Slashdot Mirror

"It is commendable that Gates is making all of those charitable donations to alleviate hunger and poverty and disease. Nobody can fault him and his foundation on that. However, it will never solve the real problem keeping those people and countries in poverty."

I couldn't agree more. I work in development, in a country that's internationally known as a malaria hotspot. Several people I know are employed by Gates Foundation money, and everyone here agrees that this is a good thing. But there's a limit to how much good this kind of thing can do.

One friend of mine once politely mentioned to a Gates Foundation researcher that we don't really need to know much more about malaria in this country. All we really need is trained and equipped medical staff within a day's walk of every man, woman and child. Malaria isn't a terribly dangerous disease if it's treated properly. I've had it myself, by the way, so I know whereof I speak.

The big problem in disease prevention around the world is an almost unbelievable shortage of health workers and medicines. Very little is being done to address these fundamental issues. Here's an interesting series of facts:

• Number of new doctors sub-Saharan Africa would need for its per-capita number to match America's: 3,900,000
• Number of new doctors produced by sub-Saharan Africa's universities each year: 4,000

(Source: Harper's Index.)

Again, I respect the work being done by the Gates Foundation, and I've seen its benefits with my own eyes. But to assume that those people working to try and improve education and communications are not involved in something equally vital is a little silly. In fact, it smacks of a holier-than-thou attitude that tends to tarnish most donor-driven projects, and often results in people chasing 'sexy' aid projects at the expense of 'boring' things like making sure that the local nurse has enough pills for everyone, and can order more when he needs them.

Thanks for the DQ link though, which had a dead link on it, which I went and tracked down:

http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

'Cause I've been posting about this issue the past few days.

KFG

The opinion of Kofi Annan, and probably the majority of the Assembly, if it ever came to a fair vote, is that the US and its coalition, acted illegally.

Much of the political manouvers in Iraq since the invasion has been concerned with trying to make sure that the early rules imposed by the occupation (especially foreign ownership laws, banking laws etc) will survive a challenge to the legitimacy of the occupation. Some of the conflict over the constitution was exactly over that: there are various clauses that are designed to ensure that contracts signed by the CPA, especially, long term (30 year!) supply contracts with the government, are binding on the Iraqi government.

For documentation, see, for example, this zmag article, or Baghdad Year Zero (Harpers). Plenty of other stuff around too, if you look.

we know that "they" don't have to be too strict about human testing, so expect this to hit the market ... tomorrow.

http://www.harpers.org/OutOfControl.html

Neither of those things will make your health care affordable though, the only way it will be affordable is if you tax wealthy Americans more and use their money to pay for it. Which to me, just seems a bit too socialist.

I hate it when just because you want to tax those who have more that you're "socialist". It's stupid poo-flinging arguments like that which've made it so that 45 million Americans are uninsured. Let me quote myself in a post I made earlier on /.:

Just look at the Toyota plant in Ontario [harpers.org]; The company turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the United States because, when compared to Canadians, U.S. workers are too hard to train, often illiterate, and expensive to insure. Also according to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. the American car manufacturers are losing [washingtonpost.com] their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs.
The US is the only industrial country without a national healthcare system. We're the most dissatisfied [umaine.edu] out of the top ten. Pay almost twice as much [newsbatch.com] as number two. Yet still 45 millions are uninsured [census.gov].

You're saying to me that it's not in the best interest of the rich to have insured Americans? As Adam Smith said; it's justified to take from the rich as it's them who benefit the most from the smooth functioning of the state.

according to this story, which is a kind of "Greatest Hits" for DHS that will curl your toes.

>Most of the people causing the trouble down there are trained terrorists,

Actually most of the people causing trouble are ex-military, disenfranchised civilians and those who have lost out on the regime change to the point where it is better to fight. TBH actual terrorists like AQ would make a small percentage of that.

>The civilians are the ones getting stuffed by a war they didn't want

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

Its a good read. Would like to see an update on it though.

