The New FBI Director, a Letter to Mitch and Paul, a Letter FROM You, What Was Sally Yates Testifying About Anyway and Your News Sources

Whither the FBI

The selection of the new FBI Director is important because one of the activities in which the Bureau is involved is the investigation of a possible connection between Russia and individuals who were associated with Donald tRump’s 2016 Presidential Campaign.   The degree of vigor with which the continuance of that investigation will proceed is crucial.  

A political appointment to the Directorship will affect that because many Republicans are interested in soft-pedalling that investigation because of what it might reveal and any damage it would do to their party.  Therefore, the appointment must not be a political one.  The new Director should come from the field of law enforcement, regardless of political affiliation.  The Attorney-General, who has recused himself from the Russian investigation, must not be involved in the new Director’s selection because of the influence he or she will have upon that investigation. 

Former FBI head James Comey and Attorney-General Jeff Sessions in better days

As for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, that still is a necessity because of the shadow which the Administration has placed on the impartiality and independence of the FBI by its firing of James Comey, its Director.  This “shadow” will persist to some extent regardless of whomever succeeds him.

Jack Lippman

In My Outbox

Here is the text of an email which I sent to the Republican leaders of both the House and the Senate on May 11.  I also provided a copy to Senator Marco Rubio, with whom I frequently correspond, but with little success.  I doubt if this will meet with success either, but remember, although they are Republicans, both are neither gullible nor stupid.  Who knows what will happen.

                                                     How Long Will They Support Him?

A Letter to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan:

By now, although I am certain neither of you will admit it publicly, you must recognize the lack of Presidential skills on the part of the President.  Without touching upon the details of specific legislation which is on his and your agendas, I know you recognize his shortcomings.  Believe me, they will come back to haunt all of those in both houses of Congress who stand by him for the sake of party unity.  American voters will address this issue in eighteen months. 

It is now time for both of you to support bi-partisan efforts to restore dignity and intelligence to the White House.   This task is beyond party interests.  A Special Prosecutor to continue the “Russia” investigations by the FBI and in both houses of Congress, two of which have already been seriously compromised by Presidential actions, would be a good way to start.

It would be far better if President Trump played eighteen holes of golf every day for the rest of his term.  

The longer you cooperate in allowing him to influence the elected Representatives you lead in your respective bodies, the closer he will come to facing Article 2, Section 4, of the Constitution.

I write this to you as a Democrat interested in the survival of the Republican Party.  It does not deserve to go down with the ‘sinking ship’ presently occupying the White House.  Cut loose.  You well know that it is no longer the party you have served for years.  You know the facts.  Act upon them.

JL

Be a Letter Writer

If you're not in the habit of writing to your Representative in Congress, and you are unfortunate enough to be represented by a Republican, you can start by sending him or her a letter!  Here's an idea of what you might write.  Do it by email or by snail mail, but do it.  Every one of them has a web site to make sending a letter easy.  Originality is a plus!

JL

Congressman (or woman) ___________ : 

I am dismayed by your support of the Republican bill which will serve to repeal and replace Obamacare.  Two particular aspects of it are of real concern to me.  First, its elimination of a “mandate” to purchase insurance will make those policies actuarily unsound since it exposes the insurers to what the actuaries call “anti-selection” (A disproportionate number of unhealthy purchasers).  To remedy this, the participating insurers will have to set their rates much higher than they otherwise would, making the policies unaffordable for many.

Secondly, allowing the participating insurance companies to consider pre-existing conditions in issuing policies will result in many not being eligible for coverage.  You claim that State-run “high risk pools” will be available to provide coverage for these individuals.  To be actuarily sound, because coverage within such pools will be provided to unhealthy purchasers, their premiums will have to be very high.  The eight billion dollars set aside to subsidize these “pools” over the next decade is totally inadequate to maintain their solvency.

When the Congressional Budget Office’s documentation of this legislation’s actual cost, which you and your colleagues did not bother to wait for, is available, I am sure you will reverse your position on Trumpcare.

Name, Address, Phone and Email 

Sally Yates Testimony and Fox News

Almost two weeks ago, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.   As reported by most news media, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Bloomberg, PBS, Associated Press, CNN and MSNBC, the salient information was that she had confidentially pointed out the involvement of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn with Russia, possibly subjecting him to blackmail, to the White House counsel in an urgent and personal manner.   It took eighteen days before the President fired Flynn while Ms. Yates, a 27 year career employee of the Department of Justice, was terminated three days after giving this information to the White House.

