Mayor of New Orleans speaks his mind

[YYC I/C]

The world is currently in a warm cycle - but it's not necessarily because of global warming. There's some bad science at work in the concept of global warming.

I despise Bush and the Reublican party in general, but Michael Moore is a buffoon from the other side of the spectrum.

And the situation in New Orleans is all about race - blacks typically don't vote for the Republican party. The mayor is a Democrat and so is the Governor.

What would havre the response been if this was Galveston or Corpus Christi? Much different!

[Lakelad]

Suspect it ain't gonna be no love boat.

Carnival Cruise Sending Three Big Ships for Katrina Refugees

Associated Press

Sep 3, 2005

Federal officials are chartering three of Carnival Cruise Lines' ships for six months, part of a plan to provide shelter for as many as 7,000 people displaced by devastating Hurricane Katrina.

The three ships - the Ecstasy, Sensation and Holiday - will be pulled from regular use starting Monday.

Ecstasy, normally ported at Galveston for four-and five-day cruises, and Sensation, normally in New Orleans for similar trips, will both be pulled Monday and are scheduled to dock and house Katrina refugees in Galveston, Texas.

The Holiday, which normally sails four and five-day Mexico cruises out of Mobile, Ala., will be pulled Thursday and likely docked in Mobile.

Approximately 920 crew members will staff the 70,367 gross-ton Ecstasy and Sensation, with about 660 running the 46,052-ton Holiday. The Ecstasy and Sensation can each take 2,606 total passengers, while then Holiday can hold 1,800.

Carnival spokesman Vance Gulliksen said Saturday from Miami, where the corporation is based, that it does not disclose the price of charter contracts, and it's virtually impossible to tell precisely many trips will be canceled.

[Fido]

Well it seems like the blame game is in full force around here as much as it is in New Orleans and everywhere else in the USA. It is a popular sport and it does not take much knowledge of the situation or what caused it or what the real solution is.

As a great philosopher once said "He who is without sin, throw the first stone".

Well how many here have an actual emergency plane in place?

Food

Water

Emergency telephones

First Aide supplies

Family emergency plan, contact points, meeting places.

Then when YOU have that complete, has your very own community got a comprehensive plan for catastrophe down on paper and have they purchased the necessary resources to action such a plan.?

From my cursory knowledge of such things no city in Canada has such a plan and the equipment to pull it off. Vancouver is the furthest along this road with a central co-ordination centre that lacks bodies to man it. Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, what have you got? Toronto and especially Montreal have proven in recent memory that they have nothing.

Ok, throw the first stone now.

[groundeffect]

Alright Fido, I'll throw the first bone...er I mean stone.

The fact is the hurricane didn't magically appear out of the blue, it's trajectory was very well forcast several days prior to land-fall.

Seems to me the national guard should have been mobilised imediately with sand-bags etc!

By the way, Jesus isn't generaly refered to as a 'philosopher'.

[handyman]

Well how many here have an actual emergency plane in place?

They do!

emergency plane

[Just Curious 2]

Well how many here have an actual emergency plane in place?

Food

Water

Emergency telephones

First Aide supplies

Family emergency plan, contact points, meeting places.

While I'm sure you meant plan, either way, I do. Up our way, power failures, seasonal floods and forest fires are all real potential sources for evacuation in our neck of the woods.

http://www.aklakair.ca/fleet/twinotter.asp

While we are usually looking at less than a thousand folks, we've done this for YKD, YVQ, ZFN, and a couple others. Trawna would likely need an extra crew.

[Don Hudson]

National Geographic, October 2004

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks for that link Don.

With stuff like that having been in print, apparently in various articles in a variety of publications over time, the much delayed response looks even more stunning.

Seems, as my wife put it, they've found someone to hang... the head of FEMA is probably as responsible as several others, or maybe not, but he seems to be having his own head prepared on a platter at the moment.

For my part, I think that one statement from GWB, "I don't think anyone anticipated the levees would be breached" should be all it takes to toss him in the Mississippi and go to the polls.

[GDR]

Hi Don

The problem in New Orleans has been around for decades. This hurricane happened to hit while a republican president was in power. It could just as easily have happened when Clinton was president.

It is just as justifiable to blame Clinton. He didn't do anything about the problem during his time in office because he knew that Louisiana would always vote democrat, and so he didn't have to worry about their vote.

