Erik wrote:
Anyone else want to make any competing predictions? This could be
interesting...
Interesting stuff, Erik, though I don't pretend to understand it
completely.
A few questions. In the late '70s oil prices spiked and the result was
double digit inflation (one of the things that
60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, one time top anti-terrorism
advisor.
60 Minutes has two sources that told them independently of Clarke that the
encounter described below happened, including an actual witness
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml]
or
60 Minutes interview with Richard Clarke, one time top anti-terrorism
advisor.
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml]
or
http://tinyurl.com/yq9ax
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until
Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr.
Warning of implied x rated content. If youi are under 18, or highly
sensitive to obscenities, implied or otherwise, close your eyes before
reading this email. If you are over 18, you may proceed.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
David wrote:
Not a winner this time. Try
David wrote:
O.K., getting better. I give it 10 (out of 10) for denigration,
9 for euphony (unless you want Lie to have a schwa in it)
No schwa. Schwashtica, maybe, but no schwa.
and 10 for relevance. But I have to ding it two points for
obscenity. Still, 27 is a good score.
What, no points
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:58:11 -0500, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think you just tied ReptiliKlan. I still don't see
how Repulsive ties in with just the Republican party. I mean,
have you LOOKED at Ted Kennedy recently? : )
Kenedocrats? Demblobocrats?
--
Doug
Travis wrote:
Don't feel bad. Just believe it's big, and then it's not a lie.
THEN...when you tell everyone how big it is, it's true. Does that make
any sense?
As long as you don't set off the metal detectors...
--
Doug
___
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/20/clarke.cbs/
Clarke, who headed a cyber-security office at the White House until the
office was transferred to the newly created Homeland Security Department
in February 2003, told CBS that Rumsfeld suggested retaliating against
Iraq immediately after the
Julia wrote:
What the government of S.A. does and what its people would like it to do
are not necessarily the same thing.
This could be said of many governments.
That's true, but if you took the S.A. governments POV the houseguest
analogy wouldn't even apply.
--
Doug
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58658-2004Mar14.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/25xuh
It has become conventional wisdom in Washington that rising tax burdens
crush labor markets. Bush castigated his political opponents last week for
that old policy of tax and spend that would be the
Jeffrey wrote:
Its hard to believe that this is a lie.I don't think that Rumsfeld
would so forcibly deny using the words immediate threat if he had
recalled using them.
A far more likely explanation is that he confused the phrase
immediate
threat with imminent threat.
Believe it or not, I
Gautam wrote:
No matter how much you try, Doug, the President was
President during 9/11, he did respond to it, and it
_is_ a political issue. He deserves to be reelected
precisely because of that response.
He needs to be sent packing because he's fighting the wrong war on the
wrong people and
Tom wrote:
A sad thing is, it really is important to take Saddam out.
I don't think it should have been priority one. I think our top priority
should have been coalition building and the creation of a cooperative
network to root out and destroy terrorism. I think if we had done this
while
U.S. Official Says Spanish Government 'Mishandled' Reports on Bombing
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: March 18, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 17 The Bush administration said Wednesday for the
first time that the Spanish government had mishandled early information
about the Madrid
http://tinyurl.com/2kkfl
WARSAW, Poland - Poland, which has about 2,400 troops in Iraq, was
misled about the threat from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons
of mass destruction, its president said Thursday.
The remarks by President Aleksander Kwasniewski were his first hint of
such
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/iraqintell/home.htm#press
or http://tinyurl.com/2ynec
This is an excerpt from one of the PDFs at the site - Key Findings and
Summary of Reccomendations.
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from
Iraqs WMD and ballistic
http://tinyurl.com/yvkmw
The most vivid display of the Administration's widening credibility gap
came when CBS's Bob Schieffer asked Rumsfeld If Iraq did not have WMD,
why did they pose an immediate threat to this country? Rumsfeld retorted,
You and a few other critics are the only people I've
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 08:49:03 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do know who Alex Castellanos is, and the bureaucRATS
thing is a proof of how desperate you are to find
something. Because, of course, that whole thing was
made up - a fictional tempest in a teapot over a
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:22:36 -0500, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 08:49 AM 3/16/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I want a
cite on Bush's ads, since I don't think he's ran any
that say that, and I generally know what his ads say -
and it should be a better cite than Salon Magazine.
Travis wrote:
Being a proud Canadian, I take offense to that Doug. We are STILL (not
WAS) one of your staunchest allies. Nothing has changed in that respect.
And I challenge you to prove me wrong.