Flynn’s belated dismissal occurred only after a story about this appeared in the Washington Post.  Some wonder, were it not for this article, if Flynn, perhaps compromised in regard to Russia, would still be the President’s National Security Advisor.    As of now, President tRump is still saying nice things about him.

During the hearing, Republican Senators asked Ms. Yates questions regarding her not acting to enforce the President’s Executive Order concerning travel bans and how the identity of Flynn as the party involved was subsequently “unmasked” or leaked to the media, neither of which questions were the subject of the hearing.  That these questions were being raised was clearly an attempt to divert the direction of her testimony, as any observer of the hearings can attest.

I try to compare how news stories are covered by Fox News with the rest of the media.  Even though it is bad for my blood pressure, I occasionally watch Fox for this purpose. It is sad that Fox is the primary news source for many millions of Americans. (See the following article.)   When they “reported” on this same hearing, they gave the impression that Ms. Yates was being questioned primarily about the “unmasking” and the travel ban, and her advising the White House of Flynn’s Russian involvement was an unproven and incidental side issue.

We will never have an informed electorate until Fox News is challenged on every bit of misinformation and misguidance they provide to their viewers.  They are not so bad as was Josef Goebbels in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless, they really are a propaganda outlet rather than a news source. Of course, Fox would pin the same accusation on the rest of the media, some of which are listed above, but there is a difference.  Fox deals in alternate facts and makes up its own version of the truth.  When they do this to protect the Republican Administration at the highest levels, it is a very serious matter.  

Ideally, CNN and MSNBC should have a half-hour nightly program devoted to correcting the misinformation and misguidance broadcast by Fox that day.  Most of the time, thirty minutes would be insufficient for that task.

JL 

Where D'Ya Git Yer Nooz?

Before getting too wrapped up in the ongoing disintegration of the Presidency, which seems to be imminent to those who get their news from CNN and MSNBC, let’s not forget that more people follow Fox News than these two channels combined.

And if you take a look at what Fox News is featuring, you’d thing the big stories are about the Trump Administration’s economic, foreign policy and trade “successes,” the unrelenting and unfair attacks by “other media” on the President and of course, the need to reopen the question of Hillary Clinton’s emails with an eye toward prosecuting her.  Very little time is devoted to the story of the President’s efforts to derail investigations into possible collusion between his Presidential campaign and Russia and the firing of FBI Director James Comey. 

tRump fired James Comey because he refused to be a 'yes' man for the White House, and then got his Justice Department to prepare a cockamamie story about his shortcomings as the reason, a story which tRump's own words proved to be no more than a transparent cover-up for his real reason, a few days later.  Follow this story closely, but please, not on Fox News.

Most recently, Fox News prime time viewership averaged 2.4 million.  MSNBC’s averaged 1.4 million and CNN’s averaged a bit under .8 million.  Check these numbers out on any one of many internet sites which report them. One can be found quickly by clicking right here.

So don’t get the idea, as Joe Scarborough’s and Cris Cuomo’s viewers may think, that the President is on the brink of impeachment.  Fox News’ thoroughly misguided viewers, whose votes put Donald Trump in the White House, think otherwise.  And there a lot of them.  Don’t kid yourself.  You may laugh at Fox News, but almost two and a half million prime time viewers every day do not.

JL  

             

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman 

What Is He HUGELY Afraid Of?

EXTRA!

The recent posting on this blog talked about our “irrelevant” President.  Well, it appears that he has recognized his irrelevancy and decided to do something about it.  What he has done, in fitting with his disconnect with governing, makes no sense whatsoever, unless his motivation is as discussed below.  That is the only thing it has relevance to: his campaign’s Russian connection.

The reasons given for the sudden dismissal of FBI Director James Comey do not hold water.   Up until now, there had been plenty of time to fire him if the reason for it was his failure to recommend the prosecution of Hillary Clinton whose handling of her emails he had characterized as “extremely careless.”  Similarly, his ultimate writing off of the emails that Clinton’s assistant, Huma Abedin, had forwarded to her husband for printing as not revealing anything the Bureau did not already know isn’t grounds for termination either.   Neither of these acts seemed to have caused the Bureau nor the country to lose confidence in the FBI Director as the President seems to claim.

It is quite obvious that the President wanted Comey fired and told the Department of Justice to come up with something, anything, which they did.  The real reason for the termination probably was the FBI’s investigation of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign.  Anytime progress in that area appears likely, the President dons his “Apprentice” role and fires someone.  He is afraid of something.  "Hugely" afraid.

