Other volumes
About The Outpost

The Outpost WebLog

What's goin' 'round and comin' down...

Dan Murphy

February 21, 2008 - Vision and the Choices of 2008
February 2, 2007 - Generation Gap
January 13, 2007 - Imagine
September 11, 2006 - Reflections on 9/11
August 22, 2006 - Getting Out of Iraq
June 26, 2006 - Bringing democratic elections to America.
January 27, 2006 - The Death Penalty
January 26, 2006 - Time to Wake Up

February 21, 2008

Vision and the Choices of 2008

Yes, I haven't posted here in quite a while, and I'm overdue.  The simple fact is, there's stuff goin' round and comin' down that I care passionately about. And, I also struggle with some feelings that aren't usually relevant to the political world.

What's the dilemma? It is a dilemma indeed, in the truest sense of the word. Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. I apologize in advance to any Republican-leaning readers who may feel there is any other choice. For me there isn't, and the rest of this is based on that belief.

I first became aware of Hillary Clinton in 1991 -- during Bill Clinton's primary campaign. I'd never heard of either of them, but when I heard about Hillary and her history, I started paying attention. Hey, she was at Wellesley when I was at MIT. I knew a few Wellesley girls, but alas, she was not one of them. That's not the point though. When I read about Hillary's commencement speech at Wellesley, I knew this was a woman I respected.

Her subsequent history only added to that respect, and so frankly, when I started supported Bill Clinton in the pre-NH primary season of 1991, it was as much because I trusted Hillary's judgement in this guy as because I had any reason to know what to expect from Bill.

After Bill Clinton was elected, I fantasized about Hillary succeeding him after his eight years -- 16 years of Bill and Hillary! Wow! Ok, so that didn't happen in 2000 or 2004 -- most unfortunately, but that's a rant for another occasion. So now it's 2008, and the time is ripe. The Republican incumbent is totally discredited (with historically low approval ratings), and no incumbent President of VP running.

And let's be candid. Would I be thrilled to help elect the first woman President of the US??  Absolutely! I think she would do a great job -- better than Bill, most likely.

But... the times don't stand still. As Bob Dylan said in the early 1960's, "The Times They Are A-Changin'", and so they are here in 2008. And somehow, this guy Barack Obama has appeared on the scene.

saw his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, and I was blown away. Obviously not because of any pre-existing hype. I'd never heard of him, and few others had either. I thought it was premature when he announced his candidacy for the nomination last year. I mean, he's only held a national office for a short time. I watched the Democratic primary campaign for some months without making a choice, but late in 2007, I decided it was time to make a commitment. I sent a donation to Hillary's campaign and put her bumper sticker on my car.

So sometimes we have to change our minds. Sometimes our minds must change as new information and evidence comes in. As the NH primary approached, I saw more of Barack Obama. And not only my mind but my gut began to shift. It helped that he did well in Iowa, because I began to pay more attention. I began to hear someone who was speaking of a vision that transcended party and region and race and gender. Sure, most of the candidates talk about unity and coming together, but it's usually just lip service. I began to get that Obama could be the person who energizes and inspires millions who have felt for decades that the whole political system is ignorant of them and irrelevant to them. I began to feel that Obama could inspire a sense of belonging to country and nation that we have not had for decades. And I began to believe that this -- a coming back together of the fractured sense of ourselves as a nation -- was of the highest importance, and that it trancended all the usual nitty-gritty of political debate.

As the days and weeks went by, moments of revelation and epiphany continued to occur for me. I saw both Hillary and Barack at an event the Friday before the NH primary. I saw Barack at a rally the next day.  I saw his speech the night after the NH primary, where he began (I think) the theme of "Yes, we can." I was in tears.

Last week, there was a vote in the US Senate about giving indemnity to the big phone companies for cooperating with secret Bush administration orders to spy on American citizens. Barack voted against indemnity, McCain voted for indemnity, and Hillary was not present. That was a huge thing, IMO, because it shows who is really ready to stand for change and against the go-along, get-along, do-it-in-secret status quo.

