Slashdot Mirror

Bouillabaisse is absolutly not of US origin.

http://www.cliffordawright.com/history/bouillabais se.html
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/food/ la-fo-bouillabaisse29sep29,1,5890509.story?coll=la -headlines-pe-food

General Tso's Chicken is in doubt. Nobody knows for sure.

http://pressurecooker.phil.cmu.edu/tso/

The truth is that "cloned beef" is not from cloned animals! Cloned animals are far too expensive to eat. What is called "cloned beef" is from the offspring of cloned bulls. A prize bull's semen fetches a fortune, and his cloned offspring are worth even more. Once you've paid $15,000 for such a clone, you certainly wouldn't want to eat him. You eat his children, and their meat is called "cloned beef".

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-clone4m ar04,1,6731897.story?coll=la-news-science

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

[...]

Tom Heffelfinger, a former U.S. attorney from Minnesota who served under Bush -- as well as in the elder Bush's administration -- said a White House move to fire a large number of U.S. attorneys was quite different from replacing the appointees of a previous administration.

"In my opinion, it is not comparable," said Heffelfinger, a Republican who resigned voluntarily from his Justice Department post last year.

"When you have a transition between presidents -- especially presidents of different parties -- a U.S. attorney anticipates that you will be replaced in due course. But the unwritten, No. 1 rule at [the Justice Department] is that once you become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door," he said.

The funny thing is that the Bill Gates foundation invests on the same big corporations and business that help destroy the planet and fund the continous poverty in some countries. Please see: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story?coll=la-home -headlines and http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,1773314,full.story

The funny thing is that the Bill Gates foundation invests on the same big corporations and business that help destroy the planet and fund the continous poverty in some countries. Please see: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,4205044,full.story?coll=la-home -headlines and http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,1773314,full.story

Every President in the 20th Century fired all US Attorneys upon taking the oath of office and assuming the role of the Presidency. This is considered standard practice. Here is an LA Times article on the history of administration hirings upon inauguration:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-talking23mar23,0,3342736,full.story?coll=la-hom e-headlines

Firing US Attorneys in term is another matter. That has happened only a few times over the last century, and always due to malfeasance or criminal activity on the part of the US Attorney in question. The Hatch Act (the subject of this discussion) expressly forbids political activity or partisan interference in both the Judiciary and the Justice Department (it also demands full records keeping for all Federal activities).

It would appear our President and his advisers have committed felonies.

Through the Gates foundation, Bill Gates has donated billions of dollars to worthy charities around the world. It provides 17% of the world's polio eradication budget, as well as other monies for vaccines and HIV research. On the education front, the foundation has donated over a billion dollars to various scholarship programs to help needy students. The Wikipedia has a list of its other activities.

It's also invested in companies that are polluting and causing health problems. And they have announced in so many words that they will not be reviewing their investment portfolio for abuses like the ones detailed in the LA Times article linked above, because it would be an onerous process.

This is closely akin to washing oil off some ducks while christening a new oil tanker and sending it off to do its part in polluting the globe. Except it's more personal.

The simple fact, backed up by the fact that the foundation will not be ensuring that their investments are not killing people, is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not about helping people. Period, the end. It's about power. Bill gets to continue to be in control of all that money, and he buys himself PR with it. But he's still sitting on more money than he could ever spend! Charity is still appreciated regardless of the situation, but if you're not actually putting yourself to any hardship - not even the small amount of hardship needed to make sure that your money isn't killing people that you claim to be trying to save - then I'm not fucking impressed. And nor should be anyone else.

Did you get paid to prop up Mr. Gates, or are you just easily led?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/l a-na-goodling7apr07,1,1880249.story?coll=la-news-p olitics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true

Because NY Times sucks, as it makes old articles 'pay for view'

Wow, since when is history for sale? Ahh its only for the rich to know the truth.

Any way... the US govt is evil, etc.. yadda yadda... scum bags , or shit bags.

If Jesus was here today, he would turn those attorneys into instant dust and LOL, be damned, worship the ORI!!!

I just had a story submission that answered this very question: "Narcissist Technology: Did Mamma Lie?"

Unfortunately it dribbled out of the Slashhot Firehose.
Fortunately you can still read about it elsewhere:

http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/03/h as_myspace_contributed_to_gen_1.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-esteem27fe b27,0,225486,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=40058

There are a few things that probably need to change to make this work. First off, there's a macho intertwining of cars with manhood, power etc.

