Does Environmentalism Hurt the Poor?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reisman/reisman13.html

In the short term, yes. In thelong term - no, as even the poor can benefit from better quality environment.

>>2 Point. As with meritocracy, secularism, jurisprudence, anti-corruption and personal freedom, a sustainable policy regarding the environment are prerequisites for a legitimate state. It is possible to put a brake on capitalism without breaking it, and I think that capitalism without limits will not be able to work for more than a century more.

>>2
So you agree then that it DOES hurt the poor?  (in an economic sense, it hurts them long term as well...?)

Over-population is the root cause, but since we are already over populated environmentalism will hurt the poor. Thus the solution is environmentalism and low populations.

Another solution would be of course to be rich and not care about the poor, however this is evil.

>>6 Sorry, but I am a bit tired of people using the word 'evil'.

>>7
But it is evil.

I agree.  Environmentalism hurts the poor. 

>>8 In a way, yes, but that word operates on a non-factual, almost supernatural basis. I don't think it is a neccesary part of human vocabulary.
>>9 Not on all levels and in all ways. Far from it. Power lines, corn syrup, mercury... I can assure you - as long as consumers (especially the poor ones) don't have the time/willingness/intelligence to defend their interests by using their power as consumers, I think it is honorable that some people want to fight that fight for us all. Capitalism may be bountiful, but it is a blind whore that can be made to do everything. It's a shame that so many of these environmentalists are little more than poseurs or leftists by default ("rich people? BAD!!"). I, for one, am an alter-globalist, simply because neither the left nor the right offer acceptable alternatives to the status quo.

>>10
There's nothing wrong with "evil" being used as a word..

evil:  that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction

also:  morally objectionable behavior

>>10
So you are going to give the power to regulate business to government officials, who, themselves, are regulated by business in the form of campaign contributions? lol.

>>12
Not to mention money under the table...

>>12 >>13 Point.

>>10
There are 2 rational metaphysical branches. The first one is science, the second is sentience. The idea of good and evil is a rational observation of the role of pain, pleasure and higher pleasure in our existence as sentient beings and our attitudes towards other sentient beings. I know you commies hate this branch of metaphysics because it leads to unanswerred questions which religions like to assume, but denying the existence of sentience is like claiming the universe is absolutely unpredictable and there is no need for science.

>>15 I must have stepped on a tender toe there. Of course there is need for science - by examining causalities we can form generalizations that are far more useful to us than a surrender to the chaos that surrounds us. I really have no idea what my post coagulated into once you read it, but rest assured that you haven't changed my mind in the slightest. There is chaos, and there is stasis, those are the two *physical* states I have any interest in.

>>16
"I must have stepped on a tender toe there."
lol wtf? I hardly showed a grain of emotion and if I did I was nothing like most of the emo-tards on /newpol/.

The idea that you need proof to prove things is a dogma and the founding dogma of all science, the reason why it has been promoted to a rational axiom is because of it's effects. Science does not explain however why we are sentient, it explains how by of course noticing that brains have something to do with it and that brains are a sort of computer, but it doesn't explain the process of how ourselves as entities exist, perceive and are conscious of our thoughts.

You are a commie, since all commies have this "SCIENCE IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXISTS WE ARE ALL SOULLESS ROBOTS" mentality. At this point, as you are an extremist, in order to avoid the facts you will claim I am just anoher type of extremist. I follow no religion. I'm just saying that I am sentient, which incidentally is provable by the fact that I am currently conscious and can experience.

The idea that you need proof to justify believing in something is a dogma*

Discrediting to left wingers who supposedly care about the poor...

>>19
Left wingers also hate malthus even thoght he was just pointing out that overpopulation causes povberty.

Over population does cause poverty, even the Chinese know this! There is something seriously wrong with liberals.

What kind of liberal are you talking about? Last I checked, they were the bunch who promoted contraceptives and abortion. Hell, fags don't have kids either.

Why think when you can just label?

>>21
I just find that liberals have some sort of huge problem when you bring up the subject of over population. Marx must have said something about malthus or something.

>>18
Yes. It's the dogma we generally refer to as "rational thought."

>>22
I haven't met a liberal who thinks that, but then I don't spend my time among idiots.