And just a few minutes ago, I turned on the TV in the middle of yet another debate. At the moment I happed to tune in, a panelist was asking the candidates for their views on Cuba, now that Fidel Castro has stepped down. The question was directed at Hillary -- would you talk to Raul Castro or whoever the new leader of Cuba is. I'm sorry to say, she simply repeated the tired cliches of the past 50 years. "No, not until there was this that and the other. A 'presidential' meeting has to be preceeded by this, that, and the other." In other words, when they agree to our terms in advance, then we'll negotiate.

Barack then got to respond, and it was a breath of fresh air. He simply said, "yes". Yes, he would negotiate with whomever, in whatever country. To me, this kind of attitude and thinking is light-years ahead of what we usually get from our political leaders. It is also what I learned in my travels -- that you simply say "yes" when it comes to *talking* with anyone. Anyone.

Btw, my views on Cuba have been "on the record" for over a decade. See http://www.opost.com/outpost/roundup7.html delivered on the radio as well as the web in November of 1996.

And I'm sad. Really sad that Hillary has not risen to the occasion. That her campaign is attacking Obama with trivial things like using Deval Patrick's words (come ON, already!) or being just a speechmaker. Yes, Barack can speak. And inspire. And that's no small thing. It is long past time that progressive and liberal thought had a spokesperson who could let people feel it as well as think it.

And maybe, just maybe, the energy that can come from the millions who have given up their power over the past decades because of disenchantment with 'politics' and the political system will be awakened, and they will be what really brings about the long-overdue 21st Century.

You see, it looks to me like that's what the country desperately needs right now.

Send comments.

February 2, 2007

Generation Gap

I guess I never really grew up. Or I somehow fell out of my proper generation. Reading about the big panic in Boston the past couple days, I feel much more rapport with the 20-somethings who say, "what's the big deal?" and "anybody should recognize these things as a toy/gag/gimmick, not an evil terrorist threat." I feel no rapport with our awfully grown-up "elected officials" who were running around like Chicken Little and now righteously demand that somebody else pay for their stupid over-reactions.

On the front of the Globe this morning I see the picture of the two 20-something guys now charged with planting the devices, and I like them immediately. I think its cool that they refused to answer all the "serious" questions from the press, and instead said they would only talk about hair.

Suddenly, it feels like the '60s again! People are talking about a 'generation gap'. The "over 30's" just don't "get it".

It does seem like all of the "over 30's" in any position of societal responsibility or authority are condemning this prank as irresponsible and not to be tolerated in "our post 9/11 world". Me, I think the over-reaction was the stupid part and should not be tolerated.

All the suits run around saying that "every thing changed on 9/11". Well, if it did, is wasn't for the better. It was for the worse, and it goes way beyond the people that were killed and the buildings that were destroyed on that day. The terrorists wanted to attack our society, not just the buildings and some people. They wanted us to become more like Afghanistan under the Taliban, and we have. Freedom has diminished. It became politically verboten to criticize government policies, including our mad rush into Iraq now belatedly seen for the mistake it was. Big Brother was given lots more power to spy on us, all because "everything changed on 9/11".

Well, eventually we will wake up and realize that whatever changed on 9/11 was what we chose to change, and that what happened was that we gave up our power out of fear. Perhaps if we had had a few national leaders with real wisdom and perspective, it would have been different. Regardless, nothing changed on 9/11 that we can't change back when we choose.

Meanwhile, I'm cheering for the 20-somethings. I hope they continue to stick it to the pompous pols and pundits. Maybe after while, people will realize that we've put ourselves back into "fallout shelter" mentality like in the 1950s, and it's time to come back out into the daylight.

Post comments.

January 13, 2007


Some friends recently reminded me of the John Lennon song, "Imagine", and they were wondering whether that is really a world we desire.  I've always liked the original. I have given it a place of honor on my home page.  For me, the words are not some distant or dissonant vision. Consider:

imagine there's no heaven
it's easy if you try
no hell below us
above us only sky

That is exactly what I imagine and what I already believe. I consider both concepts -- heaven and hell -- as not serving us. This life is it, folks. It's not a dress rehearsal.

imagine there's no countries
it isn't hard to do
nothing to kill or die for

Why should it be such a fantasy to die for one's country?? Or even to kill for it? That whole mindset comes from a kill-or-be-killed view of the world as a jungle. John Lennon suggests we imagine growing beyond all that.

and no religion too
imagine all the people
living life in peace...

