Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
At 07:24 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, you wrote: >> >reducing the actual number of non defense federal >> employees (for the >> >1st time since 1912) >> >> Of course, a large part of the increase in >> non-defense federal employees >> came from the nationalization of the air screeners >> industry, which is >> hardly a Bush proposal. > >Fah!! You call the wholly unneeded cavity >searches that we are now undergoing a GOOD thing? I'm utterly bamboolzed as to how you arrived at that interpretation of my comments.I think that the TSA is woefully misguided in most things that they do, and in the particular context of the TSA swelling the ranks of fellow employees, you can hardly blame Bush for that one - that was an idea with its origins in the Democratic Party immediately following 9/11. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
On May 24, 2005, at 9:37 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: At 02:07 PM 5/24/2005 -0700, Dr. Brin wrote: For example, that Bill Clinton's record was not just weirdly better - by classic CONSERVATIVE values - but diametrically opposite to George Bush's when it comes to: Your list would be far more persuasive if you had some outside definition of "classic conservative values", rather than just your say-so. Instead, it seems like you are defining "classic conservatism" as "political positions favored by David Brin," which is wholly unconvincing. And your answers would be far more persuasive if they weren't so full of desperate rationalizations. The divisiveness and negativity of this administration are legion never has one man alienated so many people world wide. But Dr. Brin hasn't even broached what I consider to be the worst offenses of the Bush administration; it's disdain for the Geneva Convention and human rights in general. Amnesty International's 2005 report certainly agrees with your assessment. From the press release announcing the report: The US administration’s attempts to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak such as "environmental manipulation", "stress positions" and "sensory manipulation", was one of the most damaging assaults on global values. Despite the US administration’s repeated use of the language of justice and freedom there was a huge gap between rhetoric and reality. This was starkly illustrated by the failure to conduct a full and independent investigation into the appalling torture and ill-treatment of detainees by US soldiers in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and the failure to hold senior individuals to account. Bush is a bit like the father that thinks that by whipping his children and locking them in a closet he can get them to do what he wants. Been reading Lakoff lately? He describes the neocons' highly effective activation of the "stern father" family model, which works pretty much just as you describe. Among other things, the "stern father" model assumes that the world is a dangerous place, so it takes a tough father to fend off the baddies, children are born bad and have to be "whipped into shape." Social programs must be eliminated because they only serve to keep their "children" weak and dependent. Dave "Teach your children well" Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
making real vampires?
This just came in from a reader. Some of you may have seen it already. An absolutely brilliant faux scientific talk about the process of resurrecting the lost subspecies of vampires. The callous, smug amorality is exactly how science can and often DOES go wrong. http://www.rifters.com/real/progress.htm It is also gruesomely hilarious and eerily plausible. And yes, it has a slight anti-modernist tinge. It almost sounds like Michael Crichton & Francis Fukayama ranting against science. But not really! Satire, dire warnings and self-preventing prophecies are very much part of the process by which science tames its own arrogance and modern people have managed (so far, much of the time) to generate positive sum games... getting the good while preventing the worst or most obvious mistakes. I'll take the latter interpretation, simply because the creator so clearly has a scientific background... plus a lot of nasty baggage viz drug companies! Anyway, this thing is a hoot. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Revenge of the REAL George Lucas...
No, Ronn, eye yam lightsaber. I am Mark The average man, who does not know what to do with his life, wants another one which will last forever. -- Anatole France (1844 - 1924, French writer) - Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Revenge of the REAL George Lucas... > At 02:31 PM Tuesday 5/24/2005, Mark wrote: > >Warren, do you have a lightsaber? > > > >I am > >Mark > > > You am a lightsaber? > > > -- Ronn! :) > > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: making real vampires?
