<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><div><div>Again it's not my argument but the argment is based on an appeal to Ockham's razor: don't needlessly multiply entities. If the body is essential for eternal life, why think that the soul is anything other than a set of bodily manifestations? The way I explain it to my students is: if you can explain the missing carrots from your garden with the hypothesis that they were eaten by a single rabbit, why suppose instead that it was 2 or 3 or 10 rabbits that ate them? All other things being equal accept the simplest theory available, which suggests one kind of thing (body) instead of two (body and soul). <br></div><div><br>On Jul 27, 2009, at 12:43 PM, keely emerinemix <<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
I don't doubt for a moment the reality of the bodily (physical, corporeal) resurrection -- I've staked my eternal soul on it -- but don't see how that's an argument that strikes at my view that humankind is made with a soul, in the image of God.<br><br>?????????????????????????<br><br>Keely<br><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a></a><br><br><br><br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">From: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a><br>To: <a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a></a><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."<br>Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:13:24 -0400<br>CC: <a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br><br><div><div><div><div>Keely,</div><div><br></div><div>My views on the mind-body problem are like my views on in-door smoking in that I don't have any strong opinions either way. I am unhappy with the details of this particular law -- the 20 foot rule is just one example. That strikes me as unnecessary overkill. And it is always a bad idea to pass a law that cannot be enforced.</div><div><br></div><div>As for mind-body issues, I'm a true skeptic believing that knowledge one way or the other is not possible. Nor do I think that anything of importance rides on it. You might think that the immaterial soul is essential to your Christian beliefs but many would disagree. Aquinas, Leibniz, and Kant, for instance, believed in bodily resurrection. Aquinas and Kant were dualists (I think) but Leibniz was an idealist believing that everything was made up of immaterial 'atoms' he called monads. All point point to biblical support for bodily resurrection, like the fact the main indicator that Jesus rose from the dead was that his body was missing from the cave that it was placed in after his death. Again I'm no expert on this matter (I hope I'm reporting the view correctly) but one of my colleagues is working on this very issue from a Kantian perspective. If you contact me offlist, I'd be happy to send you his email address. </div><div><br></div><div>Following this lead, there are many contemporary Christian philosophers who are materialists, such as Peter van Inwagen (Notre Dame) and Hud Hudson (Western Washington), who are two of the most brilliant and passionate Christians that I have met.</div><div><br></div><div>Frankfurt gave a talk at WSU a few years back and I had the honor of introducing him.</div><div><br></div><div>Best, Joe <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Jul 26, 2009, at 11:25 AM, keely emerinemix <<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote><div>
Interestingly enough, my son and I were just discussing Frankfurt and Singer and he's reading your response right now. (We were discussing Frankfurt and Singer, by the way, with great charity and patience on his part, given that I knew a little of Singer but was in over my head after about three minutes). I realize that much of what I contend about the Imago Dei and the soul is the prerogative of the religious person; I think I'm correct in believing this way, I've staked my own soul on it, but the materialist will be unconvinced until . . . well, until whatever proof would convince him appears).<br><br>Fascinating stuff, and I appreciate your response . . . a wealth of info to digest. <br><br>As for the smoking ban -- sorry! I'm opposed. I believe that bar owners get to decide, and bar employees have decided. As for the 20-foot limit outside of even the One World or Mikey's -- way wrong, and I'm not sure it's enforceable anyway. On this one, I'm a Libertarian.<br><br>Which is the only time you're likely to ever hear me say that!<br><br>Thanks, Joe,<br><br>Keely<br><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a></a><br><br><br><br><br><hr id="EC_stopSpelling">Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:37:30 -0700<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."<br>From: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a><br>To: <a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a></a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br><br><div><div>Dear Keely,</div><div><br></div><div>Very good questions. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert on personhood, for I'm not. My areas are metaphysics and epistemology, not ethics. Also, the term 'person' has a wide array of uses among philosophers. Some like Harry Frankfurt (Princeton), who writes on issues about free will, think of personhood in terms of volition, for instance, but I was speaking mainly about the use of the term in philosophical debates about death: abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. It isn't quite right to define 'person' as a being with rights but usually it turns out (given the definition) that persons have full rights and non-persons have, at most, limited rights. So it is hard to separate our contemporary philosophical discussions of personhood from talk about rights. Lastly, there are many common sense views on personhood that I won't even mention. This is a report from the field (philosophy), so to speak.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In this context, Joel Feinberg (a former professor of mine at Arizona who has since passed away) and Peter Singer (Princeton) define 'person' (roughly) as a being with certain rational capacities. Given that definition, it turns out that not all human beings are persons since the kinds of capacities in question are not developed until age 2 or so. It also turns out that some non-humans are persons. I understand how this might sound absurd and offensive to some but it is useful in answering questions about the rights to life of various beings at various stages of development. Think of it as a term of art. An interesting article along this lines, on the abortion issue, is located here:</div>