As a side note, I would be interested in hearing some American thoughts
on the Canada-USA
Nick wrote:
I'm not suggesting that this will put this issue to rest, but I think
it's a good first response to list-unrest.
It's like the swear words that people find offensive; the bigger the deal
you make of them, the bigger the deal they actually are.
--
Doug
Off to the high desert for a
Gautam wrote:
No, I'm sure Doug didn't know.
No I didn't know. If she is an anti-Semite, then I'm sorry I posted the
article and will view articles from Salon with skepticism in the future.
Salon is defending her here:
http://www.salon.com/letters/editor/2004/03/15/smear/
Kwiatkowski's
...and does an interview:
http://tinyurl.com/2me3y
(NY Times
I think they had a set mind, Mr. Blix said on NBC's Today show as he
began a 10-day American book tour in the week marking the first year
anniversary of the United States-led invasion.
They wanted to come to the conclusion that there
John wrote:
Incredible, Al Qaeda attacks Spain just three days before the election,
and suddenly the voters plump for the opposition
I wouldn't place all the blame (for the election results) on the
terrorists - or is my recollection that there was little popular support
for the Spanish
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 23:57:53 -0500, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One poorly stood conclusion of economics is that Buy American campaigns
(or as Doug recently suggested, Loyalty Polcies) are actually highly
counterproductive.
Read my posts again, John. I never argued for buy American
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 08:08:37 -0500, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
At 12:21 AM 3/13/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
One poorly stood conclusion of economics is that Buy American
campaigns
(or as Doug recently suggested, Loyalty Polcies) are actually highly
counterproductive.
Read my
Richard wrote:
There's also the killfile, which is even more effective and requires
even less effort.
This is the key. If you're offended by him, plonk him.
That said I'd like to point out that personal attacks rarely if ever win
debating points. IMO you weaken your position considerably by
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:29:13 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 05:12:39PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
We were discussing the relationship between employers and employees.
Why is employer loyalty essentially buy American?
The implication of your statement
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 06:16:55PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Then I was unclear. Basically all I really meant is that if someone
lends you a helping hand it would be nice if you didn't turn around
and kick them in the balls for their trouble.
What constitutes kick them
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:48:43 +, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Doug said:
I never said, by the way, that I favored tariffs or trade restrictions
except in consideration of environmental factors and labor practices.
How about to preserve strategically important industries in the US?
John wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097048/
And the conclusion:
But wait: All the evidenceas both sides acknowledgeis seriously flawed
and doesn't begin to supply anything like solid support for either the
hopes of gay family harmony or the fears about scarred children and skewed
parenting.
Gautam wrote:
If NPR's _only_ public funding was from federal grants
that it won competitively, that would be fine. But it
doesn't - it gets special allocations and special
privileges that aren't on the open market. It
competes not through bidding, but through the
political process - through
Gautam wrote:
Doug wrote:
What competition is there for a _grant_?
How much competition was there for the Iraq
contract(s)?
Plenty. You ever tried to apply for one? It's not
easy, and it's not fun. As for the Iraq contracts,
the contracts were in fact open for bidding. In fact
a few years
JDG:
shot. ;-)
hws ths?
--
Doug
smart alek 8^)
by the way, I agree...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Salon.com has just broken a major story detailing how the Pentagon created
a special office to manipulate intelligence data on Iraq and WMDs. It's
written by Karen Kwiatkowski, a military offer who was part of this unit,
telling us the inside story in her own words.
This is the conclusion to
Tom Beck wrote:
Anyone who would wish Ashcroft personally ill is a jerk. I can't stand
the job he's done as AG, but I bear him no ill will as a human being.
I agree, and I wish him well, but I still think the Bill Maher line is
pretty funny.
--
Doug
John wrote:
Actually, it sounds like both of our honest opinions reflect a consensus
on
the likelihood of it succeeding.
I think the time is ripe, actually.
I'll be checking it out...
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
John wrote:
Nevertheless, if by loyalty you mean keeping their goods and services
more expensive than those of their competitors, I think that it is very
unreasonable to expect that of anybody.
Exactly. That's one of the reasons why an unrestricted free market is an
unhealthy system, IMO. We
Erik wrote:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:39:31AM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Exactly. That's one of the reasons why an unrestricted free market
is an unhealthy system, IMO. We value loyalty but the free market
doesn't.
No, you apparently value loyalty highly, and some others do. Still
others
Erik wrote:
Then the company officers and/or directors are disloyal to their
owners/shareholders.