On 5/25/05, d.brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll take the latter interpretation, simply because the creator so > clearly has a scientific background... The creator is SF novelist Peter Watts, who I think is a biologist by trade. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
->you can hardly blame Bush for that > one - that was an idea > with its origins in the Democratic Party immediately > following 9/11. Except for the fact that since January 2001 the GOP has seized all three branches of government with utter and iron ideological will, excercising phenomenal party discipline and hewing to a single party line. This has enabled a party that got somewhere in the range of 49% to 50% of the votes to claim "mandate" and end the American tradition of negotiation and compromise with large minorities. Proof? W has not used a SINGLE veto in five years. To blame democracts for ANYTHING that has happened in these years bears a severe burden of proof. I blame them for one thing... the utter incompetence of failing to point out the betrayals of conservatism my weird fanatical servants of a rapacious and insatiable subset of the Olde Aristocratic class. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
On May 25, 2005, at 9:09 AM, David Brin wrote: To blame democracts for ANYTHING that has happened in these years bears a severe burden of proof. I blame them for one thing... the utter incompetence of failing to point out the betrayals of conservatism my weird fanatical servants of a rapacious and insatiable subset of the Olde Aristocratic class. Why would they, when a significant number of their own party contributors appear to be in the same demographic? This is perhaps a little like your comment re the SW movie series -- the choices for the "common" often seem to be to serve one or another ruling party, neither of which is always distinguishable. In this case I think we're seeing a heavy increase of radicalism in both parties, which leaves moderates alienated. The moderates, however, are the majority. They just haven't figured out what to do with that fact yet. It doesn't suit the Dems' ends any more than the GOP's to point it out, either. (Re Clinton -- Michael Moore has said that he was the best Republican president the US had seen in years.) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, "The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To blame democracts for ANYTHING that has happened in > these years bears a severe burden of proof. I blame > them for one thing... the utter incompetence of > failing to point out the betrayals of conservatism my > weird fanatical servants of a rapacious and insatiable > subset of the Olde Aristocratic class. Why would they, when a significant number of their own party contributors appear to be in the same demographic? This s not a paradox. The core of sanity is satiability and extrapolation. Those of the elite or aristocracy who 'get it" are loyal to the enlightenment, to a diamond shaped social order, to wealth that is earned via goods and services, not inheritance and corrupt rents and insider manipulation. These aristos want us ALL to be rich while they ride just a bit higher at the crest. Warren Buffett is a great example. Bet investor of the century anf he hates the neocon kleptocrats who care only about enhancing their RELATIVE wealth over evrybody else. >>This is perhaps a little like your comment re the SW movie series -- the choices for the "common" often seem to be to serve one or another ruling party, neither of which is always distinguishable. In this case I think we're seeing a heavy increase of radicalism in both parties, which leaves moderates alienated. The moderates, however, are the majority. They just haven't figured out what to do with that fact yet. Radicalism by the left is there & horrid. See my blog It doesn't suit the Dems' ends any more than the GOP's to point it out, either. (Re Clinton -- Michael Moore has said that he was the best Republican president the US had seen in years.) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
David Brin wrote: > >> This is classic conservatism, how? Actually, >> President Bush has proposed >> substantial increases in research on fuel cell >> technology. > > Har! Now why THIS technology while undercutting all > others? > > Parse it out. It will not come online in time to > affect the short term value of oil stocks. But WHEN > those stocks deplete, the aristos will be able to use > all this research to make the next GM. > You should be _more_ paranoic: fuel cells are those things that burn H2, right? The cheaper way to produce H2 is natural gas (basically, methane). Natural gas is hard to transport, because it doesn't become liquid under pressure (as decent gases like propane or ammonia do), and requires special (and very expensive) ships to transport it freezed to -164 or so degrees. So, the current reserves of natural gas are less valuable than the reserves of oil - and guess who in the world has _huge_ and _useless_ reserves of natural gas? I don't know if would be simple to transport H2, but - heck - wfc? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
