SilverEagle

Why didn't the prosecuter see what the defense attorney was trying to do, and "educate" the Jury while delivering his/her closing remarks. Especially since the defense attorney asked you three times about "miranda". Maybe the prosecuter thought that your comments about the law were sufficient, but (IMHO)the jury needed to hear it from an attorney.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore Go to the Viet Nam section. The photo shows him holding a gun......which makes him a combatant in the eyes of the enemy. Of course, I'm sure it was just a prop. But even if he did get no more than a paper cut........AT LEAST HE WAS THERE! AND NOT STATE SIDE SERVING HIS OWN PERSONAL INTEREST(S).

That's not as shocking as finding out that our attacking Iraq was just as valid as our declaration of war against Japan. Otherwise, who knows? If the current administration misrepresented (and/or lied) about the threat of WMD's, then the attack on Pearl Harbor could just as well have been a Democrat-driven-Hollywood-produced fake-event, to give us the perfect excuse to declare war on Japan. And I was equally shocked to find out that we declared war on Germany.

I'm just glad that lonely Japanese men might now have an alternative to their usual habit of going on "sex tours" of Thailand, where they can sexually exploit children. Japan is sooooooo weird.

If only this happened more oftenl

Weinie Wuss point of view? Let's see, I believe that Al Gore was actually "boots on the ground" in Viet Nam. Gore was a field reporter in Vietnam. Gore opposed the Vietnam War and could have avoided serving overseas by accepting a spot in the National Guard that a friend of his family had reserved for him, or by other means of avoiding the draft. Gore has stated that his sense of civic duty compelled him to serve in some capacity.[16] He enlisted in the United States Army on August 7, 1969. After basic training at Fort Dix, Gore was assigned as a military journalist writing for The Army Flier, the base newspaper at Fort Rucker.[16] With seven months remaining in his enlistment, Gore was shipped to Vietnam, arriving on January 2, 1971.[16] He served with the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa. Meanwhile, the "current occupant" was AWOL from the conflict, as was his evil VP, who "had other things to do at that time". But both of them think it's an ok idea to send our troops to die for Haliburtons economic gain. I'll take Gore (and his perceived hypocracy) any day over the "chicken hawks" that currently occupy our white house. So, if anything, the current occupant and his VP represent the weinie wuss point of view, more than anyone else.

I don't know about other states, but in Texas you are required by law to report someone hurting a child. It's not much of a stretch to assume that that same reporting law would protect you if you tried to intervene (after you called 911) to prevent furthur injury to a child.

Harry, did you overlook Jonathan Stewart? That gives us two DL with extensive 1-A experience. Didn't Jesse DeSoto get some playing time last year? What about Isaac Thomas? I'm encouraged by Draylen Ross being back on the active roster. If anyone can help bring out his (great) potentional it's Coach Deloach. If that happens, then we could have a real force in the DL. If Charlie Brown is going to play DL and not DE, then that should be a real interesting story. Charlie is a very hard worker. Did anyone notice how J. Scoggins was doing in the spring? I think we are pretty set at DE. If our DL can just hold their own, then we'll be much better than last year. Dallas, Corkey Nelson's first year was 2-9, and his next year was the conference championship. After some of his Juco's from the previous year flunked out, his third year he went 2-9. Hayden Fry was 5-5-1 (conference co-champ) the first year and 2-7-2 the next year. I would save any critical remarks about Dodge until after this season.

Holy Crap! He pawned 270 items over a 15 month period? Now THATS what I call a compulsion. I don't feel as bad for him as I do his son who is coming up to his senior year on the football team.

Here is an interesting article. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p08s01-comv.html

Here is some interesting information. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p08s01-comv.html

If Germany had not invaded the Soviet Union, D-Day would have been much different........and much later.

