uncertaintraveler

NMAINGUY, if, as you say, "the vast majority on this forum would never be put in such a hypothetical position," does that mean that those who may be put in such a situation have less rights than those who may be? In other words, you can't say that it is fine to protest one person's use of their property when you know that the same type of protest would probably never happen to you.

Also, my understanding is that there is, in fact, talk of a retail element in the proposed condo, either as part of the overall development or in marketing any new condos as being within walking distance of a grocery store and high-end shops.

uncertain traveler, you've inspired me. I'm going to write to my neighborhood association right now and tell them that these deed restrictions they have are a violation of my private property rights. If I want to tear down my house and build a cinder-block fortress, why should the community be able to prevent me from doing it?

After all, if the people in my neighborhood have any say in what I do with my property at all, then private property rights mean nothing! What exists now is some sort of collectivism, which will result in economic stagnation.

Good grief, you really should read someone's full post before you post. Note the disclaimer I had towards the end of my post, which stated "for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions." Deed restrictions aren't at issue here---and, furthermore, if your property is burdened by deed restrictions, then you took your property with notice of such restrictions and have no right to complain of their effect. So either argue my point on its merits or shut-up.

KINKAIDALUM, if, as you claim, "It's just foolish to say you can just rebuild the Landmark River Oaks Theater. You simply cannot. It's the last theater of it's kind in Houston. I can sit in a seat that my mother may have sat in when she attended Lamar High in the late 1940s. I can get a sense of history and feel connected to my hometown," then I suppose you dislike relocating "historic" structures? As in, it is not acceptable to you to have open-air museums (like those found all across Europe) where old buildings that some historic value are relocated and preserved? Or do you believe that a certain building should always be in its original location?

I think you can just rebuild the theater or, at the very least, simply relocate it. I've said as much many times over here. So if you want to sit in a seat that your mother may have sat in, then just offer to relocate the theater. But, once again, it is becoming clear that people would rather whine and prevent an owner's right to develop their own land than fork out their own money and take a risk in running and managing the place on their own. After all, it is easier to demand someone else do something for you than it is to do it for yourself.

And as a final note, I find it intriguing that responses to my original post fail to actually argue the central issue here: should a property owner be allowed to do what they want with their own property. Instead, people prefer to speak about their emotional connection to the property, as if their own personal experiences and connections to a place gives them the right to trump the owner's wishes.

So, again, I ask you, do you believe that you should be prevented from developing your own property as you wish simply because someone you don't know claims to have an emotional connection to your land? I suspect everyone here would say no, insofar as the question applies to their own land. So why should the answer be any different when the question applies to someone else's land?

Are you over 20 years old?

Where are you from?

Yes. I grew up in Atlanta.

So, to paraphrase, YOUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "incredible" and "amazing", but OUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "hypocritical". Interesting observation you have there, traveller.

Never once I did say that Wiengarten's potential use of its property is a "good use." So don't use the adjectives I used (which, by the way, modified a property's location and its potential view, and not the actual use of the property) to determine whether I think Weingarten's potential use is a good use or not.

And, yeah, it is hypocritical to whine about Houston's sprawl and how condos are built without any retail component, and then when a potential development comes along that addresses those issues, moan about how it is such a bad idea.

So, traveller, if 1% of Houstonians setting foot in a building is the height of hypocrisy, what would 2/100ths of 1% (400) be? As you yourself said, the price of these condos would be out of most people's range. The size of the lot suggests no more than 80 to 100 units, 150 at the outside, meaning only a few hundred Houstonians would ever see them. The Theater gets that many at one weekend showing.

First, never once did I say that the condos would be "out of most people's range." I said they would probably be out of my price range. For someone who always screams about how people need to get their facts straight, I'm surprised you'd make such an obvious error.

Second, you are speculating as to the number of potential units and, as such, no further comment is necessary.

Third, you are clearly, and perhaps intentionally, confusing what I am saying is the height of hypocrisy.

Being a fan of mowing down every building over 20 years old does not make you unique in Houston. In fact, it would make you the typical developer. However, some of us see the value of history, as well as historic structures. And, no one here has the ability to stop Weingarten. We merely want to point out to them how popular the building is, in order to persuade them to rethink any decision to demolish it. If they find out beforehand how much the building means to so many, they might not make the mistake of demolishing it.

In that sense, you really don't get it.