It's easy to avoid thinking if you demonize the other side. The kind of crap the lowest denominators on the left and right believe about each other is hilarious.

>>24
Most of the liberals I talk to are university students.

>>25
That's the demographic for you... most convervatives I know are over 50. It's always like that.

>>26
I'm a conservative and I'm 16, about to finish up my last year of high school and following that, college. 

>>27 Where did this early conviction come from? I am 17 and I am always trying to get some right-wing influence to blend with my left-wing origins.

>>28
Early conviction? What changed me?

I actually grew up in a liberal atheist household.  Both my parents were pretty much hardliner democrats.  I never really liked the right-wing from a young age because I saw them as a bunch of religious zealots who wanted to ram their religion down everyone elses' throats through use of the government. 

What changed my views? I took an interest in a few things.. politics, philosophy, and history.  My first 'real' book I read was probly 1984, by George Orwell.  I still think that is one of my favorite books, if not THE favorite.  Reading 1984 gave me a reason to distrust excessive government powers over social and economic policy.  Seeing Bush pass the Patriot Act, and executing domestic spying programs made me just look, shake my head, and say "1984". 

Next book I read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  Rand appealed to me because I had never really seen conservatism from an atheist perspective.  I had been pretty prejudice about conservatives, thinking they were all a bunch of bible thumping hicks who didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and voted blindly republican. 

I liked Rand, and read through just about everything she had written.  The other thing that appealed to me was that she was pro-choice, and that she thought the government had no right try and control sex between consenting adults (such as banning gay sex or trying to control the lives of gay people), or regulate pornography.  This brings me to now.. I've started reading the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and I've almost completed Animal Farm by George Orwell.  I've also recently been reading from a wide variety of websites about libertarianism, guns and gun rights, human rights, and property rights, the relation of the two, and in general, the debate and battle of individualism vs collectivism and big-government. 

Likely what changed my views the most drastically on the gun debate was reading about the historical connection between guns, self defense rights, gun control, gun proliferation, and genocide/democide, not to mention the overwhelming amount of evidence showing that gun control doesn't effect crime much at all.  I then saw the movie "Innocents Betrayed", which really threw me over the edge, so to speak. 

The largest problems I have with the right wing remain that the republican party is still (generally) for the Patriot act, domestic spying, generally seems to hate gay people, oppose stem cell research, and supports a very VERY aggressive interventionist foreign policy that runs contrary to the guidelines set forth by the founding fathers of the USA.  The last remaining problem I see with them that comes to mind at the moment is that they are for restrictions on the freedom of speech, such as fining broadcasters for saying naughty words on the air which might piss off the religious right, and generally, parents who don't want to parent their own kids, not to mention that they are possibly even more corrupt than the democrats (though they are both certainly very corrupt). 

The largest problem I have with the democratic party and the left is that they are borderline socialist, oppose gun rights, support gun control, won't stand up to the republicans on important issues like the patriot act, supports the U.N, and that their high taxes operate to destroy small businesses and competition largely to the benefit of large corporations who are in bed with the government, so to speak.  In general, I want the dems to keep their nose out of my pocketbook, and to stop infringing on the 2nd amendment, among the other things mentioned. 

The libertarian party is a very attractive alternative to me.  I see them as having all the good aspects of either major party, minus the bullshit. 

>>29
So depending on the interpreter, you're either no more liberal or conservative, or far left liberal... I've never heard someone call libertarianism conservative.

>>29 You're one year younger than me and your response is circa 35 % higher quality than most other posts I've read here.

Well, the gist of your post is the gist I have amassed over the admittedly slim period of my life devoted to politics. So why call yourself a conservative, when you are essentially a liberal (opposed to the general socialist position of the left)? The single reason I can not turn libertarian here and now is my worry regarding the interaction between a country's system, it's culture and the people. Would a laissez-faire system automatically produce the virtues -neccesary for it's own sustainability- in the people reigned by said system? Without moral decency, and some brakes on "bad greed" such as the golden rule and universalizability (I may do this, but do I want everybody to do the same?), we can't trust companies. But without consumer vigilance, companies can essentially do what they want, and call "anti-american" on whistleblowers. I mean, companies like Nestlé, Bechtel, Nike and Shell are still part of the American economy, and any criticizm is outside of the mainstream. Would immoral businesses, having hypothetically lost their political power in the transition to laissez-faire capitalism, really allow themselves to come under consumer scrutiny at the expense of profit? Doubtful. Then again, there are some books that dispel many myths about capitalism (automatic turn towards monopoly et al.), and I promise you I'll read that to get more detail.