<div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm"></a><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm"></a><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm"></a><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm"></a><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm"><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm">http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm</a></a></div><div><br></div><div>(I'm the metaphysics editor of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, though I had nothing to do with this article. Another good source for on-line philosophical articles is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>In any event, let's look more closely at the definitions that you offer below and see what consequences follow were we to adopt them. First, suppose that we define 'person' as a being with a soul. The problem with this definition is that it is not clear when the term applies or even if it ever does. Some folks are materialists, they think that no one has a soul, in which case it follows that no human beings are persons, which is even more absurd than the claim that only some of them are persons. And what about animals? Do they have souls? Again, it is not clear how we could answer that question. Thus, defining 'person' as a being with a soul is not going to help us to settle important questions like which beings do or do not have rights, like the right to life. And the same problem holds if we define 'person' as a being created in God's image. What does God look like, and who's to say? For this reason, many philosophers have searched for other definitions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Let's consider another group: beings with "volition, awareness of self, capacity for relationship." Note first that these are three distinct criteria. Ants have the capacity for relationship -- they are social beings -- but likely not self-awareness or volition. Humans are social beings and have self-awareness but whether they genuinely have volition is a matter of debate (I think they do but I won't want to hang any substantive hat on the matter). Do dogs have volition or self-awareness? That's hard to say.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Note too that NOT ALL humans have volition, self-awareness, or the capacity for relationship. Just as with the Feinberg/Singer definition, if you define 'person' as a being with, say, self-awareness, then it is undeniable that no fetus is a person. Self-awareness is not developed until well after birth. (Note that though infants are not always persons, and thus have no rights according to Feinberg, he still thinks that it is wrong to kill an infant, or to abort a fetus after the point of viability, since the state still has an interest in the protection and development of all humans and after the point of viability the mother is no longer required for this.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Perhaps what you meant was that a person is a being with the potential for self-awareness, etc. But this definition seems ad hoc since the only beings with the potential for all three capacities are humans. It no longer seems like a discovery that all human beings have rights, given that persons have rights, for the "fact" appears to be pre-built into the definition. Given this, the result is not surprising. And the problem is even worse if one defines 'person' as human being, for this clearly begs all of the relevant, interesting questions. That doesn't mean it isn't true but it is unhelpful.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Lastly, we have a final definition that is often used, which you also hint: 'person' is a sentient being. Again, Peter Singer's views are close to this, for while his definition of 'person' precludes many animals from the full slate of rights "<span class="EC_EC_Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'trebuchet MS',arial; font-size: 12px;">the capacity for suffering" is "the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration" and moral worth <<a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm"></a><a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm"></a><a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm"></a><a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm"></a><a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm"><a href="http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm">http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm</a></a>>.</span></div>
<div><font class="EC_EC_Apple-style-span" size="3" face="'trebuchet MS', arial"><span class="EC_EC_Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px;"><br></span></font></div><div><span class="EC_EC_Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'trebuchet MS',arial; font-size: 12px;">Thus, as you note, one might argue that non-human animals have rights to life and protection even if they are not persons, for they have the capacity to feel pain. Again, it is doubtful that this will help in the case of abortion, since the capacity to feel pain requires a level of self-awareness that humans are incapable of until well after birth.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>In short, certainly a view like yours -- where only humans are persons but animals have rights nonetheless -- is well in the running and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I don't have much else to say other than that, personally, I believe in the sanctity of human life -- maybe even the sanctity of life in general -- and thus I think the issue of personhood is irrelevant to any of the more interesting questions. This is a good thing since it is a struggle to find a definition of 'person' that is (a) informative, (b) non-question begging, and (c) gets the result that all humans are persons.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best, Joe</div><div><br></div><div>PS This was a "fair and balanced" report on the concept of personhood from a contemporary, analytical, philosophical perspective. I report, you decide! Don't make the Crabtree mistake of thinking that just because I report an argument that I accept it.</div>