I can easily imagine a world without religion, and I would love to have such a world -- because that would mean a world without most of the wars of the past two millennia. And without crusades -- either the original ones or the many things that have been likened to them since. Without Inquisitions. Without people who will commit suicide and take thousands of people with them by flying airliners into buildings. Without people who feel justified in murdering 'infidels'. Without people who murder doctors who perform abortions because 'God' told them to. Without people who withhold medical care from their own children in the name of 'faith'.

'Religion' doesn't have to mean all these things, but it usually and traditionally has meant exactly that. So John Lennon simply asks that we imagine a world without any of the dogma, intolerance, and violence that is what religion has mostly been about.

you may say i'm a dreamer
but i'm not the only one
i hope someday you'll join us
and the world will be as one.

For me, imagining the world as one is the only way to have a positive view of the future and the destiny of the human race. It is, in fact, the view that I have. So long as there are divisions based on country, religion, ethnicity, or race, there will be violence and hatred.

I look at history and I see that we have made a lot of progress in the past 2000 years. Really we have. Things are getting better over the long term, even if there are terrible exceptions along the way. That progress is because we have been eliminating the divisions and the things that go with them. It is because we have been moving toward that day "when superstition shall no longer enslave the mind nor idolatry blind the eye." It is because we have been "replacing ignorance and fear with awareness and love."

May we continue.

Post comments.

September 11, 2006

9/11 Reflections

I'll always remember the moments of shock on 9/11/01, just as I'll always remember 11/22/63 -- the day JFK was murdered. No, 'remember' is not sufficient -- I'll always have a clear picture, engraved in my mind, of the moment when I learned what was happening.

Ironically, on 9/11/01, I was intending to go flying -- to fly my own plane down to Cape Cod to see a friend. Had I left a little earlier, I might myself have been in the air when the order came down to close the entire US airspace and for every plane aloft to land immediately.

So I was still home. I remember turning on the TV, and almost immediately seeing the airliner fly into the WTC. At that point, it was a replay -- the event has already happened. But it burned into my memory like I was there and seeing it live.

As I learned a little more about what had happened, I thought, how could it be possible?!? As a pilot, I knew that no pilot would fly his plane into a building, even with a gun to his head. Thus I knew, even before the news reports figured it out, that the pilots had been overcome and somebody else was in control of those planes.

I remember the disbelief as I saw on TV the collapse of the first tower -- this was live now, the news reporters were as dumbfounded as me. It was this sudden tsunami of dust and blackness, and then -- no tower. Wait. No. I can't grok what I am seeing.

To this day, my anger seethes at the destruction of the towers. Yes, I know in our culture it is expected that we morn the loss of life more than the loss of property... But for me, the towers were the life work of thousands and thousands of people. Figure it out -- how man wo/man hours did it take to build those towers? Believe me, it can be measured in thousands of lifetimes. Maybe it's just me, but if someone were to obliterate my life's work, that would be like killing me -- not just now, but 40 years ago.

Then too, as an engineer and a pilot, I can never stop looking at what we did wrong and how mistakes were made in some past event. Believe me, every airplane pilot studies crash reports. Sound morbid? Sorry. We can't each make all the mistakes once ourselves to learn about them; we have to see what went wrong before and learn from that.

On that very day -- on 9/11/01 -- as I heard the early, fragmentary reports -- I thought, as a pilot, it is absolutely not possible that pilots would have flown their planes into a building. I knew instinctively -- before the news reports had pieced together what happened -- that it was a different scenario -- the planes must have been commandeered.

So how was that possible?? Why didn't the pilots and passengers resist and fight? How the hell could several hundred people have been controlled and killed by 3-4 guys with nothing more than BOX CUTTERS??? The answer is, that's what we were taught and told to do before 9/11!  Go along, don't fight back, try to negotiate, stall for time, leave it to the authorities. Well, that doesn't work when your adversary is unequivocally intending your death or their own or both.

I have said repeatedly since 9/11/01, that by the middle of that day, we had already learned enough to prevent another one. We didn't need Afghanistan, or Iraq, or the 5 years of shit that's been done in the name of homeland security since then. How do I know? Because the 4th airliner never reached its target. Because enough extra minutes had elapsed that the passengers on that 4th airliner found out through use of their cell phones what had happened in NY and DC, and they did rise up and they brought that fucking plane DOWN -- sacrificing themselves rather than let the bastards fly it into another target.