I think the reason the 80's experiment with economic liberalism in South America failed so hard (poor Argentina was once the "star pupil" of right-wing pundits) is *partially* due to culture and particularly bad circumstances, but now we have a chance to observe two more countries emulate a more free economic system - India and China. China is far more autocratic yet their gender inequality and social hierarchies don't have the same traditional, religious basis as India's (India is experiencing a backlash against feminism, and in some regions the male to female ration is 10:9). Both countries also have bountiful, beautiful and brittle biospheres that lack any kind of allies in the multinational battle over the pie slices.

This is the crux; thanks to globalization, both countries will probably experience more freedom, more equality and a better respect for human rights, but at what cost, and for whom? There is smog over the cities, the rivers run black and then there are the dam projects that force thousand away from their homes due to politicians ever so eager to please foreign investors. 300 million Chinese have been raised over the poverty level, yet they still rely on the same illegitimate fundaments as before. Putting limits on these budding capitalist changes (unions, environmental regualtions, worker rights) would possibly slow the increase in life improvement, but now it seems as if so many people are getting a bum deal anyway, the only difference now is that there are less resources for them and the air smells worse. In a fast economy, it is easier for the people with the resources to get unfair benefits from those that don't have the opportunit to take action and get their fair slices of the pie.

Lastly, contemporary conservatism is nothing to settle for if you want better economies. The American right and the evangelicals in particular couldn't give two shits about the "self-made man". The majority of American politics cater only to the top two-fifths of the population and while the left are incapable of improving their policies for the better (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008720), the right pretends as if the money moving upwards is a natural effect of the unrestrained market (they are the ones doing that). While I consider welfare to be wrong philosophically, it is morally justified in societies that are not adequately meritocratic (http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/HERTZ_MOBILITY_ANALYSIS.PDF)

Adding to this is the liqufying of Iraq's quite stable and well-serving public sector (all in the name of neo-con privatization), that was stripped to pieces together with most of the old legislation (this was a breach of the Hague convention regarding sustaining a country's legitimate legislation upon invasion, the only law of Saddam's they kept was a ban on unions in the public sector...). Who were the public employees that were tossed out of jobs, prevented from helping their country's infrastructure when it needed it the most? No people in particular. Just 120'000 or so Sunnis who happened to own firearms and had received mandatory wartime training. The control of the infrastructure was given to buddies of people in the administration (oh yeah we really support healthy competition among entrepreneurs because it improves quality. Just like we did with the people who supplied body armor for our brave men and women), who were quick to not do anything except guzzle up tax money and throw together sub-par medical facilities.

I actually believe that capitalism is the way to go, and that it will not take that much work to make people ready for a laissez-faire system. I believe America has a lot to gain form such a transition, but also so much to lose. I believe that the current speed with which globalization is advancing is completely unsustainable and that there is no culture in the world capable of handling a laissez-faire system. I would probably side with the libertarians if they were aware of their limitations, but until then I am not ashamed of settling for the left. I am very much ready to change my mind though. You've come across as smart, maybe you can offer me a few links or resources apart from those you've already offered (Rand fails as a philosopher, I've gathered, but I respect her for her strength and devotion).

>>31
"Well, the gist of your post is the gist I have amassed over the admittedly slim period of my life devoted to politics. So why call yourself a conservative, when you are essentially a liberal (opposed to the general socialist position of the left)?"

There isn't an alternative.  I certainly wouldn't vote for a moderate... I think one idea is more or less right, and one idea is more or less wrong. 

Communism/socialism have been tried, and failed miserably.  Capitalism has been tried, and aside from a few nasty side effects (such as environmental damage) it's been a shining success.  Most of the standard of living we enjoy in the United States today is largely due to the Capitalism we've had in the past. 