Since owners/shareholders benefit from a government that nurtures their
industry and from dedicated employees, differentiating them from company
officers and/or directors is disingenuous.
--
Doug
Erik wrote:
No, but the concept of loyalty here is naive and simplistic.
In fact, I think there is a level of complexity here that is extremely
difficult to deal with.
I never said, by the way, that I favored tariffs or trade restrictions
except in consideration of environmental factors and
Erik wrote:
Then what did you mean by:
Exactly. That's one of the reasons why an unrestricted free market
is an unhealthy system, IMO. We value loyalty but the free market
doesn't.
It seems you are saying that restrictions are needed to make a free
market system healthy with respect to
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:08:20 -0600, Robert Seeberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much are you paying in your part of the country?
$1.56 or so down the street from me, but the picture on drudge that
linked to the article below shows $2.28. Yikes, that is high
http://tinyurl.com/yv6pj
Gary Nunn wrote:
$2.15 for regular here and predicted to hit $3 this summer.
Doug
Where are you at Doug?
Prices here in Central Ohio are $1.79. They did their typical Thursday
morning price jump.
S.F. bay area, Ca.
--
Doug
___
John wrote:
Here is an article with the data, and an interesting discussion of this
topic:
http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2446951
So, is this a solicitation or were you going to lend us your password?
8^)
--
Doug
___
John wrote:
My data is taken from an enclosed graph, which I will happily send to
anyone who asks for it.
And in a way, I guess this is a soliciation, as in my mind _The
Economist_
is head and shoulders above any other news magazine out there.
So how do you answer the critisizm leveled in the
Debbi wrote:
Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Seeberger wrote:
How much are you paying in your part of the
country?
$1.56 or so down the street from me, but the
picture on drudge that
linked to the article below shows $2.28. Yikes
John wrote:
It is positive to see that The Fool's opposition to the War in Iraq is
now
based on the fact that we did not attack Iraq soon enough.
Glad to see that you are on board.
The fact that the terrorist camp was in Iraq was incidental. One can be
against the invasion of Iraq (in
I'm for free trade as long as the environment and labor practices are
taken into account (I agree with most of what Erik had to say). However,
I do agree somewhat with Jan that U.S. corporations should have some
loyalty to the country that fostered them and the workers that helped make
them
Deborah wrote:
Debbi
Feeling Quarrelsome Today Maru :-/
You know what I find particularly interesting about OSC's paranoid rant is
when you juxtapose it with the message behind Ender's game - didn't Ender
and his boys wipe out an entire race after being attacked by them and then
find out that
Jan wrote:
But they are not taking relativly well paid positions. They are
taking slave wages. What could possibly be right about that? And
don't start telling me how bad off their countries economy is,
becouse that is their issue. If their society could support it's own
companies without
Just found the title amusing...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31587-2004Mar4.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/ytu6x
Prompted by the president, chassis-maker Les DenHerder said the tax cuts
Bush backed might allow him to hire two or three more people.
When he says he's going to
John wrote:
I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided
by
The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be:
1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions
2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected
adoptions of children.
Julia wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That
doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely,
unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that
the
Civil War was fought over states rights.
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:04:30 -0500 (EST), Jim Sharkey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julia Thompson wrote:
If Erik is a pig, he's Some Pig!
I'd even argue he's Terrific!
Jim
That was an easy one Maru
Aye, not much of a tangled web...
--
Doug
___
Ronn! wrote:
So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide
on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the
above-cited second amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and
John wrote:
Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this.
I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying
homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after.
I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions
by
Ronn! wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, who is it who decides how things should
be proceeding?
I believe that would be me, and for a small monthly subscription I can
keep you up to date.
--
Doug
8^)
___
Bryon wrote:
I believe these legal rights and standings aren't provided by the
government to reward baby production, or even as a reward at all, but
because the government is recognizing that marriage joins two people
together as next of kin for all legal intents and purposes.
We get a
Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating old
messages in my brin-l folder.
JDG wrote:
As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in
favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is despite the fact, as
noted earlier, that I don't
Kevin wrote:
I'm not as happy as I was at noon, but feel like sharing. I finally got
my raise to the next job classification, 18 months after I was
recommended.
The fact that I'm doing the same work as someone two levels above me, one
now, has been rewarded.