Why is it that it is that a the president seems to carry the blame for not dealing with the issue of the levees but the democratic governor doesn't?

Like the Nat Geographic article points out, oil has been a boon to the area. Why wasn't the La. oil money used to bolster the strength of the levees? Certainly Bush has to shoulder some responsibility for what happened but so do literally hundreds of others.

To try and tie this to enlightenment values is more than a bit of a stretch IMHO. As seeker pointed out, the so called values of enlightenment haven't produced a more humane world at all and is the basic reason we have entered this post modern era with people searching for values beyond what science can offer.

I'm not knocking science as I agree that the physicists, the biologists etc have done an incredible job of finding out "how" things have happened but they don't have answers for "why" things happened. Enlightenment has improved lives in many ways but it hasn’t produced a set of lasting values.

Here is a link to an article on the results of the breakdown of the genome of the chimpanzee and its comparison to the human genome. I’m only putting this here as a want to point out the last couple of paragraphs.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/article..._human_secrets/

In any case, said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, ''The real question about what it takes to be human, what makes us different, is more than a biological question."

The genome can provide plenty of genetic data, Collins told reporters yesterday, ''but it may very well not tell us a whole lot about other aspects of humanity, like how do we know what's right and wrong, and what's the human spirit about, anyway?"

This has kinda gotten off topic, but I do have to say that I have been proud of the response of Canadians. In addition Air Canada did us proud and so did, (choke) the federal government.

Greg Robinson

[Don Hudson]

Greg;

A great deal in your post...let me take some time to respond. You raise some very worthwhile points and again, I do not find strong disagreement with them.

Regarding the genome project and human genetic differences with our bretheren here on earth, this, from Richard Dawkins' book, "River Out of Eden":

"DNA texts taken from representagives of different species have indeed been compared, with ggreat dsuccess, letter by letter, to construct family trees of species. . . . .

"The "paragraph" in our genes describing the protein called cytochrome c is 339 letters long. Twelve letter changes separate human cytochrome c from the cytochrome c of horses, our rather distant cousins. Only one cytochrome c letter change separates humans form monkeys (our fairly close cousins), one letter change separates horses from donkeys (their very close cousins) and three letter changes separate horses from pigs (their somewhat more distant cousins). Forty-five letter changes separate humans from yeast and the same number separate pigs from yeast. It is not surprising that these numbers should be the same, because as we follow back the river leading to humans, it joins with the river leading to pigs much mroe recently than their common river joins the river leading to yeast." [Note: I understand the metaphor of the "river" as being used to convey the notion of continuity-with-change-through-time, DH].

I agree that because we may trace our molecular beginnings does not mean we are either imbued with, or are capable of, "human" values. The mere struggle for existence and survival indicates nothing more than the struggle although many religions interpret the struggle has having meaning. There is the view that nothing is "a priori" and the landscape of human values is chosen through creativity, power, imagination, ambition and other very human traits and that it is not "received wisdom" but the writings of both very human and sometimes very inhuman people which causes huge and historically significant movements in thought and action.

For me, reaching into the human "spirit" is possible not through the prosaic, but through the poetic. We reach our souls, our "inner selves", through story, through metaphor, through meditation. The poetic expresses/emerges a humaness..."human" is not a granted, foretold, pre-ordained, received "thing". It is, perhaps, an emergent welling, a living urgency, which expresses itself in ways at once familiar (as we all study "poetry") and yet foreign (do we really know what the "poetic" is?). The poetic is usually seen as something studied in school. However, the poetic "story" can be a profound and deeply meaningful conduit to the soul.

In great contrast to the poetic, the "prosaic" is a modern invention associated with "logical argument", reason, (I often use the term, "tyranny of reason"), and thus with modernity itself. Such expressions are essentially soul-less, not in the pejorative sense, but in the sense that such expressions which "argue" a "point of view" do not convey humanity except very, very obliquely and mere hints, at that. Besides, a "logical" argument for the "existence of God" which has been tried many, many times in philosophical discourse, can always leave one unconvinced because "so what?" is always a possible response.

One cannot, however, ignore or deny the urgencies and the poetics of the soul.

