Re: cloning as heresy (Re: Fresh Hell)
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote: > Ah, now I see. Before, I was thinking that he was talking about the passage > where Onan pulls out and spills his seed on the ground, which, somehow, became a > prescription against masturbation, although reading it, especially in context, > is clearly just about pulling out. Or possibly against birth-control. > "Thou shalt not pull out.", thus saith the Lord, "or in any other way deprive > thy partner of the power of thy final orgasmic thrusting." > > 8-) > > Weird, isn't it, that this became so associated with masturbation > that a very successful company -- "Onan" -- even would choose their > name for generators, i.e., "self power" or "do it alone", etc., from > that passage. Even weirder that it doesn't have the slightest thing to > do with jacking off, but with someone not willing to accept their (at > the time) societal duty to support his dead brother's wife and father > her children. The irony, of course, is what the Catholic Church would have to say if the brother-in-laws of modern widows resumed this practice. -MW-
Re: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)
On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 09:08 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: I suspect would be silly to stage an anti-DMCA protest against an invited speaker to that Stanford class. Lessig, Gilmore, Barlow, Farber, and Stallman have been speakers (and I'm scheduled to be in the spring lineup). At the very least, it makes sense to find out more about the program and have a cordial conversation with the organizers before rushing to stage a demonstration. Activist-hours are a scarce resource; use them prudently, carefully, and wisely. I've been to a few of these, and once spoke at one, circa 1993. IMO, nearly worthless. Thinking about how little can get covered in an hour at a Cypherpunks meeting, imagine what happens in any particular one hour of one of these things: just enough time to establish a few basic points, hit on some of the current issues, and take some questions. For the actual students, not so bad, as they're getting 15 or so of these lectures per semester, and the intent is to provide a survey of topics. (Strangely enough, 15 times "nearly worthless" is OK...for a survey class!) The point is that anyone already familiar with the topic or the issues will not learn anything. Which leaves arguing with the speaker as the only reason for going...and arguing with the speaker is not worthwhile, given the extreme constraints on time. And given the usual pointlessness of arguing with others. --Tim May
Re: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA enforcers (fwd)
I suspect would be silly to stage an anti-DMCA protest against an invited speaker to that Stanford class. Lessig, Gilmore, Barlow, Farber, and Stallman have been speakers (and I'm scheduled to be in the spring lineup). At the very least, it makes sense to find out more about the program and have a cordial conversation with the organizers before rushing to stage a demonstration. Activist-hours are a scarce resource; use them prudently, carefully, and wisely. -Declan Forwarded to cypherpunks: > -- Forwarded message -- > Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:25:10 -0800 > From: Larry M. Augustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: 'Don Marti' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Karsten M. Self' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [linux-elitists] LOCAL Stanford University: face down the DMCA > enforcers > > I think that it would be a big mistake to do anything that might be viewed > as even the slightest bit disruptive in this venue. Further, I think you're > jumping to conclusions to assume that the DMCA is relevant to these > speakers. > > Dennis Allison and John Wharton, both of whom I have known for years, are > sympathetic to free software and sympathetic to the problems with the DMCA. > Dennis regularly brings in Bruce, Eric, and Richard as speakers. I've > spoken at this seminar on 2 or 3 occasions. Bruce was just there a few > weeks ago talking about the RAND vs. RF patent policy issues. > > Cops have a tough job. They deserve our thanks for doing a tough job. I > have a number of close friends who are cops. I think they deserve more > benefit of doubt than "Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_". It doesn't > sound like these are people that write the laws or make policy. Maybe they > spend their time fighting real computer crime like identity theft and > crackers. They deserve our support in that job. > > Has anyone talked to Dennis? Before jumping to any conclusions, or > organizing any kind of protest or demonstration, talk to Dennis. > > Larry > > on Friday, January 17, 2003 6:46 PM Karsten M. Self wrote > > on Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 05:08:47PM -0800, Don Marti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > Richard Stallman just passed this along to me. I won't be around, > > > since I'll be in New York for LinuxWorld, but someone else might > > > want to organize a group of freedom-loving people to go and hand > > > out some anti-DMCA flyers, ask good questions, and so on. > > > > > > "How can you enforce laws that ban Academic Freedom in computer > > > science and then walk into a university and ask for help?" > > > > > > Remember, protests and demonstrations are GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH. > > > > > > Note that the CSL Colloquia are a great opportunity to meet with all > > sorts of folks on all aspects of technology. The faculty, particularly > > John Wharton, are very aware that they offer an opening for the public, > > and the range of viewpoints presented is large (Lessig spoke at the CSL > > a year ago). > > > > Target the _speakers_ and _philosophy_, not the program itself. > > > > That said -- go forth and make a joyous noise ;-) > > > > > > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20021223/hl_nm/protests > > _demonstrations_dc > > > > > > > > > COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY COLLOQUIUM > > > 4:15PM, Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003 > > >NEC Auditorium, Gates Computer Science Building B03 > > >http://ee380.stanford.edu[1] > > > > > > Topic:Solving High Technology Crime > > > Academic Partnership in Crime Fighting > > > > > > Speaker: Gregory S. Crabb > > > United States Postal Inspector > > > San Francisco Electronic Crimes Task Force > > > > > > Other participants include: > > > Robert Rodriguez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, United > > > States Secret Service > > > Richard Perlotto, Cisco Systems > > > Chris Lalone, Network Security, eBay > > > Mike Miravalle, CEO, Dolphin Technologies > > > Fred Demma, Dolphon Technologyies > > > > <...> > > > > -- > > Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ > > What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? > >Geek for hire: http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html > > ___ > > linux-elitists > > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists > > ___ > linux-elitists > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists
Re: Supremes and thieves.
At 09:54 AM 01/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went into effect. The public domain *did* dwindle. Did anything that had already become public domain cease to be public? There were documents that were _going_ to become public domain soon that will now stay copyrighted for another 20 years, and one of the issues addressed by the Supremes in Eldred was whether the grant of an extra 20 years of copyright monopoly to documents that already had expiration dates assigned under the old laws was appropriate, as distinguished from granting a longer monopoly to new documents, but I thought it was established law that if something once became public domain it stayed that way.
RE: Supremes and thieves.
> -- > From: Steve Schear[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Supremes and thieves. > > At 09:54 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > > > How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold > > > steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. > > > > > > Marc de Piolenc > > > > >It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing > >averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had > >been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went > >into effect. > > > >The public domain *did* dwindle. > > I think those who really oppose Congresss' actions expanding copyright > should take the position that there needs to be a rollback to it original > 14 + 14 year limit. > If everyone with the means to scan and OCR documents on their PC would > undertake to convert just a few of their favorite items who's copyright > would have expired under the original regime and place it up on a popular > P2P it could shortly lead to a fait accompli. In the end most laws must > accommodate the culture. > > steve > Actually, I'd like to see a fairly short (say, 20 year) automatic copyright, after which the owner could renew for a small fee - say $100 dollars a year, for up to 100 years protection. Require the fee to be paid *each* year, not up front. Thus, things which arent popular will fall into PD fairly quickly, but sentimental authors could keep control of their works as long as they wanted, and businesses could keep works which continue to be profitable protected. Peter
Re: Supremes and thieves.
At 09:54 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: > How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold > steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. > > Marc de Piolenc > It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went into effect. The public domain *did* dwindle. I think those who really oppose Congresss' actions expanding copyright should take the position that there needs to be a rollback to it original 14 + 14 year limit. If everyone with the means to scan and OCR documents on their PC would undertake to convert just a few of their favorite items who's copyright would have expired under the original regime and place it up on a popular P2P it could shortly lead to a fait accompli. In the end most laws must accommodate the culture. steve
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
>It's hard to tell from the US media reports what's really going on. I stumbled about an alternative viewpoint of the affair at http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world02/venez-us.htm
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
>It's hard to tell from the US media reports what's really going on. Sorry!!! The previous link was for the coup. The correct URL is http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world02/venez-uscoup.htm My memory is shot. Don't drink and google.