So, while we're saluting heros on this day -- the cops, firefighters, EMTs, and ordinary folks who did heroic things at the WTC on 9/11, I want to salute the people on board United flight 93 who 'got it' -- who learned fast and acted and saved who-knows-how-many other people and buildings from death and destruction. If I could have been anywhere today to participate in a 9/11/01 memorial, it would have been in Shanksville, PA, at the site of that crash, to honor the very first people in history who truly understood what post 9/11 America was really about.

Post comments.

August 22, 2006

Getting Out of Iraq

It's depressing to say but true nonetheless.  The sound of voices saying the Iraq war was a mistake has grown quite loud, but voices speaking a plan for what will work in the future are still hard to find.  I will attempt some speculation on the subject, while at the same time noting that I am not 100% sure of anything. I think it is actually important not to be 100% sure. This point was made to me several years ago by John Buehrens, former President of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, who travelled to Iraq on the eve of the war, and spoke about his observations around the country.

This is the challenge: to postulate two or more potential courses of action, and try to estimate what the result of each would be. This may be my engineering mind at work; I get that some people do not approach the situation that way. Other ways to approach it that I notice are:
  1. "In time of war, we must follow and support our leaders and their decisions, never mind the details. Those who do not are helping the enemy." I see this as an instinctive reaction, and as such, one that may have helped the tribe survive in prehistoric times but which, as with other instincts we still possess, can be tragically counterproductive in our contemporary world. Of course, this instinct has been exploited by political leaders as far back as recorded history and as recently as today's news.
  2. "We made this mess; now we must stay as long as it takes." Also known as "stay the course". This is supposed to be the 'centrist' kind of approach, but it does not consider the realities. If by staying, we could reasonably expect a good result, then yes, that argument carries some moral weight. If not, then the argument is simply blind adherence to a principle where it doesn't apply.
Beyond that and other arguments that avoid the nuts-and-bolts of what is possible or likely in Iraq, there are meta-arguments that are made. The most emotionally compelling of them is:
  1. If we admit this was a mistake and pull out, it will mean that those who we sent there and were injured or died did so for no good reason. This is, of course, an unanswerable argument, and so politicians especially are nearly incapable of confronting that truth. We must confront it, however, or be guilty of sending still more people to die for no good reason.
So, I will consciously avoid the above arguments and, equally so, the political feasibility of any of the following scenarios, and simply state my assessment of the options. I also note that there is no such thing as "no decision". Every minutes of every day, there is at least an implicit decision being made to keep doing what we've been doing. (btw, one of my favorite aphorisms is, "If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting.") Thus, the first alternative to consider is:

I. Stay on the current course. As best as I can tell, the current course is defined as "keep a military presence in Iraq until a democratic government is established and firmly in place." What I forecast as the result of keeping a military presence in Iraq is:
  • Continued and increasing sectarian warfare, likely descending into an all-out civil war. The longer we are there, the more that anti-American factions, supported by Iran, Syria, and others, will gain power.
  • Iraq will continue to be a magnet for anti-American radicals from everywhere in the middle east and Asia, and they will continue to infiltrate Iraq, be trained in terrorist techniques, and to kill Americans and others, both in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. In this regard, the Iraq war is having exactly the opposite result from what Bush/Cheney continue to claim.
  • The point will come, as it did in Viet Nam, where we leave in disgrace, no matter what rhetoric or spin is put on it. There will be a moment equivalent to that photo from Saigon where the last Americans are climbing a rope ladder from the roof of the US embassy to a hovering helicopter as the gates fall.
  • The flow of oil from the middle east will likely fluctuate and be unreliable. We'll have to deal with it.
That said, there is one other fairly obvious alternative.

