What a speech given tonight....Meat & Potatoes boy's.

Check Mate....

Mf

Talk about a " walk off".....this woman is one helluva of a speaker...there is a lot of time before the election and anything can happen, but this ticket is going to be hard to beat. This selection is looking like a genious move by Mccain!!!!!

I'm sending my donation! Check's in the mail.

Biden better go find a rock to hide under. She's going to kill him in a debate!

Obama is probally cutting up a "line" as we speak..lol Just kidding, he's already snorted it!!

Did you happen to see the teleprompter she was reading it from? They showed it more than once. "hockey mom's 4 Palin!!"

It was me.....I did her in the pool room.

Nice speech too.

I was wondering just how sweaty the "boyfriends" hands were.
The dude looked a little uptight.
Looked like a rollaids moment.

You guys really thought she delivered that with no teleprompter?




And those that are big McCain supporters thought her speech was a home run?

Flabbergasting.

That's just it, this should be a landslide of epic proportion.
The polls just don't show that to be the case.

This country is ripped right down the middle.

Seemed to be a rural vs. urban taunt thrown out by Palin, unfortunatley acreage don't vote.

A little levity bro.
Uhhhh I ain't Todd.

Master debater.....

I agree. Sarah's going to blow Biden away in the Debate, he's in for a rough one.

Mf

I missed it, as I was digging out the balance of 560 feet of drainage ditch. It would make one hell of a fighting position!

I don't care what side of the ailse your on, that was one of the better politcal speeches I have heard in recent times. I saw a teleprompter, but it was moving much faster then she was talking and teleprompter or not, it was her timing and delivery that made that speech come off so well.

However, her statement about not accepting pork for the bridge to nowhere is pretty inaccurate. I think that is where she is going to be beat up by her opponents and the media.

She hit Obama pretty hard without making it look like a hatchet job. This will be fun to watch as the race continues.

I think its fun to watch the conservatives on here and elsewhere jack each other off over everything thier new dream ticket does. As was said earlier we shall have to wait and see.

I saw the teleprompter with rolling text before they quickly switched angles. No lie. Now, regarding Todd Palin, For 18 years, he worked for BP Oil in the North Slope oil fields of Alaska. He is also a commercial salmon fisherman at Bristol Bay on the Nushugak River. Maybe that won't have anything to do with anything, maybe it will, but what gets me most is the pot calling the kettle black.

"Christian-right leaders and conservative stalwarts have praised the decision of Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin, to carry her child to term. She is 17 and conceived this child out of wedlock. Now imagine she wasn't the daughter of a prominent Republican politician but an average person. Now imagine she was black.

What do you think conservatives would have to say about her? "Typical, urban youth with no sense of responsibility raised with loose morals who plans to depend on the state to take care of her child." You know it. It's not within dispute. That's exactly what they would say.

Cindy McCain was addicted to drugs and stole from her own charity to feed her addiction. Now what do you think the Republicans would have done if Michelle Obama had done that? How do you think the press would have covered it? You think they would have called it a simple mistake and moved on?

When presented with these examples, no matter who you are, you know in your heart that this double standard exists. All of this is not said to condemn Bristol Palin or Cindy McCain. This is to get you to think twice about your own assumptions about the next time you hear a story of a young African-American woman who got pregnant in the inner city or a minority who got addicted to drugs and committed a crime to feed that addiction.

There but for the grace of God go Bristol Palin and Cindy McCain."

I'm not even close to a conservative, just a proud middle of the road repub...Bro

It's time to get the Lead out....


Surely you watched the speach.

Mf

Straight from the mouth of Larry Craig.

Unfortunately BWP, Bristol is in the spotlight now and even though you and your friends would rather everyone look the other way and pretend it's not there, her mom has chosen to put her through this. She is no different than Jamie Spears. 17, unmarried (but soon to be in shotgun fashion) and preggers.

I think he yanks your chain for a reason, bwp..

Just a guess, though.

That picture is Rich!

Owned.....I mean boned!

A little from the field, water coming from Hwy 108, water coming from a shrub wetland. 40 year old ditch, just brought it back to where it needs to be, and was historically. Ran a transit on it to shoot some elevations (we have our own transit) and I am lowering the high spots and filling in the low spots. Only wet from December through early April.

She said nothing about where she stands on the issues. NO PLAN. More of the same ! Just negative statements. No experience. No foreign policy experience. Nothing on the crappy economy. Rudy Guilaini said nothing of substance either. Run and Hide from the issues.

"John McCain was wrong.

Barack Obama was right."

Joe Biden

Bring It On

Yay.

That was funny! Sorry.

Biden is a tool of the highest degree.

Again.

Yay.

Ron Paul 2008

After the speech, one of Palins Alaska assistants was interviewed. He mentions that she is not a rookie in debates. She went up again Frank Murkowski for the governor of Alaska and beat him. He was in the US Senate for 22 years. Apparently she won the debate.

In regards to the comments regarding the telepromter etc. The real cheap shot came from the media on NBC and CNN who both brought up the fact that the speech was written for her. Duh. But they never mention that in regards to other politicians during the conventions. The governor of Hawaii also gave a speech, that was probably written for her. Probably the most boring speech I ever heard.

I was struck by how much of her time she spent talking about the most important topic to Republicans...Obama. Again.

Besides saying we need to drill in ANWR, and that we should be very, very afraid of terrorists, all the time, she didn't say anything of any real substance.

A good speaker...yes...but that doesn't mean she actually said anything.

She ought not be touting her crackdowns on corruption and anti-pork resume...it's all public record, and it will come back to haunt her.

I'd give her a B-...maybe a straight up B, just because she delivered it well.

Fish on...

Todd

politics smolitics, Cindy McCain is one hot GILF...id love to have her naked on my couch right now...

Fish, I reject the "disprove the negative example approach" You apparently dont think much of the people on this forum. Its not about black or white. KIDS are kids. All kinds of family rules and church are training for matters much more than just premarital sex. There are ten commandments and many of them have become Law. You have the left, that wants to sexualize kids in kindergarten. Ironically, communism is just like that. No morals what so ever. Gays included. Religion is the enemy to communism. When the central govt becomes the master of all people, people lose. Except Barney Frank. Did he really not know his boyfriend ran a prostituion ring out of their apartment? Steny Hoier had sex with an underage boy, if memory serves. And the congressman Jeffers? with 90,000 dollars in his freezer? ON hold. It would be nice if a championship sports team can win the title and next morning get up and not have to rebuild the city. Well behaved children are unique and rare.

BTW, Obamas mother was Eghteen when she delivered. The black community as a whole, is more religious than whites. They are vastly prolife. But in addition to religiion, you need two parents. I dont know why they leave so often. A young girl without a father is more likely to look for a father substitute and teenage boyfriends are not ready. Govt should not try to be a surogate father to unwed mothers.

Are Sara and Todd Palin required to be perfect? If you teach your kid to drive and he has an accident, is it your fault? You also left out. Betty Ford, Judy Garland, Marylin Monroe, Mrs. Michael Dukakis, Rush Limbaugh. Dont worry about the people who set goals and fall short. Worry about the people without goals.

If I had any doubts about the vice presidential candidates prior to Sarah Palin's speech, they're gone now. They got manikins in Japan that could have delivered that speech with more genuine emotion than Palin. I used to think that Hillary Clinton was as cold as a winter wind, but compared to Sarah Palin, Hillary is a veritable heat wave. If Palin had lost her reading glasses, tonight, she would have been speechless. Although Im not a big Hillary fan, I'd pay to watch her kick Palin's arse back to Anchorage in a debate. On the entertainment scale, that event would fall somewhere between the"Thrilla in Manila" and "Jerry Springer RAW".

Clearly, Palin's speech was aimed at two bastions of Republican support, non-thinkers and the Republicans who think George Bush is the greatest president since Richard Nixon. 'Scuse the redundancy.

Two areas of Republican hypocrisy were patently blatant tonight. McCain's military experience was underscored and he was touted as "the only candidate who has fought for his country." In the last election, Republicans "swiftboated" a decorated Vietnam veteran. They denigrated his patriotism, his service to his country, and his valor. They promoted a hookey playing member of the National Guard in absentia, instead.

During the first night of the Democratic National Convention, Michelle Obama focused much of her speech on her family, her husband, and her marriage. Her speech was characterized by Republican supporters as "light-weight ", absent of issues and solutions. Tonight, Palin did little in her appearance but chide her opponents, and showcase the strangeness of her family. This was praised by Republicans proponents as a brilliant strategy to connect their vice presidential candidate with middle and small town America. I was raised on a family farm in Iowa; my wife grew up in a small Eastern WA town. There was no connection.

John McCain has got a serious case of electile dysfunction, and Sarah Palin is not going to change that.

"Sarah Palin was absolutely amazing! A refreshing canidate, who knows all there is to know about Alaska Oil. And at the same time a no holds bar stand up for what you believe in sort. A REAL person for a change."

Sounds like someone stepped right up and took a big swig of the ole' Kool-Aid.

You actually listen to her, or just stare at her chest for 30 minutes?


Damn, Cedar! Well put.

KK, I know your kidding but just for grins, tell us which ones Biden wrote, that he didnt copy from someone else.......

Does that include the 273 children who were murdered in that event? Do you drink koolaide out of syringe?

Cunning linguist.

bwp, stop gnawing your toothless gums on KK's ankles. Like you've ever stayed on topic in a political thread before.... Your rambling remarks remind me of a drunken blind man trying to smell his way to a whorehouse. Poor sot keeps ending up at the cannery, and can't figure out why no one will answer the door....

Her and Palin in a tag team match!



Okay, it is a pellet gun, but what's not to like?

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black....

I thought it was boring, just my 2 cents...It was kind of one of the speeches where a lot of talking but nothing being said...no feeling to the speech..I'm still for Obama

I find it nothing short of amusing when a person complains about how candidates repeatedly badmouth other candidates. Especially the ones who seem to be completely supportive of one party regardless of the person ruinning for it. I seem to recall a certain Hillary Clinton bashing the hell out of Obama for a year or more while running for the candidacy. Then pulling a 180 and speaking praises of the man and how he would be the best thing to happen to this country as president. Hmm... poitics at work here? Maybe just a little. Both parties are going to do what will make them look best to the voting public. In the Dems case it was having a woman who had gained the support of a huge number of incumbents and voters, withdrawing and basically handing over all her cards to Obama with a sopportive hand. For the Repubs they needed to someone to relate to the public and get them off the idea that McCain is too old to be president for this country. That was Palin. This country is not ready for a woman to be president yet. So what better way to prepare them for that than to have a woman be VP? Seems like one hell of a strategy to me. By the time that Palin is ready to run for President she will have become a household name by simply being VP and just like with Hilary or "Bilary," whichever you prefer, will have already gained a popular vote. Women will vote women regardless. Unless they have been personally attacked by her and have some reason to hate her, they will like her because she has power. And women live to support other women who have more power than a man. What better way to gain that support than by having a female VP at your side to come out guns blazing and yelling to high hell about anything? Excellent strategy on McCains part if you ask me. Even better strategy is Palin's approach to the mud thrown in her face about her daughter. Openly admitting that her family is screwed up and disfunctional. That just covered 80% of American families. You just gained a relationship with all those people regardless of whether or not they planned on voting for you. People like to be able to relate to something because it makes them comfortable. How many times have you been somewhere and you see something familiar in an unfamiliar place? Immediately you have something common ground to talk about that you know about. It is a powerful thing.

I gave up on pep rallies when I graduated from high school so I haven't watched any of either convention. If I wanted a hand job, I'd do it myself.

She never stuttered , that was refreshing. McCain, however will struggle with the teleprompter tonight and have a real tough time if he expects to out perform Palin's delivery.

As far as Palin is concerned, my thoughts go something like this.

She is a long time Alaskan and she is a hunter.




She knows and understands issues affecting hunters, both natural and legislative.
Her parents are serious hunters as well.




She has been raised in a family that understands and loves the outdoors and holds hunting as a very important part of their lives.
Lefties want to paint Palin as someone who wants to rape and pillage the environment .

Contrast that with two slick urban politicians that don't know jack shitt about hunting, fishing & the outdoors and the issues that affect us sportsmen.
These guy's feet never leave the asphalt.
I feel that they could really care less about anything that has to do with hunting other than it is something that some of their constituants and financial contributors want them to do away with.

Her ties to commercial fishing may be troublesome for some of you, Is she responsible in her views on ocean harvest or does she just want to ravage the sea?
I have not heard what her commercial fishing policies are.
I disagree with her religous beliefs.
However you cannot deny that Palin is much more in touch with wildlife issues than either Obama or Biden.

So are Cletus and Jethro out at the Skok. You'll find them out at Matlock on opening day of deer season, too.

And neither one of them is remotely qualified to do anything more than hunt and fish.

How this makes Palin a better candidate is beyond me. She's a f'n gillnet lover. Bycatching gillnet lover. Catch all the fish your state is trying to protect down here gillnet lover.

Great.

they said on tv that the speech was written by bush's head speech writer for who ever was running for vice-president and change to fit her. remember if she becomes vice president she would be one heart beat form being president. is she ready for that of course that is what i wonder about the other one too.

Well, I don't know it there is anyone on the ballot that is "ready" to run this country. And I don't think anyone is popular enough to do the things that this country needs to have done to make things right.

Fixed that typo for you.

Thanks, that'll work too.

Always refreshing to see people expounding their epertise about a person who they've only known about for a week. Bash the hell of a person who you know nothing about. Pretty much just sounds like fear of the unknown.

I loved her speach. Many will say there was no substance which may be true but this was her first time on that stage. She needed to bring the house down and she did.

As far as the issues that need to be addressed like the economy, jobs, etc. We have 2 more months for all the debates and we'll get to see what they have to offer. I'll wait until I know more before making any judgements. I'm not going to spout off as if I know it all based on one week's worth of media bashing and one speach trying to defuse some of that.

It seems to me the the media are doing their job. At least most of them....

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

Not really sure why people who didn't know who she was a week ago are such fervent defenders now.

Are you a "Moveon.org" paid hack?

Once Palin's daughter pops her kid out, Palin will take the #1 spot on my gilf list!

SARAH PALIN'S QUALIFICATIONS

Did you know that…

Sarah Palin does not have 5 kids, she actually has 7. Their names are Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig, Chuck Norris, and Jack Bauer.

The Northern Lights are really just the reflection from Sarah Palin’s eyes.

The Russians sold Alaska to America because Sarah Palin would not submit to autocracy.

The Arctic Circle runs through Alaska so the Sun can have some relief from Sarah Palin’s bright glare.

Sarah Palin is allowed first dibs on Alaskan wolfpack kills.

Sarah Palin is so pro-life that she personally hog-tied two reps from Planned Parenthood who came knocking at her door.

It’s not raining in DC. Those are God’s tears of joy that McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin’s hotness is the largest single contributor to melting polar ice caps.

Sarah Palin is the “other” whom Yoda spoke about.

Sarah Palin’s presence in the lower 48 means the Arctic ice cap can finally return.

Sarah Palin fired Jack Bauer because he was too soft in dealing with terrorists.

Sarah Palin’s pageant career ended early so other women could have a chance.

Sarah Palin’s son Track is going to Iraq after the Surge, because a Palin during the Surge would have been unfair.

Sarah Palin wears glasses lest her uncontrollable optic blasts slaughter everyone. (X-Men reference)

Sarah Palin actually has Big Foot in her freezer.