Again, I never said I was unique in Houston, nor did I say that I was a fan of "mowing" any building down. It is just like you to put words in people's posts, and then to twist the nonexistent words to make your point. I know doing so is a very effective legal technique, but it is a horrible way to actually make a valid point that can stand on its own merit.

In any event, go ahead and protest. If doing so will make you feel better, fine. But when the time comes when you want to do something with your property, do you really want people you don't know signing petitions requesting, or even demanding, that you don't?

Clearly, what I'm arguing is an unpopular viewpoint, but I believe it is the correct viewpoint. For private property rights to mean anything, private property must be allowed to be developed as its owner sees fit to do so. Allowing non-owners to dictate, or even "strongly suggest," what someone can do with their property weakens everyone's right to do what they want with their own property.

If tearing down the theater bothers people so much because of the memories they have of the place, then, by extension, nothing should ever be torn down because someone will always have a memory of something at someplace. Heck, even crack-houses have memories associated with them. So, that being the case, who gets to decide what gets torn down? If you truly believe in private property rights, then only the property owner does.

However, if you believe that individuals and entities should have a say in the development of property owned by another, then you don't really believe in private property rights at all, but rather some sort of collectivism that generally results in economic stagnation (where, because of the myriad of opinions on what should be done with a particular piece of property, nothing is ever done) or development-by-consensus (which results in boring, please-the-masses development). Is that what you all want?

Or do you just want a city that is full of only the things that you like and that you believe should exist, regardless of what your fellow citizens, or, more importantly, the actual property owner, wants?

Note: for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions.

I'm not sure I get it... so we can't build a condo anywhere else, but we can build a historic theater somewhere else. How exactly does one go about building a historic theater? What contractor specializes in installing seats that your grandparents sat in, or marquees that have looked down Houston's streets since the 1930's?

You can build a condo wherever you want on your land. I never said you couldn't. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to distort my comments.

Likewise, you can build a historic theater wherever you want on your land. If the River Oaks theater means so much to you, then before it is torn down (assuming it will be, of course), why don't you contact Weingarten and work out a deal so that you move the building to your land?

Do you work for Weingarten ???

No.

It's time has not passed. You don't get it. It doesn't show current movies. It is one of a handful of theatres that shows movies that a small, but significant, portion of the Houston population wants to see. And, it is a great venue to see these movies.

What percentage of Houston goes to any one theatre? This city is sooo big, I bet any one theatre doesn't draw that high of a percentage. What percentage of people who want to see something besides Pirates go to the RO? Probably quite a lot. That argument is silly.

It isn't about the facade, although it is cool. It is about a way of life. It is a difference in taste in movies. This is our thing and you don't have to like it or even understand it. I'm not going to close down the Alley b/c most people in this city have never seen a live play in their home town.

I don't get it? Really? What is it that don't I get?

That people would rather hinder development than risk their own money to build their own theater...especially when such a theater could be "a great venue" to see certain types of movies?

That the city of Houston should concern itself with, and divert limited resources to, saving one building that very few people truly care about instead of, say, building a rail system, eliminating substandard housing, reducing levels of homelessness, providing world-class infrastructure, etc...any one of which will benefit a far greater segment of the community than the theater ever will?

That some patron's "way of life" should trump whatever a landowner, or in this case, a landlord, wishes to do with their own property?

Seriously, if it it isn't about the facade of the theater, then build your own theater that shows the same type of movies. And if it is about the facade, then just offer to relocate the theater to somewhere else. I fail to see the problem with either of these options, except, of course, it requires you (not personally, mind you, but "you" as in the people who are complaining here) to actually take some risk.

But if this is really all about keeping a building from being constructed or about a dislike for a landowner's potential use of his land, and somehow I think that is what it boils down to, then just get over it....because the ability to do whatever you want with your land, without having to consult your neighbors or patrons, is what makes owning property and living in Houston so great.

After I don my flame-retardant suit....

Personally, I'm all for building a high-rise condo on West Gray. It would have an incredible location, being within walking distance to a supermarket, retail shops, parks, and could possibly have an amazing view, although traffic could be a little rough at times. The only downside, for me, would be that any new condo would probably be out of my price range.

As another poster said earlier, are you people distraught because of the potential loss of a theater's facade, or because a few starbucks and an eatery or two are going to be displaced? If it is the former, well, good grief, get over it and just build your own "historic" theater facade somewhere. There is plenty of land in Houston for you to build it...