- Original Message - From: "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives Natural gas is hard to transport, because it > doesn't become liquid under pressure (as decent gases > like propane or ammonia do) That's not really true, indeed oil well blowouts are caused when the mud weight is not sufficient to provide enough pressure to keep natural gas liquid. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
> Natural gas is hard to transport, because it > > doesn't become liquid under pressure (as decent > gases > > like propane or ammonia do) I am sure that the petrocrats have all sorts of insights and scenarios. this may or may not be one of them. What is clear, however, is that civilization's best interests are not perceived as similar to their own self interest. WHether or not you believe that liberals are touchy-feelly-unrealistic to emphasize renewable/sustainable energy sources as an IMMEDIATE and viable alternative to dependence uypon fossil fuels (mushc of it foreign)... that's irrelevant. Clearly renewable/sustainable energy sources are our children's main hope OVER THE LONG HAUL! Hence, whether or not you think that Kyoto Protocolsa are excessive. Or even if you believe (AS I DO!) that new-generation nuclear plants should be part of the short term bridging scenario. Or even if you are willing to bet against climate change... Even assuming ALL of those things, is is simply obvious to any person who is intelligent, sane and loyal to this civilization that weshould be investing in RESEARCH toward bringing online conservation, efficiency and renewable/sustainable energy sources. Only people who are profoundly stupid and/or disloyal could undermine and cut and denigrate that kind of prudent investment in pump priming, to help our children when oil is depleted, when carbon fills the air, and when a burgeoning world middle class starts wanting everything that WE now have, from cars to air conditioners. No, there are only two words on the table for such people. Stupid. Or Disloyal. I lean toward both. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
Dave Land wrote: Amnesty International's 2005 report certainly agrees with your assessment. From the press release announcing the report: The US administration’s attempts to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak such as "environmental manipulation", "stress positions" and "sensory manipulation", was one of the most damaging assaults on global values. Despite the US administration’s repeated use of the language of justice and freedom there was a huge gap between rhetoric and reality. This was starkly illustrated by the failure to conduct a full and independent investigation into the appalling torture and ill-treatment of detainees by US soldiers in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and the failure to hold senior individuals to account. Yea, I saw that. Also: “Tolerance for torture and ill-treatment, signaled by a failure to investigate and prosecute those responsible, is the most effective encouragement for it to spread and grow. Like a virus, the techniques used by the United States will multiply and spread unless those who plotted their use are held accountable,” said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. “The U.S. government’s response to the torture scandal amounts to a whitewash of senior officials’ involvement and responsibility. Those who conducted the abusive interrogations must be held to account, but so too must those who schemed to authorize those actions, sometimes from the comfort of government buildings. If the United States permits the architects of torture policy to get off scot-free, then other nations should step into the breach.” Bush is a bit like the father that thinks that by whipping his children and locking them in a closet he can get them to do what he wants. Been reading Lakoff lately? He describes the neocons' highly effective activation of the "stern father" family model, which works pretty much just as you describe. Among other things, the "stern father" model assumes that the world is a dangerous place, so it takes a tough father to fend off the baddies, children are born bad and have to be "whipped into shape." Social programs must be eliminated because they only serve to keep their "children" weak and dependent. No, I don't know who Lakoff is (should I?), but the analogy is painfully obvious to me. -- Doug Who has now googled Lakoff and thinks he should probably know. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
David Brin wrote: No, there are only two words on the table for such people. Stupid. Or Disloyal. I lean toward both. You left out greedy. There's not a whole lot of money to be made in the renewables buisiness and if it becomes at all succesful it devalues the oil industry. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