Sarah Palin gave a speech in Texas after her water broke before flying home to Alaska to give birth. (Actually true)

Sarah Palin doesn’t need a gun to hunt. She has been known to throw a bullet through an adult bull elk.

Sarah Palin once spilled coffee on Joe Biden & one of his $400 ties from Pink.

Sarah Palin keeps her hair in a beehive to hide her ninja weaponry.

Sarah Palin will personally open a homemade can of whoopass on Ahmadinejad, Putin, and Chavez as soon as she’s done making mooseburgers for her kids.

A grizzly bear once tried to stare down Sarah Palin. Once.

Sarah Palin will send Joe Biden a pre-debate cheat sheet. The sheet will have tips on defending against Kung Fu Death Grip.

Sarah Palin became governor because five children left her with too much spare energy.

Sarah Palin will give birth to the man who will lead humanity’s war against the machines. (Terminator reference)

Three of Sarah Palin’s 5 kids came out sideways and she never flinched.

Global Warming doesn’t kill polar bears. Sarah Palin does. Generally with her bare hands.

Sarah Palin was the original “Deadliest Catch.”

Sarah Palin paid her way through school by hunting for Kodiak pelts with a slingshot.

Alaska is the 49th state solely because they knew even in 1959 that Sarah Palin never finishes last.

Chuck Norris wishes he was Sarah Palin trapped in a man’s body.

Sarah Palin got Tom Brady pregnant, and then left him.

Sarah Palin killed and ate the Grizzly Man.

Sarah Palin killed and ate Frank Murkowski.

Sarah Palin once won the Iditarod without any dogs. She simply willed the sled to victory.

Sarah Palin wears half the makeup that John Edwards wears and still looks like twice the woman he does.

Sarah Palin once guided Santa’s sleigh through an Alaskan blizzard with the light from her smile.

Sarah Palin fishes salmon by convincing them it’s in their interest to jump into the boat.

Did someone just ripoff the Chuck Norris website and change all the names to Sarah Palin?

I'm out, Stam. I inhaled.







A bunch of times.

Damn. The cap must have stayed on the acetone can at EAR, today. That was beautiful.

She's not Thursday material, but this photo should have accompanied the this thread title in the first post.

Congratulations then. You are the expert. Let us all know who to vote for so we can vote for the correct party. Dig into any one of these people and you'll find some mud. It's just always better when you can sling it at the other side. I'm no R so don't get me wrong. Just saying the resident experts on here seem to know it all. Makes the average person a bit nauseaus sometimes though..

I can't vote for McCain because of these last 8 years and I won't vote for Obama because of his stand on many issues. But, she was pretty refreshing to listen to and I'll still hold judgement until a later date. I don't need the smartest person on earth in the white house. Just someone smart enough to fill the cabinet with the right advisors.

LOL Word....

That makes 50% idiots vote, that's probally a good thing.

I'd love to see an average person get voted in. Maybe then we'd see solutions for the average people of this country. Right now it doesn't matter which side gets elected because they'll spend the next 4 years paying off their big money donors.

I think when you refer to idiots you are referring to less than average folks? Unless you consider yourself average and the rest of us inferior.

What time you meeting Blades ?

Flat busted? Maybe not

Flat chested.....Definetly!

Stammy, You know I admire you and consider you a friend, but I will disagree on this one.
I can understand how you draw your conclusions.
As far as hunting goes, the problem of supply/demand is exactly the reason that all western states have gone to lottery draw/preference point systems.
I'll agree that it ain't the "good old days" where you just load up the truck and go where you want.
Hell There are some primo deer & elk units in Colorado that take 14 points (years) to draw.
I refuse to hunt the general tag areas.
This year I applied for hunts in nine states trying to secure a hunt for the fall, and drew one.
If I can't draw limited entry areas I stay home.
As far as deer hunting goes, I am one of the lucky ones that get to hunt private land close to home for free.

Every single hunting oriented conservation organization endorses Republican candidates for predident.

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Foundation For North American Wild Sheep
Mule Deer Foundation
The Boone & Crockett Club
Ducks Unlimited
Wild Turkey Federation
Safari Club International
Grand Slam Club
etc...

These organizations have provided incredible protection for the environment, wildlife and the crucial habitat that it requires AND protection of the our hunting heriage.

I still don't buy the Todd analagy though. you know the one that says " there is nothing left to hunt in the post Bush barren wasteland."

Try as I might I just cannot find a comfortable place among the hard left liberals.
I despise the racist concept of affirmative action.
When healthcare is socialized, my hard earned benefit package (read wages, is devalued)
I don't believe gays need more rights than the rest of us (hate crime legislation) though I could care less about civil unions or gay marriage.
I don't believe that the bar should be lowered in society so that women can make the team (police, fire fighters ,military) Though certainly they have valuable positions there.
I still hate hippies and the way they try to jam their utopian beliefs down my throat.
And yes, the treehuggers that are trying to reduce my hunting opportunities are all democrats.
The handgun & assault weapons mean nothing to me but the second ammendment has absolutley NOTHING to do with hunting.

The support of republicans based on a love of hunting is indeed a double edged sword.
As long as the major hunting based conservation based organizations that I belong to continue to back them however, I will find it very difficult to go the other way.

Sal - I'm curious as to whether those organizations support Republican cantidates because they are many times less likely to instigate gun ownership restrictions, or for another reason?

I've always felt Republicans have a much poorer track record when it comes to protecting the areas and animals we hunt, but they do defend our right to possess the weapons with which we hunt. It's unfortunate that there aren't more cantidates from either party that have an overlapping interest in both.

Otherwise I share the majority of your beliefs, with the exception of health care.... Since I don't have a plan in place to devalue, the idea of having access to one at a reasonable price is very appealing. I would hope that any steps taken in that direction involve benefits for the people already covered, for instance if your plan was suddenly worth less than theoretically that's because it should cost your employer less, which should mean they could pay you the difference in actual wages. Unlikely perhaps, but certainly reasonable.

As for the police and military type jobs you mentioned, or really with any job for that matter, a persons suitability for the tasks their position requires should be viewed without consideration of gender. Has there been a move to make police and firefighter jobs more available to women via a lessening of physical requirements?

Back during the height of affirmative action, I had a freind who was trying very hard to be a police officer. He said he went to one of the applications / tryouts where there were several women present. During the sit up section you were required to do so many in 2 minutes, he said he barely made it because they didn't count a ton of his as they said he didn't touch good enough or long enough at the top. Next to him was woman who couldn't do it. When she started to cry (no kidding), they told her not to worry, it didn't matter if "she" could do them. They would give extra points for being ex-military, a minority, female, etc. My freind never did get hired. At forty-two, he still is in good enough shape to go hike a 60 mile hike, climb liberty ridge, and rock climb. I also remember a problem one of the local fire departments was having during this time. It seems that some African-American firemen felt that their counterparts were apprehensive of them. They did a survey and found out that a large percentage were indeed uncomfortable as they felt some were not as qualified. The solution was to make everyone attend diversity training. If I remember right the total possible points on a test was either 120 or 100. Women got 10 extra, minorities got 10, and military got 10. That means a white male could score 120 and be beat by a black, ex-military woman who scored 91. If they were being nicer on the tests, there is no way she is as qualified as the white male. Maybe more qualified then most people, just not as qualified at the best. As a result, anyone who could have qualified with less points, but did not necessarily need them, was treated with suspicion. I had a business acquaintance that told me this happened to him. Every where he went it took a couple of weeks before anyone would treat him ok. He said as a result he would work twice as hard and long as anyone else. In the end, when he moved on he said the guys trusted him so much they actually told him that it sucked because he was replaced by "one of the affirmative action guys".

This is what a political discussion should look like.

If people had frank disussions about their interests, their concerns, and their proposed solutions instead of sniping each other over preachers and teen pregnancy, we'd get problems solved in this country.

But there's always some Dick Morris or Karl Rove motherf'er that will send the discussion to hell in a handbasket by screaming about the small differences and whispering about that which we have in common. That's the only way the two major parties can stay on top.

Recently while I was at work, I was sent an email about the "treatment of pregnant women in the work place." I saw it and thought, "What a crock of shiat!" Now I unerstand that there should be a level bar set for everyone in the, as it is only fair that everyone has a chance. But this sort of thing is why for over two hundred years women were not allowed in the military. Sometimes there is just some things that shouldn't change. You asked about the physical requirements of females vs. males. Well the military is quite possibly the worst advocate of "making it easier" for woman to do the same things. Every single physical challenge and requirement is set on a different level. If I have to do 30 push ups, she only has to do 17, and with her knees on the ground. If I have to 60 situps in 90 seconds, she only has to do 30 in 60 seconds. You get my point I am sure. The military also will give preference to females and minorities for just about everything. Getting into Officer Candidate programs, flight school, college programs, etc. If there is a chance for someone to say, "I did not get in because I was black, purple, mexican, Puerto Rican, female and pregnant." Then you better believe that there is going to be preference made for all the above mentioned. I know people that have had to flat out lie just to get in the service because the military is such a strong advocate. If you are a guy, unless you are a minority, you are going to wait up to one year to get in the service. If you are a minoroty or a woman, then you could shipped out for boot camp inside the week. Regardless of whether you meet the physical standards. That is a fact. Don't let anyone else tell ya different. I have seen it with my own eyes and witnessed my best friend, who is a recruiter for the Marine Corp HAVE to do it. We are no longer a country based on strength because the best of the best are defending it and building it.

I guess we can all settle down for now, continue after the debates...I believe that will show true face.

I really liked her speech and her passion. The only thing that scares me is........


THE PEBBLE CREEK MINE!


What position does she take on that?

Out of context.
Women DO INDEED serve an absolutley crucial role in law enforcement as do people of diverse ethnic backrounds.
I have just had it with the certain notion that some radical feminists seem to have that men and women are PHYSICALLY equal.
The sexes were NOT created equal.
The physical requirements for first responders should never be lowered so that women can "fit in".
The whole affirmative action thing boils my blood too.
Preference points for race?
Unless of course you are white.
Seriously?

BWP,

Don't get your panties in a bunch. The amount of people sent out and when in the military is a direct relation to the location. Fact of the matter is, you stand a white guy and a whatever guy/gal (anything but white, except for the gal) and guess who is going. I know plenty of people that have gone to the military, name the branch, and said I want to go and have been shipped as fast as the recruiter can route paper work. But I also have seen with my own two eyes, a person with a Bachelors degree, walk into a recruiters office. Tell them they want to enlist, and get turned down, because some retard with an ASVAB (that is the entry test to determine what you can do in the military) score so low it wouldn't fly if you folded the paper it was printed on into an airplane, walk in within a day of said individual and get shipped out the next week because they were a minority or a woman. That is where the system is flawed. And if you can't see that then you are either blind or refusing to see what is right in front of you. I am not picking a bone with you BWP, but I think you just like to argue sometimes. It is OK though. I have a little brother like that, so I know how to handle folks like that.


And dear god please don't misconstrue this as a race issue. Think of it more as a debate.

Since you see racism and sexism everywhere you look, it's safe to assume that "They" are watching you through your television, and listening to your thoughts.

Be Careful.

I couldn't agree more. I've heard that a hat made of aluminum will "foil" their efforts.

Oh, you're already wearing one. Good Call.

A wire noddle strainer will well also I am told.

Grilled PB&J mmmmm......

* 2 teaspoons butter
* 2 slices white bread
* 1 tablespoon peanut butter
* 2 tablespoons blackberry or strawberry jam


DIRECTIONS

1. Heat griddle or skillet to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C).
2. Spread butter on one side of each slice of bread. Spread peanut butter on unbuttered side of one slice of bread, and jelly on the other. Place one slice, buttered side down on the griddle. Top with other slice, so that peanut butter and jelly are in the middle. Cook for 4 minutes on each side, or until golden brown, and heated through.

A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other

Unlike most libertarians, I don't have an opinion on gay marriage, and I'm not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I had an interesting discussion last night with another libertarian about it, which devolved into an argument about a certain kind of liberal/libertarian argument about gay marriage that I find really unconvincing.

Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.

A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. "Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual"

To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one's masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.

To which, again, the other side replies "That's ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!"

Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!" This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can't justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he's only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened in America just the same.

This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn't. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.

However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. "I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted."

They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.

Let me take three major legal innovations, one of them general, two specific to marriage.

The first, the general one, is well known to most hard-core libertarians, but let me reprise it anyway. When the income tax was initially being debated, there was a suggestion to put in a mandatory cap; I believe the level was 10 percent.

Don't be ridiculous, the Senator's colleagues told him. Americans would never allow an income tax rate as high as ten percent. They would revolt! It is an outrage to even suggest it!

Many actually fought the cap on the grounds that it would encourage taxes to grow too high, towards the cap. The American people, they asserted, could be well counted on to keep income taxes in the range of a few percentage points.

Oops.

Now, I'm not a tax-crazy libertarian; I don't expect you to be horrified that we have income taxes higher than ten percent, as I'm not. But the point is that the Senators were completely right--at that time. However, the existance of the income tax allowed for a slow creep that eroded the American resistance to income taxation. External changes--from the Great Depression, to the technical ability to manage withholding rather than lump payments, also facilitated the rise, but they could not have without a cultural sea change in feelings about taxation. That "ridiculous" cap would have done a much, much better job holding down tax rates than the culture these Senators erroneously relied upon. Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.

Another example is welfare. To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as "Widows and orphans pensions", which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be--and was--a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who's spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant's meeting: housewives, don't shake your dustcloths out of the windows--other wives don't want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don't walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.

Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C'mon said the activists. That's just silly. I just can't imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.

Oooops.

Of course, change didn't happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in "the negro family" (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Possibly one of the most moving moments in Jason de Parle's absolutely wonderful book, American Dream, which follows three welfare mothers through welfare reform, is when he reveals that none of these three women, all in their late thirties, had ever been to a wedding.

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakeable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

This argument is compelling and logical. I would never become an unwed welfare mother, even if benefits were a great deal higher than they are now. It seems crazy to even suggest that one would bear a child out of wedlock for $567 a month. Indeed, to this day, I find the reformist side much more persuasive than the conservative side, except for one thing, which is that the conservatives turned out to be right. In fact, they turned out to be even more right than they suspected; they were predicting upticks in illegitimacy that were much more modest than what actually occurred--they expected marriage rates to suffer, not collapse.

How did people go so badly wrong? Well, to start with, they fell into the basic fallacy that economists are so well acquainted with: they thought about themselves instead of the marginal case. For another, they completely failed to realise that each additional illegitimate birth would, in effect, slightly destigmatise the next one. They assigned men very little agency, failing to predict that women willing to forgo marriage would essentially become unwelcome competition for women who weren't, and that as the numbers changed, that competition might push the marriage market towards unwelcome outcomes. They failed to forsee the confounding effect that the birth control pill would have on sexual mores.

But I think the core problems are two. The first is that they looked only at individuals, and took instititutions as a given. That is, they looked at all the cultural pressure to marry, and assumed that that would be a countervailing force powerful enough to overcome the new financial incentives for out-of-wedlock births. They failed to see the institution as dynamic. It wasn't a simple matter of two forces: cultural pressure to marry, financial freedom not to, arrayed against eachother; those forces had a complex interplay, and when you changed one, you changed the other.