<div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:04 PM, keely emerinemix <<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"></a><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote>
<div>
Really? <br><br>I'm sorry, but is the definition of "persons," in a philosophical sense, simply that they enjoy a "right-to-life"? Isn't there an argument from necessary ontology that results in something being described as having "personhood" -- i.e., volition, awareness of self, capacity for relationship, and, of particular importance for the religious, a soul as a creation in the imago Dei? <br>
<br>I am becoming more and more convinced that, for me, and certainly for the world in an ecological sense, the eating of animals is wrong. They're sentient beings, in my mind deserving of at least minimal safeguards to their well-being - no torture for the benefit of my mascara -- but they're not "persons." All human beings are persons; necessarily, from an ontological, not a philosophical, perspective, all persons are human beings. The necessary traits that define biological human beings include personhood if that biologically human being is allowed to develop, if for no other reason than her creation in the image of God. <br>
<br>Most religious people I know value, in some form or another, animal life -- even if only in the service of their sustenance. Some, myself included, believe that while animals do not possess souls -- are not created in the image of the Creator -- they will be in heaven, Eden recreated and teeming with the animals that delight God, even if not created in God's image.<br>
<br>Keely<br><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"></a><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/"><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a></a><br><br><br><br><br><hr>From: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a></a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a><br>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:04:22 -0400<br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."<br><br><div>I should add that if erring on the side of caution were relevant, you should be in favor of laws againts eating non-human animals. After all, some think they're persons too -- not humans but persons, things deserving of the right to life -- and who are you to say otherwise? After all, we don't want to unknowingly kill persons, do we? <br>
<br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, "the lockshop" <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div>
<blockquote><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">"<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">He believes
that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other views. I believe it is
not the kind of issue that anyone can be certain of and that the law should deal
with knowledge, not certainty."</font></font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Since I believe that the fetus is a person, how
could I not believe that it trumps all other views? Since, as you admit there is
uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of caution and allow a fetus to live
rather than take a what the hell attitude and have an innocent person
die.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">g</font></div>
<blockquote style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="background: rgb(228, 228, 228) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;">
<b>From:</b>
<a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</a> </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>To:</b> <a title="bear@moscow.com" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">Wayne Price</a> </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="lockshop@pull.twcbc.com" href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</a> ; <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a> </div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 24, 2009 11:36
AM</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not
continue to confuse people with facts."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Wayne,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I share your beliefs -- exactly. And in the past Crabtree has made fun of
these same beliefs, so don't expect him to respond. As in the case of Sunil's
questions, he'll remain silent when his inconsistencies are obvious. The
diiference between our views and Crabtree's is that we genuinely respect
freedom and think people should decide for themselves about personal,
religious, philosophical issues. Crabtree is only for those freedoms that
coincide with his own world view. He is not for freedom per se. He believes
that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other views. I believe it
is not the kind of issue that anyone can be certain of and that the law should
deal with knowledge, not certainty.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Joe<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Wayne Price <<a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:bear@moscow.com">bear@moscow.com</a></a>> wrote:<br><br></div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>Gary,
<div><br></div>
<div>I too am stuck with this one. While I am personally anti-abortion, I am
still pro-choice on the matter. IF I were in a situation where the abortion
decision had to be made, I would choose NOT to terminate the pregnancy
and put the child up for adoption. HOWEVER, I still believe that the choice
to be made should NOT be the governments to make but the
individuals. <br>
<div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Wayne</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div><br>
<blockquote><span style="word-spacing: 0px; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; text-transform: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-indent: 0px; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: separate;">
<div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Is mis-stating my position really the only