Lakoff & Maslowe are two of the classic thinkers on human symbolism and archetypes. What the dems need to make clear is the FACT that we are not being guided by a stern father, but taken for a very bad hazing/reaming by a bunch of very mean frat jocks. Even the torture situation is deliberate. They trick liberals into shieking at the despicable behavior without simultaneously speaking to THEIR successes against terror. The Balkans and YES! Afghanistan. WHen it is couched as a choice between torturing assholes who will fiercely defend our children and woosy-wimpy liberals who will protect the rights of mass murderers, you can see how it becomes a trap. Somehow we must make it clear that feeding Al Jazeera with new material each night for a three hour rage against the Great Satan is a little less pragmatic than WHATEVER we have learned from torture. In fact, I was at first impresed with the cleverness of using Guantanamo for temporary triage and processing of questionables. It seemed pragmatic.,.. and now it is one more thing that will have to be outlawed, because the frat boys just have no sense of proportion or self-control or shame. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Brin wrote: > > > No, there are only two words on the table for such > > people. Stupid. Or Disloyal. > > > > I lean toward both. > > You left out greedy. There's not a whole lot of > money to be made in the > renewables buisiness and if it becomes at all > succesful it devalues the > oil industry. Alas, greed don't explain it. Michael Moore, that dope, said this was a war for US Oil companies. Easily tested. Do YOU see any Iraqi oil flowing? Yes that may have been the aim, and it was done incompetently. Like so much else. But always consider the possibility that what you see was intended. If so, the masters are not Texas olimen, who have gained little (except Halliburton). The winners are a certain ptrokingdom that has seen its neighbor's oil production drop to zero. And now we are targeting Iran. Who does THAT serve? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
David Brin wrote > > > --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Brin wrote: > > > > > No, there are only two words on the table for such > > > people. Stupid. Or Disloyal. > > > > > > I lean toward both. > > > > You left out greedy. There's not a whole lot of > > money to be made in the > > renewables buisiness and if it becomes at all > > succesful it devalues the > > oil industry. > > > Alas, greed don't explain it. > > Michael Moore, that dope, said this was a war for US > Oil companies. Easily tested. Do YOU see any Iraqi > oil flowing? > > Yes that may have been the aim, and it was done > incompetently. Like so much else. > > But always consider the possibility that what you see > was intended. > > If so, the masters are not Texas olimen, who have > gained little (except Halliburton). > > The winners are a certain ptrokingdom that has seen > its neighbor's oil production drop to zero. > > And now we are targeting Iran. Who does THAT serve? I listen to your points with interest Dr Brin, but I just can't get it into my head why GWB and his mates should be so in thrall to this petro-kingdom. What hold do they have over the upper echelons of the US government that would make them act so? What on earth have they got pictures of George doing? Or is money, but from a different Master? I can buy stupid, but disloyal means some driver to make them act so. What is that? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
--- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What hold do they have over the upper echelons of > the US government that > would make them act so? EXCELLENT question! In fact, I see no reason why they should score above 90% on the "give us everything we want" scale. Certainly no one else does, none of the other frat brothers & kleptocrats...not even Halliburton! SO why do THEY aboslutely always get their way? >From hurrying binladern relatives and accountants and money men out of the country ON 9/11... while AMericans were forbidden to fly... ... to getting Saddam toppled in the most cosmically STUPID possible way... To the relentless and deliberate division of US society, demolition of military readiness and political purging of the US officer corps... ... to ruination of our alliances and relentless saber rattling at Iran, at PRECISELY the times when gestures might start restoring an old friendship... ... to sabotage of both Iraqi oil production and US energy reserch... ... to the nightly Jihad Show that we provide footage for, every day... ANd so on. It is a real question. Now I am not saying the answer I am about to propose is the only possible one. But it IS the only one that I can imagine capable of explaining the most bizarre smoking gun of all. Kerrick. Appointing a man to oversee ALL HOMELAND SECURITY... whose ONLY big professional qualification is that he headed a royal security branch for five years INSIDE the petroland we're talking about? Is it possible that ANY patriotic american can have seen that happen and not start to say "hey, wait a minute." No, think back to the days when W & company used to 'party hearty"... in ways that he openly admits would have made Bill Clinton seem like Billy Graham. He waves it all away with "it was all long ago." But he partied with those princes... and do you actually doubt that they have pictures? I do not claim this is the only possible explanation. But ain't it PLAUSIBLE? DOn't it fit? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Revenge of the REAL George Lucas...