The second is that they didn't assign any cultural reason for, or value to, the stigma on illegitimacy. They saw it as an outmoded vestige of a repressive Victorial values system, based on an unnatural fear of sexuality. But the stigma attached to unwed motherhood has quite logical, and important, foundations: having a child without a husband is bad for children, and bad for mothers, and thus bad for the rest of us. So our culture made it very costly for the mother to do. Lower the cost, and you raise the incidence. As an economist would say, incentives matter.

(Now, I am not arguing in favor of stigmatising unwed mothers the way the Victorians did. I'm just pointing out that the stigma did not exist merely, as many mid-century reformers seem to have believed, because of some dark Freudian excesses on the part of our ancestors.)

But all the reformers saw was the terrible pain--and it was terrible--inflicted on unwed mothers. They saw the terrible unfairness--and it was terribly unfair--of punishing the mother, and not the father. They saw the inherent injustice--and need I add, it was indeed unjust--of treating American citizens differently because of their marital status.

But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Now, of course, this can turn into a sort of precautionary principle that prevents reform from ever happening. That would be bad; all sorts of things need changing all the time, because society and our environment change. But as a matter of principle, it is probably a bad idea to let someone go mucking around with social arrangements, such as the way we treat unwed parenthood, if their idea about that institution is that "it just growed". You don't have to be a rock-ribbed conservative to recognise that there is something of an evolutionary process in society: institutional features are not necessarily the best possible arrangement, but they have been selected for a certain amount of fitness.

It might also be, of course, that the feature is what evolutionary biologists call a spandrel. It's a term taken from architecture; spandrels are the pretty little spaces between vaulted arches. They are not designed for; they are a useless, but pretty, side effect of the physical properties of arches. In evolutionary biology, spandrel is some feature which is not selected for, but appears as a byproduct of other traits that are selected for. Belly buttons are a neat place to put piercings, but they're not there because of that; they're a byproduct of mammalian reproduction.

However, and architect will be happy to tell you that if you try to rip out the spandrel, you might easily bring down the building.

The third example I'll give is of changes to the marriage laws, specifically the radical relaxation of divorce statutes during the twentieth century.

Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband's last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.

There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn't have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?

Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.

That's ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!

Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.

There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when "no fault" divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.

What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.

A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment; you're making a lifetime committment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn't mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice.

Three laws. Three well-meaning reformers who were genuinely, sincerely incapable of imagining that their changes would wreak such institutional havoc. Three sets of utterly logical and convincing, and wrong arguments about how people would behave after a major change.

So what does this mean? That we shouldn't enact gay marriage because of some sort of social Precautionary Principle

No. I have no such grand advice.

My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

Is this post going to convince anyone? I doubt it; everyone but me seems to already know all the answers, so why listen to such a hedging, doubting bore? I myself am trying to draw a very fine line between being humble about making big changes to big social institutions, and telling people (which I am not trying to do) that they can't make those changes because other people have been wrong in the past. In the end, our judgement is all we have; everyone will have to rely on their judgement of whether gay marriage is, on net, a good or a bad idea. All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision. I realise that this probably falls on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces, and I'm sorry, but I can't help that. This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I'm asking it from my side too, in approaching social ones. I think the approach is consistent, if not exactly popular.

Update A number of libertarians are, as I predicted, making the "Why don't we just privatise marriage?" argument. I don't find that useful in the context of the debate about gay marriage in America, where marriage is simply not going to be privatised in any foreseeable near-term future. I wrote an immediate follow up saying just that, but of course, I got a lot of readers from an Instalanche, which I didn't expect (no one expects an Instalanche!), and they just read the one post. So the second post is here; if you are thinking of making the argument that we should just get the state out of the marriage business, please read it.

Also, a lot of readers are saying that I'm wrong about marriage always being between a man and a woman, citing polygamy. I have been told this is a "basic factual error."

No, it's not. Polygamous societies do not (at least in any society I have ever heard about) have group marriages. Men with more than one wife have multiple marriages with multiple women, not a single marriage with several wives. In fact, they generally take pains to separate the women, preferably in different houses. Whether or not you allow men to contract for more than one marriage (and for all sorts of reasons, this seems to me to be a bad idea unless you're in an era of permanent war), each marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Document:
Boldt Decision

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al., Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, Thor C. Tollefson, Director, Washington State Department of Fisheries, et al., Intervenor-Defendants

Civ. No. 9213

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, TACOMA DIVISION

384 F. Supp. 312; 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12291


February 12, 1974

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1]

On Question Per Reconsideration Motion March 22, 1974.

COUNSEL: Stan Pitkin, U.S. Atty., Stuart F. Pierson, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Washington, for the U.S.; George D. Dysart, Asst. Regional Sol., U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Portland, Oregon, of counsel.

David H. Getches, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colorado, and John H. Sennhauser, Legal Services Center, Seattle, Washington, for Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of Indians, Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Stillaguamish Indian Tribe.

Alvin J. Ziontz, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset & Ernstoff, Seattle, Washington, for Makah Indian Tribe, Lummi Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe.

Michael Taylor, Taholah, Washington, for Quinault Tribe of Indians.

James B. Hovis, Hovis, Cockrill & Roy, Yakima, Washington, for Yakima Indian Tribe.

Lester Stritmatter, Stritmatter & Stritmatter, Hoquiam, Washington, for Hoh Tribe of Indians.

William A. Stiles, Jr., Sedro-Woolley, Washington, for Upper Skagit River Tribe.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Atty. Gen., Olympia, Washington, for State of Washington.

Joseph Larry Coniff, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Game, Olympia, Washington, [**2] for Game Defendants & Carl Crouse.

Earl R. McGimpsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington, for Thor Tollefson.

David E. Rhea, Amundson, Rhea & Atwood, Bellingham, Washington, for Washington, Reef Net Owners Ass'n.

Lawrence C. Smith, Smith, Smith & Smith, Spokane, Washington, for amicus curiae The Ass'n of Northwest Steelheaders, Inc.

William N. Moloney, Davis, Wright, Todd, Riese & Jones, Seattle, Washington, for amicus curiae Washington, State Sportsmen's Council, Inc.

T. J. Jones, III, Sp. Counsel, Jones & Jones, Boise, Idaho, for amicus curiae Idaho Fish and Game Dept.

JUDGES: Boldt, Senior District Judge.

OPINIONBY: BOLDT

OPINION: [*326]
INDEX
Page
(Per typed text)
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 327
II. ESTABLISHED BASIC FACTS AND
LAW 330
III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 332
IV. STATE REGULATION OF OFF RES-
ERVATION TREATY RIGHT FISH-
ING 334
V. RULINGS ON MAJOR ISSUES 339
VI. FINDINGS OF FACT: 348
A. Treaty Status of Plaintiff Tribes 348
B. Pretreaty Fishing Among North-
west Indians 350
C. Treaty Background 353
D. Negotiation and Execution of the
Treaties 355
E. Post Treaty Indian Fishing 357
F. Historic and Present Status of
Each Plaintiff Tribe: 359
1. Hoh Tribe 359
2. Lummi Tribe 360
3. Makah Tribe 363
4. Muckelshoot Tribe 365
5. Nisqually Tribe 367
6. Puyallup Tribe 370
7. Quileute Tribe 371
8. Quinault Tribe 374
9. Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 375
10. Skokomish Tribe 376
11. Squaxin Island Tribe 377
12. Stillaguamish Tribe 378
13. Upper Skagit River Tribe 379
14. Yakima Nation 379
G. General Fisheries Conservation
and Management 382
H. Department of Fisheries Policies
and Practices 389
I. Department of Game Policies and
Practices 393
VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 399
VIII. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
DECREE 405
XI. RULINGS ON FISHERIES' RECON-
SIDERATION MOTION QUESTIONS 408
X. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
RULINGS THEREON 412
XI. INJUNCTION 413
XII. INTERIM PLAN AND STAY ORDER
PENDING FINAL DECISION ON
APPEAL 420
Note: FD - Final Decision #I
FF - Findings of Fact
CofL - Conclusions of Law
DCJ&D - Declaratory Judgment & Decree
[**3]

[*327] STATEMENT OF THE CASE

BOLDT, Senior District Judge.

In September, 1970 the United States, on its own behalf and as trustee for several Western Washington Indian Tribes, n1 later joined as intervenor plaintiffs by additional tribes, n2 filed the complaint initiating this action against the State of Washington. Shortly later the State Department of Fisheries (Fisheries) and the State Game Commission (Game), their respective directors, and the Washington Reef Net Owners Association (Reef Net Owners) were included as defendants. By state statute Fisheries is charged with exercising regulatory authority over fishing for all anadromous food fish. Regulation of anadromous steelhead trout is vested in Game. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 concerning off reservation treaty right fishing within the case area by plaintiff tribes, which long has been and now is in controversy, and for injunctive [*328] relief to provide enforcement of those fishing rights as they previously have been or herein may be judicially determined. The case area is that portion of the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains and north of the Columbia [**4] River drainage area, and includes the American portion of the Puget Sound watershed, the watersheds of the Olympic Peninsula north of the Grays Harbor watershed, and the offshore waters adjacent to those areas.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Hoh Tribe; Makah Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe; Nisqually Tribe; Puyallup Tribe; Quileute Tribe; Skokomish Tribe.

n2 Lummi Tribe; Quinault Tribe; Sauk-Suiattle Tribe; Squaxin Island Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe; Upper Skagit River Tribe; Yakima Nation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Plaintiffs also assert claims for relief concerning alleged destruction or impairment of treaty right fishing due to state authorization of, or failure to prevent, logging and other industrial pollution and obstruction of treaty right fishing streams. Separation of those claims for pretrial and trial after trial of the issues determined in this decision was stipulated and approved by the court.

Venue is properly laid in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Jurisdiction is alleged as to all tribes under one or more of the following provisions: 28 U.S.C. [**5] §§ 1345, 1331, 1343(3) and (4) and 1362. n3 All of these allegations were conceded by all defendants, subject to their contention that exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues in this case is in the Indian Claims Commission under 25 U.S.C. §§ 70-70v and Game's denial of jurisdiction as to the Puyallup Tribe. This court has previously held and hereby affirms that both of these contentions are without merit and denied. It is hereby found and held that jurisdiction and venue have been established in all particulars as detailed in Part One of the Final Pretrial Order.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n3 See Final Pretrial Order paragraph 1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fisheries contends the Muckleshoot, Stillaguamish and Upper Skagit tribes do not hold a special treaty status to harvest anadromous fish. Game joins in this contention and makes the same contention regarding the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe. These contentions are considered and denied in the written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Shortly after appearance in the action by all defendants the first [**6] of a considerable number of pretrial conferences was held. Among many preliminary matters considered at that time were the court's suggestions that so far as possible all tribes, agencies or organizations having or claiming direct or indirect justiciable interest in treaty fishing rights in this judicial district be brought into the case either as parties or as amicus curiae; and that every issue of substantial direct or indirect significance to the contentions of any party be raised and adjudicated in this case. Both suggestions were acceptable to all parties and to a great extent they have been put into effect. Thus every interested agency and organization not joined as a party has had an opportunity to present its views on any of the issues in the case. n4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n4 The following agencies or organizations have submitted, or concurred in, written briefs: Idaho Fish & Game Department; Port of Seattle; Washington State Sportsmen's Council, Inc.; Northwest Steelheaders, Inc.; Committee to Save Our Fish; Tacoma Sportsmen's Club, Inc.; Tacoma Poggie Club, Inc.; Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**7]

For more than three years, at the expenditure by many people of great time, effort and expense, plaintiffs and defendants have conducted exhaustive research in anthropology, biology, fishery management and other fields of expertise, and also have made extreme efforts to find and present by witnesses and exhibits as much information as possible that pertains directly or indirectly to each issue in the case. As a consequence of this extensive pretrial preparation, all parties joined in stipulating to a great many agreed facts which are stated in exhibits or included in the Final Pretrial Order. The Joint Biological Statement, Exhibit JX-2a, jointly proposed and admitted in evidence as agreed facts applicable as indicated therein, was prepared by and agreed to by highly qualified experts employed by and representing both plaintiffs and defendants and is of exceptional importance [*329] and practical value. It is believed considerable historic and scientific information never before presented in a case involving treaty rights is now recorded and may prove of value in later proceedings in this case and possibly in others.

To great advantage, all procedures recommended in the Manual [**8] for Complex Litigation have been followed by counsel in the particulars and to the extent found applicable and practicable by the court. With approval of court and counsel upon its entry the Final Pretrial Order became the final statement of all issues to be heard and determined in this decision, and pleadings pertaining to those issues passed out of the case, subject only to amendment by the court to prevent manifest injustice. Such amendments have been included in the text of the Final Pretrial Order.

Every attorney in the case has vigorously and effectively presented the particular interests and contentions of each client he represents to the maximum extent professional duty requires. On the other hand there has been a remarkable degree of highly responsible and most commendable cooperation on the part of all counsel throughout trial preparation and trial which has greatly expedited discovery and full presentation of the issues and evidence in the case. All of the legal issues have been researched in depth and effectively presented and argued in the pretrial briefs, and in the final briefs submitted after the presentation of evidence was concluded and before final argument, which [**9] also was exceptional in professional quality. By direction of the court all parties either individually or jointly, as they chose, prepared and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law referenced to the record and also drafts of a proposed decree. Each proposed finding, conclusion and decree has been closely examined and considered by review of the evidence and the portions of the briefs pertaining to each item. All fact findings and legal rulings stated herein and the detailed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree signed and entered by the court are hereby made a part of this decision.

On January 11, 1974, when Game filed the final version of its proposed findings, conclusions and decree the issues tried were finally submitted for decision.

This court is confident the vast majority of the residents of this state, whether of Indian heritage or otherwise, and regardless of personal interest in fishing, are fair, reasonable and law abiding people. They expect that kind of solution to all adjudicated controversies, including those pertaining to treaty right fishing, and they will accept and abide by those decisions even if adverse to interests of their occupation [**10] or recreational activities.

More than a century of frequent and often violent controversy between Indians and non-Indians over treaty right fishing has resulted in deep distrust and animosity on both sides. This has been inflamed by provocative, sometimes illegal, conduct of extremists on both sides and by irresponsible demonstrations instigated by non-resident opportunists.

To this court the evidence clearly shows that, in the past, root causes of treaty right dissension have been an almost total lack of meaningful communication on problems of treaty right fishing between state, commercial and sport fishing officials and non-Indian fishermen on one side and tribal representatives and members on the other side, and the failure of many of them to speak to each other and act as fellow citizens of equal standing as far as treaty right fishing is concerned. Some commendable improvement in both respects has developed in recent years but this court believes high priority should be given to further improvement in communication and in the attitude of every Indian and non-Indian who as a fisherman or in any capacity has responsibility for treaty right fishing practices or regulation. Hopefully [**11] that will be expedited [*330] by some of the measures required by this decision.

The ultimate objective of this decision is to determine every issue of fact and law presented and, at long last, thereby finally settle, either in this decision or on appeal thereof, as many as possible of the divisive problems of treaty right fishing which for so long have plagued all of the citizens of this area, and still do.