And then there are "tar sand" deposits. http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm

Another potential resource. http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm Here is my favorite quote.........Other impediments to development of the oil shale industry in the United States include the relatively high cost of producing oil from oil shale (currently greater than $60 per barrel), and the lack of regulations to lease oil shale. About Oil Shale Basic information on oil shale, oil shale resources, and recovery of oil from oil shale. What Is Oil Shale? Oil shale The term oil shale generally refers to any sedimentary rock that contains solid bituminous materials (called kerogen) that are released as petroleum-like liquids when the rock is heated in the chemical process of pyrolysis. Oil shale was formed millions of years ago by deposition of silt and organic debris on lake beds and sea bottoms. Over long periods of time, heat and pressure transformed the materials into oil shale in a process similar to the process that forms oil; however, the heat and pressure were not as great. Oil shale generally contains enough oil that it will burn without any additional processing, and it is known as "the rock that burns". Oil shale can be mined and processed to generate oil similar to oil pumped from conventional oil wells; however, extracting oil from oil shale is more complex than conventional oil recovery and currently is more expensive. The oil substances in oil shale are solid and cannot be pumped directly out of the ground. The oil shale must first be mined and then heated to a high temperature (a process called retorting); the resultant liquid must then be separated and collected. An alternative but currently experimental process referred to as in situ retorting involves heating the oil shale while it is still underground, and then pumping the resulting liquid to the surface. Oil Shale Resources Location of the Green River Formation Oil Shale and Its Main Basins While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years1. More than 70% of the total oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation, including the richest and thickest oil shale deposits, is under federally owned and managed lands. Thus, the federal government directly controls access to the most commercially attractive portions of the oil shale resource base. See the Maps page for additional maps of oil shale resources in the Green River Formation. The Oil Shale Industry While oil shale has been used as fuel and as a source of oil in small quantities for many years, few countries currently produce oil from oil shale on a significant commercial level. Many countries do not have significant oil shale resources, but in those countries that do have significant oil shale resources, the oil shale industry has not developed because historically, the cost of oil derived from oil shale has been significantly higher than conventional pumped oil. The lack of commercial viability of oil shale-derived oil has in turn inhibited the development of better technologies that might reduce its cost. Relatively high prices for conventional oil in the 1970s and 1980s stimulated interest and some development of better oil shale technology, but oil prices eventually fell, and major research and development activities largely ceased. More recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make oil shale-based oil production commercially viable, and both governments and industry are interested in pursuing the development of oil shale as an alternative to conventional oil. Oil Shale Mining and Processing Oil shale can be mined using one of two methods: underground mining using the room-and-pillar method or surface mining. After mining, the oil shale is transported to a facility for retorting, a heating process that separates the oil fractions of oil shale from the mineral fraction.. The vessel in which retorting takes place is known as a retort. After retorting, the oil must be upgraded by further processing before it can be sent to a refinery, and the spent shale must be disposed of. Spent shale may be disposed of in surface impoundments, or as fill in graded areas; it may also be dispoed of in previously mined areas. Eventually, the mined land is reclaimed. Both mining and processing of oil shale involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land, disposal of spent shale, use of water resources, and impacts on air and water quality. The development of a commercial oil shale industry in the United States would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Other impediments to development of the oil shale industry in the United States include the relatively high cost of producing oil from oil shale (currently greater than $60 per barrel), and the lack of regulations to lease oil shale. Surface Retorting While current technologies are adequate for oil shale mining, the technology for surface retorting has not been successfully applied at a commercially viable level in the United States, although technical viability has been demonstrated. Further development and testing of surface retorting technology is needed before the method is likely to succeed on a commercial scale. Surface Retort In Situ Retorting Shell Oil is currently developing an in situ conversion process (ICP). The process involves heating underground oil shale, using electric heaters placed in deep vertical holes drilled through a section of oil shale. The volume of oil shale is heated over a period of two to three years, until it reaches 650–700 °F, at which point oil is released from the shale. The released product is gathered in collection wells positioned within the heated zone. Shell's current plan involves use of ground-freezing technology to establish an underground barrier called a "freeze wall" around the perimeter of the extraction zone. The freeze wall is created by pumping refrigerated fluid through a series of wells drilled around the extraction zone. The freeze wall prevents groundwater from entering the extraction zone, and keeps hydrocarbons and other products generated by the in-situ retorting from leaving the project perimeter. Shell's process is currently unproven at a commercial scale, but is regarded by the U.S. Department of Energy as a very promising technology. Confirmation of the technical feasibility of the concept, however, hinges on the resolution of two major technical issues: controlling groundwater during production and preventing subsurface environmental problems, including groundwater impacts.1 Both mining and processing of oil shale involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land; impacts on wildlife and air and water quality. The development of a commercial oil shale industry in the U.S. would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Of special concern in the relatively arid western United States is the large amount of water required for oil shale processing; currently, oil shale extraction and processing require several barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced, though some of the water can be recycled. 1 RAND Corporation Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues. J. T. Bartis, T. LaTourrette, L. Dixon, D.J. Peterson, and G. Cecchine, MG-414-NETL, 2005. For More Information Additional information on oil shale is available through the Web. Visit the Links page to access sites with more information.