One very fallacious error that leftists make is that they claim that government should be "compassionate" and forcibly take money from the most successful in society and give it to the poor because all rich people are selfish (or some other theme).
(Mind you, it's Progressives/Social Democrats and populists who like to dish out at the rich. True Liberals don't).

Why should we take from the rich and give to the poor?

Just look at the Toyota plant in Ontario; The company turned down hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies in the United States because, when compared to Canadians, U.S. workers are too hard to train, often illiterate, and expensive to insure. Also according to General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. the American car manufacturers are losing their ability to compete in the global marketplace in large measure because of the crushing burden of health care costs.
The US is the only industrial country without a national healthcare system. We're the most dissatisfied out of the top ten. Pay almost twice as much as number two. Yet still 45 millions are uninsured.

You're saying to me that it's not in the best interest of the rich to have insured Americans? As Adam Smith said; it's justified to take from the rich as it's them who benefit the most from the smooth functioning of the state.

especially considering that there's been no substantiated evidence of willful fraud

If you believe that, I've got some land in Baghdad you might be interested in.

Seriously, there's been plenty of substantiated evidence, most of it printed in an interesting type of document known as a "newspaper." A recommendation: go read Mark Crispin Miller's article "None Dare Call it Stolen" in the August 2005 issue of Harper's, of which a lengthy excerpt is posted here. Miller catalogs all of this substantiated evidence you so lightly toss aside, and if you can read the whole article without ever harboring a doubt, you should probably get fitted for glasses.

I'm much more interested in how you came up with a food crisis.

Oh, that's easy. Modern agriculture is totally dependent on oil. Read The Oil We Eat , originally published in Harper's.

I think oil is still cheap at this current price and as prices go up, innovation to find cheaper ways to drill and refine it will come to the market.

You may be right that 'innovation' will continue to allow new oil resources to be tapped, but it's worth keeping in mind a fact that was reported in an issue of Harper's from a few months back: namely that in the 1940s, one barrel of oil invested in oil production led to 100 barrels coming to market, whereas now the ratio has plummetted to one-to-ten. This is a striking trend that can only reasonably be expected to continue. What happens when the ratio gets to one-to-one?

The night is black
Without a moon
The air is thick and still
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torch lit hill


Features distorted in the flickering light
The faces are twisted and grotesque
Silent and stern in the sweltering night
The mob moves like demons possessed
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right
Confident their ways are best


The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill


They say there are strangers who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theaters and bookstore shelves
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves

Quick to judge
Quick to anger
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand...

"And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior."

Yes and I'm scared that we're approaching a Christian induced period of "believe in what makes you feel good" instead of "believe in what is correct, true and accurate."

America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox ... illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.

Cut and pasted from that page :-

Gallons by which daily U.S. oil consumption would drop if SUVs' average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg: 49,000,000

Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield: 42,000,000

Now tell me that your sick of people picking on SUV drivers! It really does matter. For those who haven't figured it out yet, the 3 mpg improvement would be like opening up the Alaskan oil reserves every year.

That is why we harp on about it. That is why you get picked on. That is why you should change. And that is why your Government should put up the price of your gas!

Probably the best e-mail exchange ever:

http://www.harpers.org/DontHaveACowMan.html

I stand in awe. Absolutely amazing. Judd truly grasps the zen of the flame.

After reading this, I realize that I am but a humble student of the artist. I used to occasionally dive into talk.politics.guns and join in the flamewars there. Thought I was pretty good at the game, but I had no idea.

Two remarks. First, Brazill seems too feeble-minded to have done something as cool as "That 70's Show" (either that or my love of redheaded chicks is getting in the way of my better judgement). Second, Judd seems like a cat torturing a mouse. A joke about getting into an intellectual battle with an unarmed opponent comes to mind. At some point, it's clear just how intellectually outmatched Brazill was and I started to feel pity for him.

Wow,
Ross

Probably the best e-mail exchange ever:

http://www.harpers.org/DontHaveACowMan.html

From an exchange of emails in fall 2001 between Judd Apatow, the creator of the sitcoms Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared and a successful writer of Hollywood screenplays, and Mark Brazill, the creator of That '70s Show. Topher Grace is one of the stars of That '70s Show. Originally from Harper's Magazine, March 2002.