If one examines, for example, the common themes in mythology throughout both time and place, we see ourselves in a mirror that no "ideology" can truly provide. For me again, however, Matthew is as wise and profound a Chapter as any one may absorb as a human being but there are wonderfully wise offerings in the Q'Uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bodhisattvas and others. A reading of Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" is rewarding in appreciating this broader view of common themes in interpretive spiritualities regardless of how, or what one chooses to guide his/her life.

Big topic for a Saturday!!

Don

[Beth]

Don:

I nominate you as the new head of FEMA should the new one prove to be as equal of a putz as the last.

Such admirable traits as yours; most notably diplomacy, well thought out reasoning, and compassion are exactly what NO needs right now in its leadership.

[GDR]

Regarding the genome project and human genetic differences with our bretheren here on earth, this, from Richard Dawkins' book, "River Out of Eden":

Hi Don

The trouble with Dawkins is that he is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the literalists that insist that the Holy books are to be read literally. I am convinced that there is considerable metaphor in the Bible, as we discussed earlier, but I am also convinced that creation of something from nothing at the time of the "Big Bang" required an intelligence outside of the event. I am also convinced that human consciousness requires an intelligence outside of the physical.

Dawkins for example in "The Blind Watchmaker" answers Paley's question of how the eye could have evolved. That's fine, but then he goes on to say that the evolution must have occurred by random chance or natural selection only. In other words he goes outside the realm of science by preaching Atheism. Science is agnostic. Science cannot tell us why evolution occurred but only that it did.

For me, reaching into the human "spirit" is possible not through the prosaic, but through the poetic. We reach our souls, our "inner selves", through story, through metaphor, through meditation. The poetic expresses/emerges a humaness..."human" is not a granted, foretold, pre-ordained, received "thing". It is, perhaps, an emergent welling, a living urgency, which expresses itself in ways at once familiar (as we all study "poetry") and yet foreign (do we really know what the "poetic" is?). The poetic is usually seen as something studied in school. However, the poetic "story" can be a profound and deeply meaningful conduit to the soul.

Not much to disagree with there but I point out that the poetic certainly touches the spirit but it does not necessarily lead us into truth.

This brings to mind something that I have been reading recently which is Brian Greene's physics books including his thoughts on string theory. Of course the hope of the theory is that it will tie together relativity and quantum mechanics. One thing that really stood out for me however was the concept that everything in the universe is made up of particles and that each particle is a tiny string. (Actually I think it is more like an elastic band.) The characteristics, (whether it will be an energy particle such as a photon or a matter particle such as an electron), of each particle is then determined by how the string vibrates. These vibrations are very reminiscent of the strings on a musical instrument. In other words, all of creation consists of tiny strings of energy that is best represented by the human world of music. How poetic is that. 

If one examines, for example, the common themes in mythology throughout both time and place, we see ourselves in a mirror that no "ideology" can truly provide. For me again, however, Matthew is as wise and profound a Chapter as any one may absorb as a human being but there are wonderfully wise offerings in the Q'Uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bodhisattvas and others.

Matthew is interesting but for my money if you want to understand Christian theology the book of Romans is the one to read. If, after reading Romans, you want to know how to put the whole thing into practice, then the book of James will do that.

I own and have read portions of the Quran and I find it interesting although I think you might agree that if you are trying to avoid the prosaic then avoid the Quran. I also have great respect for the writings of the original Buddha.

As I said, science searches for truth in the natural, but the quest for the truth of what is outside the natural has been with us from the beginning of human history.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

I spend some time with Bill Unruh, (UBC) and he recommended Greene's books highly, if one was interested (or even convinced) in String Theory. Bill was not and there's a story behind that.

I will indeed find Romans and James in my NIV, thank you.

There is no "trouble with Dawkins", just like there's no trouble with the literalists. There is just what is and what is stated. Science is on Dawkins' side however in the sense that the historical paleographic record is clear and inspectable/veribiable by independant observers. Belief systems do not share that capacity at all and therefore are in an entirely different category.

Daniel Dennet, (Consciousness Explained, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Freedom Evolves), speaks of "skyhooks" and "cranes". Dennett uses a physical metaphor to help the reader see the notion. Design Space is the Landscape upon which these events (evolution) take place. He claims that these physical processes are absolutely related in the sense that, whether we know it or can see it, each development in evolution is connected or related to the previous one.