I've taken several political tests that test my position on various issues.  With everything factored in, I'm a pretty radical libertarian that 'leans' slightly conservative, largely due to my stand on immigration & national sovereignty, crime and punishment, and gun rights.  (I favor stronger border security, national sovereignty, and don't want the U.N. or similar international organizations to have any control whatsoever over the United States, our states within the U.S., or myself as an individual.)  The reason for this is simple, and it has nothing to do with the reasons many other conservatives give for their support of these measures. 

Part of it is also because I simply don't want a larger, more centralized government, and I don't like bureaucrats or politicians who push me around via legislation, telling me I can use this drug but not that one, own this gun but not that one, have sex with this person but not that one, get married to this person but not that one, etc. 

"The single reason I can not turn libertarian here and now is my worry regarding the interaction between a country's system, it's culture and the people."

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying.  Are you suggesting the laws and things that are 'allowed' in a country are conducive to certain behaviors? The way I view things is that the government enforces it's laws on the people via use of force (government guns).  Not only do I have philosophical qualms with trying to use violence and force unnecessarilly to 'convert' other people to conform to what I think is right, I simply don't like being pushed around myself.  I oppose seat belt laws for many of the same reasons I oppose laws concerning sex between consenting adults.  It's just more pointless, unecessary laws, and moreover, what you do in areas like this should be entirely up to you.  

What do I care if some guy is smoking pot in the basement? What do I care if a homosexual decides to get married? What do I care if a guy decides to own a firearm? On the contrary, it WILL end up costing me more tax money if all these things are illegal. Social policy is something I simply am not willing to compromise on at the moment.  The libertarian party is the only party that supports all personal freedoms, and that's reason enough to support them right there.  The dems and repubs are both for some personal freedoms, but not others.  This isn't acceptable to me, and I won't compromise on these issues.  I want gays to be able to get married just like anyone else.  I want to be able to own firearms.  I want the right to use drugs.  Will I choose to exercise all these rights? Maybe not, but I want them.  Just because I support drug legalization for ex., doesn't mean I'm going to go out and get high once it happens. 

"Would a laissez-faire system automatically produce the virtues -neccesary for it's own sustainability- in the people reigned by said system?"

Definitely up for debate.  I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter for the reasons I'll state later in this response.  Keep in mind though, with freedom comes responsibility, and freedom encourages responsibility. 

"Would immoral businesses, having hypothetically lost their political power in the transition to laissez-faire capitalism, really allow themselves to come under consumer scrutiny at the expense of profit? Doubtful."

What could they do to stop it?

"Then again, there are some books that dispel many myths about capitalism (automatic turn towards monopoly et al.), and I promise you I'll read that to get more detail."

I haven't read many of them.  Still, I support the libertarian social policy, and many of their economic policies.  The country needs change, and the government is inefficient, annoying (tries to control my life), bureaucratic, and needs to be downsized. 

"This is the crux; thanks to globalization, both countries will probably experience more freedom, more equality and a better respect for human rights, but at what cost, and for whom?"

Globalization is one of the things about capitalism I find questionable.  I really don't know what to tell you.  It's good that they are finally getting political freedom and such, but I don't really like everything I see from the globalization scene either.  Speaking in terms of economics, I'm pretty frightened by the trade deficit, and the idea that I might not be able to find work someday due to the loss of jobs in the american manufacturing dept. due to cheap labor overseas and globalization.  I'm still thinking about this, but as far as internal capitalism, or internal socialism, my mind has long been made up in favor of the former. 

"There is smog over the cities, the rivers run black and then there are the dam projects that force thousand away from their homes due to politicians ever so eager to please foreign investors."

Probly true, but our government pollutes a hell of a lot more than our industries do, as does the Chinese government.  Downsizing seems like a good idea, keeping this in mind. 

"300 million Chinese have been raised over the poverty level, yet they still rely on the same illegitimate fundaments as before."

What do you mean by this?

"Putting limits on these budding capitalist changes (unions, environmental regualtions, worker rights) would possibly slow the increase in life improvement, but now it seems as if so many people are getting a bum deal anyway, the only difference now is that there are less resources for them and the air smells worse."

I'm pro-union, and I'm a libertarian.  Libertarians are for the rights of workers to unionize and strike so long as they don't cause direct physical harm to others in the process.  (Hands off social policy, remember?)