I. ESTABLISHED BASIC FACTS AND LAW

(Hereinafter italicize emphasis added unless otherwise indicated)

The first decision of the United States Supreme Court on Indian treaty rights, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 30 U.S. 1, 8 L. Ed. 25, was written by Chief Justice Marshall in 1831. Since then decisions on the same subject matter have been rendered in that court, other federal courts and state courts in a considerable number to the present time. n5 All of the decisions that appear to have direct or indirect application to the present case have been closely reviewed and analyzed, individually and in relation to each other. Based thereon this court finds and holds that the following statements are now well established in fact and law.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n5 The Table of Cases appended hereto includes only all cases which have been cited by any party as authority pertaining to any issue in this case and other cases considered by the court. In the table, the abbreviated title of each case referred to in the decision is italicized.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**12]

1. Art. VI, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides:


The "Constitution . . . of the United States . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

2. To the great advantage of the people of the United States, not only in property but also in saving lives of citizens, and to expedite providing for what at the time were immediate and imperative national needs, Congress chose treaties rather than conquest as the means to acquire vast Indian lands. It ordered that treaty negotiations with the plaintiff tribes and others in the Northwest be conducted as quickly as possible. Isaac I. Stevens, Governor of Washington Territory, proved to be ideally suited to that purpose for in less than one year during 1854-1855 he negotiated eleven different treaties, each with several different tribes, at various places distant from each other in this rugged and then primitive area. The treaties were written in English, a language unknown to most of the tribal representatives, [**13] and translated for the Indians by an interpreter in the service of the United States using Chinook Jargon, which was also unknown to some tribal representatives. Having only about three hundred words in its vocabulary, the Jargon was capable of conveying only rudimentary concepts, but not the sophisticated or implied meaning of treaty provisions about which highly learned jurists and scholars differ. n6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n6 Exhibit (Ex) USA-20, pp 24-29; Finding of Fact (FF) #2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In 1899 the United States Supreme Court in considering a similar situation said:

"In construing any treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe, it must always (as was pointed out by the counsel for the appellees) be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the United States, an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter [**14] employed by themselves; that the [*331] treaty is drawn up by them and in their own language; that the Indians, on the other hand, are a weak and dependent people, who have no written language and are wholly unfamiliar with all the forms of legal expression, and whose only knowledge of the terms in which the treaty is framed is that imparted to them by the interpreter employed by the United States; and that the treaty must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 6 Pet. 515 [8 L. Ed. 483]; The Kansas Indians, 72 U.S. 737, 5 Wall. 737, 760 [18 L. Ed. 667]; Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U.S. 1, 27, 28 [7 S. Ct. 75, 30 L. Ed. 306, 314, 315] . . . . 'The language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to their prejudice.' . . . 'How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction.'" n7




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n7 Jones, 175 U.S. at 10, 11, 12, 20 S. Ct. at 5; other decisions by the same court containing the same or similar language: Cherokee, Worcester, Kansas Indians, Winans, Kennedy, Seufert, Tulee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**15]

In 1905 the above principles were reiterated in Winans (198 U.S. p. 380, 25 S. Ct. p. 664):


"And we have said we will construe a treaty with the Indians as 'that unlettered people' understood it, and 'as justice and reason demand, in all cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and protection,' and counterpoise the inequality 'by the superior justice which looks only to the substance of the right, without regard to technical rules.' [citing Choctaw and Jones]"

3. The United States Supreme Court in Missouri (252 U.S. p. 434, 40 S. Ct. p. 384) stated:


"Valid treaties of course 'are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.' Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 683, 7 S. Ct. 656, 30 L. Ed. 766."

4. Each of the basic fact and law issues in this case must be considered and decided in accordance with the treaty language reserving fishing rights to the plaintiff tribes, interpreted in the spirit and manner directed in the above quoted language of the United States Supreme Court. Each treaty in this case contains a provision substantially [**16] identical to that in the Medicine Creek treaty: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, . . ." n8


5. "The right to resort to the [usual and accustomed] fishing places in controversy was a part of larger rights possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed. . . . [The] treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians but a grant of right from them -- a reservation of those not granted." n9

"And surely it was within the competency of the Nation to secure to the Indians such a remnant of the great rights they possessed as 'taking fish at all usual and accustomed places.'" n10




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n8 Text of all treaties FF #1.

n9 U.S.Sup.Ct. in Winans, 198 U.S. at 381, 25 S. Ct. at 664.

n10 Id. at 384, 25 S. Ct. at 665.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**17]

6. ". . . [The] [treaty] negotiations were with the tribe. They reserved rights, however, to every individual Indian, as though named therein. . . . And the right was intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees." n11 That those rights are also reserved to the descendants [*332] of treaty Indians, without limitation in time, excepting as Congress may determine, has been recognized and applied by the United States Supreme Court from the first to the latest decision of that court involving Indian treaty fishing rights.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n11 Id. at 381-382, 25 S. Ct. at 664.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7. An exclusive right of fishing was reserved by the tribes within the area and boundary waters of their reservations, n12 wherein tribal members might make their homes if they chose to do so. The tribes also reserved the right to off reservation fishing "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations" and agreed that "all citizens of the territory" might fish at the same [**18] places "in common with" tribal members. The tribes and their members cannot rescind that agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement. However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty fishing rights may require.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n12 This proposition is not denied or challenged by any party in this case. As previously stated in paragraph 4 of the text, the fishing clauses are substantially identical in the treaties of all plaintiff tribes. The fishing clause in the Yakima treaty applies the word "exclusive" to on reservation fishing. Although the word is used in the same context in several other treaties not involved in this case it does not appear in the treaty of any other plaintiff tribe. However, in every case involving a fishing clause substantially similar to that quoted in the text of this decision in which "exclusive" is not present, without exception the United States Supreme Court has assumed that on reservation fishing is exclusive and has interpreted and applied similar fishing clauses as though the word "exclusive" was expressly stated therein as in the Yakima treaty. Research has not disclosed any reported decision to the contrary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**19]

8. The tribes reserved the right to fish at "all usual and accustomed grounds and stations." The words "grounds" and "stations" have substantially different meanings by dictionary definition and as deliberately intended by the authors of the treaty. "Stations" indicates fixed locations such as the site of a fish wier or a fishing platform or some other narrowly limited area; "grounds" indicates larger areas which may contain numerous stations and other unspecified locations which in the urgency of treaty negotiations could not then have been determined with specific precision and cannot now be so determined. "Usual and accustomed," being closely synonymous words, indicate the exclusion of unfamiliar locations and those used infrequently or at long intervals and extraordinary occasions. Therefore, the court finds and holds that every fishing location where members of a tribe customarily fished from time to time at and before treaty times, however distant from the then usual habitat of the tribe, and whether or not other tribes then also fished in the same waters, is a usual and accustomed ground or station at which the treaty tribe reserved, and its members presently have, the [**20] right to take fish. n13

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n13 Seufert and see F.F. 10 and 13.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This summary of the 253 separate detailed Findings of Fact and 48 Conclusions of Law filed herewith is intended as a recital of only the principal categories thereof, several of which are discussed elsewhere in this opinion.

The Findings of Fact set forth the treaties under which each tribe, or its predecessors, negotiated with the United States, and in which the Indians expressly reserved the right to fish at off reservation usual and accustomed fishing places. The pre-treaty role of fishing among Northwest Indians is outlined, emphasizing the universal importance of the fishery resource, particularly salmon and steelhead, to Indians in the case area as an element of diet and in [*333] religious practices and trade. The Northwest Indians developed a wide variety of fishing methods which they utilized to catch many varieties of fish at innumerable locations throughout the areas where [**21] they lived and traveled.

In the mid-1850's the United States treated with the unlettered Northwest Tribes to acquire great expanses of land. Reluctant to be confined to small reservation bases, the Indian negotiators insisted that their people continue to fish as they had beyond the reservation boundaries. There is no indication that the Indians intended or understood the language "in common with all citizens of the Territory" to limit their right to fish in any way. For many years following the treaties the Indians continued to fish in their customary manner and places, and although non-Indians also fished, there was no need for any restrictions on fishing.

For each of the plaintiff tribes, the findings set forth information regarding the organization and membership of the tribe, and some, but by no means all, of their principal usual and accustomed fishing places. Anthropological data are also presented for several tribes, as well as information concerning present Indian culture and economy. Several tribes are currently involved in fish propagation programs which benefit the tribes and the state.

Fact findings are also presented regarding reef net fishing which show that current [**22] non-Indian reef net operations take place at or near the same locations occupied historically by Lummi Indian fishermen.

General fisheries conservation and management data are presented, incorporating the Joint Biological Statement which sets forth many significant facts concerning anadromous fish. Procedures and objectives are outlined for managing salmon and steelhead for commercial, sport and Indian user groups including regulatory schemes promulgated by state authorities and by Indian tribes. The means and locations used to harvest the resource and the quantity of the harvest are also presented.

The policies and practices of both Fisheries and Game are also presented. Due in part to the nature of the species of fish regulated, Fisheries evidences better success in managing the salmon than does Game with regard to steelhead. Fisheries has also evidenced an attitude of cooperation with the plaintiff tribes that has been lacking from Game, at least prior to Puyallup-II.

The Conclusions of Law, after stating the basis of jurisdiction and venue, establish the treaty status of each of the plaintiff tribes, and therefore, the right of their members to fish off reservation in common [**23] with the citizens of the state. The fishing right was reserved by the Indians and cannot be qualified by the state. The state has police power to regulate off reservation fishing only to the extent reasonable and necessary for conservation of the resource. For this purpose, conservation is defined to mean perpetuation of the fisheries species. Additionally, state regulation must not discriminate against the Indians, and must meet appropriate due process standards.

The Yakima Nation and the Quinault Tribe are presently qualified to self-regulate the off reservation fishing of their tribal members. Other tribes may similarly self-regulate member fishing if and when they meet the qualifications and conditions set forth in the decision.

Several current state laws and regulations which restrict the time, place, manner and volume of off reservation fishing by treaty tribes, and reserve game fish for sport interests, have not been established as reasonable and necessary for conservation and the application thereof to plaintiff tribes is unlawful. The court will retain continuing jurisdiction of this case to grant such further relief as the court may find appropriate.

[*334] III. [**24] STATE REGULATION OF OFF RESERVATION TREATY RIGHT FISHING

There is neither mention nor slightest intimation in the treaties themselves, in any of the treaty negotiation records or in any other credible evidence, that the Indians who represented the tribes in the making of the treaties, at that time or any time afterward, understood or intended that the fishing rights reserved by the tribes as recorded in the above quoted language would, or ever could, authorize the "citizens of the territory" or their successors, either individually or through their territorial or state government, to qualify, restrict or in any way interfere with the full exercise of those rights. All of the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, particularly in the vivid showing in the record that the treaty Indians pleaded for and insisted upon retaining the exercise of those rights as essential to their survival. They were given unqualified assurance of that by Governor Stevens himself without any suggestion that the Indians' exercise of those rights might some day, without authorization of Congress, be subjected to regulation by non-Indian citizens through their territorial or state government. [**25] n14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n14 Ex. USA-20 pp 24-29, 42-43; FF #2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

For several decades following negotiation and ratification of the treaties all of the tribes extensively exercised their treaty rights by fishing as freely in time, place and manner as they had at treaty time, totally without regulation or any restraint whatever, excepting only by the tribes themselves in strictly enforcing tribal customs and practices which, during that period and for innumerable prior generations, had so successfully assured perpetuation of all fish species in copious volume. The first other than naturally caused threat to volume or species came from non-Indian population growth and non-Indian industrial development in the rapid westward advance of civilization. n15

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n15 Ex. USA-20, pp 39-42; FF #2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the final pretrial order in this case issues were raised therein by the contentions [**26] of several tribes later joined by the remaining plaintiff tribes that: (a) the state police power dicta followed by the United States Supreme Court are not sound in legal logic or principle, and (b) even if so, state regulation of the exercise of Indian off reservation treaty fishing rights must be denied in "justice and reason, looking to the substance of the rights reserved as understood by the Indians who negotiated the treaties, without regard to technical rules," as all American courts for a century or more have been repeatedly admonished by the United States Supreme Court in the same or similar language. n16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n16 See footnote 7.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In addition to raising the above stated issues in the final pretrial order, the tribes have submitted well researched briefs and vigorous oral argument in support thereof. That the contentions are not without at least color of merit in judicial and scholarly support is shown by a decision of the Supreme Court of Idaho, n17 the judicial views of at least one highly respected Washington [**27] State Supreme Court Judge n18 and a scholarly article in The University of Washington Law Review written by a Law Professor of that University and other similar articles. n19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n17 Arthur.

n18 Donworth dissenting in McCoy (63 Wash.2d p. 439, 387 P.2d 942) and Game-I (70 Wash.2d p. 263, 422 P.2d 754); and in Satiacum (50 Wash.2d p. 529, 314 P.2d 400) a 4-4 decision.

n19 R. Johnson, 47 U.Wash.L.Rev. 207 (1972); C. Hobbs, 37 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 1251 (1969); Comment, 59 U.Calif.L.Rev. 485 (1971).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No federal decision or state decision cited to this court has directly and specifically interpreted the clause "in common with all citizens of the Territory" as, in itself, directly or impliedly justifying state police power regulation of off reservation treaty right fishing, or [*335] has specifically stated or even indicated any federal source of or basis for such state power.

Under these circumstances and the facts hereinabove recited, judicial integrity requires that this court must give the [**28] tribes' above stated contentions serious consideration and specific determination.

The first decision of the United States Supreme Court, later cited by the same court as authority for state regulation of treaty right fishing, is Ward. On that subject unquestionably the decision was obiter dictum because: (a) the Indian hunting rights reserved in the treaty in question were limited to specifically designated areas outside of which Race Horse hunted, for which he was imprisoned and from which he sought enlargement by habeas corpus; and (b) because later in the opinion it was held the treaty hunting rights in question had been finally terminated by Congress prior to the allegedly criminal hunting by Race Horse.

The only statement in Ward in either the majority or minority opinions that could possibly justify later citation of the decision as applicable to treaty right fishing was the single sentence 163 U.S. on page 507, 16 S. Ct. on page 1076:


"The power of a state to control and regulate the taking of game cannot be questioned. Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, [16 S. Ct. 600, 40 L. Ed. 793."


However, in the next preceding paragraph of the majority opinion [**29] in Ward two sentences before the sentence just quoted, the majority opinion stated:


". . . the sole question which the case presents is whether the treaty made by the United States with the Bannock Indians gave them the right to exercise the hunting privilege, therein (the treaty) referred to within the limits of the state of Wyoming in violation of its laws. If it [the treaty] gave such right, the mere fact that the state had created school districts or election districts, and had provided for pasturage on the lands, could no more efficaciously operate to destroy the right of the Indian to hunt on the lands than could passage of the [state] game law."


This statement, even if it too be a dictum, is far more sound in treaty law applicable to fish and game regulation than the first statement quoted above.

Thus the second statement in Ward, quoted in the paragraph above to the effect that exercise of treaty right hunting cannot be controlled by state regulatory laws would appear to be compelling, or at least equal, authority for denying state regulation, not authorized by Congress, of Indian fishing off reservation as specified in existing treaties [**30] which expressly record and recognize reservation of that right by the Indian tribes.

In Geer, Mr. Justice White, speaking for a 5-2 majority traced in detail principles pertaining to the taking of ferae naturae down through the ages from Solon of ancient Athens to 1895, but treaty rights were not involved in that case or even mentioned in any way whatever in the exhaustive opinion. The only issue decided in Geer was the holding that it was not unconstitutional for Connecticut to allow, by regulation, killing of birds within the state during a designated open season, and to permit such birds, when so killed, to be used, sold and bought for use within the state, but forbid their transportation beyond the state. Hence the statement in Geer as well as that in Ward, on the subject of off reservation treaty right fishing, were both purest dicta.