II. Announce a reasonably short timetable for the complete withdrawal of US military presence, and then do it. This timetable should be determined only by the logistics of a safe withdrawal; nothing else. It is somewhat harder to forecast the exact result of this, but in general I believe it to be likely that:
  • The energy of anti-Americanism that fuels a lot of the insurgency will fall dramatically. This is a huge factor now, yet one that we usually ignore. (I'll give Bush this bit of credit however: he clearly acknowleged that any US military component in a peacekeeping force in Lebanon would not be helpful. The same is true in Iraq.)
  • The Iraqis will sort out what to do with their country. Some of it may be unpleasant. It will be less unpleasant than if we stay.
  • The flow of oil from the middle east will likely fluctuate and be unreliable. We'll have to deal with it.
For a long time, I thought we as a country had learned a lesson in Viet Nam. If so, we apparently forgot. It is not only the lesson about the limits of US military power, but the lesson about what will happen if we do nothing. In case anyone reading has forgotten about the Viet Nam war, we lost. Period. No negotiated settlement or other face-saving ritual. The other side took over all of the contested geography. Nothing different would have happened if we had never gone in. Nothing that is, except with regard to the 50,000 Americans who died there or the 500,000 who were injured and affected for life. Nothing that is, except for the countless Vietnamese villages that were burned (by forces of both sides) and the civilians of all ages maimed and killed by napalm and every other form of weaponry. Nothing that is, except for what else might have been done with the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent in that war.

Yes, we lost. And last I looked, the world did not come to an end. The dominos did not all fall and the whole world become communist. The Viet Nam war probably extended the life of the now-defunct communist empire by keeping America as the military threat to rally against. Just like now. Oh, and after enough time had passed after we left, Viet Nam became the fairly decent world citizen it is these days.

So that's my assessment of what would happen. Of course, no one ever really knows for sure, so we tend to fall back on all kinds of non-pragmatic reactions and rhetoric. I say none of those arguments are absolute or pursuasive. One of them -- the perception that the world will think badly of us if we pull out is especially bogus. Let's face it. Much of the world thought badly of us when we went in, and that didn't stop us. It won't be any worse if we pull out, but it will help if we acknowledge a mistake and try on a little humility.

Post comments.

June 26, 2006

Let's bring honest and democratic elections -- to America!

There has been a lot written about the risks of the new wave of electronic voting systems, and with good reason.  But let us not forget that any such system is just a tool.  The Republicans didn't need Diebold machines to hijack the 2004 election -- they did it in various old fashioned ways.

Note I did not say the 2000 election, I said the 2004 election!

Ever since November 2004, I've been depressed that the US electorate were so dense as to reelect Bush despite all that had happened and was entirely visible by then. Well, maybe they weren't and maybe they didn't! Maybe the election was stolen!

It didn't seem like it at the time. Yeah, there were some questions raised about Ohio, but Kerry quickly conceded and as far as any mainstream press coverage, that was it.

Well, that wasn't the end of it at all. A lot of strange things happened, and some people, including members of congress, did investigate. The bottom line: there is a huge amount of evidence that the 2004 election was manipulated and stolen. Ohio alone would have been enough. Had its electoral votes gone to Kerry, he would be president now. In many other states also, there is evidence of enough fraud to add up to a big difference in the popular vote.

All this is laid out in an incredible article by Robert Kennedy Jr. in the most recent Rolling Stone magazine, online at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

As I read this article, I got really pissed! Not so much at the Republicans, who seem to place no actual value on the democratic process that they pay so much lip service to in Iraq. Rather to the Democrats for walking away from the issue and not fighting for what they may well have won! I mean, why the hell should we go out and work our butts off to get out votes for Democrats if the Republicans can screw up the system so they don't get counted?!?

Some will say it has always been thus, and both parties are guilty of it.  Did Richard Daly's Democratic machine tip the election to JFK in 1960? Quite possibly. But then, Richard Daly is on my top 10 list of most loathsome political figures of my lifetime, whatever party he may have been in. Some of us remember the 1968 Democratic Convention in Daly's Chicago.  So I'm certainly not saying the Democrats are saints and the Republicans devils. The Democrats lost their long-standing control of Congress in 1994 in part because that long time in power had led to an increasing amount of arrogance and corruption. The same thing is happening to the Republicans now and, along with the mess in Iraq, might cost them one or both houses this November.

But as far as elections are concerned, Republicans have been implicated in far more election fraud activity than democrats over the past 50 years.  Can you say "1972"?  "Dirty tricks?"  "Watergate?" 

So what can we do? Well, I'm not really saying to sit on our hands. Rather, in additional to whatever else motivates us, to demand that the Democrats really fight for a fair and honest election process, and promise to fight tooth and nail in cases like Ohio/2004 where hundreds of thousands of votes were probably miscounted or not counted or never cast because of fradulent and criminal registration tricks.

