The actual definition of anarchy is "rule by no one". I'm sure Meta or Guglielmo could break down the word and tell us the meanings of its part, but it is very far from the definition you gave. I don't where you got that, but it is an irresponsibly inaccurate definition.

I'm sure you've seen the image called the 'Circle A'. Many people don't know that it's not a circle at all, but the letter 'O'. What's the O stand for you wonder? It stands for "Order". Anarchists are about community, cooperation, consensus, democracy, etc. Saying that they are only out for themselves is also inaccurate.

I will give you that there is a group of people in town, mostly younger college students, who like to play anarchist on the weekends, but they don't at all define or make up the entire movement. It just felt like you were casting a wide net.

Oh, and hippies and anarchists are very different kinds of people and really don't often commingle much.

Now, I realize this is a wakeup call that natural foods from scratch are the best, and as a person who loves to cook in their own home I agree. But on those nights where we're tired and it'd be nice to just throw something from the freezer in the oven it leaves us little or no choices.

Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.
Peter Viereck, Yale Professor

...remember to contrast it with our colors.

.........send someone out to acquire a growler of ginger brew from Fish (or go to the pub yourself and drink it, this only applies if you are fit for company).

Also drink Nyquil at regular appropriate intervals. Plus drinks tons of water.

Remember, this too shall pass.

I agree with the Arizona statement, not so sure about the Rockies, though.  They remind me of the 1997 Marlins and once again, it looks like Cleveland may be on another losing side of an underdog team whose payroll is in the bottom third of the league.  The Marlins beat the Indians in the 1997 World Series.

I'd like to see the Indians win it all!

The old saying goes "it's not the end of the world," but what if it was? If a natural or man-made disaster wiped out the human race, would the Earth be better off without us? Or would it miss us? In his bestselling book "The World Without Us," journalist Alan Weisman paints a picture of a world without people. Weisman asked scientists, engineers and religious leaders what would happen to a post-human planet Earth, and he explained his findings in an Oct. 8 speech in Minneapolis.