In short, there are no "blank spots", (regardless of whether we can discern them or not). Everything is connected. The metaphor he uses to describe this connectedness is "cranes". Cranes are visible features that allow one process to proceed to the next via a visible, inspectable step.

Contrary to this, the metaphor of "Skyhooks" is used to describe those physical events which, for whatever reason, are "invoked" or do not have demonstrable antecedents. Skyhooks "lift" without visible means of support (reasons or antecedents) and just carry an idea, a development or a capacity "from here, to over 'there' " without effort, without reason and without an inspectable process. Dennett says that can't be done and remain within the scientific discourse. Such "lifting capacity" is in the realm of belief, and, while valid in this way, (I believe he is a deeply spiritual man), has no meaning within the establishing of spiritual "fact". "God" for Dennett, is a skyhook notion. That is not disrespectful at all; It is a characterization of the Design Space in which these concepts/notions/capabilities are being discussed. Belief is not negated at all. It is however, characterized.

Design Space is populated with "mountain peaks" of development (let's say, in graphic, 3-dimensional format for example, things emerge "here" and "there", while they may not in other areas of the landscape) and while the mountains are connected at the bottom, (valleys) the higher development areas (peaks) appear "unconnected", yet, of course, they are, through their antecedents, the valley floors.

I'm describing this very poorly as Dennett develops these notions over many chapters, but if one can imagine such a metaphor, it may be useful to delineate the fundamental problems in this kind of a discussion and that is:

One cannot claim belief in Skyhooks and Cranes at one and the same time.

Dennett disagrees vehemently with Noam Chomsky for example. Chomsky claims that the "language organ" is innate, and as such is beyond conscious inspection, as are its roots and origin. Another wonderful scientist, Gregory Bateson, makes the observation that the processes of consciousness are also beyond conscious inspection. Its a fascinating problem.

Dennett claims that the language capacity, while perhaps innate, must have an origin that is "available". In other words, he dumps on Chomsky for employing Skyhooks to invoke the language organ.

The notion of "freedom" comes into this as well. If we are "products" of Cranes, then what does the notion of "freedom" and "free will" mean? To what degree are we "programmed" and to what degree can we inspect the "cranes" that got us here.

Wayyy too much for a sunny Saturday afternoon!!

Cheers,

Don

[GDR]

There is no "trouble with Dawkins", just like there's no trouble with the literalists. There is just what is and what is stated. Science is on Dawkins' side however in the sense that the historical paleographic record is clear and inspectable/veribiable by independant observers. Belief systems do not share that capacity at all and therefore are in an entirely different category.

I've only got two minutes so I'll just deal with this one issue.

I have no problems with Richard Dawkin's science. Where I have a problem with Dawkins is when he goes beyond science. I have no problem with his ideas concerning Darwin or evolution. I have no problem with evolution. Where I have a problem is where he goes outside the realm of science into so-called neo-Darwinism and proclaims, as a fact, that there is nothing beyond the physical. That is a philosophical or theological issue; it is not science.

You are correct when you say that we are dealing with belief issues, whether it be Theism or Atheism. Dawkins has attempted to extend his science into that realm of belief.

Cheers

Greg

[CanadaEH]

Hey Don just read the National Geographic article you posted earlier... I can't help but wonder "when" not "if" Vancouver will see that earthquake that's been predicted for years.........

[Don Hudson]

CanadaEH;

One sees bits and pieces of "preparation" around...the Oak Street Bridge is "bolted down" now to help stop it from leaving its moorings during the violent up-and-down motion of a subduction earthquake. You see some triangular reinforcing here and there and my overall impression is that City Hall has done a lot compared with the infighting and crap that can often delay or stop these kinds of responses. Remember, for politicians who desparately want re-election, spending money on non-visible, non-profitable items is anathema, so I have to hand out a bit of credit because a plan is in place. Hope we'll never see the test of their commitment.

Richmond is the highest risk area as we all know.

People will be cut off by the failure of power, cell phones, the bridges and, depending upon how far inland it goes, by rock avalanches in all the passes east of VR. The airport is on the same kind of land that Richmond is on and the ferries will not likely run. Fortunately the potential for a large tsunami is relatively small for Vancouver, but the West Coast island communities are completely open.