To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that losing the River Oaks theater would be a travesty and to demand the preservation of a place that probably no more than 1% of Houstonians ever set foot in...while, at the same time (but in a different thread, of course), whine about new housing development that doesn't incorporate retail in its plans. I drive by the River Oaks theater at least once a week, and I've never seen a line of people outside waiting to get in...nor have I ever figured out where the movie-goers would park their car if they even wanted to see a movie there. It seems to me it is a theater whose time has passed, and it passed a long time ago.

I'll admit that the theater is pretty, but so what? The future development plans could, in the end, be just as pretty, and could represent the perfect marriage of great housing and great retail.

Apparently, however, most people here would rather save what appears to be a pretty front and a (from what I read here) a middling interior, just to maintain a "historic landmark" that has no such real historic status to speak of.

I haven't done much research into Hinduism, but there are waaaaay too many gods there for me.

Actually, you can't "convert" to Hinduism, as they do not accept converts. You are either born Hindu or you aren't, and if you aren't, you can never be a true follow of Hinduism.

Hobby is criticized today as being too tightly packed in and offering runways that are too short. I've heard landing a 737 there takes some nerve.

Which is, of course, the only kind of plane that Hobby's dominant tenant (Southwest) uses.

I agree that the shuttle is a big money drainer, but there is one practical value left - to complete ISS. we made a commitment to 15 other countries, and there is plenty of hardware that needs to go up, that can only go on the shuttle.

Which is exactly why I said:

However, that being said, the entire shuttle program, as it currently exists, is an enormous waste of resources. Its entire purpose, as far as I can tell, is to re-iterate US supremacy in space and to service the space station (whose entire purpose, as far as I can tell, is to also re-iterate US surpremacy in space and to provide the shuttle program with something to do). Its a wonderful government boondoggle.

Whoever thought of the ISS was brilliant....you get billions of new federal money to build the ISS and you get to keep an aging shuttle program in existence (along with continued billions in federal money to keep the program running).

As I said before, these days, the whole space program is of extremely limited utility to the average person. I don't believe we need to keep funding the program just because we made commitments to 15 other nations...the US breaks its commitments to other nations all the time, often over matters far more important to the world at large than simply constructing a "multinational" outpost in a location an infintensimally small percentage of the world's population will ever visit, let alone be impacted by.

NASA needs to get back to doing real science, breaking new boundaries, visiting new frontiers, and actually creating something useful in the process. Something like generating new, cost-effective sources of energy, creating methyl hydrates from space, or a new flavor of Tang....

I think it is great that the US can successfully launch an object that carries people into space and then have the same object (and the same people) return to earth. However, that being said, the entire shuttle program, as it currently exists, is an enormous waste of resources. Its entire purpose, as far as I can tell, is to re-iterate US supremacy in space and to service the space station (whose entire purpose, as far as I can tell, is to also re-iterate US surpremacy in space and to provide the shuttle program with something to do). Its a wonderful government boondoggle.

Aside from those involved in the actual space program, who really cares about going to space these days? All we are doing now is just re-doing that which we have done before. And given the enormous amount of money we spend on the space program, maybe we should demand some innovative and solid tangible results from our expenditures---simply looking at a tv screen in awe of our ability to shoot off an object isn't enough.

Okay...so what is your proposed answer to these "abuses"? As much as I find some practices by home builders to be repugnant, and as much as I dislike mandatory arbitration, I'm not sure what can really be done about these problems. Perhaps the only answer is to not buy a (new) home from anyone, but I don't know if that is really a practical solution.

Good luck in your search...I'd appreciate it if you would please post your results, because I'll be surprised if you find much satisfying your requirements.

Rationale for deregulation:

1) Less regulatory deadweight. It doesn't benefit you directly...it won't show up on your bill...but its a hidden cost to society as a result of misalocation of labor and capital resources. The government pays for some of it, but most of the deadweight is felt on the margins of just about every item that is consumed in an economy.

Huh? If you are trying to say that regulatory costs aren't passed through to the consumer because they "don't show up on your bill," then you're crazy. Every cost of doing business is passed straight on to the consumer.

2) Your "doubled" bill takes adjusted to the rise in fuel cost...which just happened to be start up right after deregulation. When NG prices go down, so will your electricity prices. And the slow regulatory response goes both ways...if prices sharply decline, you don't have to wait for some committee to get together and approve a new price level...it takes effect immediately.