Preet Bharara, the Federal Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Sally Yates, the Acting Attorney General who nailed down the facts on Michael Flynn, both were fired when it appeared they were on the trail of something important in regard to that investigation.  True, both were due to be replaced sooner or later because of the results of the Presidential election, but both terminations were unduly rushed.   Why?  The same holds true for James Comey’s dismissal.  Why at this time?  What was he about to discover?  What couldn’t wait for his return from California?

And why did the President, in his dismissal letter, bother to specifically mention that Comey had repeatedly told him that he was not being investigated implying that the investigation regarding Russia was not the reason for the dismissal.  That would have been better left unsaid.  His saying it reveals a lot about his real motivation in firing Comey.

Could it be that some of the incriminating material in that mysterious “dossier” amassed by that retired British intelligence officer, tying the Trump campaign and possibly Trump himself to Russian involvement has been confirmed, and the “dismissals” are a pathetic effort by the President to continue to block these revelations from being made?  Do they document his dependence upon and indebtedness to Russian “oligarchs” in his business dealings … or worse?  His refusal to release tax returns suggests that they too might provide this kind of information.

The House’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in our election was compromised when its Intelligence Committee’s chairperson met with the President to share information with him.  The Senate’s similar investigation has been seriously hampered by inadequate staffing.  And now, the President’s firing of Comey shows his intent to cripple the FBI’s investigation as well.  Meanwhile, the Democrats and some Republicans are asking for the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor.

I am certain, the President will do everything he can to prevent the appointment of an Independent Prosecutor, which is the task of the brand-new Deputy Attorney General, filling the role of the Attorney General who has recused himself in regard to this investigation because of his having met with Russians himself at the Republican convention.

Rather than personally fire Comey, the President rushed to do it while the FBI Director was in California. Besides showing his total lack of class and good manners, this perhaps gave him time to check out Comey’s office, looking for material pertinent to the investigation. 

This whole thing stinks.  The odor is so foul that even Republicans are going to start deserting this boorish, ill-prepared and unqualified President they were stupid enough to nominate and convince gullible voters to support.  The President has said that his supporters are so loyal that “he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and no one would care.”  He is now putting that loyalty to the test. 

Looming up, eighteen months from now, are elections for both Houses of Congress.  These are now “on the table” as is even the Presidency itself.  The stakes are high.

JL         

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman 

The Irrelevant President, Mud on your Jeans, Replacing Obamacare and the French Election

A Political Pond Skater

The final paragraph of a column written by David Brooks last week (New York Times and syndicated elsewhere) was headlined “Trump has become more conventional, less of a threat” and concluded with the following paragraph:

“Don’t get me wrong.  I wish we had a president who had actual convictions and knowledge, and who was interested in delivering real good to real Americans.  But it’s hard to maintain outrage at a man who is a political pond skater – one of those that flit across the surface, sort of fascinating to watch, but have little effect as they go.”

This goes along with some thoughts I have been having lately about the President.  They led me to seek out (via “google”) a definition of a word which I reprint directly below:

ir·rel·e·vant

əˈreləvənt/

adjective

not connected with or relevant to something.

synonyms:

beside the point, immaterial, not pertinent, not germane, off the subject, unconnected, unrelated, peripheral, extraneous, inapposite, inapplicable.

I suspect that the forty-fifth President of these United States will go down in history as being irrelevant. Primarily, he lacks the knowledge and attention span to become involved more than peripherally with domestic and foreign policy issues.  He depends on his advisers and once authority is delegated to them, he disconnects from the details of any issues involved. 

Note his vacillations on trade policy.  NAFTA and China’s currency manipulation were once ogres to be defeated in his mind.  No longer.  So was NATO.  And dictators like those in Russia, the Phillipines and most recently, Turkey, were alternately good guys and then bad guys.  Clearly, Kim Jung Un is a bad guy, but the President has actually indicated he’d be willing to sit down and have a conversation with him.  And his stand on health care, the environment, taxation and government regulation is no better than skin deep. Recently he praised Australia’s “Medicare for All” healthcare system within a few minutes of praising the House’s healthcare plan, about which he knows even less than those who voted for it without knowing its details, other than it didn’t have the forty-fourth President’s name attached to it.  You can’t have it both ways. 