I know that this is not football related. But this is the most read part of the board, and I think this is important information. http://www.star-telegram.com/189/story/688574.html

How about a bit of logic. The Case for Science, Engineering and Logic It’s time to replace the foolish ideological debates with linear, rational thought and action Special to the Star-Telegram Oh, the e-mails I get every time the price of gasoline spikes! Stories about fueling cars from saltwater, turning algae into motor fuel, a miracle oil that lets some Canadian get 125 miles to the gallon on his ancient Chevy, a French micro car that runs 125 miles on compressed air. Yes. Pills you put in your gas tank that better your fuel mileage by 25 percent and other nonsensical stuff. People have even written to ask if someday we’ll have solar-powered automobiles. Well, we have solar-powered cars today. You own one; you just don’t think of it that way. It’s accepted scientific theory that oil was formed when plants died and sank to the bottom of our seas millennia ago; heat, pressure and no oxygen turned them into the world’s most viable and powerful energy product today. Therefore, what you are unlocking when you use energy from oil is the power of the sun that grew the plants that died and turned into crude. Oil is simply nature’s cellulosic ethanol, which took millions of years to cook. From the scientific viewpoint, oil is solar power many eons old. Let’s look at how others see oil, and how economies and personal incomes are intimately connected to the price of oil. How Much Oil Can Your Labor Replace? For most today, "oil" translates to "complaining about the high price of fuel." After all, you only have "X" number of dollars to last until the next paycheck, but the pump price is killing you. But that’s too simplistic: What oil really does is nothing but replace other forms of labor. Consider this: You live six miles from work and drive a car that gets 18 miles to the gallon, and gasoline costs $3.80; you would use .66 gallons to go to work and home, for a gas cost of $2.51. You can immediately end your $2.51 substitute labor expense if you are willing to replace oil’s labor value with your own labor. You can ride a bike: no oil labor used. Or walk to work, again replacing oil with your own labor. Oil is, simply put, a fuel to replace other forms of less efficient labor. Another way to look at oil as replacing labor is to study long-distance truckers. Let’s say a trucker picks up a 33,000-pound load in LA headed for Fort Worth — 1,450 miles away. The semi gets 6 mpg, using 241.7 gallons of diesel fuel, meaning it delivers 136.6 pounds of goods for every gallon of diesel used. So the cost of delivering 136.6 pounds is whatever that day’s gallon price for diesel might be; today it would be $4.60. Notice that paying $4.60 a gallon for diesel sounds horrible, but delivering 136.6 pounds of goods for $4.60 sounds cheap. Now, the other side of this equation: If diesel big rigs didn’t exist, how many horses and wagons would it take to deliver that same 136.6 pounds of goods, and how long? Obviously, the cost of using other forms of labor to move just 136.6 pounds of goods — much less the whole load — from LA to Fort Worth would be astronomical. Not to mention the cost inefficiency of lost time. That’s the battle over oil pricing one never hears. All you and I care about is the price of the fuel. But those who truly own the oil fields understand its true intrinsic value: It’s a concentrated liquid that replaces other forms of more expensive and less efficient labor. So, the big secret that’s out there in the open, obvious as can be? The correlation between oil prices and our nation’s economy (incomes) is what statisticians call definite and negative: Historically, when oil and fuel prices are down, incomes rise, and high-priced oil is accompanied by declining incomes. The correlation is almost absolute in energy-intensive industries. Going back to long-distance trucking: Back in the nineties when diesel cost less than $1.50 a gallon, the net cost of moving 136.6 pounds of goods was $3 less for the 1,450-mile run. Moving the entire 33,000-pound load that distance, the total savings on fuel then was $966.70. Truckers could be paid more for guiding their rigs and goods to markets. Cheap Chinese Labor You have to start thinking of oil in a new way. In America, Europe or Asia, there is only "X" number of dollars allocated as reimbursement for labor costs in any given year. If you understand that oil or gasoline is a "labor cost", just like your wages, you understand that incomes rise in decades with low, low costs for oil, and decline when the reverse obtains. Remember, gasoline sold for around the same price in 