Don't kid yourself. Have you ever actually worked on the regulatory side of the utility industry? Most utility contracts have a provision providing for lower rates to take effect immediately upon the reduction of the utilities' fuel costs. But now that utilities are deregulated, why would the utility company want to lower its price due to lower fuel costs? I am willing to wager that none of the other utility companies will do so, citing the need to recoup "stranded costs" nonsense (a cost that never even existed prior to deregulation), so costs most certainly will not decrease due to lower fuel costs.

3) Most importantly: WHEN THERE ARE PROFITS IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN, NEW COMPETITION WILL ENTER THE MARKET. There are relatively few barriers to entry for power generation in a mature market...hence the multibillion dollar project to expand the South Texas Nuclear Project that was recently announced...so with greater capactity to produce electricity, companies have to remain competitive with one another in order to optimize profits. AS A RESULT OF BASIC SUPPLY AND DEMAND FACTORS, PRICES WILL EQUILIBREATE AT MARKET RATES THAT PRODUCE ZERO ECONOMIC RENTS for producers in the long term. Economic rents, btw, are those profits that are above the level at which, once adjusted for risk, equal the risk-free long term rate of return on an investment. These are typically calculated using the 30-yr Treasury bond discounted for the effect of inflation.

So you honestly believe that the barriers to entry for power generation are low? Really? So low that anyone can build a "multibillion dollar project" required to generate electricity? I'm sorry, but I'm at a complete loss as to how to argue with you...there are huge barriers to entry in the utility market. And your little finance explanation is bogus: you are using basic finance, as it applies to effecient markets, to explain inherently ineffecient markets.

The entire point of regulated utility markets is to prevent waste---what is the point of spending billions of dollars on power generation equipments if there is only a finite level of demand? By granting a monopoly to one provider, waste is kept to a minimum---excess power plants aren't built, excess energy isn't created, and (in theory) no excess energy exists, all of which keeps power costs to a minimum while providing a stable and reasonable return on investment to the utility. You have to remember that there is only so much electricity that is needed or that can be used at any given time. This is why utility markets are the perfect example of when (and why) a (regulated) monopoly is the best way to produce and deliver goods.

In deregulation though, waste abounds. Excess power plants are built, excess fuel is used, and excess energy is created. All of which costs money, which must be borne by someone....who is ultimately the end consumer. Excess capacity in the utility business is a bad thing, unless the excess capacity can be transmitted to another location at a reasonable and efficient manner. But in the electric utility industry, transmitting large amounts of the product isn't efficient or cost-effective (especially when the place you are transporting the product to is regulated and has price caps). So again, who pays the price for the excess capacity? The end consumer.

So just how many economics courses have you actually had?

Jeebus, you would be a lot of fun to go to Bangkok with. Oh the things you would learn...

I guess I'm seeing most of the north-south lines running along freeways and this glaring white space in the heart of the city....

What about a line that starts at the Fannin south stop..goes north along kirby, hits the village, hits upper kirby, crosses over to shepherd, and runs north to river oaks, then the heights, than north to as much residential as can be afforded ?

That glaring white space makes me sad... we need a Shepherd corridor.

I think that would be great. There is no point in building a rail line whose lines only connect with other lines at the end, or very near the end, of each of said lines. Thus, the more connections each particular rail line has with other rail lines, the better. And, as you stated, there is a glaring white space on the western side of the city.....for the rail lines to work for everyone on the western side, there has to be a way to connect to each of the three lines shown on your map without having to practically go downtown (or the Galleria) to do so. A Shephard line would be great....

Hubba Hubba.

Sorry, but I don't see it. There is something "off" about her nose and forehead...the proportion is all wrong.

True The taxi option is ridiculous and the METRO option is sort of garbage for me. Driving is the best option, unfortunately

All of which reinforces that need for dedicated rail service from downtown (among other locations) to both airports.

Santorum got to read a report about a stash of WMDs found, and since he is down in the polls, you bet he is gonna try to be a goldenboy, and stir things up to garner some attention.

I don't suppose you got that line from Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC last night, did you?

Okay, I hate to be pedantic or whatever, but today is not the longest day of the year. A day, on earth, is always 24 hours long, plus or minus a few seconds, regardless of the earth's relative location to the sun.