So you know what I think?

I say put the cameras on the subway already.

It's funny you say that, given this link: New York Murder Rate in 2000. Some more googling indicates that in 2004 the murder rate was under 500. So, it's reasonable to say that that over the spans of 8 years there's been more "regular" murders than the murder performed on 9/11. Further, death in motor accident rates are many times the homicide rate, so I'd imagine that it only took one or two years before NYC covered 4000 dead.

Do you support sticking a camera in every alley and along every roadway? Of course, nothing about a camera will stop those motor accident rates (though they'll at least be caught). And if there's cameras in the alleys, I'm sure that they'll just murder in the building or at the docks or somewhere else there aren't cameras. But my major point is, this is a serious waste of money. If New York City is getting $200 million to work on anti-terrorism, then I'd expect it to be spending at least $5.5 billion on trying to stop motor accident deaths (this based on death statistics and counting 9/11 as homicides). Hell, I'd expect at least $400 million spent on working on resolving suicide.

So, we're talking over $150 billion on just trying to cure motor vehicle deaths. Do you see that coming anywhere? Now, you might say that motor vehicle deaths are accidents and hence there's no one to hold coupable, so more effort is spent on going after the terrorists. But you don't see NYC receiving an equally matched $200 million to help with their homicide problem. There's hardly any talk about trying to stop the cigarette trade to stop lung cancer; with lung cancer being 30% of all cancer deaths and 90% of lung cancer being the result of cigarettes, you'd think we'd have law makers going crazy over the cigarette drug and its 10 fold killing rate over homicide--and all this is on the positive spin ignoring that there are people who survive the cancer.

So, my biggest complaint is not even that there's going to be cameras on the subway, which for the most part is a hugely pointless exercise, but that all of this money is funneling from a supposedly monetarily conservative government to fight terrorists instead of a war on drug or a war on conservative spending or one of the many other supposed wars the Republican lead government stands for. The hypocrisy of it all just tells me it's a show and dance, where the politicians make it all too clear they don't really give a fuck about the people.

The parent speaks the truth, the grandparent post is a rip-off from this month's Harpers Magazine.

Site your source brother, lest you be accused of plagarism.

This seems to be a problem for you.

Do you include so much creative spelling in your posts to foil the quick google search used to detect your liberal borrowing of the work of others?

Do the 71% of Americans who claim to go to church actually listen?

Do you really need to ask?

It's a problem because everything we do (pretty much) is powered by oil, which is finite. Pick a date in the future when it will run out; it doesn't really matter, though using rough numbers for current reserves and assuming constant consumption (it's actually exponentially increasing), you come out to about 40 years. At that point, unless something has changed, our lifestyle stops working. I'd say that that pretty much sucks.

A little energy in the fertilizer, a little from sunlight, and bingo, food.

Fertilizer... comes from oil, the source of both the energy to create it and the hydrogen in the nitrate produced. You could generate hydrogen from fusion through electrolysis of water, but the energy involved is vastly greater.. and we don't have fusion yet. The figure for processed (read: cheap, mass market, inorganic) foods is roughly 10 calories of oil energy input per calorie of food produced. That means that at the moment, we're pretty much eating oil.

For further reading on eating oil and the earth's finite capacity to produce biomass (the correct term is "primary production," I'd forgotten), check out this article.

http://www.energybulletin.net/7088.html

"Over all--including energy costs for farm machinery, transportation, and processing, and oil and natural gas used as feedstocks for agricultural chemicals--the modern food system consumes roughly ten calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy produced"

Of course, that footnote goes back to a David Pimentel source.

http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

http://www.css.cornell.edu/courses/190/exam2002a.h tm

Non Pimental source:

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/

That's 3 calories to produce 1 calorie, but it doesn't mention distribution (the 3000 mile caesar salad example).

I agree with you that economic sanctions and international diplomacy do work, despite what some politicians might tell you.