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: >Julia Thompson wrote: >>(Nothing like the threat of a repeat lecture!) >Unlike, say, the number of times he heard a play on his name repeated . . . You have *no* idea... Let's just say that I had the misfortune of growing up concurrent with Jaws, CPO Sharkey, Sharkey's Machine, Jabberjaw and more. And of course, every kid acted as if *he* was the first one to have thought of them. :) Jim But I'm not bitter Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
David Brin wrote: --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Moore, that dope, said this was a war for US Oil companies. Easily tested. Do YOU see any Iraqi oil flowing? Yes that may have been the aim, and it was done incompetently. Like so much else. But always consider the possibility that what you see was intended. If so, the masters are not Texas olimen, who have gained little (except Halliburton). The winners are a certain ptrokingdom that has seen its neighbor's oil production drop to zero. And now we are targeting Iran. Who does THAT serve? But renewables are an anathema to the Saudis more than anyone. Oil prices will go nowhere but up as long as the demand remains high. Bush policy seems to be to do just that - keep the demand high Here are a few observations. 1. Iraq (with at least half the reserves of S.A. and possibly quite a bit more) is in a state of turmoil so that its reserves remain largely untapped. With S.A. and the other sultanates controlling much of the rest of the world's oil supply they are able to manipulate prices. 2. The price of oil rises rapidly to the point where everyone is ready to go out and buy a Prius and then it backs off just a bit. Probing the market to see what it will bear? 3. Another oil rich country, Iraq, feels backed into a corner by U.S. adventurism. In their own defense they feel they need to develop a deterrent. The U.S. will never invade Iran, but their nuclear program justifies (to some) bombing the crap out of their nuclear facilities and oh maybe a pipeline or two. Guess who has even more control over the oil supply? The problem before Bush was that when the Saudis jacked the prices up, the U.S. leadership took steps such as requiring higher mileage vehicles, lowering the speed limit and, yes, the development of alternatives. Do you see any of that after this latest wave of price increases? Oh and one more thing. We've heard people rail against the idea that conspiracies can exist (despite Watergate, Iran Contra, the assault on the Clinton presidency and the California energy crisis), and to some degree they are correct. There are too many people in this country with high moral values to conduct any kind of conspiracy to manipulate the life blood of our modern world. But what if you based your conspiracy not in the U.S. but in some despotic, tightly controlled place that was in the center of the largest oilfields anyway? It becomes much more manageable, much more plausible. Now, I'm not saying that I know with any certainty that that is what's going on, but I'm damned suspicious and I think that rather than pooh-poohing the idea it wouldn't hurt if a lot more of us got suspicious and maybe looked into it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Re: appealing to old style conservatives
At 11:38 PM Wednesday 5/25/2005, David Brin wrote: --- Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What hold do they have over the upper echelons of > the US government that > would make them act so? EXCELLENT question! In fact, I see no reason why they should score above 90% on the "give us everything we want" scale. Certainly no one else does, none of the other frat brothers & kleptocrats...not even Halliburton! SO why do THEY aboslutely always get their way? >From hurrying binladern relatives and accountants and money men out of the country ON 9/11... while AMericans were forbidden to fly... ... to getting Saddam toppled in the most cosmically STUPID possible way... To the relentless and deliberate division of US society, demolition of military readiness and political purging of the US officer corps... ... to ruination of our alliances and relentless saber rattling at Iran, at PRECISELY the times when gestures might start restoring an old friendship... ... to sabotage of both Iraqi oil production and US energy reserch... ... to the nightly Jihad Show that we provide footage for, every day... ANd so on. It is a real question. Now I am not saying the answer I am about to propose is the only possible one. But it IS the only one that I can imagine capable of explaining the most bizarre smoking gun of all. Kerrick. Appointing a man to oversee ALL HOMELAND SECURITY... whose ONLY big professional qualification is that he headed a royal security branch for five years INSIDE the petroland we're talking about? Is it possible that ANY patriotic american can have seen that happen and not start to say "hey, wait a minute." No, think back to the days when W & company used to 'party hearty"... in ways that he openly admits would have made Bill Clinton seem like Billy Graham. He waves it all away with "it was all long ago." But he partied with those princes... and do you actually doubt that they have pictures? I do not claim this is the only possible explanation. But ain't it PLAUSIBLE? DOn't it fit? So, what do you think they might have pictures of GWB doing which to those who are generally credited (correctly or incorrectly) with getting GWB elected would be worse than Clinton getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and then lying about it? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