I don't care if it creates a constitutional crises. The crisis is already here if we have a person serving two terms as President who was never elected even once.

Post comments.

January 27, 2006

The death penalty makes for an ugly society.

I used to favor the death penalty. I used to say it really was a deterrent because anyone who has received the death penalty cannot be released by some misguided parole board and commit more murder and mayhem.

I changed my mind.

I now oppose the death penalty in all cases. The reasons include many that I never hear discussed. That we should not "play God" is not one of my reasons. We play God all the time -- including when we keep alive people who would otherwise die as well as when we kill people who would otherwise live. If we were to stop "playing God", we would have to go back to the woods and live like deer and squirrels.

My reasons for opposing the death penalty include:

  1. People have been exonerated after 20 years or more in prison. While it is an intolerable injustice and tragedy that they were wrongly imprisoned and that much of their life was in fact taken from them, at least they lived to know that their innocence had finally been recognized, and to return with the record cleared to whatever family and friends may still be around.

  2. Seeking the death penalty makes us an ugly society. It is really disgusting when a big case hits the news and everybody wants to know, will the prosecution seek the death penalty, and will they "WIN". It is portrayed like a game that degrades us all. Sometimes the families of victims speak out about how they want the accused to die. I have compassion for these people but I wish they had somehow been taught a different way of thinking. As far as I can tell, even after an execution, the relatives never feel the 'better' that they expected.

    Sometimes, part of the game is, will the defense seek an "insanity" plea, and how that would be a "loss" for the prosecution. I disgaree. I say that when any accused wants to plead "insanity", that plea should be accepted immediately and no trial need be held. The result is that the accused is removed from society until society decides they are able to return without posing a further threat. What else could we want?? It's a life sentence if necessary. Call it "guilty but insane" instead of "not guilty by reason of insanity" if that makes anyone feel better.

  3. The death penalty costs us a lot of money as well as other intangible things. Appeals go on forever. Prosecutors spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money -- your money -- trying to "WIN" a capital punishment sentence. Tookie Williams sat on death row for about 25 years, and when the legal process finally ran its course, it could not cope with the fact that he had become a voice for non-violence and against gang warfare in the inner city communities. We killed a person who had found a way to do good even while in a maximum security prison.
  4. Death is too good a punishment for the crimes it is mandated for. OK, so I can't eliminate the idea of punishment entirely from this equation. As a just society, we must show that people who commit crimes will be removed from society, possibly forever. I think it is better for someone who is guilty of a heinous crime to spend the rest of their life in jail thinking about it than to have the luxury of a quick death and a shot at martyrdom. There is no scientific evidence that the possibility of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment has the slightest deterrent effect on someone before they commit a crime. What does have an effect is a sense that justice is swift and truly just. The money we waste on the death penalty process could be put to much better use improving the quality of law enforcement and trial.

Ultimately the practices of a society are decided on principles which are debated and discussed and then accepted and internalized and become what the people really believe. Alas, too many of our public officials in this area act as if it is them versus the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- that these are just documents that get in they way of doing their job. It has been a sad time for our society, especially the past few years, and the quality of our "moral fibre" has declined significantly, IMO, because we do not relearn and reinforce our constitutional and moral principles anywhere near enough.

Public discourse is consumed with fear, revenge, kill-them-before-they-kill-us, secret prisions, torture, internal spying by government agencies, "our security is too important to let the Constitution or our traditional principles stand in the way". There are some hopeful signs -- some courageous senators, including one of the Republican senators from New Hampshire who helped block the blanket renewal of the Patriot Act. (I hope as many people as possible directly show their support to these senators.) Nonetheless, we still have a long way to go.

Post comments.

January 26, 2006

Time to Wake Up.

Have I been slacking off lately? Yes. After the presidential election of 2004, I did the groundhog thing and went off to hibernate for a long winter. Well, groundhog day is coming soon. Let's see if we'll really be having 3 more years of winter.

Post comments.

Other Volumes:

That's All Folks.  For many golden oldies, check out The Outpost Commentaries.

All contents ©2004 - Dan Murphy except as otherwise noted.

Back to The Outpost.

Feedback to The Outpost.