1969 as it did in some years during the early 1920s. Therefore, as measured against inflation, oil and gasoline declined substantially in price for 40 years — the exact same period in which the entire American middle class was born and grew dynamically. Now, adjusted for inflation, oil prices have been wildly erratic over the past 35 years; but personal family incomes today, again adjusted for inflation, are about the same as they were in 1973 — the year of the First Oil Crisis. Economists love to point out that American incomes grew like crazy in the nineties, which was when we hit the all-time historical low for oil prices. Likewise, American incomes have declined against inflation in this decade — while oil costs have ballooned. Never thought of it that way, did you? This explains why China can afford to buy oil at today’s high prices, yet is growing by leaps and bounds: China’s offset and low cost of human labor is nothing compared to our country’s. Now, to be fair, China subsidizes oil costs to consumers and business, knowing that this helps China increase personal incomes — but that situation cannot last forever. When China finally changes that policy its oil demand growth will likely fall; incomes might then rise naturally; and China’s economic growth as measured by GDP might not remain over 10%. Only One Answer Right Now What we need to do is quit debating things that don’t matter, because that keeps us from implementing easy solutions to oil realities. It’s not the Middle East’s fault that they were blessed with all the easy-to-reach oil. Although they do understand that oil is a labor replacement and therefore is worth even more than we are willing to pay for it now, Middle Eastern leaders show great restraint in oil pricing; we just don’t see it that way. The Middle East’s biggest mistake was dropping the ball: Hundreds of years ago Islamic inventors gave us the piston and valve, while further back in history the Assyrians had given us the wheel and chariot. Yet it was people of European descent that turned these incredible Middle Eastern inventions into the automobile. Yeah, the Middle East could have had all of the world’s great inventions and owned all the cheap oil. It just didn’t work out that way. So, if oil prices and the monies being allocated for labor costs in America (or anywhere else) are connected, the only way to boost incomes and spending power when oil prices are rising is to find new ways to create more value on less oil energy. Period, end of sentence and nothing more complicated than that. Do More With Less … Creating more commercial value using less crude energy forces down the price of oil, which in turn allows incomes to rise. If someone could create a big truck that got 12 instead of 6 mpg, that would immediately free up 50 percent more money to pay the trucker. If you could create a vehicle that uses no oil or gasoline at all, you’d have freed up its owners’ personal income for other consumer goods — forcing up their prices and in turn the incomes of those involved in making and selling them. All the while reducing the demand for oil, thereby reducing pricing pressures on crude. This is the direction we took in the mid-seventies, and it paid off handsomely for all Americans for decades. To me, smart conservation is not an environmental debate as much as a reallocation of labor costs away from oil to the benefit of the average American family. So, you can keep dreaming that we’re going to screen algae out of the oceans and turn it into a cheap fuel — enough to power our 220 million vehicles. Or you can debate the problems of the Middle East or Venezuela or China’s rise if you want. But it won’t change anything, and it distracts us from doing smart things that directly help you, your family, our transportation industries, our economy and so on. The problem with most debates in America today is that they are driven by ideology, either of left or right origins. Ignored are science, engineering and logic, which historically were the foundations of what made this country great. We have an incredible talent for re-engineering what is not working; and the very second that we end the nonsensical debates over things that will never change and use that talent to get on with the logic of what needs to be done, watch America grow again. Correction: In my two columns on the futures market for energy, I incorrectly identified Professor Michael Greenberger as a former commissioner with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. In fact, Greenberger was the Director of the Division of Trading and Markets at the CFTC — responsible for supervising futures and derivative trades. Other than that, I stand by my columns as written. —— EW © 2008 Ed Wallace