As for the environmental stuff, you should have a look at the various libertarian solutions to the environmental problems.  They are there.  Maybe not to everything, but to some things.  Carbon taxes, gas taxes, etc.  Just read around, it's there. 

Here's a sample: 

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/

"Lastly, contemporary conservatism is nothing to settle for if you want better economies."

Sure, but the way I see it, I DO want the right to own a gun, and I intend to exercise it.  If guns are banned, confiscated, restricted, or made illegal, it will directly effect me. 

If the right makes abortion illegal, bans stem cell research, or passes laws preventing gay people from getting married, however bad it is, or how much I disagree with it, it will not directly effect my life. 

The gun issue is still the one that most directly effects ME.  For these reasons, as well as the ones stated above, I'd rather align myself with a "conservative" candidate than a liberal, though I'm still certainly more a libertarian than anything else.   

"The American right and the evangelicals in particular couldn't give two shits about the "self-made man". The majority of American politics cater only to the top two-fifths of the population"

If you are talking about corruption and sweetheart deals, see post below - it's not just the right, and it's not just the left. 

"the right pretends as if the money moving upwards is a natural effect of the unrestrained market (they are the ones doing that)."

It's not just them.  The left is in on it too.  Did you read the article I posted here recently about foreign aid? Cheney himself profits from the whole operation.  Government programs in general, both the Wars waged by the right, and the foreign aid supported by the democrats not only don't help the foreign poor, they help the rich here, and continue to harm and oppress the foreign poor in the very systems that, I believe, encourage poverty.  

http://www.netnomad.com/might.html

Meanwhile, the funds that are procured to support these ideas, from both the right, and the left, are taxed out of the middle and lower class' already tight pockets, and funneled right down into the corporations with whom Cheney and the various government officials are tied.  No doubt they are getting paid off to do all this..

The only party that proposes a solution to all this is the libertarian party. 

"I would probably side with the libertarians if they were aware of their limitations, but until then I am not ashamed of settling for the left."

LOL! Dude, many people who support gun rights, and various other things are saying the exact same things.  

Republican Gun Rights View: 
"Well, I don't much like the republicans, but they are for gun rights, and the dems are taking them away, so I'll just vote republican." 

Democrat Gay Rights View: 
"Well, I don't much like the democrats and their socialism, gun control, corruption, etc, but they are for 'gay rights' so I'll just settle for the democrats."

What you end up doing is pitting one freedom against another, and people are just getting more and more pissed off, and hopping on either side, making the two stronger, and the libertarians end up weaker. 

The sad thing is that many people from both of the major two end up voting for one of the big two, even though they more or less support the libertarians moreso than the main two, but vote for the main two because they think the libertarians will never win.  The more people who continue to do this, the more this viewpoint is perpetuated. 

This is fucking up the USA.  Take a look at the constitution.  No matter who wins, we are going to lose some freedom, and I have a healthy amount of doubt that the next administration and government isn't going to roll back the infringements and ridiculous laws and violations of personal freedom and constitutional rights. 

"I am very much ready to change my mind though. You've come across as smart, maybe you can offer me a few links or resources apart from those you've already offered (Rand fails as a philosopher, I've gathered, but I respect her for her strength and devotion)."

Have you read her stuff? Well, whatever, I'll just list you a handful of books I read & liked.

1984
Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead
Animal Farm
Anthem

There's more I guess.  I finished Animal Farm today.  Good critique of Stalinism, but I didn't like that Orwell implied that Socialism could work and work better had they just had a different set of rulers. 

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Even if the leaders of the socialist government were not corrupt to begin with, such a system would corrupt them. 

Likewise, in the mixed economy we have now in which the govt is so easilly bought out by big money and big corporations, the risk of corruption is just as high - if not higher. 

Another thing to consider, just take a look at history.  We've already tried big-government, and look how well that worked out.  Comparatively, capitalism has a much better track record. 

Another link I just came across recently that you might* be interested in: 

http://www.holisticpolitics.org/Corporations/Work.php

There's several pages of it. 


Finally, regarding laissez-faire sustainability, and the 'radical' economic views of the libertarians..