Ward was not cited in Winans, wherein state power to regulate off reservation treaty fishing was assumed without any explanation or citation of authority. That subject was mentioned only in the concluding clause of a sentence (198 U.S. p. 384, 25 S. Ct. p. 665):


". . . nor does it [the right to take fish] restrain [**31] the state unreasonably, if at all, in the regulation of the right." [*336]

Geer, Ward, Patsone and Lacoste are cited in footnote #2 of Tulee (315 U.S. p. 683, 62 S. Ct. 864, 86 L. Ed. 1115) as supporting the only statement in that opinion referring to the state power to regulate off reservation fishing:


"Relying upon its broad powers to conserve game and fish within its borders, (2) however, the state asserts that its right to regulate fishing may be exercised at places like the scene of the alleged offense, which, although within the territory originally ceded by the Yakimas, is outside of their reservation."

In Patsone the United States Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of an alien for possession of a shotgun in violation of a state criminal statute. One of the two defenses presented and determined in the decision was based on provisions of a United States treaty with Italy. The treaty provisions and facts in Patsone are totally dissimilar to those in the present case and nothing in the holdings or language in the opinion directly or by implication would legally authorize state regulation of a federally guaranteed civil right which is [**32] expressly stated in a treaty and the exercise of which right could not possibly endanger the personal safety of any resident of the State.

Treaty rights were in no way involved in Lacoste. The only statement in that decision (263 U.S. p. 549, 44 S. Ct. 186) concerning state police power to regulate the taking of wild animals is supported by citation of Geer, Ward, Kennedy and other decisions having only remote applicability in either fact or law to the present case.

The remaining treaty right fishing decisions of the United States Supreme Court are Puyallup-I and Puyallup-II. Thus until Puyallup-I was decided in 1968 there was neither judicial analysis nor citation of a non-dictum decision supporting police power state regulation of the exercise of Indian off reservation treaty right fishing in any Supreme Court decision because all previous Supreme Court references to that subject were either based solely on the reiterated dicta discussed above or assumed such authority without discussion of its basis or indication of its source.

In support of a statement in Puyallup-I (391 U.S. p. 399, 88 S. Ct. 1725) concerning state regulation of treaty fishing outside [**33] of reservations the United States Supreme Court cited Winans and Kennedy as forerunners of Tulee and quoted portions of all three. As indicated above herein, the Tulee and Winans quotations were dicta.

In Kennedy, a habeas corpus proceeding, Indian lands were transferred by the Seneca Tribe to private ownership in a 1797 treaty containing a provision which permitted the Seneca Indians to fish in waters on the lands conveyed "at will, and at all seasons of the year, regardless of the provisions of the game laws of the State of New York." Shortly after that conveyance the lands were resold and continued in private ownership to the time of Kennedy, decided in 1915. That decision cites Geer and Ward as the sole basis for its statement (241 U.S. p. 562, 36 S. Ct. p. 707) that "it is not to be doubted that the power to preserve fish and game within its borders is inherent in the sovereignty of the state . . ." Kennedy paraphrases Winans for more than Winans held and quotes the same passing reference to regulation in Winans previously quoted above. n20 Most significant of all, it is stated in the very Kennedy language quoted in Puyallup-I [**34] (391 U.S. pp. 399-400, 88 S. Ct. p. 1729) that the fishing clause in the treaty conveyance "is fully satisfied by considering it a reservation of a privilege of fishing . . ." subject to state regulation. If at this time anything concerning treaty fishing rights should be beyond doubt or question it is the basic principle that the treaty fishing of plaintiff [*337] tribes in this case is a reserved right and not a mere privilege. The treaty fishing in Kennedy was held to be only a privilege under the peculiar facts of that case. Nothing faintly comparable to those facts can be found in either Puyallup-I or the present case.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n20 ". . . nor does it restrain the state unreasonably, if at all, in the regulation of the right." (198 U.S. p. 384, 25 S. Ct. p. 665)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Another statement in Puyallup-I (391 U.S. p. 398, 88 S. Ct. p. 1728) concerning police power regulation, without analysis other than as stated therein, or citation of a non-dictum authority, is:


"Moreover, the right [**35] to fish at those respective [usual and accustomed] places is not an exclusive one. Rather it is one 'in common with all citizens of the territory.' Certainly the right of the latter may be regulated. And we see no reason why the right of the Indians may not also be regulated by an appropriate exercise of the police power of the State."

This statement seems to say that because a state has police power to regulate fishing privileges which the state has granted and may limit or entirely withdraw, that is somehow a legal reason for state regulation of federal fishing rights which are expressly reserved in a treaty which only Congress has authority to limit or modify. If that seeming non sequitur be the law it certainly is deserving of more specific legal analysis and justification than it has ever had in any United States Supreme Court decision.

In Puyallup-I it is also stated (391 U.S. p. 398, 88 S. Ct. p. 1728):


"The right to fish 'at all usual and accustomed' places may, of course, not be qualified by the State, even though all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United States. [citations] But the manner of fishing, the size [**36] of the take, the restriction of commercial fishing, and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians."

That a treaty right, guaranteed as the supreme law of the land by the Federal Constitution, can not be "qualified" (i.e. "in some way limited or modified") n21 by a state but the exercise of the right may be limited or modified by state regulation, especially when these seemingly conflicting propositions are stated in consecutive sentences, is very difficult to comprehend. The practical effect of a difference between having a constitutional right but only a limited right to exercise it certainly could not have been understood and accepted by the "unlettered" Indians who negotiated the treaties and it must be little less impossible for their somewhat more sophisticated present-day descendants to comprehend and accept.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n21 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1961 Ed. (p. 1858)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**37]

Mindful that treaty fishing is a right, not a mere privilege, the following sentence from Murdock, quoted in a footnote (p. 402, 88 S. Ct. p. 1730) of Puyallup-I, seems pertinent:


"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Winans (198 U.S. pp. 381-382, 25 S. Ct. 662), treaty fishing rights are personal rights held and exercised by individual tribe members. Although the exercise of that particular civil treaty right may be limited or modified in any particular or to any extent by or with authority of Congress, n22 that the exercise of such a right may be limited in any way by the police power of a state, without having previously received authority to do so from Congress, seems to be diametrically opposed to relevant treaty law and personal civil rights decisions, particularly those of recent years.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n22 Lone Wolf citing other Supreme Court decisions to the same effect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the Puyallup-II [**38] decision, decided less than three months ago, it was stated (414 U.S. p. 2, 94 S. Ct. p. 332):


"The sole question tendered in the present cases concerns the regulations [*338] of the Department of Game concerning steel head trout."


Other than by recital or quotations from Puyallup-I and State Supreme Court decisions, in Puyallup-II there was no discussion of or ruling upon the basis of state police power to regulate off reservation treaty right fishing unless it be derived from the next to the last paragraph in the opinion of Justice Douglas (pp. 5-6, 94 S. Ct. p. 333):


"We do not imply that these fishing rights persist down to the very last steel head in the river. Rights can be controlled by the need to conserve a species; and the time may come when the life of a steel head is so precarious in a particular stream that all fishing should be banned until the species regains assurance of survival. The police power of the State is adequate to prevent the steel head from following the fate of the passenger pigeon; and the Treaty does not give the Indians a federal right to pursue the last living steel head until it enters their nets."

Whatever [**39] the above quoted statement may have added to or taken from the right to exercise the off reservation treaty fishing rights of the plaintiff tribes, to the present time there never has been either legal analysis or citation of a non-dictum authority in any decision of the Supreme Court of the Land in support of its decisions holding that state police power may be employed to limit or modify the exercise of rights guaranteed by national treaties which the federal Constitution mandates must be considered and applied as "the supreme Law of the Land."

From the above summary of the United States Supreme Court decisions it is clear the following 1971 comment by the Washington State Supreme Court n23 is not overstated:


"Surprisingly little judicial attention, we note, has been given to this rather standard treaty language [in the fishing rights clause of Indian treaties]."




- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n23 Moses-II, 79 Wash.2d at p. 108, 483 P.2d p. 834.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It also appears that the United States Supreme Court has exercised [**40] a prerogative specifically reserved by and to Congress in the treaties. Congress has never exercised its prerogative to either limit or abolish Indian treaty right fishing. In recent years it declined to do the latter by three times failing to enact proposed legislation for the termination of Indian treaty fishing rights. n24 It may be that the refusal or failure of Congress to exercise a specific prerogative, by enactment of legislation, would legally justify judicial exercise of that particular prerogative. If so, it has never been stated or indicated in any United States Supreme Court decision as the basis or source of authority for the federal judicial decisions authorizing state regulation of off reservation treaty fishing rights.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n24 H.R.J. Res. 698, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962); H.R.J.Res. 48, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963); S.J.Res. 170 & 171, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) All have died in committee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since Congress has the power to qualify or revoke any treaty or any provision thereof, n25 unquestionable federal [**41] authority is available to provide federal regulation, or to authorize state regulation, for the protection of fishery resources against any threatened or actual harm that might arise from off reservation treaty right fishing by tribal members limited only by tribal regulation. n26 In these circumstances it is unfortunate, to say the least, that [*339] state police power regulation of off reservation fishing should be authorized or invoked on a legal basis never specifically stated or explained. This is particularly true because state regulation of off reservation treaty right fishing is highly obnoxious to the Indians and in practical application adds greatly to already complicated and difficult problems and may stimulate continuing controversy and litigation long into the future.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n25 See footnote 22.

n26 With a single possible exception testified to by a highly interested witness (FF #102) and not otherwise substantiated, notwithstanding three years of exhaustive trial preparation, neither Game nor Fisheries has discovered and produced any credible evidence showing any instance, remote or recent, when a definitely identified member of any plaintiff tribe exercised his off reservation treaty rights by any conduct or means detrimental to the perpetuation of any species of anadromous fish.

Unfortunately, insinuations, hearsay and rumors to the contrary, usually but not always instigated anonymously, have been and still are rampant in Western Washington. Indeed, the near total absence of substantial evidence to support these apparent falsehoods was a considerable surprise to this court.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**42]

Having the judicial duty to independently research, consider and fairly appraise the tribes' contentions concerning state regulation of off reservation treaty right fishing, this court has intended and attempted to do that as conscientiously and thoroughly as possible within the personal capabilities of the author of this decision. The results of that effort are above stated as directly and briefly as the subject matter appeared to permit.

In the opinion of this court, judicial integrity also requires this court to hold that the tribes' contention that the state does not have legal authority to regulate the exercise of their off reservation treaty right fishing must be and hereby is denied by this court. The basis of this ruling is the indisputable and unqualified duty of every federal circuit or trial judge, despite academic or personal misgivings, to enforce and apply every principle of law as it is directly stated in a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Recently the United States Supreme Court in Puyallup-I and Puyallup-II directly and specifically held that Washington has the power to regulate off reservation treaty right fishing in the particulars and to the [**43] extent indicated in those decisions, which holding continues in effect unless and until overruled or modified by that court or by Congress. Accordingly, each of the rulings on specific issues in this case stated in Section IV of this decision has been considered and determined on that basis.

IV. RULINGS ON MAJOR ISSUES IN THIS CASE

1. In the detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on file herein this court has found and held and hereby reaffirms that each of plaintiff tribes in this case, including each of the tribes whose status as such was challenged by some or all defendants, has established its status as an Indian tribe recognized as such by the federal government and therefore is entitled to maintain this action for relief based on a treaty of the United States negotiated by and for the tribe, its members at that time and their descendants.

An appeal from a district court decision holding that the Puyallup reservation no longer exists has not yet been determined. However, in Menominee (1968) the United States Supreme Court held that termination of a tribal reservation established pursuant to a treaty did not extinguish hunting and fishing rights, reserved in the [**44] treaty by implication, or impair the exercise of such rights within the area of the terminated reservation. In the opinion of this court, treaty right fishing within the area of a former Indian reservation cannot be exclusive when that reservation no longer exists, but such fishing must be "in common with" non-treaty right fishermen. It is so found and held and hereby shall be applicable to any plaintiff tribe, the reservation of which has been or hereafter may be terminated.

2. Ever since the first Indian treaties were confirmed by the Senate, Congress has recognized that those treaties established self-government by treaty tribes, excepting only as limited in the treaties, judicial interpretation thereof or by Congress. This basic principle was confirmed in the first [*340] United States Supreme Court decision dealing with such a treaty n27 and has always been expressly or impliedly reaffirmed when applicable in every succeeding decision of that court. There was a period during which Congress enacted legislation limiting the exercise of tribal autonomy in various particulars. However, in the last decade Congressional legislation has definitely been in the contrary direction, [**45] notably in the so-called "Indian Civil Rights Act." n28 Among other measures in that Act encouraging the exercise of tribal autonomy are those providing for enlarged jurisdiction of tribal courts, pursuant to which special training of tribal judges and other court personnel has been in progress for some time and still continues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n27 Cherokee, 30 U.S. p. 15 et seq. (1831)

n28 Pub.L. #90-284 Title II-VII; 82 Stat. pp. 77-81 (1968)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

These measures and others make plain the intent and philosophy of Congress to increase rather than diminish or limit the exercise of tribal self-government.

The right to fish for all species available in the waters from which, for so many ages, their ancestors derived most of their subsistence is the single most highly cherished interest and concern of the present members of plaintiff tribes, with rare exceptions even among tribal members who personally do not fish or derive therefrom any substantial amount of their subsistence. The right to fish, as reserved in the treaties [**46] of plaintiff tribes, certainly is the treaty provision most frequently in controversy and litigation involving all of the tribes and numerous of their individual members for many years past.

The philosophy of Congress referred to above and the evidence in this case as a whole clearly indicate to this court that the time has now arrived, and this case presents an appropriate opportunity, to take a step toward applying congressional philosophy to Indian treaty right fishing in a way that will not be inconsistent with Puyallup-I and Puyallup-II and also will provide ample security for the interest and purposes of conservation.

In all the circumstances shown by the evidence, including those briefly sketched above, this court hereby finds and holds that any one of plaintiff tribes is entitled to exercise its governmental powers by regulating the treaty right fishing of its members without any state regulation thereof; PROVIDED, however, the tribe has and maintains the qualifications and accepts and abides by the conditions stated below. If, as to any plaintiff tribe, any one of such qualifications and conditions is not determined by the court in this decision on the evidence in [**47] this case, establishment of the qualifications and conditions of each other plaintiff tribe shall be determined either to the satisfaction of both Fisheries and Game, or upon hearing by or under direction of the court. When the qualifications and conditions of a tribe have been fully established in the manner indicated, that tribe shall be relieved of state regulation except to the extent specified in the below stated conditions. Failure of a tribe either to maintain its required qualifications or to abide by and adhere to prescribed conditions, when established and not promptly corrected, shall suspend self-regulation by such tribe until such time as all required qualifications and conditions are fully established.

To qualify for self-regulation of off reservation treaty right fishing as above provided, a tribe must establish to the satisfaction of either Fisheries and Game or the court, that the tribe has each of the following qualifications and that the tribe will accept and abide by each of the following conditions.

QUALIFICATIONS

The tribe shall have:


(a) Competent and responsible leadership.

[*341] (b) Well organized tribal government reasonably competent [**48] to promulgate and apply tribal off reservation fishing regulations that, if strictly enforced, will not adversely affect conservation.

(c) Indian personnel trained for and competent to provide effective enforcement of all tribal fishing regulations.

(d) Well qualified experts in fishery science and management who are either on the tribal staff or whose services are arranged for and readily available to the tribe.