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
Here's a couple of articles that seem a bit more balanced: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1561494.php http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41444-2003Jan11.html -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:01:35AM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every > country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), meddling in Middle Yes, we know that. Bin Laden's three points (from pre-911 interviews) were U.S. out of Arabia, end of military aid to Israel, and end of military sequestration of Iraq. Our continued pursuit of those goals gives bin Laden excellent PR ammo against the West, especially the U.S. But it is folly to think that those three items are the radical Islamic fundamentalists only "gripe" with the U.S. MTV, VH1, McDonalds, Disney, and the Internet -- yep, those are all destablizing influence. They know it, and hate it, and might even bomb us for it. Don't fall for the PR. -Declan
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
-- On 20 Jan 2003 at 7:20, Harmon Seaver wrote: > It's hard to tell from the US media reports what's really > going on. Is the "nation-wide strike" a strike of the workers > or just a lockout of the workers by the companies opposed to > Chaves? Given his popularity with the lower class, it's > difficult to understand why they would be striking against > him. It is a strike. You can tell by the fact that Chavez has been trolling poorer latin American countries, in particular Brazil, to recruit guest workers to do scab labor. However he recently discovered that many of these guest workers, though they theoretically have the skills of those they are supposed to replace, do not actually have the skills. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG kwfJU4cOdKICpZB82NV/SqXAxmw3TVvx9Mj+s73N 4qKieDYF+J3ghbatlXw9fpFG6hLJOwipHAEQ+/QjK
Re: Supremes and thieves.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:34:09 +0800, you wrote: > > None of this is relevant to individuals copying works for scholarship or > research. "Fair Use" still applies. > > Matthew X wrote: > > > We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that > > Congress can repeatedly extend copyright terms, as it did most recently in > > 1998 when it added 20 years to the terms for new and existing works. > > > He wanted to publish on the Internet a number of books that should have > > been in the public domain by now. The people who still control most older > > works have demonstrated little or no interest in making them available -- > > and our heritage dwindles by the day. > > How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold > steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. > > Marc de Piolenc It is like Medicare, and taxes on the rich. The absence of an increase is called a "cut", or "dwindling". See "Doublespeak". More seriously, the public domain becomes stagnant and dwindles due to a substantial reduction in new additions after the extention of copyrights. It becomes stagnant and dwindles, like a library that is not adding books and no longer receives magazines. ~~~
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 08:32:30AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote: > -- > On 20 Jan 2003 at 7:20, Harmon Seaver wrote: > > It's hard to tell from the US media reports what's really > > going on. Is the "nation-wide strike" a strike of the workers > > or just a lockout of the workers by the companies opposed to > > Chaves? Given his popularity with the lower class, it's > > difficult to understand why they would be striking against > > him. > > It is a strike. You can tell by the fact that Chavez has been > trolling poorer latin American countries, in particular Brazil, > to recruit guest workers to do scab labor. > Well, but only a strike of the executives and some technicians. Not of the general workers. > However he recently discovered that many of these guest > workers, though they theoretically have the skills of those > they are supposed to replace, do not actually have the skills. > Sounds like it's pretty much over at this point. They figure to back in full production within a month. I think it would be great if then they would refuse to ever sell a single barrel of oil to the US again. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
RE: CDR: Supremes and thieves.