Real estate moguls go to lunch with those with whom they want to do business, or fleece, and all is cheerful bonhomie, with the details of possible “deals” kept indefinite and mushy.  Business can operate this way but government cannot.  It demands knowledge and specifics!  Note how often our major corporations flip their CEOs.

Brooks places Trump in a “post-print” and “pre-internet” mental framework, where everything, TV-style, is in segments and episodes. Thus, his mind can’t handle things that require deep thinking and much mulling over.  What comes out of his mouth is thereby “beside the point, immaterial, not pertinent, not germane, off the subject, unconnected, unrelated, peripheral, etc. etc.” as synonyms, per above, for “irrelevant.”  What he got away with in the business world and on TV won’t make it in government.  Hence we have an irrelevant President.  Unless Congress finds a reason to impeach him, or he resigns, we are stuck with him until 2020.  That’s why the 2018 elections may be important.

But he purports to be a Republican and Republican politicians, unlike many of those people who vote for them, are neither gullible nor stupid!   They know on which side their bread is buttered.

Irrelevant Donald Trump’s TV-style thinking has appeal to many voters who don’t look beyond his words.  And that’s why Republicans in both Houses of Congress, fully aware of the President’s irrelevancy, support him.  They need the votes of those who believe in him.  Once they have them, they will do whatever they want, which of course is promoting the traditional Republican virtues of reduced taxes on the wealthy, reduced regulation of business and finance and the gradual removal of the social and economic “safety net” for which a supposedly growing economy, at least in their minds and according to some at the Heritage Foundation, will eliminate the need.  Of course, that is a lot of malarkey.  But with an appealing but irrelevant President, “a political pond skater,” as David Brooks put it, they are getting away with it. 

The President of the United States should not be irrelevant. Making sure that never happens again is the job of voters, like you and me.

Jack Lippman

Replacing Obamacare

Here's a copy, folks, of a letter I sent to Senator Marco Rubio on May 5.  Those with like opinions should write to their Senators, particularly if they are Republicans.

Subject:  Healthcare Legislation

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THIS MORNING’S ONLINE “BLOOMBERG VIEW.”  I CANNOT SAY IT BETTER.  BUT I HAVE ADDED A BIT OF HIGHLIGHTING AND EIGHT IMPORTANT WORDS AT THE END.  

The dereliction of duty is breathtaking. In pushing the American Health Care Act through the House of Representatives, Speaker Paul Ryan and his Republican conference have voted to remake almost one-fifth of the U.S. economy. They did so without public hearings, without input from outside experts, without analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and without, finally, much compunction or consideration of the tens of millions of Americans it will harm.

                                                                       Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

“I don’t think we should pass bills that we haven’t read and don’t know what they cost,” Ryan said in the summer of 2009, referring (unfairly) to Obamacare. This kind of hypocrisy might be overlooked if the new bill had any merit. It doesn’t.

If anything, it’s more damaging than the original bill Republicans tabled in March. The CBO said that legislation would have taken away health insurance from some 24 million Americans. The new bill could push the number higher. 

It would allow states to get waivers from some of the protections that the Affordable Care Act provides -- most important, the rule that says insurers cannot charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing health problems. In such states, people who let their insurance lapse for a couple of months could be charged unaffordable premiums.

An amendment added on the eve of the vote is meant to soften this blow by giving states a little more money to set up “high-risk pools” for the victims. But high-risk pools -- which separate sick people from the general population and charge them higher premiums -- can’t work without adequate funding. And this legislation offers hundreds of billions of dollars less than what would be needed.

Details aside, the bill would undermine health-insurance markets by increasing uncertainty for insurers who are trying to determine what plans to sell -- if any at all -- in the months ahead.

Bottom of Form

Why did Ryan, who rose to prominence on the wings of wonkery, force this bill through the House with only passing review? Not because it would improve anyone’s welfare. One of the main attractions of the bill for Republicans is that it would cut taxes for the well-to-do.  Another is that it would help Republicans escape a political dilemma of their own design: Having dissembled about Obamacare for years, the party was forced to propose its alternative. Because Republicans didn’t actually have one, they had to fake it.

Ryan has achieved his goal -- passing this tainted buck to the Senate. The Senate should treat the legislation with the respect it deserves.  

THE SENATE SHOULD FLUSH IT DOWN THE TOILET!