I'd like to make one counter argument to your statement "Cuba is clearly badly off because of their sanctions." While I do agree that in many aspects they are worse off, there is one very interesting consequence of the sanctions which was supposed to hurt Cuba but actually helped it quite a bit. Cuba used to farm with Soviet equipment and fertilizer and enjoyed relative prosperity in agriculture. Once the Soviet Union fell and they had no source of parts for their tractors, fertilizer for their fields, or alternative food imports, they were forced to turn to a very basic method of agriculture.

Using agriculture texts written in the 1800's due to the loss of a lot of the knowledge in the public memory, they employ efficient crop rotation, tilling, and sustainable methods to grow their crops. So while the United States has a very poor food supply, Cuba is enjoying some of the healthiest and most nutritious food in this modern age.

I learned a lot of this from the article "the cuba diet" in the April 2005 Harper's Magazine. [1]

My New Year's resolution was to read my quote book, "20,000 Quips & Quotes" by Even Esar. I've always been one to enjoy Harper's Index http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentIndex.html rather than read the daily news.

I voted for Bush because at least he has a plan. It might not be the best plan and I may not agree with all of it, but it's better than electing snipe.

Uh huh. And can you tell us what Bush's plan is? I mean, beyond the platitudes of "beating the freedom-hating terrorists and brining peace and freedom to the Iraqi people". Chances are you have no idea what Bush's plan is, so you based your vote on a fantasy of some plan.

If you want some insight into Bush's plan, I suggest you read this.

You might find this article about the reconstruction efforts in Iraq quite interesting.

Crap. fucked up the link.

so much for my political humor.

Kos http://www.dailykos.com/ points out an article in Harpers http://harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html on the logistics of becoming a non-US citizen. Not as easy as you might think; although they leave out the most pleasant method of gaining citizenship elsewhere - alien matrimony ;-)

I have no idea how they could avoid considering the consequences the day they dropped the first bomb.

Here's a pretty good article about the neocon plan for Iraq, and what went wrong. Baghdad Year Zero.

When the only tool in your tool bag is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When you're a neocon, the whole world looks like a bunch of nails.

Wow what brillance. That worked in Northern Ireland a charm didn't it? Bare in mind that the majority of Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists that hit the US.

Also if you were to check the figures of US/Iraqi deaths you will see they have been escalating after "Mission accomplished". Want to know why? Here is a good Report why. It's a long read and I recommend you double check the facts in it if you think it is lies. But the simple fact there are more people lining up to kill Americans in Iraq is because of Bushes actions after the war.

WANT the peace, stability and democracy which stands in line with the U.S.'s best interests.

Again the report says it all. You are right, they want peace and stability and probably democracy too. They currently have none of these.

I firmly believe that if you give a person (muslim or not) a decent way to make a living for him and his own, he'll be content and won't turn to things like the real root of our problem, extremist Islam.

You are absolutly correct. So tell me why isn't Bush doing this?

Much of Europe and the UN didn't want us to go to war in Iraq because: 1) Iraq was quite profitable due to the Oil-for-Food program for many of its leaders. 2) Our actions implied the UN was irrelevant.

It irks me when people bring up the oil-for-food program and say that the EU were profiting from it. Newsflash: The USA was the biggest customer of the oil-for-food program and actually increased their quotas prior to invading knowing full well they wouldn't have to pay for it. Somewhat comical Saddam supplying the US with oil to help them invade.

The UN wasn't irrelevant. The UN was put in place to stop wars, not green light them. The UN weapons inspectors were quite clear that they needed more time but to date found no WMD. The US inspectors now agree with them. They were enforcing the resolutions fine, and the US inspectors pointed out that Saddam was trying hard to stop them. Bush was clearly intent on war regardless if the UN agreed or not.

Saddam may or may not been a threat, but Bushes actions in Iraq appear to be creating more people liable to kill Americans then any other action previously.

There are two sides but you have to look at the magnitudes. There are 100,000 in the new army alone. I don't think normal sane iraqis would go around blowing up iraqi children whose only crime is wanting to play football with american soldiers.