(e) An officially approved tribal membership roll.

(f) Provision for tribal membership certification, with individual identification by photograph, in a suitable form that shall be carried on the person of each tribal member when approaching, fishing in or leaving either on or off reservation waters.

CONDITIONS

The tribe shall:


(a) Provide for full and complete tribal fishing regulations which, before adoption, have been discussed in their proposed final form with Fisheries and Game, and include therein any state regulation which has been established to the satisfaction of the tribe, or upon hearing by or under direction of this court, to be reasonable and necessary for conservation.

(b) Permit monitoring of off reservation Indian fishing [**49] by Fisheries and Game to the extent reasonable and necessary for conservation.

(c) Provide fish catch reports, as to both on and off reservation treaty right fishing, when requested by Fisheries or Game for the purpose of establishing escapement goals and other reasonable and necessary conservation purposes.

All parties in this case agree that on reservation fishing is not subject to state regulation and no issue to the contrary is presented in this case. Indeed, any contention to the contrary would be diametrically opposed to the Indian self-government intent and philosophy of Congress. However, state regulation of off reservation fishing to the extent reasonable and necessary for conservation requires that Fisheries and Game must have all information essential to such limited regulation. From the evidence in this case, the court hereby finds and holds that recording the number of fish taken in treaty right fishing, both on and off reservation, is essential to reliable estimates of future run sizes which are necessary for reasonably accurate calculation of spawning escapement requirements and for the allocation of harvestable fish as provided in this decision.

The lack of [**50] adequate, or any, approved identification of treaty right fishermen long has and now does seriously interfere with their fishing and hampers enforcement of both tribal and state regulations reasonable and necessary for conservation. Therefore, each of plaintiff tribes, self-regulated or not, is hereby directed to provide as promptly as practicable both (a) certification and identification of its tribal fishermen as specified i

* News
* Obituaries

John Gotti
Flamboyant New York gangland boss whose life of robbery, murder and intimidation brought him celebrity status and death in prison

* Michael Ellison
* The Guardian,
* Tuesday June 11 2002
* Article history

John Gotti, who has died of cancer at the age of 60, was the best-known American gangster since Al Capone, and one willingly assimilated by popular culture. But if the Dapper Don perceived himself to be at the pinnacle of a milieu epitomised by the operatic grandeur of Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, in the end the more appropriate analogy was The Sopranos television series.

Tapes of Gotti's prison conversations produced observations more suited to the on-screen lexicon of James Gandolfini than that of Marlon Brando. Prison food: "Give me some prosciutto with some [censored] mozzarella." Improving literature: "How many times I tell you I don't read murder mysteries?" The Clinton sex scandal: "If he had an Italian last name, they would have electrocuted him."

The head of the Gambinos, once the most powerful of New York's five great organised crime families, spent the last 10 years of his life in jail. Before that he had constructed a camera-friendly fame, an image in suits costing thousands of dollars, a diamond ring on one little finger, and topped off with his perfectly groomed silver mane. This put him on the cover of Time magazine, between the covers of several biographies and on silkscreens by Andy Warhol.

Gotti acquired a celebrity commensurate with those who drew on his legend for their art, winking at the law enforcement authorities and, if not exactly endearing himself to the public, earning its respect as an operator who knew how to beat the system. Finally, though, the FBI's relentless pursuit put him on trial in 1992 for murder, conspiracy to murder, illegal gambling, loan-sharking, obstruction of justice, bribery and tax evasion.

But whether in solitary confinement or in hospital - he was moved to a secure medical centre in 1998 when throat cancer was diagnosed - he continued to receive fan mail, some from couples who said they were naming their newborn after him. The actors Mickey Rourke and the late Anthony Quinn attended his last court appearance, and there were complaints on websites that his conditions were unreasonably harsh and that his trial had been unfair.

Gotti was the fifth of 11 children, brought up poor in New York's south Bronx; in time, the family moved to East New York, in Brooklyn. By the age of 12, he was doing small jobs for hoodlums on street corners and, four years later, he finally left the school he had never bothered with much in the first place. Stealing cars and robbing drunks were the stock in trade of his Fulton-Rockaway Boys, and, by the age of 21, he had been arrested five times.

Gotti even tried his hand at legitimate jobs - as a presser in a coat factory, then as a truck driver's assistant - after he married Victoria DiGiorgio in 1962. But work did not stick, and by the time he joined a Gambino hijacking crew in 1966, he had been jailed twice for theft. The gang had a particular liking for the traffic in goods at John F Kennedy airport, and, in 1969, Gotti was on his way back to prison, from which he emerged in 1971. "I don't know what he does," said his wife. "All I know is he provides."

Jarry Capeci and Gene Mustain, writing in Gotti: Rise And Fall, were more specific. "He was fierce, violent, foul-mouthed and clever." These qualities were sufficient to put him at the head of his Gambino crew, though not enough to earn him the rapid promotion he craved from the boss, Carlo Gambino, who liked to quote from Machiavelli's The Prince.

Two events secured the early Gotti legend. The first was the killing of Jimmy McBratney at the Snoope bar and grill on Staten Island in 1973. McBratney was in a gang that, improbably, made a good living kidnapping crime family members and demanding ransoms for their return. Gotti was among the three men who shot McBratney dead and, at his trial three years later, he cut an advantageous deal: in return for a plea to attempted man slaughter, he served fewer than two years.

Free again, he was obliged under the terms of his parole to take a proper job, and this time he chose a plumbing and heating firm. Later, his boss was to testify about the nature of his duties: "What John does is point out locations." Later, Gotti's 12-year-old son was killed in a traffic accident. John Favora, the driver of the car - and a neighbour of the Gottis in Howard Beach, Queens - endured four months of death threats until the day he was shot, abducted, and never seen again.

By this time, the Gambino boss was Paul "Big Paulie" Castellano, a more remote figure who fancied himself as a businessman - and who did not hold in high regard streetwise individuals such as Gotti, whom he considered uncouth and unreliable. Nor did Gotti's gambling habit - around $30,000 a night in the late 1970s and early 1980s - help his case for promotion.

Big Paulie was a considerable problem. He had got the top job over Gotti's mentor, Aneillo "Mr Neil" Dellacroce, and he was an adherent to the old rule against narcotics: "You deal, you die." Or, at the very least, don't get caught.

When Mr Neil died, the buffer between Gotti and the boss went too. Big Paulie, who was said to have had a penile implant after becoming impotent through diabetes, was scorned by some underlings, though not in his hearing. True or not, they believed it. One thing they knew for sure was that Big Paulie was nowhere at Mr Neil's wake, sacrificing Mafia propriety to fear of surveillance.

Many believed also that Big Paulie, holed up for much of the time in his replica of the White House on Staten Island, was about to do a deal with the FBI. On top of that, he wanted to close the Ravenite social club, on Mulberry Street in Little Italy, where the Gotti crew liked to gamble and carouse (much of it caught on tape by FBI bugs).

On a street crowded with Christmas shoppers in Dec ember 1985, Big Paulie's driver/bodyguard pulled up outside Sparks steak house in Manhattan. Four gunmen in trenchcoats and fur hats approached the car with a back-up man close behind and others positioned to help with the getaway. Castellano died instantly from six bullets in the head, while Gotti and Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, the architect of the hit, looked on from a Lincoln limousine. Soon Gotti was the Gambino boss.

His was not an easy reign, but it provided some sport for those who were not personally involved. A year after taking control, he was in court accused of assault. The victim failed to appear to give evidence, having repaired to a hospital instead. When he did make it to the stand, he said that he was unable to identify Gotti. Case dismissed. "I Forgotti," said the New York Daily News headline the next day.

The first four days of jury selection in his next trial were marked by a bomb scare, absent defendants, allegations of witness intimidation and the murder of an associate, whose car was blown up. "The only family John Gotti knows is his wife and children and grandchildren," said Bruce Cutler, his attorney.

Cocksure thoughout, the Dapper Don had reason for his comportment. When the jury went out to consider the case, George Pape, one of their number, told the rest of the panel: "This man Gotti is innocent. They are all innocent; as far as I'm concerned there is nothing left to discuss." Pape had been paid $60,000 in advance for his evaluation of the evidence. Not guilty. Gotti applauded the jury.

Arrested again, this time for assaulting a union official and conspiracy, Gotti told the arresting officer: "I'll lay you three to one I beat it." He did, helped in no small part when the victim, who had been shot four times, gave evidence for the defence.

Five years after Big Paulie's death, Gotti was picked up for the last time. "They arrested John Gotti the other night the same way they arrested him before, flamboyantly and theatrically," said the New York Times. "Why all the melodrama, including handcuffs and a platoon of 15 FBI agents? The only obvious pur pose is for the prosecution to preen for the cameras."

But this time there was to be no escape. The prosecution persuaded the judge that members of his legal team - including Cutler, who had worked on the previous three cases - should be disqualified because they might be called as witnesses; Gotti was rumoured to be behind six more killings; the jury was out of reach, anonymous and kept in isolation; there was the FBI tape from the Ravenite club; five of the six defence witnesses were ruled ineligible; and, crucially, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, irked at his old friend because of disparaging remarks on the tape, joined the other side.

Gravano, who conceded that, yes, he had been involved in 19 murders, told all, and Gotti was sentenced to life without parole for the murder of Big Paulie and his bodyguard and other charges. "The Don is covered with Velcro and every charge stuck," said James Fox, assistant director of the FBI's New York office.

Outside the Brooklyn court a riot organised, it is said, by his son John "Junior" Gotti ensued, in which up to 1,000 people, brought there in chartered buses, attacked cars and cried "Free John Gotti." Two jurors signed affidavits saying the conviction was unfair; four requests for a new trial were denied.

Gotti leaves his wife Victoria, two daughters and their two surviving sons. Of these, Junior, who became the acting boss in the absence of his father, is serving 77 months for extortion, loan-sharking, illegal gambling, fraud and tax evasion. "I wish every mother in America had a son like mine," said Mrs Gotti.

Their daughter Victoria, a bestselling writer of romantic novels, with a weekly column in the New York Post, is estranged from her husband Carmine Agnello, who is awaiting trial for coercion, conspiracy, grand larceny and arson. He claims that his actions were conditioned by bipolar disfunction.

The Ravenite social club on Mulberry Street is now a boutique called Amy Chan.

· John Gotti, gangster, born October 27 1940; died June 10 2002

THE LONGEST POEM
THE LONGEST LIST OF THE LONGEST STUFF AT THE LONGEST DOMAIN NAME AT LONG LAST

So what exactly is the longest poem in the world?

Get you pen ready and buy a lot of refills.

Poem Name: Only as Life.
Author: Nikhil Parekh.
Word Count: 7394 words. (Our best guess.)
Character Count: 47556 characters. (Our best guess.)

...But, epics tend to run a bit longer. OK, a lot longer. If fact one Tibetan epic, 'King Gesser', written over 1,000 years ago tells the story of a Tibetan king who conquered the devils of other Tibetan tribes and made Tibet stable.

China is in the process of trying to document 'King Gesser' as the entire epic only exists in parts memorized by Tibetan folk story tellers and folk singers. Samzhub is considered the master with over 65 of the 200 parts, totaling 20 million words, memorized.

We are not going to show you 'King Gesser', but here is 'Only in Life'

Only in Life
Nikhil Parekh

Every star in the wonderfully resplendent cosmos; may
or may not enthrallingly shine,
And every thing on this Universe that flamboyantly
shines; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
STAR..

Every flower sprouting from fathomless kilometers of
land; may or may not diffuse rhapsodic fragrance,
And every thing on this Universe that is seductively
fragrant; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
FLOWER...

Every cloud in the voluptuously crimson sky; may or
may not pelt tantalizing droplets of golden rain,
And every thing on this Universe that is enigmatically
misty; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CLOUD...

Every tree on bountifully fertile soil; may or may not
blossom into an astounding flurry of succulent fruit,
And every thing on this Universe that spawns into
countless of its kind; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a TREE...

Every battlefield on vindictively belligerent mud; may
or may not metamorphose into the ultimate victory of
mankind,
And every thing on this Universe that massacres and
indiscriminately sucks blood; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a BATTLEFIELD...

Every clock that incessantly functions for centuries
immemorial; may or may not transit you into
incredulously ravishing waves of untamed nostalgia,
And every thing on this Universe that monotonously
ticks; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CLOCK...

Every lion philandering rampantly through the
profusely robust jungles; may or may not be a
man-eater,
And every thing on this Universe; that was
vociferously ferocious; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as LION...

Every hive sandwiched amidst the magnificently royal
foliage; may or may not be boisterously buzzing,
And every thing on this Universe; that was melodiously
chattering and sweet; could not be irrefutably termed
as; only a HIVE...

Every eye majestically embossed in the sockets of the
charismatically alluring face; may or may not be
emphatic,
And every thing on this Universe with poignantly
gushing tears; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as an EYE...

Every salubrious coconut suspended from the branches;
may or may not harbor ingratiatingly sweet water in
its belly,
And every thing on this Universe that was obdurately
hard; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
COCONUT..


Every dungeon countless kilometers beneath soil; may
or may not harbor an unfathomable conglomerate of
snakes,
And every thing on this Universe as dark as the
ghastly night; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a DUNGEON...

Every stream voluptuously cascading through the
mountains; may or may not be culminating into ecstatic
froth,
And every bit of water wandering freely on this
Universe; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
STREAM...

Every song captivatingly floating through the
surreally mesmerizing atmosphere; may or may not
convey the message profoundly imbibed within,
And every voice that emanated on this Universe; could
not be irrefutably termed; only as a SONG...

Every thorn surreptitiously creeping from nimble
covers of soil; may or may not acrimoniously
infiltrate into innocuous skin,
And every thing on this Universe that was piquantly
sharp; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
THORN...

Every wind exuberantly blowing across the gorgeous
valley; may or may not strike the rocks,
And every draught of euphoric air on this Universe;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as WIND...

Every chili tangily extruding from immaculate layers
of soil; may or may not turbulently sting the tongue,
And every thing on this Universe that was thunderously
spicy; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
CHILI...

Every spider fabulously slithering through its sticky
web; may or may not inhabit the same for a fathomless
lifetimes,
And every thing on this Universe that was intractably
sticky and entangled; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a SPIDER...


Every hill rising splendidly above mundane soil; may
or may not have its summit kissing the absolute zenith
of the rosy clouds,
And every thing on this Universe that was the top most
storied; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
HILL...

Every egg left completely solitary by itself; may or
may not hatch into an immaculately divine fledgling,
And every thing on this Universe that was oval and
pearly white; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
an EGG...

Every milestone enthusiastically stretching beyond
realms of imagination; may or may not evoke
inscrutable pleasure,
And every thing on this Universe that was delightfully
delirious; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
MILESTONE...

Every mark ardently embossed since birth on the body;
may or may not prove to be astonishingly auspicious,
And every thing on this Universe that was holy and
holistic; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
MARK....

Every peacock dancing under zealously thundering rain;
may or may not make you entirely oblivious to all
other activities on earth,
And every thing on this Universe that was iridescently
feathered; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PEACOCK...

Every shadow shimmering uncontrollably like a new born
prince; may or may not cast a spell upon your drearily
sagging countenance,
And every thing on this Universe that was tranquilly
enchanting; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SHADOW...

Every wine bubbling furtively in marvelously crystal
glass; may or may not intoxicate you beyond sagacious
control; as you guzzled it down with wild frenzy,
And every thing on this Universe that was viciously
inebriating; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
WINE...