JL

Mud on Your Jeans

In addition to some folks being gullible politically, another area where enormous success has been achieved by some due to people’s gullibility is the world of fashion!  I’ve read that the latest kick being foisted on the gullible are jeans which have mud on them, or fabric which permanently gives the appearance of its being muddy.  Add to this the long-standing custom of brand new jeans being torn, faded, ripped and otherwise looking old from their inception.  The only reason these things click is that they are supposed to give the illusion that the wearer is hard-working, poor, or both … and cannot afford clean new jeans without tears, rips or mud on them.  Usually, these jeans are worn by upscale, hip, well-paid individuals who wear them to affect a common touch to their appearance.  Such jeans usually cost in the hundreds of dollars while a new pair of clean, un-pre-damaged Levis or Wranglers can be purchased for far less than $50.  

       

$425 at Nordstrom's

People who buy the pre-ripped and pre-muddied jeans have to be counted among the gullible because they have swallowed the line that looking poor and appearing to be involved in hard work, even if that is not the case, is the cool way to dress.  I understand that sweatshirts are now coming on the market with fabrics showing sweat around the armpits and necklines before they are ever worn.  The gullible can now look like they went through a tough workout without even lifting a finger.  Glory to the “phonies” among us.

I know a “stylist” in Manhattan who specializes in recommending stylish apparel, hair treatments, etc. for entertainers and substantial people in the public eye.  (I will put you in contact with her if you have need of such a person and have a lot, a real lot, of money.  She is very good at what she does and doesn't come cheap.) 

She makes a lot of money from these folks who are extremely gullible when it comes to wearing things that are in style.  She tells them how to dress and helps them achieve their desired look.   Well, one day in her apartment, I noticed a four-sided hand grater in her kitchen, the kind my mother used to use to grate onions and potatoes.  I seem to recall such devices were called “rebozins” or something like that.  “Making potato pancakes?” I asked.  “Nope,” she replied. “I use this to grate the fabric on jeans.”  With that she grabbed a $400 pair of designer jeans and started grating the knees.  “This way, my client’s jeans will have personalized tears on them, not the same as anyone else’s ripped jeans.”  Turning the jeans over, she added, “I think I’ll do a little grating on this pair’s butt too.  She’ll love them.”

JL

An Option We Didn't Have

Emmanuel Macron won the run-off for the French Presidency.  It is a hollow victory because he has no real representation in the French Parliament where the country's two major parties dominate, each of which failed to place a candidate in the run-off. Macron has been referred to as "a Michael Bloomberg without any money."  Let's see what he can accomplish.   

More significant is the news that many voters did not choose to select either candidate, submitting what amounted to blank ballots.  More did this than voted for Marine Le Pen, the losing candidate in the run-off.  What they were, in effect saying, was "neither of the above."  Wow!  That choice came in second to Macron, polling more than Le Pen!  

Many French voters would have preferred to be voting for candidates from the left-leaning coalition dominated by the Socialist Party or the more centrist coalition dominated by the Republican Party and were dissatisfied with Macron as an alternative to the far-right choice of Le Pen in the run-off.  So they turned in blank ballots, which translates as "neither of the above."  I wonder how many Americans would have voted for that way when confronted by the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald tRump back in November if they had such a choice.

JL

HOW TO BE ALERTED TO FUTURE BLOG POSTINGS.

Many readers of this blog are alerted by Email every time a new posting appears.  If you wish to be added to that Email list, just let me know by clicking on Riart1@aol.com and sending me an Email.  

HOW TO CONTACT ME or CONTRIBUTE MATERIAL TO JACK'S POTPOURRI. 

BY CLICKING ON THAT SAME ADDRESS, Riart1@aol.com   YOU ALSO CAN SEND ME YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THIS BLOG AS WELL AS YOUR COMMENTS.  (Comments can also be made by clicking on the "Post a Comment" link at the blog's end.)

MOBILE DEVICE ACCESS.

DID YOU KNOW THAT www.jackspotpourri.com IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICES IN A MODIFIED, EASY-TO-READ, FORMAT?   

HOW TO VIEW OLDER POSTINGS.                                                

To view older postings on this blog, just click on the appropriate date in the “Blog Archive” midway down the column off to the right, or scroll down until you see the “Older Posts” notation at the very bottom of this posting.  The “Search Box” in the right side of the posting also may be helpful in locating a posting topic for which you are looking.

HOW TO FORWARD POSTINGS.

To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you think might be interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the "Comments" line directly below, enabling you to send them an Email providing a link directly to this posting.  You might also want to let me know their Email address so that they may be alerted to future postings.

Jack Lippman