That being said, I guess saying "today, insofar as it pertains to the northern hemisphere, contains the longest elapsed period of time from sunrise to sunset than any other day of the gregorian calendar year" is just too wordy for people to state repeatedly.

Three questions:

1) What kind of development are you talking about? Mining or oil and gas operations? Home construction?

2) When did the development begin? Did it begin before the implementation of a certain regulation or after such regulation went into effect?

2) Which regulation are you referring to, if there is one in particular?

I ask because there is a doctrine (although that may be too strong of a word) in federal law commonly referred to as "valid existing rights." A lot of statutes affecting land use have that phrase in it...something like "this regulation shall not be construed to affect any and all valid existing rights." Problem is, no one knows what the definition of "valid existing rights" is (there have been over 7 definitions implemented over the past 20 years), so a simple answer is pretty difficult to give, especially if the legislation that created the Sam Houston National Forest has the "valid existing rights" language in it.

I was thinking about developing a small condo complex in this area, maybe 25 units. I really wanted to focus on smaller 1 bedroom units. Prices in the $140K well appointed range most with views. Its on some pretty major streets as far as east end is concerned but would have a nice big brick wall surround. Per sq foot it would be a high price but the sales price itself is low. Does this sound viable?

Maint fees would be as low as I can possible make them.

I don't know for sure, but I have always heard that 1 bedroom condos are difficult resales, which might cause difficulties finding the initial buyers. It seems to me that if I had a 1 bedroom condo, the pool of available buyers is quite limited: single people, childless couples, or empty nesters. Maybe there are a few other segments of the population that are interested in a 1 bedroom, but I don't know who they would be. In contrast, though, a 1 bedroom study or a 2 bedroom gives you much more exposure to potential buyers and the additional bedroom or study doesn't really add all that much more to the cost of construction. My point is...why focus on 1 bedrooms when they are possibly one of the most difficult of floorplans to sell?

And...why would I care about the overall sales price being low when the cost per square foot is high? If all someone had was $140K to spend on a home, unless there is some really good or unique reason (like a view or incredible soundproofing), I don't think most people would pay $150 a square foot when a reasonably equivalent place going for $100 a square foot is available.

We figure $250k mortgage would be within reach if there was no condo like maintenance fee. On $80k income (and definitely expected to increase within a few years), 60k downpayment, no kids or desire to have children, no car note (only $100/mo insurance), no large/recurring expenses (except $100/mo for telecommunications), currently living with parents (no rent), zero debt (<$1000), and extremely frugal habits (i'm a scientist, she's an accountant -- we're both extreme penny pinchers.)

That's what I figured; it's still in the safe range for ~6000-6500 after-taxes income per month with no dependents and only 1 automobile. Conservative projections put our income at 100k in 5 years (my income contribution, albeit the smaller of the two, will double once I finish my PhD; this even assumes she gets no raises in that time frame, which itself may be unlikely given the stories I've heard), and easily 150k in 10 (almost certain unless we both become drug addicits and lose our jobs ). So, I think even if payments were ~30%+ of our income in the first 5 years of the mortgage, the situation would rapidly resolve itself; extra income would go largely to extra principle payments and 401k/roth savings. The goal would be to turn the 30 year mortgage into a 15 year mortgage, into one paid off in 10 through extra payments. We're not counting on excellent interest rates on the first financing round -- not because of bad credit, but rather because we're too young to have established much of a score with our so-far good credit. I'm 23 and she's 22; we'd expect to be purchasing in late 2007/early 2008.

Ummm...what I am missing here? If your yearly income is $80K, which I assume is combined income, that equals $6,666.66 per month before taxes. So where are you getting the $6,000 to $6,500 after tax per month number?

Also...just a few words of advice, which you can take for whatever you believe they are worth.

First, before you even consider buying a house, you should be maxing out your 401(k) and your IRA. Maybe you already are, but if you aren't, do so first. The amount you will earn off well-invested 401(k) and IRA monies will far outstrip the profit you may make in the housing market over the long term.