Every snake charismatically slithering through the
jungles; may or may not incarcerate you in an
enclosure of unending mysticism,
And every thing on this Universe that was ominously
hissing; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SNAKE...

Every nail agglutinated to the gigantic wall; may or
may not disdainfully rust as time unfurls,
And every thing on this Universe that was piquantly
pointed; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
NAIL...

Every slave heinously lambasted by its dictatorial
master; may or may not yield wholesomely to his
commands,
And every thing on this Universe that was
painstakingly persevering under the Sun; could not be
irrefutably termed; only as a SLAVE...

Every joke ridiculously bizarre and funny; may or may
not invoke pools of unlimited laughter,
And every thing on this Universe that made you smile;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as a JOKE....

Every destiny enigmatically encompassed within the
palms; may or may not lead to the unequivocal gates of
prosperity,
And every thing on this Universe that vacillatingly
truant; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
DESTINY...

Every hair that was unsurpassably old; may or may not
be grizzly white in color,
And everything on this Universe that was insipidly
tender follicle; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a HAIR...

Every precariously poised knife; may or may not
barbarically deprive a person of vibrant life,
And everything on this Universe that was menacingly
gleaming; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
KNIFE....

Every blade of alluringly enchanting grass; may or may
not buckle capriciously under the violently
overwhelming storm,
And everything on this Universe that was spawning
bountifully from soil; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as GRASS....

Every garland blooming into a festoon of unparalleled
chivalry; may or may not impart fathomless
grandiloquence,
And every thing on this Universe that was profusely
decorated; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
GARLAND...

Every crocodile hideously writhing in the marshes; may
or may not pulverize its prey eloping rapidly through
the dense bushes,
And every thing on this Universe that was rustically
serrated skinned; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a CROCODILE...

Every telephone celestially ringing; may or may not
bring to you the message you forever desired,
And every thing on this Universe that was vibrantly
humming; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TELEPHONE...

Every toy frolicking gregariously in the playful
showroom; may or may not transit you back to realms of
innocuous childhood,
And every thing on this Universe that was innocently
bouncing; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CHILD...

Every bell gloriously ringing in the holy temple; may
or may not bequeath upon you the entire richness of
this globe,
And every thing on this Universe that rapped with an
enchanting sound; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a BELL.


Every roof compactly stitched with brazen straw and
rubicund brick; may or may not sequester you
perpetually from the satanically speeding storm,
And every thing on this Universe that imparted
transient shelter; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a ROOF....

Every dewdrop emphatically radiating as the first rays
of dawn kissed blue sky; may or may not be pacify the
scorching trauma in your throat,
And every thing on this Universe that was fabulously
slippery; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
DEW DROP...

Every rope fantastically knotted into boundless folds;
may or may not catapult you to the ultimate summits of
your life,
And every thing on this Universe that was tenaciously
curled; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
ROPE....

Every pilot exuberantly whistling past the scenery;
may or may not crash against the sinister faade of
acrid rocks,
And every thing on this Universe that was flying like
a rocket; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PILOT....

Every crab cunningly crawling on the placidly nestling
shores; may or may inject its vindictive sting into
immaculate flesh,
And every thing on this Universe that was
surreptitiously sauntering; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a CRAB...


Every rivulet of crimson blood circulating through
countless humans; may or may not be philanthropic,
And every thing on this Universe that was ardently
red; could not be irrefutably termed; only as BLOOD...

Every embellished king seated on the scintillating
throne; may or may not be a dispenser of celestial
justice,
And every thing on this Universe which was
unequivocally princely; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as KING...

Every earthquake devastating to the most horrifically
abominable core; may or may not swipe civilizations in
its uncouthly treacherous swirl,
And every thing on this Universe which was resonating
cataclysmically; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as an EARTHQUAKE...

Every ocean ebulliently undulating under milky beams
of moonlight; may or may not drown ships in its savage
bottom,
And every thing on this Universe that was
mischievously salty; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as OCEAN...

Every opulently inspiring piano when delectably
strung; may or may not strike an intimate chord with
hearts obliviously strewn around,
And every thing on this Universe that rhythmically
rose and fell in a titillating cadence; could not be
irrefutably termed; only as PIANO...

Every ingenious idea blossoming in the brain; may or
may not lead to the pinnacle of astronomically
irrevocable success,
And every thing on this Universe that intransigently
dreamt; could not be irrefutably termed; only as an
IDEA...

Every philanthropist incorporating the mission to save
humanity in his soul; may or may not reach the most
despicably shivering quarters of this colossal planet,
And every thing on this Universe that was supremely
chivalrous; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PHILANTHROPIST...

Every story deluged with overwhelming romance and
enigma; may or may not evoke the intrinsic catharsis
of the persona,
And every thing on this Universe that was an
incredulous adventure; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a STORY....

Every wink flirtatiously executed; may or may not lead
lovers to the bridge of clandestine absconding,
And every thing on this Universe which was even the
slightest closure of the eye; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a WINK...

Every woman vividly enamoring; may or may not trigger
inferno's of raw desire through lackadaisical
ingredients of insipid blood,
And every thing on this Universe that was unbelievably
beautiful; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
WOMAN...

Every castle embedded with exotically evoking royalty;
may or may not give you the ultimate gratification of
your diminutive life,
And every thing on this Universe that was
aristocratically splendid; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a CASTLE...

Every chunk of wood floating nonchalantly through
water; may or may not decay towards corridors of
obsolete extinction,
And every thing on this Universe that was
opprobriously rotting; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as WOOD...

Every cow reigning supremely in an entrenchment of
divinity; may or may not alleviate the lives of
neglected urchins,
And every thing on this Universe that was gloriously
shining milk; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a COW...

Every prejudice stinkingly pulverizing its enemies to
infinitesimal ash; may or may not swipe civilization
from its very roots,
And every thing on this Universe that was turbulently
angry; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
PREJUDICE...

Every dog satanically galloping through the
insidiously empty streets; may or may not find its
robustly juicy bone,
And every thing on this Universe that was diabolically
barking; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
DOG...

Every terrorist pledging to finish blissful human race
like a horde of inconsequential flies; may or may not
manifest his cowardly mission into a veritable truth,
And every thing on this Universe that was abhorrent
malice; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TERRORIST....

Every whisper magnetically caressing the placid winds;
may or may not weave a tale of sensuously inexplicable
compassion,
And every thing on this Universe that was gently
diffusing; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
WHISPER...

Every insect irascibly hovering around celestial
beings; may or may not accomplish its task of
fomenting irritation,
And every thing on this Universe that pertinently
pinches you; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
an INSECT....

Every game evoking rhapsodic sensations of
unprecedented exhilaration; may or may not linger in
memory for eternal times,
And every thing on this Universe that was joyously
interacting; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a GAME...

Every cat fretting in frustrating starvation; may or
may not get a chance to smack its spout with heavenly
milk,
And every thing on this Universe that was cleverly
awaiting its chance; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a CAT....

Every beggar wailing on the tyrannical streets; may or
may not appease his gluttony to the epitome of his
appeasing contentment,
And every thing on this Universe that was spreading
its palms; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BEGGAR....

Every kite soaring handsomely in fathomless bits of
sky; may or may not escalate above the euphoric
clouds,
And every thing on this Universe that was ecstatically
flying; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
KITE...

Every bird flapping ravishingly through the boundless
skies; may or may not be a harbinger of unparalleled
peace and divinely brotherhood,
And every thing on this Universe that was
wholeheartedly free; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as BIRD...

Every robot fantastically evolved for meticulous
perfection; may or may not someday; substitute its
counterparts of the human kind,
And every thing on this Universe that was mechanically
monotonous; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
ROBOT...

Every color vivaciously trespassing dazzling space;
may or may not seduce you into a cavern of everlasting
yearning,
And every thing on this Universe that was vividly
contrasting; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
COLOR...

Every Herculean muscle enveloping tenacious shoulders;
may or may not surge forward to uplift despondently
bereaved humanity,
And every thing on this Universe that was formidably
strong; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
MUSCLE..

Every parrot squawking animatedly in its cage; may or
may not replicate its master word for word; alike,
And every thing on this Universe that was relentlessly
chattering; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
PARROT...

Every mother compassionately hugging her child all
throughout the day; may or may not be able to instill
in him the benign ideals of existence,
And every thing on this Universe that was protecting
you from disaster; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as MOTHER...

Every gigantically inflated balloon lingering in air;
may or may not burst; when vigorously pecked by the
woodpeckers,
And every thing on this Universe that fulminated with
a prolific bang; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a BALLOON...

Every cloth marvelously woven of exquisite Persian
wool; may or may not sequester you from the hideously
blowing winds of torrential winter,
And every thing on this Universe which was worn all
night and day; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as CLOTH...

Every gladiator adorned patriotically; may or may not
snatch triumph for his sacrosanct motherland,
And every thing on this Universe that was blazingly
brave; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
GLADIATOR...

Every picture woven with thrill and melodramatic
excitement; may or may not penetrate emphatically
through common masses,
And every thing on this Universe that was stupendously
entertaining; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a PICTURE...

Every pen inundated with gallons of overwhelmingly
volatile ink; may or may not spin countless lines of
fascinatingly sparkling calligraphy,
And every thing on this Universe that was spotlessly
written; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
PEN..

Every fortress invincibly impregnated with a festoon
of scarlet bricks; may or may not defend the most
mightiest of attacks,
And every thing on this Universe that was towering in
unbelievable charisma; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as FORTRESS....

Every spring magnificently coiled into intricately
glistening folds; may or may not bounce back beyond
the realms of infinite infinity,
And every thing on this Universe that was
insurmountably spongy; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a SPRING...

Every mirror embedded in oligarchic chicory rosewood;
may or may not candidly reflect; the inner most voice
entrapped intensely in the soul,
And every thing on this Universe that explicitly
divulges; could not be irrefutably termed; as only a
MIRROR...

Every line drawn exotically on seductively simmering
soil; may or may not reach its ultimate goal,
And every thing that was pragmatically straight; could
not be irrefutably termed; as only a LINE....

Every amicable lip blending uninhibitedly with all
benevolent alike; may or may not blossom into an
astoundingly tantalizing smile,
And every thing on this Universe that was chortling
into wildly desirous guffaws; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a LIP...

Every desert sizzling ruthlessly under the invidiously
flaming Sun; may or may not witness the most
inconspicuous trace of green in its entire life,
And every thing on this Universe which was just
specks of dust; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a DESERT....


Every loudspeaker blaring ferociously through the
atmosphere; may or may not spread its voice to the
most remotest corner of this Universe,
And every thing on this Universe that was vociferously
squealing; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
LOUDSPEAKER...

Every swimming pool shimmering under pearly moonlight;
may or may not entice boisterously bubbling youth in
its serenely glistening lap,
And every thing on this Universe that was tepidly blue
water; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SWIMMING POOL....

Every skin glowing in perennial flavor of robust
health; may or may not wrinkle profusely with
inevitably advancing age,
And every thing on this Universe that was blushing
complexion; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
SKIN...

Every curtain majestically sprawled across the window;
may or may not sequester the mansion from each ray of
incorrigibly filtering sunlight,
And every thing on this Universe that was lanky
bedspread of cotton wool; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a CURTAIN....

Every trophy irrevocably radiating in the sparkle of
fascinating success; may or may not highlight the
epitome of unparalleled success,
And every thing on this Universe that was beautiful
triumph; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TROPHY...

Every afternoon blazing in scorchingly tenacious
light; may or may not make you abhorrently perspire,
And every thing on this Universe that was swelteringly
hot; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
AFTERNOON....

Every blink playfully swiping the territory of the dry
eye; may or may not grant it with the blanket of
poignant moisture it badly desired,
And every thing on this Universe that was flickering
violently; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BLINK....

Every fossil mysteriously engraved in the chain of
century old rocks; may or may not reveal the explicit
portrait of its possessor,
And every thing on this Universe that was
overwhelmingly scribbled glass; could not be
irrefutably termed; only as a FOSSIL...

Every splurge relentlessly lavishing in glorious
ostentation; may or may not end in getting you all the
virtues of life that you desired,
And every thing on this Universe that was overtly
spendthrift; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
SPLURGE...

Every cross stringently inscribed on the walls; may or
may not succeed in delivering in its message of
restricting insidious activity,
And every thing on this Universe that was strictly
inclement; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CROSS...

Every holiday enchantingly basking in the glory of
opulent paradise; may or may not rejuvenate your
traumatically brutalized senses,
And every thing on this Universe that was even a
trifle free; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a HOLIDAY...

Every headache pertinently pulsating in every cranny
of the mind; may or may not devastate you entirely to
collapse pathetically on cold ground,
And every thing on this Universe that was irritatingly
paining; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
HEADACHE...

Every stomach ravenously thundering in pangs of
uncontrollable hunger; may or may not consume the
unfathomably colossal mountain of food,
And every thing on this Universe that was provokingly
hungry; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
STOMACH...

Every country unbelievably sprawling; may or may not
harbor the vivaciously salty sea shores,
And every thing on this Universe that was a prolific
gathering of individuals; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a COUNTRY...

Every mushroom dingily leaping up from dilapidated
soil; may or may not savor a place in the menu cards
of each grandiloquently flourishing restaurant,
And every thing on this Universe that was button
shaped and fleshy; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a MUSHROOM....

Every thought enigmatically wandering through realms
of the discovering mind; may or may not culminate into
a celestially blooming fantasy,
And every thing on this Universe that was intriguingly
baffling; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
THOUGHT...

Every helmet adorned courageously on the head; may or
may not succeed in protecting the skull; as the
mountains crashed down viciously upon it,
And every thing on this Universe that was shielded the
scalp; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
HELMET....


Every tear that emphatically descended down from the
eye; may or may not reflect an island of shivering
sadness,
And every thing on this Universe that was effusively
tangy; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TEAR...

Every rabbit philandering through the verdant meadows;
may or may not escape from the diabolical alligators
in the slushy marshes,
And every thing on this Universe that was inimitably
docile; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
RABBIT....

Every minute that mechanically sped past the body of
the clock; may or may not portray the rapidly
unfurling essence of time,
And every thing on this Universe that was
spectacularly time; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a MINUTE...

Every word compassionately embossed in the gigantic
dictionary; may or may not trigger chords of ever
augmenting empathy,
And every thing on this Universe that was scribbled by
a pen; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
WORD....

Every boxer prancing perilously in the ring; may or
may not inflict a total knockout of his unsuspecting
opponent,
And every thing on this Universe that was puffed
glove; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BOXER...

Every folly committed unwittingly by a human; may or
may not lead to severely crippling disaster,
And every thing on this Universe that was
incongruously muddled; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a FOLLY....

Every finger ejecting in marvelous unison from the
hands; may or may not be able to grip the
indispensable threads of existence,
And every thing on this Universe that was an
amalgamation of lanky bones; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a FINGER....

Every team bonded in the spirit of unbelievable
harmony; may or may not kiss the crescendo of victory
as it unflinchingly progressed,
And every thing on this Universe that was united
together; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TEAM....

Every pencil extravagantly lead tipped; may or may not
sketch each intricately fabulous contour of the
scarlet landscape,
And every thing on this Universe that was with a tip;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as a PENCIL...


Every slang spoken in passionately Oriental fashion;
may or may not perpetuate thunderbolts of inevitable
attraction,
And every thing on this Universe that was supremely
stylish; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
SLANG...