> Marc de Piolenc[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Matthew X wrote: > > We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that > > Congress can repeatedly extend copyright terms, as it did most recently > in > > 1998 when it added 20 years to the terms for new and existing works. > > > He wanted to publish on the Internet a number of books that should have > > been in the public domain by now. The people who still control most > older > > works have demonstrated little or no interest in making them available > -- > > and our heritage dwindles by the day. > > How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold > steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. > > Marc de Piolenc > It dwindles because the rate at which the copyright period is increasing averages more than 1 year/year. Quite a number of works which had been in the public domain fell out of it when the 20 year extension went into effect. The public domain *did* dwindle. Peter Trei
Re: Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 11:10:52PM -0800, Steve Schear wrote: > A recent news article described the nationwide strike in Venezuela, in > protest against the nascent dictatorship of Hugo Chavez, as seeming "like > something from fiction." Well, yes, it seems very similar to one work of > fiction in particular: Ayn Rand's prophetic 1957 novel, "Atlas Shrugged." B It's hard to tell from the US media reports what's really going on. Is the "nation-wide strike" a strike of the workers or just a lockout of the workers by the companies opposed to Chaves? Given his popularity with the lower class, it's difficult to understand why they would be striking against him. And if Bush, et al, is against him, doesn't that prove he must be the good guy? Seeing what the US gov't has become, and given the constant distortions of the media, I just have to automatically assume that anyone the US gov't is against must be a superhero. I really don't think the old left/right rhetoric works anymore. Fascism is just another form of socialism and the mega-corp and multinationals are just as much a threat to freedom as governments, and certainly incestously intertwined with gov'ts everywhere. When oil company mercs beat and kill protestors in third world countries, as they certainly have, and the law suits against them are blocked by the Bush administration -- just one example -- why should we see anything like a what is going on in Venezuela as a "good thing?" It looks more to me to be a conspiracy of the New World Order fascists to get rid of an extremely popular leader who's not one of the NWO gang. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
FW: TSA's TIA Secret Spying on Air Passengers
-- Forwarded Message From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:27:14 +0100 To: "Dave E-mail Pamphleteer Farber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: TSA's TIA Secret Spying on Air Passengers http://cryptome.org/tsa011503.htm Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html [Federal Register: January 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2101-2103] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15ja03-104] --- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice to amend a system of records. --- SUMMARY: DOT intends to establish a system of record under the Privacy Act of 1974. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2003. If no comments are received, the proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the documents will be republished with changes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne L. Coates, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6964 (telephone), (202) 366-7024 (fax), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Internet address). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of [[Page 2102]] records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, has been published in the Federal Register and is available from the above mentioned address. DOT/TSA 010 Security Classification: Classified, sensitive. System Name: Aviation Security Screening Records. System Location: Records are maintained at the Office of National Risk Assessment, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Categories of Individuals Covered by the System: Individuals traveling to, from, or within the United States (U.S.) by passenger air transportation; individuals who are deemed to pose a possible risk to transportation or national security, a possible risk of air piracy or terrorism, or a potential threat to airline or passenger safety, aviation safety, civil aviation, or national security. Categories of Records in the System: Passenger Name Records (PNRs) and associated data; reservation and manifest information of passenger carriers and, in the case of individuals who are deemed to pose a possible risk to transportation security, record categories may include: risk assessment reports; financial and transactional data; public source information; proprietary data; and information from law enforcement and intelligence sources. Authority for Maintenance of the System: 49 U.S.C. 114, 44901, and 44903. Purpose(s): The system will be used to facilitate the conduct of an aviation security-screening program, including risk assessments to ensure aviation security. Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories of Users and the Purposes of Such Uses: Information may be disclosed from this system as follows: (1) To appropriate Federal, State, territorial, tribal, local, international, or foreign agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where TSA becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation. (2) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, agents and other non-Federal employees performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment from the Federal government for the purpose of providing consulting, data processing, clerical, or other functions to assist TSA in any function relevant to the purpose of the system. (3) To Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies--foreign, international, and domestic--in response to queries regarding persons who may pose a risk to transportation or national security; a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety; or a threat to aviation safety, civil aviation, or national security. (4) To individuals and organizations, in the course of enforcement efforts, to the extent necessary to elicit information pertinent to the investigation, prosecution, or enforcement of civil or criminal statutes, rules, regulations or orders regarding persons who may pose a risk to transportation or national security; a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety; or a threat to aviation safety, civil aviation, or national security. (5) To a Federal, State, or local agency, where such agency has requested information relevant or necessary for the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of
Re: CDR: Supremes and thieves.