Already felt one here last year. Gives one vertigo for a few moments...

[GDR]

I spend some time with Bill Unruh, (UBC) and he recommended Greene's books highly, if one was interested (or even convinced) in String Theory. Bill was not and there's a story behind that.

The whole "string theory" thing is fascinating but it certainly is just theory. The other competing theory is "Loop Quantum Gravity". String theory comes out of quantum mechanics and LQG from the study of relativity. Greene figures that the two theories will both wind up being modified and will come to an agreement somewhere in between the two theories and result in a unified theory of everything. He's seems to be optimistic anyway, but others don't necessarily share his optimism.

If you want to read Greene I suggest his newest book "The Fabric of the Cosmos". It covers a broader range than does "The Elegant Universe" which is mostly devoted to string theory.

One cannot claim belief in Skyhooks and Cranes at one and the same time.

Interesting stuff. You do have a taste for the esoteric; don't you? I googled around and read more. I obviously like the fact that he is critical of Gould. I have to disagree with the statement that I have just quoted. It is a faith issue, but why can't the Skyhooks manipulate the Cranes.

To put the whole thing into more basic terms we know that evolutionary change is brought about primarily by genetic mutations. (At least that's how I understand it and I'm sure ccairspace will correct me if I'm wrong. ) Biologists have been able to demonstrate that these mutations occur, but the question of whether the changes occurred as a result of random chance, at the hand of a designer or a combination of the two is outside the realm of biology and is a faith issue. One could even take the position of the deist and say that the designer designed the world to design itself.

Dennett disagrees vehemently with Noam Chomsky for example. Chomsky claims that the "language organ" is innate, and as such is beyond conscious inspection, as are its roots and origin. Another wonderful scientist, Gregory Bateson, makes the observation that the processes of consciousness are also beyond conscious inspection. Its a fascinating problem.

This is an area in which I don't accept the claims of some evolutionists such as Dawkins. I accept that the most likely way that we have come to be what we are physically is through some form of evolution. I don't accept that our consciousness came about through an evolutionary process. There is a spark of something in us that is separate and distinct from the physical.

It is the age old question isn't it?

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Re

I have to disagree with the statement that I have just quoted. It is a faith issue, but why can't the Skyhooks manipulate the Cranes.

I understand that you would disagree with the statement for precisely the reasons given. It is indeed an issue of faith and belief and not an issue of evidence where such evidence is available to all. It is, in short, the fundamental difference between science and religion.

So no, skyhooks cannot manipulate the cranes. That's a basic misconception of the metaphor. For the scientific method, there must be evidence and traceability to antecedents. None of this rigour applies when one employs skyhooks because there is no demand to "look up" and see how things are or where they have come from. They are accepted on faith only.

There is of course, nothing wrong in this whatsoever. "Wrong" is not the issue here. But it is important to understand that they are not the same conversations. One is demonstrable and repeatable, (within the bounds of the possible) and the other is a deeply personal, psychic (not meant in the "astrology" sense, please...! ) phenomena which, while it has a profound reality for the individual, is nevertheless not necessarily profound for another.

One may array belief in many ways which do affect and draw one profoundly to emotional and possibly intellectual heights. All one need to is soak in the work of the great Renaissance artists, or the music of Bach and Handel or walk into thousand-plus year old cathedrals to "launch"... How that experience (some may call it 'revelation', epiphany and so on) relates to that spark in one, is beyond inspection but certainly not beyond interpretation. My point in observing for example, Joseph Campbell's work, is that mythologies of the world's peoples across the ages has something to say and while certainly not "inspectable" in the scientific sense, has, by clearly common themes, something to say to mankind with transcends science. Enquiry in this way does not threaten the spiritual sense, (although it certainly threatens a formal religious approach).

By "mythology" I do not mean in the 'false-but-allegorically-entertaining sense (the 'light' meaning), but in the humanistic sense described above. It is in this sense that ideology and religious dogma are transcended. Ideology, whether political, scientific or religious, is about control by others, not about knowledge and enquiry. That's why the notion of heresy (and understanding it) is so important, especially in religion. The moment there is a raised eyebrow, one knows an ideological transgression has occurred and one should run as fast as one can in the opposite direction.