I don't know how many people have become terrorists or involved in warfare against US forces. I don't think anyone can put a number on that. However, I would argue that the terrorists are sane individuals. They just have a violent, extremist philosophy about who is an enemy and who isn't. Anyone in friendly regards to Americans are corrupted enemies in their eyes that deserve to be killed. I disagree with this philosophy immensely, but I think the word "insane" is a poor choice of words.

Even if Bush did do all this for OIL (I don't think he did), he isn't going to steal it. The US will BUY OIL and the money will go to improving the lives of Iraqis and not Saddam.

Let's hope so. The main people it seems that are profiting from this war is the employees of Halliburton.

Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to protest, freedom to choose government and all the other stuff people in the west take for granted. They will also get infrastructure built and ofcourse, US dollars. In short, they'll become 'successful' similar to post war japan and germany.

Again, let's hope so. I don't really see that right now.

Slightly offtopic: I noticed that one of the links you provided was by a right-wing libertarian. I used to be one of those. I bought nearly all the books Ayn Rand wrote and everything. I honestly believed that greed was good, etc. Then I was diagnosed with mental illness (depression). That really changed my perspective, as many of the mentally ill are good-natured human beings who are undeservedly getting neglected by the US government.

A link for you to ponder:

Baghdad Year Zero.

Before 9/11, his administration took its eye off of the terrorist threat. Unlike Clinton, who had daily briefings on the terrorist threat, Bush didn't have one until September. On 9/10, John Ashcroft wanted to reduce funding for terrorism investigation.

Like John Kerry said in the debate, we left much of the Afghanistan operation up to the warlords, who let many of Al Queda slip away, either through incompetence or through bribery.

Even today, the Taliban are returning to Afghanistan and much of the country is no better than it was before the invasion, if you don't count the capital Kabul.

Saddam Hussein was a bad man, but was not at all behind 9/11. By the time we invaded Iraq, the weapons inspectors were back and searching the country, in part due to the threat of force from President Bush. Saddam would not be able to manufacture anything while the inspectors were there. Also, major portions of Iraq were effectively outside the control of Saddam, with the no-fly zones and whatnot. The Kurds were effectively governing themselves.

In fact, I would say that there were many other countries that were far more of a threat than Iraq, like North Korea, who will sell anything to the highest bidder, or Pakastan, who did sell nuclear technology right under our nose.

Saddam was not a threat to the US, nor would he likely become one with the inspectors on the ground. Even so, we should have first finished up in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq. Besides, what country was more responsible for 9/11? What about Saudi Arabia? Most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia as did much of their funding. Much of the fundamentalist intolerant Islam comes out of that country. They set up madrasses to teach their religion in poor countries like Afghanistan where they teach the Koran, but not much else. They don't even teach things like that the Earth is round (many don't know this) and to hate the United States and the West. The Saudi school books teach hatred, and it continued even after 9/11.

Invading Iraq was a major mistake. For all those innocent civilians who are hurt or killed, how many people are turned to hate the US? You kill a mother, a father, a child, brother, or sister, and now you have a whole family mad at you, not to mention all their friends and neighbors.

As bad as Saddam was, he kept Iraq under control and kept it out of the hands of religious fundamentalists, including Al Queda. He was a problem, but he was Iraq's problem, not ours. None of his neighbors was particularly worried about him after '91. None of his neighbors is in the coalition of the willing (Poland does not border Iraq).

Also, I strongly urge you to look at the other reasons we invaded Iraq. A very good article can be found at http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html.

After 9/11 I would much rather see a lot more troops in Afghanistan weeding out Al Queda and the Taliban. I also would want to see very strong action taken against Saudi Arabia who was behind much of the funding and their peddling of hate. We had a strong opportunity to unite the world closer together after 9/11 to stamp out terrorism and Bush totally squandered it. He rejected other countries offering troops and supplies to weed out the terrorists in Afghanistan and went after Iraq instead (who Bush had wanted to invade long before 9/11).

There is an excellent article entitled The Oil We Eat on Harper's website about how it currently takes 1.1 calories of oil energy to produce 1 calorie of food energy. It is very interesting.

There is also an interesting Atlantic Monthly article about how GM foods may be good for the environment.