Second, don't count on your income projections as coming true. You have no idea what the future holds. You may think you do, but you don't. You may find that in a few years time, you want to do something totally different with your life that may pay drastically less but is much more rewarding. It is far better to buy a house (assuming you really want one) and use your current income as a guideline. Better yet, take your current income and only use 75% of it as "available" for housing purchase (i.e, if you make $100K, tell everyone you only make $75 and use the $75K number as a guide for what you can afford). That way, if you income doesn't rise as expected, you aren't pinched, and if it falls for some reason, you aren't worried (too much) about making the mortgage payments. There is a funny thing about money and raises...the more you make, the easier it is to get used to the fat paychecks and become dependent upon them. So, um...good luck on taking a 30 year mortgage and making it a 10 year one. If I were a betting man, I'd say you won't be able to do it.

Third...be sure that you aren't overvaluing the benefits of buying a house, especially the home mortgage interest deduction. There was a thread on here a while back where Parrothead argued (unsuccessfully, some might say) that it always makes sense to buy a house. Well, I don't think it does (for reasons I don't have the time to go into right now), but before you put money into a house, make sure you run the numbers under every possible scenario you can think of, including the possibility of falling under the AMT regime, and unless you intend to stay in the same place for at least 5 years, don't even think about buying a house. There is a large contingent of America that believes home ownership is a good thing and that it always makes financial sense. I think that most of them are wrong.

And..if you just want 9 places to visit in the world...here's my list:

Anywhere in Cambodia

Sydney, Australia

The Great Barrier Reef

Anywhere in the South Island of New Zealand, but Oamaru is a good place to start

Luang Prabang, Laos

Seville, Spain

Auschwitz, Poland

Any hiking or walking trail in Great Britain

Siwa, Egypt

I'd give a 10th place, but don't you think you should discover the place that amazes you on your own???

Its not 10 things, and it may not be what you had in mind, but a few things a guy should do while they are 20 include:

1) Fall in love.

2) Get your heart broken.

3) Travel around the world alone.

4) Live on your own.

5) Have a pet.

6) Do something that puts the absolute fear of ___(insert your diety's name here)____ in you, and then do it again.

7) Volunteer your time for something that is important to you.

8) Learn how to cook 5 distinct meals really well.

Once you have done those things, your life will probably be much more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.

Upstairs there were 3 rooms, including a laundry room. You don't put a laundry room on a 2nd story- if you have a leak you do sooo much more damage than if the washer was on the ground floor.

I've noticed this trend developing in new townhomes. Having the washing machine on the 2nd or even 3rd floor is a really bad idea...not only because of the potential for leaks, but also because the idea of hauling a 300 pound washing machine up three flights of narrow stairs isn't very appealing.

Watts could very well have served in the first gulf war. He choose not to serve.

The first and second names on the list are first and second in line for the Presidency.

Bill Frist, majority leader of the Senate-an extreamly powerful position.

One other missing from the list: Secretary of State Rice.

My one-sided alligiance is to my country and I find it quite attractive stacked up against a band of chicken-hawks who have mis-led us into war.

Maybe you need to do your homework because you seem to be the one who does't know who is running this circus.

Gosh...I really don't want to get dragged into this, but I opened my mouth and now I'm in it...

First, yeah, I guess Watts could have served in the first gulf war. The first gulf war was in 1990-1991, correct? So, let's see....a little homework shows that Watts was serving in the Oklahoma State Corporation Commission in 1990...so, yeah, I guess Watts could have stepped down from his state service job to sign up for the U.S. Military. But golly, how many people in the United States stepped down from their own jobs to sign up for the first gulf war???

And before you mouth off that he (or any of the other people you listed) could have signed up at any time, let the record reflect that it isn't like he wasn't busy doing other things at the time, such winning games for OU, fathering children on the sly, and serving his community as a pastor, corporation commission officer, and as a congressman (not all at once, of course...). Look, I'm no fan of Watts, but you listing him as a person "in power"--and, by extension, as someone who misled us into war---is just insanity. Good grief, the guy wasn't even in Congress when the invasion into Iraq began.

Second, I don't recall ever mentioning anything about the ORDER of your list, but now that you brought it up, how exactly does Jeb Bush fit into the line of presidential succession? Newt Gingrich? Ummm...let me go grab a copy of the Constitution, surely the president's brother and past-past-past House Majority Leader fits in the line somewhere.....

Third, oh...just forget it. Its not worth debating with you.

Although, as a final question, I've always wondered...what exactly is your proposed solution to the current "circus" and the war in Iraq? Vote in only Democrats? Leave Iraq and say "ummm...sorry things didn't turn out the way we had planned..."? Mandate everyone serve in the Armed Forces? Just highlight who didn't serve with goofball lists?