing mass transit, describe all types of mass transit offered in your area, which you prefer to use, and why.