This is something I've been hearing a LOT from people on this board.  You are all frightened of the libertarians because they are all supposedly so radical.  For one thing, moderate libertarians exist. 

If you support most or a lot of what they are saying, there is absolutely no reason not to vote for them. 

Keep in mind, the republicans, democrats, and other parties and the people who vote for them will still exist to balance out the more or less 'extreme' views of the libertarian party, and so you don't have to worry. 

Even if, for example, we had a libertarian president...

He would still depend on having a libertarian dominated congress, and a libertarian dominated senate to get his legislation through. 

Look how rare it is even for just a simple republican or democratic majority to take place in all areas of government.  It's really quite rare. 

The point being:  don't worry about libertarian extremism.  Even supposing the libertarians managed to get a majority, you probly wouldn't see much more than: 

Taxes lowered slightly more than under a republican admin.
A more sensible foreign policy
Less foreign aid
marijuana legalization (but not the harder drugs..)
some gun restrictions and regulations rolled back (but still having background checks and other similar type legislation)

etc...

Point being, even though the libertarian candidate may WANT to legalize all drugs, he is still dependent upon all the other branches of government, and the candidates in them to get his wishes. 

As a result from this, the most he'd be able to do is take a far more moderate approach, and inch toward greater liberty at a snail's pace. 

>>32
If you are going to write that much, why write it for world4ch and for 1 random person across the internet who clearly does not have the same care for logic and truth as you do?

>>33 Stay out of this. I offered some facts to back up my misgivings and tried to explain that I am in *no way* convinced I should be settling for the left just because it is a shortcut. I am a 17-year old Swede anyway, so you don't have to worry I'll vote for someone who'll take your precious guns away. We are trying to find some common ground and avoid the usual knee-jerk blue/red discussion, exchanging facts and such. Go suck clitoris.

Go suck clitoris.

Oh! Advice I can relate to!

>>34
Reading through your post again, Xel, I think most of the reason that I tend to support the right is because I am still pretty much rooted in the ideas of free will. 

You seem to support the left because you think individuals are subject to some mysterious forces beyond their control, such as your concepts about environmental influence and such. 

I still more or less think and take the viewpoint that individuals are free to do what they want, and if they make the decisions they know are wrong, they should be punished or rewarded as such. 

In a Capitalist economy, the difference in punishment and rewards is evident in how much money you make. 

(This is all just in theory, and I'm not trying to suggest that the system we have now is perfect ... but I will suggest that voting for the left is not going to help make our system more meritocratic...:)

>>36 But it all amounts to the humans, and we are not electrons. I believe free will is an illusion but that doesn't mean I can accept everything that is going on. Capitalism is, in essence, a whore. Most positive side-effects save for sheer profit are accidental, and so are the negative side-effects. The issue isn't freedom for me, but rather what we are doing with that freedom. I don't know if the left create a more meritocratic society, but I do know that the US is less meritocratic than Socialist Sweden of today.
I think we will coalesce into refined libertarians, you and I. I can't budge on gay marriage, you can't budge on guns, and we are both correct. I wish to transform the left towards libertarianism, you consider the right to better suit that aim. Hopefully we can comport in the future.

>>37
"I can't budge on gay marriage, you can't budge on guns, and we are both correct. I wish to transform the left towards libertarianism, you consider the right to better suit that aim."

Well if you are interested in transforming the left, you might find this website interesting: 

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

And if you want to transform the right, you might find this website interesting: 

http://www.rlc.org/


Both of them lean pretty much libertarian(I found these organizations' links off a libertarian site that was advertising them).  Arlen Specter, for example, is a member of the RLC.  He's a republican senator from PA, and supports gay rights, gun rights, lower taxes... etc.. you know what I'm saying. 

I don't know much about the DFC (Democratic Freedom Caucus), but from what I've read their goals are essentially to do to the left wing what the RLC wants to do to the right (shift it to a more freedom-oriented, 'libertarian' outlook).

I'd probly vote for any generally pro-freedom candidate endorsed by either.  Looking at their agenda, their views both seem to coincide with mine, and with the libertarian party line, for the most part. 

>>38 This is what I what I'm all for. Thank you very much and best wishes. You are an A-grade resident of this board.

>>39
Thanks Xel, I like your posts too.