Every night dissipating a spell of unmatched desire;
may or may not incinerate seductive currents down your
spine,
And every thing on this Universe that was
enthrallingly dark; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as NIGHT....

Every spectacle embedded with meticulously perfect
glass; may or may not bestow upon you the crystalline
vision of your overpowering choice,
And every thing on this Universe that was
transparently scintillating; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a SPECTACLE....

Every dragon cataclysmically trespassing through the
forest; may or may not succeed in charring the entire
wilderness; into bedraggled fragments of chowder,
And every thing on this Universe that was breathing
fire from its mouth; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a DRAGON....

Every mouth lavishly set amidst the captivating
contours of the face; may or may not utter the tunes
of ultimate reality,
And every thing on this Universe that was foolishly
chattering; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
MOUTH...

Every Sun beam wonderfully sizzling upon mud; may or
may not fumigate its deathly decay; with the austere
ardor in its flaming demeanor,
And every thing on this Universe that was golden rays;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as a SUN...

Every noodle dangling pleasantly from the ceiling; may
or may not be able to incarcerate profuse aliens; in
its gregarious swishes,
And every thing on this Universe that was voluptuously
pudgy; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
NOODLE...

Every festival religiously followed by countless on
the planet; may or may not bond all those murderously
sucking blood; in bonds of eternal love,
And every thing on this Universe that was holistically
ritualistic; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a FESTIVAL...

Every cactus lingering pompously in the royally
shimmering deserts; may or may not penetrate its
hostile nettles into innocent beings caressing it,
And every thing on this Universe that was growing from
sand; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CACTUS....


Every key articulately molded into an intriguing
shape; may or may not pilfer through the code of the
dogged lock,
And every thing on this Universe that was intricately
slender; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
LOCK...

Every paper when fanatically crushed by the fist; may
or may not transform its fragile caricature into a
flexible ball,
And every thing on this Universe that was printed by
your side; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
PAPER...

Every worm worthlessly slithering through murderous
darkness; may or may not radiate; emphatically
brilliant rays of light,
And every thing on this Universe that was diminutively
curvaceous; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
WORM...

Every iceberg lecherously hood-winking under the
nocturnal blanket of stars; may or may not emerge
triumphant in decimating the colossal ship,
And every thing on this Universe that was immutably
solidified water; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as an ICEBERG...

Every firecracker raring to thunderously burst; may or
may not bedazzle every single arena of the cosmos with
flaming light,
And every thing on this Universe that was incoherently
rambunctious; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a FIRECRACKER...

Every discotheque sleazily swarming with sanctimonious
youngsters; may or may not ignite the night with
cloudbursts of untamed desire,
And every thing on this Universe that was
bombastically cheap; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a DISCOTHEQUE...

Every panther rebelliously sprinting under pearly rays
of Moon; may or may not capsize the incredulously
succulent prey of its choice,
And every thing on this Universe that was flamingly
bellicose; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PANTHER...

Every missile shooting violently through innocent
carpets of air; may or may not strike its desirous
range of fixed targets,
And every thing on this Universe that was ricocheting
like a lunatic boomerang; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a MISSILE...

Every automobile speeding like a celestial angel
through the romantically panoramic landscapes; may or
may not catapult you to the realms above eternally
enchanting eternity,
And every thing on this Universe that was racing
beyond its limits; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as an AUTOMOBILE...

Every blind man trespassing across the discordantly
bustling street; may or may not transcend past it
without a single scratch,
And every thing on this Universe that was boundlessly
dark; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a BLIND
MAN...

Every butterfly fluttering gloriously in blistering
sunshine; may or may not hoist the gaudy caterpillars
of its inherent choice,
And every thing on this Universe that was serenely
flapping; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BUTTERFLY...

Every damsel young and seductively charming; may or
may not be able to entrap the perfect man of her
choice,
And every thing on this Universe that was pristinely
bubbling; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
DAMSEL....

Every wall constructed of Herculean strength steel;
may or may not stagger like a pack of mosquitoes as
the uncouth disaster struck,
And every thing on this Universe that was compactly
solid; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
WALL...

Every spice wavering appetizingly in the atmosphere
around; may or may not tingle the taste buds beyond
unprecedented capacity,
And every thing on this Universe that was deliciously
poignant; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
SPICE...

Every guarantee spoken intractably; may or may not
manifest itself into a perennially secure reality,
And every thing on this Universe that was an
everlasting promise; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a PROMISE...

Every banana skin teasingly huddled on the floor; may
or may not engender you to dramatically slip,
And every thing on this Universe that made you trip;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as a BANANA...

Every talent unbelievably lingering in a timid visage;
may or may not flower into eclectically supernatural
success,
And every thing on this Universe that was inherently
gifted; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TALENT....

Every zip meticulously riveted to the garment; may or
may not snugly hold it in position on the flabby
waist,
And every thing on this Universe that was a precise
juggernaut of steely teeth; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a ZIP....

Every bubble rising euphorically in limp air; may or
may not erupt into a fountain of ecstatic froth,
And every thing on this Universe that was perfectly
soapy; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BUBBLE...

Every boomerang carved melodiously out of roasted
wood; may or may not hurl back towards infinity; after
releasing its loop,
And every thing on this Universe speedily retreating
back; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BOOMERANG...

Every root deeply embedded in corridors of chocolate
brown soil; may or may not withstand the onslaught of
the mercilessly whipping storm,
And every thing on this Universe that was coated with
grizzly mud; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a ROOT....


Every screw fantastically engineered to unprecedented
degrees of perfection; may or may not be able to hold
the tumbledown scaffolding,
And every thing on this Universe that was enveloped
with revolving threads; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a SCREW....

Every crayon superbly blossoming into a myriad of
gorgeously garish color; may or may not be able to
sketch playfully upon the barren demeanor of
boundlessly barren canvas,
And every thing on this Universe that was invariably
wax like; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CRAYON....

Every teacher sagaciously imparting the indispensable
values of life; may or may not form a perpetual
rapport with his students,
And every thing on this Universe that was
distinguishably bespectacled; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a TEACHER...

Every circus flooded with an incredulous township of
acrobatics; may or may not bring laughter to the faces
of those horrifically deprived,
And every thing on this Universe that was musically
entertaining; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a CIRCUS...

Every prison savagely torturing the blood stained
criminal for his plethora of misdeeds; may or may not
be able to keep him for countless more of his
lifetimes,
And every thing on this Universe that was morbidly
dark; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PRISON...

Every traveler nomadically wandering since the time he
was born; may or may not be able to tread foot on each
cranny of this fathomlessly intriguing planet,
And every thing on this Universe that was walking
barefoot; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
TRAVELER...

Every barber resting like a king in his gloriously
plush saloon; may or may not scrap the last bit of
dirt from his clients hair,
And every thing on this Universe that was
clip-clopping scissors; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a BARBER...

Every government romping to power after the
manipulative elections; may or may not succeed in
wholesomely protecting the sacred solidarity of its
people,
And every thing on this Universe that was the nerve
center of power; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as GOVERNMENT....

Every scientist incessantly engulfed in chambers of
bubbling test tubes and space crafts; may or may not
discover the gene that could assassinate devil
forever,
And every thing on this Universe that was clad in
apron and gloves; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a SCIENTIST...

Every train whistling royally through the wilderness
of the jungles; may or may not impart inexorable
exhilaration to its passengers seated despondently
inside,
And every thing on this Universe that was shrieking
and on rails; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a TRAIN...

Every mask fabulously woven in different dimensions;
may or may not completely conceal the true identity of
its dastardly beholder,
And every thing on this Universe that was clandestine
cloistering; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a MASK...

Every arrow chiseled more lethally sharp than the
knife; may or may not puncture its obsessively
focussed target,
And every thing on this Universe that was dedicatedly
mission oriented; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as an ARROW...

Every article laden with eloquently vibrant imagery;
may or may not reflect the supremely volatile spirit
of harmonious survival,
And every thing on this Universe that was a jugglery
of rhapsodic words; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as an ARTICLE..

Every maze severely entangled in complications and
enigmatic riddles; may or may not lead wholeheartedly
to a victorious outlet,
And every thing on this Universe that was profoundly
criss-crossed; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a MAZE...

Every couple bonded in threads of holy matrimony; may
or may not immortalize the never dying spirit of love;
for decades immemorial,
And every thing on this Universe that was intimate
togetherness; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
a COUPLE...

Every pig disdainfully snoring in the aisles of
lackadaisical laziness; may or may not lavish gulping
down the pile of ragged rubbish,
And every thing on this Universe that was fetidly
dirty; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PIG...

Every crown zealously jeweled at all quarters; may or
may not fit the scalp of the timidly feverish prince,
And every thing on this Universe that was stupendously
majestic; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CROWN...

Every scar pruriently creeping up on innocent skin;
may or may not reveal the invidiously hostile disaster
that had devilishly engendered it,
And every thing on this Universe that was distortedly
ugly; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SCAR...

Every adage perennially existing since this earth was
created; may or may not change the tottering
complexion of every impoverished life,
And every thing on this Universe that was an impactful
philosophy; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
PHILOSOPHY...

Every garage splendidly harboring a battalion of
trendy cars; may or may not incorporate stealthy
cobwebs in its Aztec interiors,
And every thing on this Universe that was collapsible
shutters; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
GARAGE...

Every battery prolifically charged all throughout the
night; may or may not diffuse into light which killed
even the most tiniest iota of disgusting darkness,
And every thing on this Universe that was animatedly
charged up; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
BATTERY....

Every fork bifurcated into countless blades; may or
may not be able to hoist the crooked piece of
sturgeon; sizzling tantalizingly in the chicory plate,
And every thing on this Universe that was bent
needles; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
FORK....


Every bull doggedly adorned in robes of satanic red;
may or may not succeed in uncouthly goring its
unsuspecting opponent,
And every thing on this Universe that was
intransigently stubborn; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a BULL....

Every coin iridescently clattering in the insatiable
aura of its opulence; may or may not bring
astonishingly good luck to its cherished beholder,
And every thing on this Universe that was marvelously
glimmering; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
COIN...

Every geyser mechanically controlled with an
unbelievable flurry of contemporary contraptions; may
or may not generate water warm enough to withstand the
chilling cold,
And every thing on this Universe that was
compassionately warm; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a GEYSER...

Every drink glowing a fiery crimson; may or may not
inebriate its consumer beyond the realms of pragmatic
control,
And every thing on this Universe that was ardently
beautiful elixir; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a DRINK....


Every cheek radiantly basking in robustly spell
binding health; may or may not blush to a profuse
crimson; when thoroughly embarrassed,
And every thing on this Universe that was emphatically
changing color; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a CHEEK....

Every ear dangling in razor sharp precision from the
head; may or may not be able to catch the most
inconspicuously minuscule sound loitering around,
And every thing on this Universe that was somberly
flapping; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
EAR...

Every hero galloping in incredible cynosure and
popularity; may or may not rap the chord of humanity
in impoverished hearts alike,
And every thing on this Universe that was
resplendently starry; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as a STAR...


Every string resiliently suspended in open space; may
or may not balance the weight of the monster trying
nonchalantly to tread on its slim periphery,
And every thing on this Universe that was wearily
extruding from lackadaisical rags of barbarically
ripped garment; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a STRING..


Every organism evolved by Omnisciently Almighty lord;
may or may not become a harbinger of humanity in the
tenure of its life,
And every thing on this Universe that the eye
witnessed; could not be irrefutably termed; only as an
ORGANISM...

Every moustache sprouting into a splendidly masculine
bush; may or may not be able to captivate the heart of
the seductively wandering lady,
And every thing on this Universe that was a coalition
of hair; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
MOUSTACHE...

Every personality having a distinctive aura of its
own; may or may not achieve the wings of heaven; after
it emancipated breath and died,
And every thing on this Universe that was
charismatically graceful; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as a PERSONALITY...

Every denim jaded stupendously to a stonewash finish;
may or may not appease the dynamically plodding youth,
And every thing on this Universe that was
substantially faded; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as DENIM....

Every scale astutely incorporating all nuances of
measurement; may or may not be able to measure the
absolute pinnacles of the sky,
And every thing on this Universe that was fervently
calibrated; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SCALE...

Every obsession fanatically inhabiting each ingredient
of the blood; may or may not thrive amidst the hostile
pack of wolves,
And every thing on this Universe that was insanely
lunatic; could not be irrefutably termed; only as an
OBSSESSION....

Every smell nostalgically hovering in free space; may
or may not incinerate adorably fond memories of
existence,
And every thing on this Universe that inadvertently
reached the nostrils; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as SMELL....

Every longing as ardent as the roar of a lion; may or
may not imprison the organism of its choice,
And every thing on this Universe that you immortally
dreamt of; could not be irrefutably termed; only as
LONGING...

Every treasury unimaginably glittering beyond infinite
infinity; may or may not be able to purchase the
happiness it so desired in life,
And every thing on this Universe that was
scintillatingly gorgeous luxury; could not be
irrefutably termed; only as a TREASURY....

Every cockroach loitering aimlessly around the
lavatory seat; may or may not choose to frighten
innocent beings,
And every thing on this Universe that was pathetically
filthy; could not irrefutably be termed; only as a
COCKROACH...

Every aircraft possessing an Oligarchic pair of wings;
may or may not transport its passengers safely; in
face of torrentially death storms,
And every thing on this Universe that was frenziedly
flying; could not be irrefutably termed; only as an
AIRCRAFT...

Every athlete fervently dashing towards the finishing
line; may or may not wholeheartedly embrace the
finishing line,
And every thing on this Universe that was
unflinchingly running; could not be irrefutably
termed; only as an ATHLETE...

Every season Omnisciently descending upon harmonious
civilization; may or may not heal the wounds of
uncouthly tyrannizing destiny,
And every thing on this Universe that most
synergistically metamorphosed its complexion; could
not irrefutably be termed; only as SEASON...

Every prodigy catapulting to the summit of
unconquerable success; may or may not be a benevolent
human being,
And every thing on this Universe that was astoundingly
proliferating; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as a PRODIGY...

Every novel propelled with an armory of fascinating
tales; may or may not hold the attention of its reader
till the very last page,
And every thing on this Universe that was vibrantly
worded; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
NOVEL....

Every angel that descended from the Omnipotent
heavens; may or may not grant you; your unrelenting
repertoire of boundless wishes,
And every thing on this Universe with silken grace and
charm; could not be irrefutably termed; only as an
ANGEL...

Every heart that throbbed an infinite times in
passionate chests all across the planet; may or may
not find the most supreme love of its life,
And every thing on this Universe that fervently beats;
could not be irrefutably termed; only as a HEART...

Every soul that wanders frantically across the
inexplicably mysterious realms of this gigantic
planet; may or may not find the peace which it
ardently desired,
And every thing on this Universe that is holistically
immortal; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
SOUL...

Every corpse morbidly rotting towards extinction; may
or may not contain the impoverished caricature of
those dead,
And every thing on this Universe which impoverishedly
clatters; could not be irrefutably termed; only as a
CORPSE...

Every conscience which formed the nerve center of a
persons existence; may or may not be perpetually
righteous,
And every thing on this Universe that is honest and
the inner most; could not be irrefutably termed; only
as CONSCIENCE..

Every life that transgresses through sweltering
cocoons of shimmering sand; may or may not be
blissfully happy,
And every thing on this Universe that is blooming with
unprecedented joy; could not be irrefutably termed;
only as LIFE... <>

Scary [censored]..... Wait till Big O sells our Nuc's to pay off the National deficit....

Mf