I find the idea that we've so badly damaged the topsoil in the that the midwest is effectively 6 feet lower than it was 200+ years ago to be particularly interesting.

http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

For those interested, Harper's has a really interesting article on the mechanics of the corruption in the reconstruction contracts. Baghdad Year Zero - Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia

This may be more palatable if you feel Mother Jones goes off the deep end sometimes.

... but some may find this kind of thing more informative, if not more entertaining.

http://www.harpers.org/HarpersIndex2004-08.html

For those who would like a shorter essay by the same author on the same topic, he wrote an article entitled Against School in the September 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine.

For those who would like a shorter essay by the same author on the same topic, he wrote an article entitled Against School in the September 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine.

A nice article has been published in a recent Harper's magazine (April 2004), titled "Lie down for America - How the Republican Party Sows Ruin on the Great Plains". I wish it were online, but it's not.

You can see tha mag cover anyway here: http://www.harpers.org/Newsstand200404.html

Oh wait, it *is* online. Someone typed it up. Once again, Google saved my day:

http://vax.area.com/marc/liedown.txt

Yes, but that certainly doesn't stop people from trying!

Apocalypse Now: How a hologram, a blimp, and a massively multiplayer game could bring peace to the Holy Land

These people scare me almost as much as these people.

Harper's is a great magazine. It is the oldest continuously published American magazine. I consider it in the same category as the Atlantic Monthly, but I usually enjoy it more. Harper's Index always has some funny bits.

Harper's is a great magazine. It is the oldest continuously published American magazine. I consider it in the same category as the Atlantic Monthly, but I usually enjoy it more. Harper's Index always has some funny bits.

Atlantic Monthly They regularly link to past stories in order to give better historical reference to current news items. I think the earliest story they have that mentions Saddam Hussein is from the late 1950's.

Harpers Yet another independantly owned journal that's not afraid to piss off thier advertisers.

The New Yorker Not independant, but has a long tradition of actually checking their facts. Great comics (understated, yet twisted, humor).

I also read my hometown newspaper every day, plus the New York Times on Sundays, and I scan BBC News, Google News, and The Guardian world news online daily. Plastic is good for getting an idea of what (somewhat educated) people think of the goings on in the world, and B3TA is a somewhat effective cure fore too much awareness of world events.

I also get The National Security Archive newsletter in my email about once a week or so.

For tech, I mostly read Linux Journal, SysAdmin, and occasionally Doctor Dobbs Journal.

Of course I always read The Debian Weekly News and /..

I pay for The Nation, which is an excellent news/politics weekly. Some of the stuff is online, but there's nothing like having the paper itself for the train.

I used to get Harper's but I really don't have time to finish a Harpers and they usually just end up in the bathroom after I've read the main story. A fine magazine with some very intelligent writing. The Harper's index is worth the admission price alone.

I subscribe to salon.com too. I never understood the allure of Lumpen and the other 'hip' liberal weeklies.

Thanks to the web and tivo I watch almost no televised news and get my AP/Reuters and NYTimes, Wash Post, etc for free.

I pay for The Nation, which is an excellent news/politics weekly. Some of the stuff is online, but there's nothing like having the paper itself for the train.

I used to get Harper's but I really don't have time to finish a Harpers and they usually just end up in the bathroom after I've read the main story. A fine magazine with some very intelligent writing. The Harper's index is worth the admission price alone.

I subscribe to salon.com too. I never understood the allure of Lumpen and the other 'hip' liberal weeklies.

Thanks to the web and tivo I watch almost no televised news and get my AP/Reuters and NYTimes, Wash Post, etc for free.

Currently subscribe and read cover-to-cover:

• The Economist
• Harper's
• Flying
• Aviation Safety Letters
• SIGOPS Pubs

Read frequently:

• PHOTO (European Release (FRA)))
• Photo Techniques
• PDN (Photo District News)
• B&W
• View Camera
• AOPA Pilot

Reminds me of Jesus Plus Nothing - Best. Expose. Ever.

I was really disturbed to find that one of my senators is part of this wacko group.