None of this is relevant to individuals copying works for scholarship or research. "Fair Use" still applies. Matthew X wrote: > We learned as much on Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that > Congress can repeatedly extend copyright terms, as it did most recently in > 1998 when it added 20 years to the terms for new and existing works. > He wanted to publish on the Internet a number of books that should have > been in the public domain by now. The people who still control most older > works have demonstrated little or no interest in making them available -- > and our heritage dwindles by the day. How can it "dwindle?" The public domain can only increase or hold steady. All this ruling does is damp the rate of increase. Marc de Piolenc
Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants
Gore would have appointed folks to federal agencies who were considerably more regulatory, not even thought about a serious tax cut, and would have embraced more and more federal regulations. Bush is marginally better on that score. As for civil liberties, we wouldn't have had Poindexter but we could have had someone like him overseeing the same program -- DARPA is hardly a partisan beast. It's true we might have had someone less eager about war, but then again Sept. 11 gave (in the minds of DC types) any president carte blanche, and we haven't gone to war yet. (Perhaps naively, I'm hoping the administration may back down at the last moment.) Probably the biggest difference is the conservative activist community, in DC, online and in talk radio -- they've been unfortunately silent when it comes to complaining about unconstitutional actions from a Republican administration. Not uniformly silent, of course, but still too quiet. -Declan On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:47:24AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > Gore and Lieberman would have been no prize in office either, > but they wouldn't have done much more damage to the economy > or to civil liberties, probably much less, and would have been > less gung-ho about getting us into a war and would have found > some kind of pork that's more productive than military hardware > to spend our tax money on.
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
At 12:11 AM 01/20/2003 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:45:56AM -0500, Jay h wrote: > The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of > the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even > part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick It was kind of amusing to see DC cops protecting Starbucks yesterday; no other business on Penn Ave SE was apparently deemed controversial enough to require police presence. Hey, police have values, and coffee is one of them. Remember what coffee was like in most of the country before Starbucks? Brown water, usually burned by sitting on a warmer for too long, maybe enough caffeine to give you a buzz and enough acid to give you an upset stomach, but certainly nothing resembling Coffee except in a few oases like San Francisco and the Italian parts of NY/NJ. Obviously this is a Commie Plot to control our Precious Bodily Fluids - Actually, to give credit where credit is due, and to put a technology spin on things, a lot of the credit for improving US coffee needs to go to Mr. Coffee, which got us to stop using percolators.
Atlas Shrugs in Venezuela
A recent news article described the nationwide strike in Venezuela, in protest against the nascent dictatorship of Hugo Chavez, as seeming "like something from fiction." Well, yes, it seems very similar to one work of fiction in particular: Ayn Rand's prophetic 1957 novel, "Atlas Shrugged." The parallels between fiction and fact are striking. In Ayn Rand's novel, America is sliding into an economic dictatorship, so inventors and businessmen lead a secret walk-out, withdrawing their support from the "looters" who want to plunder the wealth they create. They declare that they won't return until the looters relinquish power. Rand's working title for the novel was "The Strike." In an era of frequent, sometimes violent strikes by factory workers, it was shockingly original to suggest that the entrepreneurs, inventors and capitalists might go on strike. Ayn Rand's imagined strike is no longer fiction. For four years, Venezuela has been gradually sliding into an economic and political dictatorship under Marxist populist Hugo Chavez, an open admirer of Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. In response, the nation's largest federation of businessmen has led the nation for more than 40 days in a massive work stoppage. Venezuela's most productive citizens have gone on strike to protest their imminent liquidation under Chavez's communist revolution. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0103/tracinski.html "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people... Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams
Re: Small taste of things to come if the war on Iraq happens.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:45:56AM -0500, Jay h wrote: > The obsession with Starbucks really puzzles me. Starbucks is one of > the few mass retailers that actually offers medical coverage to even > part timers, it allows people to move from place to place and pick It was kind of amusing to see DC cops protecting Starbucks yesterday; no other business on Penn Ave SE was apparently deemed controversial enough to require police presence. See photos: http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/anti-iraq-war-march-jan03.html -Declan