way you can think of to try and make a valid point?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if
homosexuals can find someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man,
wife and wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then
swell, I wish them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the
state being forced to recognize it.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">With regard to the abortion issue though
I've really got to admit that you've got me caught on the horns of a
delimma. How could I not see the similarity between making a choice
that has a 1 in 15 chance of potentially damaging the health of the
person doing the choosing and making a decision that
has a 100% chance of killing an innocent party?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">In both of your examples the decision extends
to others who will not be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and
employess do get to make an informed choice and as a result your comments
seem a trifle lame.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">g</font></div>
<blockquote style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;">----- Original Message -----</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228);"><b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe Campbell</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="lockshop@pull.twcbc.com" href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the
lockshop</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Cc:</b><span> </span><a title="tim.rigsby@hotmail.com" href="mailto:tim.rigsby@hotmail.com">TIM RIGSBY</a><span> </span>;<span> </span><a title="starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com%3E"><</a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a></a>><span> </span>;<span> </span><a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com%3E"><</a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a>></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29
AM</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not
continue to confuse people with facts."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about
whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending to
respect a person's right to make decisions for him or
herself! <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div><br>On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"></a><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br><br></div>
<div></div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div><font face="Arial">It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city
council have a mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons
and employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students
but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a citizen
reaches the age of 21 in the United States he hasn't heard
the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">How lucky we are that there are people out there
who will take it upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from
making their own decisions with regard to the risks they take in
life.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">g</font></div>
<blockquote style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;">----- Original Message -----</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228);"><b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="tim.rigsby@hotmail.com" href="mailto:tim.rigsby@hotmail.com">TIM RIGSBY</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a></a><span> </span>;<span> </span><a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47
AM</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re: [Vision2020] "Please do
not continue to confuse people with facts."</div>
<div><br></div>I would like to add the idea of this
saying,<br><br>"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good
story."<br><br>Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points
that tend to be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking
regulation and legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher
is when I hear my junior high and high school aged students talking
about how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked
if they would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they
won't. Yet what these students don't realize is that they are
actually smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties.
What is even scarier is a lot of the parents think that hookah is a
safe alternative as well. <span> </span><br><br>The hookah bar
closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed with young people
all of the time. Often times, other substances are being laced
into the tobacco as well and these young people are unknowingly
smoking illegal drugs along with their fruit and tobacco
mixture.<br><br>I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and
possibly the State Legislature will enact legislation to
regulate/control these hookah establishments.<br><br>Here is a
question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho Code, what is
a hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar, a private
club? If it falls under the bar definition, then people under
21 should not be allowed in. It seems as though hookah bars
would fall into an undefined gray area of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air
Act. However, Moscow seems to have covered hookah bars in
their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.<br><br>"
'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is one
of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it the
hard way. Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's
President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a
vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World -- or been beaten
and gassed by Police for trespassing on public property -- or been
hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons -- or locked up in
the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and
twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is
when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That
is when you will wish you had voted." - Hunter S.