Congrats, Kevin, sounds like you've
Rob wrote:
You forgot Yes, Genesis, Yes, Queen, Yes, Golden Earring, Yes,
Supertramp, Yes, 10CC, Yes, David Bowie, Yes, Rush, Yes, Aerosmith,
Yes, Kiss, Yes, Steve Miller, Yes, Chicago, Yes, Thin Lizzy, Yes,
Edgar Winter, Yes, Jonny Winter, Yes, Bad Company, Yes, Foghat, Yes,
Foreigner, Yes,
Ronn! wrote:
So anybody who thinks SSM is not a good idea for any reason is
homophobic by your definition?
Not if they can come up with a rational reason for opposing it. On the
list, JDG had some well thought out reasons, but they were based on
conjecture as far as I can tell. I don't
Jan wrote:
Just out of curoiosity Doug, what opinion do you hold on marriages
envolving more than one person?
I don't know that I've formed a solid opinion, to be perfectly dishonest.
8^)
Certainly any kind of marital relationship has to respect the rights of
all those involved. As long as
Gautam wrote:
We certainly shouldn't
be amending the oldest governing document in history,
the blueprint of the most successful government in the
entire history of the human race, ovr this issue.
Well said, Gautam. But I didn't know Rehnquist was so poorly thought of.
Where can I read
Gautam wrote:
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 05:18 PM 2/23/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
But, and correct me if I am wrong here, aren't the
three branches of
the FedGov supposed to be relatively equal in
overall power?
U... No.That was never envisioned at all
by
David wrote:
Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided
that the next clause:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
meant that gays had a right to marry too.
Damn, beat me by four minutes and fourty-seven seconds...
Who
John wrote:
I wouldn't describe it as conjecture. If you feel that one of my
assumptions was false, I think that I can fairly convincingly prove them.
I'd like to see that as I'm not sure any of your reasons are unequivocal.
I know that you promised a response to both of my posts of that
John wrote:
Indeed, while there are many pro-lifers having six children, there are
plenty of pro-choicers having childless marriages, or two children max.
Eventually, I expect that the pro-choicers will be outpopulated.
Sounds like wishfull thinking to me.
Whether the young people of Generation
John wrote:
At 01:14 PM 2/19/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
Why not civil rights, it started the same way. Indeed, the initial data
supports that.
I certainly was aware of the Impeach Earl Warren Movement when I made
my
post, and I certainly don't mean to imply that there is a single
difference
Julia wrote:
I think he's arguing it on a courts vs. legislatures standpoint.
Looking *just* at how court rulings went and how legislation was
written, which is it paralleling better at present?
I know. My point is that unlike the anti-choice crowd, the homophobic
crowd will dissipate over the
Robert wrote:
Or even UFO, The Runaways, Ten Years After, Robin Trower,
Hey Rob, I've got BLT (on now), Truce, Bridge of Sighs and Go My Way. I
like them all, but I especially like the last two. Can you recomend
others?
--
Doug
___
Gautam wrote:
Similarly with the WMD thing. I don't think the Bush
Administration relied upon WMDs because they were
contemptuous of the American public. They did because
they provided a clear and unmistakeable justification
_in front of the UN_. And they were forced to go to
the UN by people
Sheesh, you people must not have enough to do. Wish I had had the day off
today. 8^)
I wanted to thank Gautam and John for their replies and assure them that I
will answer them as soon as I find the time and energy - I worked a long
day today. And I wanted to thank Byron for stirring things
Jim wrote:
But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some
vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I
suppose.
I know the feeling, I used to feel that way. But after going over the
feeling again and again in my head and being unable to come up
Gautam wrote:
=-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's the word marriage that appears to have some
mystical, totemic meaning
for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded
credulous dolts (i.e., most
of the American public).
Gee, Tom, and to think that sometimes I wonder why I'm
a conservative. But I
Gautam wrote:
Done with it? I certainly didn't _start_ it.
Not only did you start it, but that between the two of us, you're the only
one that has engaged in it.
But more characteristic? Certainly. That sort of
arrogant contempt for most Americans is far less
common among conservatives.
Sorry about the lack of a subject line. My email bombed on me and I had
to copy the text from a backup and I forgot to title it. 8^P
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
John wrote:
That's only because the responses have been flying too fast for me to
collect my thoughts on the subject.
Well don't keep us in the dark - I'd very much like to refu... I mean
_hear_ your side of the arguement. 8^)
That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-)
Good movie,
Bryon wrote:
I've seen an article saying that hundreds of gay couples lined up to be
married. I had assumed they would be automatically invalidated, though
- I hadn't realized, that it would require a court decision to nullify
them.