On consciousness, there is an enormous amount of research available and ongoing which is delving into this psychic phenomena, (again, 'psychic' in the scientific sense). Where emotions "come from" is less and less a mystery and more a question of delineation and understanding. Why we seek mates and fall in love has been the subject of scientific inquiries on the molecular level for at least 30 years. What kid today doesn't know about pheromones? Ads on "smelling right" sell absolutely everything!

Certainly doesn't take the fun and that wonderful spark out of it though!

Always a pleasure, Greg. I'm away for the next week doing FDA work.

Don

[GDR]

So no, skyhooks cannot manipulate the cranes. That's a basic misconception of the metaphor. For the scientific method, there must be evidence and traceability to antecedents. None of this rigour applies when one employs skyhooks because there is no demand to "look up" and see how things are or where they have come from. They are accepted on faith only.

Hi Don

I agree that the study of skyhooks and cranes are separate issues. Those that study cranes are studying the physical and require physical evidence and that evidence is testable by empirical methods. Those that study skyhooks are are studying the metaphysical using metaphysical evidence and that evidence is not testable by empirical methods.

There are those like myself who find truth in both and find no contradiction between the two.

The big problem lies in the differences in the philosophical approach taken by Theists and Atheists. The Atheist starts from his predetermined position, (blik), that the metaphysical cannot exist and the only reality is what we can find using the empirical method. Theists start from the predetermined position, (blik), that the metaphysical does exist and therefore is a factor outside of what can be determined through the empirical testing.

Atheists find the position of Theists foolish and deluded, (opium of the masses), and an impediment to the advancement of the human intellect. Theists find the position of Atheists lacking in wisdom, in their acceptance of a universe that grew from nothing, that the design of this world and the universe does not require a designer, and that consciousness evolved from primordial sludge.

The real issue is what is truth. If there is a creator, then we should deal with life having that reality in mind. If there is no creator, then we have to continually work at defining our own reality.

while it has a profound reality for the individual, is nevertheless not necessarily profound for another.

I realize that we covered this previously, but independent of what I believe or what you believe, there is in the end only one reality. We all live out our own version of "Pilgrim's Progress” and as a result, no doubt ,all have something of the truth and miss the truth as often as not. Eventually however, there still is only one truth regardless of how profound our attachment is to our own conclusions.

A Theist finds ultimate truth in the mind and heart of a deity, whereas an Atheist finds ultimate truth in humaness and the physical.

One may array belief in many ways which do affect and draw one profoundly to emotional and possibly intellectual heights. All one need to is soak in the work of the great Renaissance artists, or the music of Bach and Handel or walk into thousand-plus year old cathedrals to "launch"... How that experience (some may call it 'revelation', epiphany and so on) relates to that spark in one, is beyond inspection but certainly not beyond interpretation.

How about Elvis? I agree that one can experience a sense of the spiritual through the arts. I think a far more profound spiritual experience is to be found in holding your child in your arms or in loving and being loved. Just the same though, that is not to be confused with a spiritual experience that brings together the physical and the metaphysical.

By "mythology" I do not mean in the 'false-but-allegorically-entertaining sense (the 'light' meaning), but in the humanistic sense described above. It is in this sense that ideology and religious dogma are transcended. Ideology, whether political, scientific or religious, is about control by others, not about knowledge and enquiry.

Hopefully ideology comes about as a result of knowledge and enquiry. I don't agree that ideology is about control by others. I would contend that it is the misuse of ideology, and individual bias, that is a control issue.

On consciousness, there is an enormous amount of research available and ongoing which is delving into this psychic phenomena, (again, 'psychic' in the scientific sense). Where emotions "come from" is less and less a mystery and more a question of delineation and understanding. Why we seek mates and fall in love has been the subject of scientific inquiries on the molecular level for at least 30 years. What kid today doesn't know about pheromones? Ads on "smelling right" sell absolutely everything!

I have read material that portends to show that human emotions have come about through natural means. Nothing of what I have read in this area is subject to testing by the scientific method, and as a result is just as much an issue of faith as my contention is that our emotions are a part of us that is something that is beyond the physical.

I'm probably boring everyone to tears, but on the other hand I enjoy the discussion and there are other threads available.

Thanks for your FDA work. It is an extremely valuable contribution to the aviation community.

Greg