Thompson<br><br><br><br><br>
<hr>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700<br>From:<span> </span><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"></a><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"><a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a></a><br>
To:<span> </span><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
Subject:
[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."<br><br>
<div>The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as
one of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants,
that I received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in
total what is stated in the subject heading of this post. Wise
words, no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the
critical facts my post presented: that tobacco
(nicotine) is a physically addictive drug, with
underage tobacco addiction common, raising questions if whether
adult "choice" is in effect regarding employees or consumers in
tobacco related decisions; that tobacco is the leading cause of
premature death (nuclear waste or energy or even nuclear weapons
production is not even close as a cause of premature death); that
other drugs doing less harm to society than tobacco are criminalized
and prosecuted aggressively, involving civil and human rights
violations, yet who among those opposing regulation of
tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for these drugs to
be managed by free choice and the marketplace, rather than a
government "Big Brother?" Some, perhaps... While there are
others who should know better playing some on this list as
fools, for the sake of debate, or political advantage, or popular
image or whatever... Or they are as deluded as those they are
debating with...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>My response to the "Off List" comment discussed
here:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief
that expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that
dangerous idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I
forgot, I already am...), I may not comply. I recently read a
variation of this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge
of Gaia:" "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up."
Lovelock was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of
nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.</div>
<div> </div><span>
<div>Ted<br> </div></span><span>
<div>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div><font size="2">Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts. </font></div>
<blockquote style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div><span>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;">----- Original Message -----</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228);"><b>From:</b><span> </span><a title="starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted
Moffett</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>To:</b><span> </span><a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Moscow Vision 2020</a></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Wednesday, July 22,
2009 1:55 AM</div>
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal;"><b>Subject:</b><span> </span>[Vision2020] Tobacco:
Targeting the Nation’s Leading Killer: Centers for Disease
Control</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug.
Once addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept. And
many people become addicted while underage, encouraged to
continue their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are
often shared between customers. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the
comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the
facts regarding the magnitude of the
damage. Comparisons to other harmful behaviors
are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope
of regulation will lead to government control over too many
aspects of life, but many of these behaviors do not involve
a drug addiction. Of course alcohol has dramatic negative
impacts. But workers in bars are not forced to drink the
drinks the customers order, as they breathe the smoke
of the customers. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to
an addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is
approached so callously. They can work elsewhere, it's
announced with smug authority, as if in this economy workers
have the luxury of choosing whatever job suits their fancy,
rather than an urgency to take whatever work they can
find. If it was cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine that
workers were exposed to, the attitude might be
different. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the
workplace should be protected based on free market, free choice,
adult responsibility? If this is the logic, where are the
protests against laws imposed on those selling
cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting
adults, which can result in long prison sentences? Let the
free market decide! Why stand in the way of
profits and the free choice of adults? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in
their outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology
might have more intellectual credibility. Instead, the
libertarianism proposed is inconsistent and conformist. Or
perhaps those opposed to the smoking ordinance will now protest
that bars do not allow legal cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine
use? Think of the profits to be made! And remember,
tobacco prematurely kills more people than those three drugs
combined...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis
is, resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or
use, I would oppose this vehemently. But an ordinance
regulating smoking in bars does not stop any adult from legally
using tobacco products in settings where they do not expose
workers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify
the exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA
could be mostly eliminated. After all, if workers exposed
to hazards monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work with
those risks, they can work elsewhere, as long as signs posted in
the workplace inform them of the risks. A "Big
Brother" government bureaucracy gone. </div>
<div>--------------------------</div>
<div><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"></a><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm"><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm">http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm</a></a></div>
<div>
<h2>The Burden of Tobacco Use</h2>Tobacco use is the single most
preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the
United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die
prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and
another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking.
For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer
from at least one serious tobacco-related illness. Despite these
risks, approximately 43.4 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes.
Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly
consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral
cancers.<br>The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the
smoker. More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including
children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.
Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale
many of the same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke as
smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and
death, including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking
adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory
infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma
attacks in children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to
secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of
lung cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of
heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than
18 months have lower respiratory tract infections.<br>Coupled
with this enormous health toll is the significant economic
burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year in medical
expenditures and another $97 billion per year resulting from
lost productivity.<br>
<p align="center"><a name="122b38d9ac242332_122aa783745cbaea_122a2ac98d684f08_1"><img alt="Chart showing about 443,000 U.S. deaths attributable each year to cigarette smoking. Text description below." src="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/images/2009/tobacco2.gif" border="0" width="425" height="457"></a></p>
<p align="center">[A<span> </span><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh_text.htm#1"><font color="#003366">text description of this graph</font></a><span> </span>is also available.]</p>
<h2>The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped</h2>A 2007 Institute
of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint for action to
“reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a public
health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged strategy for
achieving this goal includes not only strengthening and fully
implementing currently proven tobacco control measures, but also
changing the regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations.
Foremost among the IOM recommendations is that each state should
fund a comprehensive tobacco control program at the level
recommended by CDC in<span> </span><i>Best Practices for
Comprehensive Tobacco Control
Programs–2007</i>.<br>Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control
programs that are comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have
been shown to reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and
diseases caused by smoking. A comprehensive program is a
coordinated effort to establish smoke-free policies and social
norms, to promote and assist tobacco users to quit, and to
prevent initiation of tobacco use. This approach combines
educational, clinical, regulatory, economic, and social
strategies.<br>Research has documented the effectiveness of laws
and policies to protect the public from secondhand smoke
exposure, promote cessation, and prevent initiation when they
are applied in a comprehensive way. For example, states can
increase the unit price of tobacco products; implement smoking
bans through policies, regulations, and laws; provide insurance
coverage of tobacco use treatment; and limit minors’ access to
tobacco products.<br>If the nation is to achieve the objectives
outlined in<span> </span><i>Healthy People
2010</i>, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for
preventing smoking initiation and increasing cessation need to
be fully implemented.<br>
<h1>CDC's Response</h1>CDC is the lead federal agency for
tobacco control. CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health (OSH)
provides national leadership for a comprehensive, broad-based
approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of government
agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and academic
institutions have joined together to advance this approach,
which involves the following activities:<br>
<ul>
<li>Preventing young people from starting to smoke.<br>
</li><li>Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.<br>
</li><li>Promoting quitting among young people and
adults.<br>
</li><li>Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health
disparities.</li></ul>Essential elements of this approach
include state-based, community-based, and health system-based
interventions; cessation services; counter marketing; policy
development and implementation; surveillance; and evaluation.
These activities target groups who are at highest risk for
tobacco-related health
problems.<br>-------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020
Post: Ted
Moffett<br></div></span></div><br></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></span><br>
<hr>
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite
sports pics.<span> </span><a href="http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports">Check it out.</a>
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div><br></div>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<span> </span><br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994. <span> </span><br> <span> </span><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a> <span> </span><br>
<span> </span><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>
=======================================================
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div><br></div><br>No virus found in
this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG -<span> </span><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></a><span> </span><br>
Version: 8.5.392 /
Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date: 07/23/09
18:00:00<br></blockquote></div></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br><span>List
services made available by First Step Internet,<span> </span></span><br><span>serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><span> </span> </span><br>
<span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div><br></div><br>No virus found in this
incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG -<span> </span><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></a><span> </span><br>
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus
Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/24/09
05:58:00<br></blockquote>=======================================================<br>List
services made available by First Step Internet,<span> </span><br>serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.
<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"></a><a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a><span> </span> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></a><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a><br>=======================================================</div>
</span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote>
<br><hr>
<br><br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"></a><a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></a> <br>Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00<br></blockquote>
</div></blockquote><br><hr>Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. <a href="http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports">Check it out.</a>
</div></blockquote></div><br><hr>Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. <a href="http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports">Check it out.</a>
</div></blockquote></div><div></div></div><div></div></div><div></div><br><hr>Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. <a href="http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports" target="_new">Check it out.</a>
</div></blockquote></div><div></div></div><div></div></body></html>