Well, that's what I've read anyway. Some good insight here:
Bryon wrote:
Putting my concerns that the road to nationwide acceptance will be a
rocky one aside, it's fun to think that barring some last-minute legal
maneuvering, Massachusetts is likely to become the wedding capital of
the US starting in May, when gay marriages are legalized here. (I'm
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:17:52 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/12/2004 10:43:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No I didn't, Jan wrote this stuff.
Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical
context. In the 17 1800s there was much disdane
Robertwrote:
/* Source Code Windows 2000 */
ROTFL!!
Thanks for that, Rob, where did it come from?
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jan wrote:
Also, to understand ones disfavor one must put it in historical
context. In the 17 1800s there was much disdane for Jewish
comunities becouse they did something specific that was considered at
the time to be immoral. They lent or barrowed money for intrest. Now
we do not think
Dan wrote:
There is a saying in Christianity that no one has faith like a convert.
People who use to be X, but are now Y are often the strongest in
condemming those who are still X. I don't think this is just a
Christian phenomenon.
Ha. Like ex-smokers.
--
Doug
Smoke free for ~15 years. 8^)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:05:10 -0800, d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks. Thought I'd share this.
http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=5831
In fact, I do not blame W. How could I. He was probably not involved
in this decision, since the 9/11 attacks disrupted the longest idle US
The Fool wrote:
It's wrong, wrong, wrong.
It's Bad Netiquette.
etc. etc.
But you know, Fool, its not as if he led his country into war under false
pretenses. 8^)
Next time, how a bout a friendly, off list message letting him know what
he's doing wrong and why.
--
Doug
Gautam wrote:
If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are
probably more interesting places to do it. After my
last experience, though, political debate on Brin-L
strikes me as a singular waste of my time right now.
Ah, more name calling. 8^) It's interesting that while my arguments
Gautam wrote:
John wrote:
Its funny, but you sound just like Republicans did
in 1992.
Or the Democrats in 1928?
JDG - Just reverse a few key terms.
,ideas and circumstances.
Or like Karl Marx, actually. Enhancing the
contradictions, isn't that what the Marxists called
it? :-) Been a long
Erik wrote:
However, America must bear much of the blame for its failure to do
anything to curb household and government borrowing and so boost
saving. Its easy monetary and fiscal policies are now beginning to look
reckless. The dollar's slide has rightly shifted some of the burden of
economic
Dan wrote:
So, you've demonstrated that some rather despicable people are trying to
stop the transformation of Iraq into a better place to live. Are you now
arguing for the administrations position?
I think he's pointing out, as you did prior to the invasion, that Iraq
isn't going to be an easy
Dan wrote:
I guess it was the post-script about the evils of the Bush administration
that triggered my ironic sense. Since I've never called the Bush
administration evil, I can just differ with them on the practicality of
regime change; not the morality of it. The Fool's posting of this article
John wrote:
Nevertheless, my question remains:
Does anyone find it to be a positive development that certain interests
succeeded in pulling that quote from the movie?
If the New Testament were a historical document and the modifications had
the effect of actually modifying history, then I would
So are there any digital video recorders that don't require being hooked
up to the phone and a subscription? Seems like someone would be making a
killing on that kind of thing.
Oh, and if you've got satelite TV, you're hooked up to the phone too.
Doug
Video of Bush pushing the war.
http://www.moveon.org/false/video/
--
Doug
Anybody but Bush, '04
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43173-2004Jan23.html?nav=hptop_tb
Va. Seeks To Leave Bush Law Behind
Republicans Fight School Mandates
RICHMOND, Jan. 23 -- The Republican-controlled Virginia House of
Delegates sharply criticized President Bush's signature education program
Ronn! wrote:
Here's another opinion:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=d8f662bb-b354-4e05-9dfe-f2f9117f96fd
Adds for prostitution? Pornogrification? Someone want to explain the
last paragraph to me?
This weekend's Super Bowl halftime show will be a salute
Dan Minette wrote:
FWIW, I just saw a census article that stated that there is now a net
outflux of Americans from California. The rise in the California
population is due to the difference in the birth and death rate and
immigration from outside of the country.
_Now_ there is, after so many
Julia Thompson wrote:
Maybe the US government should be involved in drug research, then?
Because either a corporation is doing the research or the government is.
(If there's another alternative I'm overlooking, please mention it.)
How about a system of government sponsored awards based on the
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:57:26 -0600, Robert Seeberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.csi.edu/ip/ce/yesology/
The power of devotion.G
I wouldn't be touting Owner of a Lonely Heart as a product of arguably
the most talented rock band of all time, but that's just me...
--
Doug
901 - 1000 of 1541 matches
Mail list logo