The first or second year that Hayden Fry was Coach/Athletic director, there was a (for lack of a better description) traveling spirit event that included cheerleaders and talons and other people from the athletic department. They drove to various small towns in the Denton area and set up on the town square and had an improtu pep rally. They then went to all of the businesses around the town square and put up posters and gave all the of merchants schedule cards.

it's not my birthday. My birthday is not until the 28th of this month. Which makes me a "Moon Child" instead of a Gemini.

GrayEagle might have more accurate information about this, but when Fouts was being planned the enrollment at North Texas was about 6K. I don't know what the average game attendance was during that era, but obviously the administrators thought that North Texas was either going to have a huge jump in enrollment, or we were going to become "the" football program in the area.....or possibly both. At that time, TCU and SMU were the only other football programs in this area, and we had no competition from pro sports. If North Texas is gonig to have the jump in enrollment that everyone says we'll have (45K) then something bigger than 30 or 35 might be a better plan. Especially if most of those new students are basically stuck in Denton because they can't afford the gas to leave campus and go home for the week-end like the current students do.

He's a big fan of High School football and big rivalrys. Plus, we're friends and I'm a Decatur graduate. In my day, we didn't call it the 'Battle of Sandy Creek"(Big Sandy is in East Texas). We just called it the annual butt-kicking (Bridgeport's butt that is).

Actually the saying about North Texas is that "it's not hard to get into North Texas, the hard part is getting out". BTW, WAY TO GO! .....AND GO MEAN GREEN!

And here is another alternative mode of "commuting". The top speed is 62mph, and range is 35 to 55 miles. The average commute (round trip) in America is 21 miles. http://www.projo.com/news/content/Scooters...33.36537e6.html And yet another alternative to gas commuting. http://cbs4denver.com/consumer/motorcycle....y.2.721076.html And the gas models are just as impressive. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/livi...scooters30.html The technology now exsists for us to cut our gasoline consumption in half.....or less. Mass transit could be quickly developed if federal regulations could be reviewed and changed so that lighter commuter vehicles could be used, such as this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Railcar The Colorado Railcar DMU is a niche offering. Where passenger trains run on active freight lines, US Federal regulations dictate the use of heavy rolling stock. This regulation prohibits the use of lighter, more advanced Japanese and European models -- except in cases where right-of-way segregation has been implemented. Currently AMTRAK runs from downtown Ft. Worth to Oklahoma City. They run on current freight lines, and they go right through Saginaw (and other fast growing areas) on their way north. I don't understand why a lighter rail car like the Colorado DMU could not make multiple runs along the same lines and provide instant commuter service for a fast growing/developing area.

Ok, so China is producing a lot of goods (hard or otherwise), but the reason that people are having them produce stuff is because they work so cheap.......and I'm talking almost slave labor in China. India and Bangladesh are almost the same. Now, can someone tell me how people who work for almost slave labor wages can now afford a car, when they previously rode a bicycle. And can someone please explain to me how they can afford the gas (produced from $120 per barrel oil) to put into those cars? How can an economy have a growth rate of 6% to 10% on EXPENSIVE ENERGY. Cheap labor fuels a good bit of the growth, but to have a 10% growth, don't you also need cheap energy?

So do I. Which is why I (and my brother-in-law) have a pontoon boat parked at the Marina there. Fishing anyone?

Scowl? Hmmmmm, now there's an idea.