This is part of a story that appeared in a newspaper this past week.

"Hazleton police had gone to several addresses in the past year, including what they listed as a Wilkes-Barre halfway house, before finally tracking her down in Tamaqua last month.

Keller was sent to jail Monday because she had failed to answer notices to appear in court, Zola said. He said she was unable to post the required $750 bail.

You're obligated when you move to give a forwarding address. If you keep moving from location to location, without giving a forwarding address, what would our world be?" Zola said.

"Keller, who said the Wilkes-Barre address was a domestic violence shelter, said she never knew about the library fines until police came to her house last month. She quit high school at 16 and receives Social Security disability payments, she said. She has two daughters, ages 2 and 10 months, who are in adoptive or foster homes, she said. Keller has not yet retained a lawyer or had any jail visits, she said. "

Ok, now I have a problem with a couple of things here.

First: Do these police have nothing better to do than track down people for over due library books? It's a really good thing that the Clinton administration put thousands more police on the streets so we are protected from these desperate library book criminals.

Second: "you're obligated to give a forwarding address"? What the hell is that all about? If and when I move, I will give a forwarding address to whomever I want to give a forwarding address to. I might even notify the Post Office of a change of address, but I certainly do not feel obligated to do so. The second part of this statement, " If you keep moving from location to location, without giving a forwarding address, what would our world be?" My answer, I don't know, why not try it? It might make it harder for the junk mail people keep up with us. It certainly won't destroy civilization, as we know it.

And then there is one of my pet peeves "disabilities"; this probably means she is unable to get up early enough to hold down a steady job. This could be unfair, since I don't know very much about her, but I did see a picture of her and she looked healthy enough. I've known several people in my lifetime who were on disability, and none were disabled.

If you come back here often enough you'll probably discover I have strong feelings about several things.

1. Taxes are theft.
2. Disability should be increased for those truly need it. But in 90% of the cases, it is not needed. So, it too is just theft.
3. Anyone who continues to have children when they can't or won't take care of them should be sterilized.

I know that last one is very controversial, but I firmly believe if some of these people would stop having children, that I as a taxpayer have to support, the world would be a lot better off. Look at the pictures you see on TV from the third world. Total devastation, nothing green, dust storms, no houses and in the middle of the picture is a gaunt, hollow eyed women sitting in the ground with a baby hanging form her breast. The baby's bones are showing and its belly is swelled from starvation. Why is that woman having children anyway? She can't even feed herself, much less children.

Nature is a wonderful thing. It has a way of curing a great deal of bad situations. Starvation, predation and natural disasters. Ok, we can't just let nature take it's course, that would be cruel, right? We advocate the spaying and neutering of pets because not doing so adds to the suffering of over population. Why not spay and neuter humans for the same reason. That's what it is, over population, when you see people who can't feed or take care of their young. Think about that the next time you see those pictures from Somalia, or the young girl in the line ahead of you at the grocery store with three small children (almost always crying) using food stamps to pay for fruit loops and milk.

As always, if you want to contact me to agree, disagree or add to my confusion you can e-mail me.