Sorry, but the macho-persona being responsible for selling cars in this day and age is not true. This may have been true in the 50s, 60s, and 70s but not since then.

I think the following quote sums it up nicely:
"I needed something larger for the kids and all the sports equipment and friends they want me to haul around," Freed said. "It also feels safer to be in a bigger car. And driving an SUV makes me feel less x like a taxi driver for the kids and more like I'm driving for my own pleasure."
From this article.

Notice how SUV commercials predominantly feature female drivers, that appear to be the ideal middle-aged mother?

Anyone else recall that recent commercial where the mother goes shopping with her son and the son chooses to run off and hold another Mother's hand as a result of her failure to purchase the safest SUV?

The reality of America today is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class finds the "middle" slowly drifting to the bottom.

That is simply not true. Did the poor in the 1950s have access to the kind of healthcare that someone on Medicare has to now? Did they drive better cards? Did they have access to the kind of technology ppl have access to today?

Yes, the rich get richer much much faster than the poor do - but it is false to say that the poor get poorer. That is only true in socialist paradises like Zimbabwe and soon Venezuela.

Read this for some more commentary. There is also a piece by the leader of the communist party of the USA for more 'balanced' coverage.

It mentions the LA times, yet links to the Baltimore Sun. Heres the link:

LA times

FTR, my opinion of lawyers wasn't that high to begin with. But spreading lies and deceit about birth control that's beyond tacky, it's sick, pond-life. Long live the Christian States of America.

1. The first article is simply a group asking a question about whether or not there was anything wrong. They're not yet saying there WAS something wrong done.

2. The NYT article is a guy pissed off he got fired. Not exactly an unbiased source. Let him testify under oath and we'll see what comes out.

3. Just because there are 9100 articles on Google News about it doesn't prove wrong doing either -- it proves a lot of people are talking about it. Of course -- it's a media sensation. I'm sure there were hundreds of thousands of articles written about Clinton getting his knob polished, too.

Pointing at 9100 articles and saying "here you find the proof I'm wrong!" isn't going to work, because I'm not the one out there making claims.

And: one of the fired attorneys was a Bush loyalist.

RTFA, momo.

This is only an opinion piece, but it has some perspective. SPECIFICALLY:

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, but of all their faults, this story is one of the lamest I've heard about him. (However, at least it guarantees that idiot AG won't be on the Supreme Court.) But fishy firings and political reasonings? Nothing new.

An Op/Ed piece on the same subject in the LA Times.

Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.

Now that digital video recording is quite cheap, why not equip vehicles with a forward-looking camera that can be activated by a driver when dangerous driving is witnessed? These short videos could be then uploaded to a server for review by authorities (would license plates be discernible at 320x240 at, say, 50 feet?). Three strikes and the offender gets a fine (if not worse) and a mandatory safe driving course.

Too big-brotherish? Too much vigilantism? I suppose the usual plea of the guilty would be, "Someone else was driving my car, not me."

The LA Time recently ran a story about the possibly troubling investment strategies of the Gates Foundation. You can see more of their coverage here.

There was also, more to the point, this story via the Register: Gates demands better schools as Gates-backed school closes and this much more detailed story.

If this is an example of how the deals are made and how things are managed, it points to another classic example of 'the microsoft touch' screwing things up. It quickly reads as a tremendous gift of technology squandered by poor management, the same management which had delivered on providing poor schools in the first place. Of course, Bill protected his development.

(Pardon me for being cynical)

I recall another story along this line from someplace (done in the human interest vein), but I can't place it just yet.

The LA Time recently ran a story about the possibly troubling investment strategies of the Gates Foundation. You can see more of their coverage here.

There was also, more to the point, this story via the Register: Gates demands better schools as Gates-backed school closes and this much more detailed story.

If this is an example of how the deals are made and how things are managed, it points to another classic example of 'the microsoft touch' screwing things up. It quickly reads as a tremendous gift of technology squandered by poor management, the same management which had delivered on providing poor schools in the first place. Of course, Bill protected his development.

(Pardon me for being cynical)

I recall another story along this line from someplace (done in the human interest vein), but I can't place it just yet.

The LA Times had some more details in their article yesterday:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-ex-payola5mar06 ,1,2865175.story

The relevant part:
"In a separate agreement, the radio companies have agreed to set aside 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime over the next three years for local and independent artists. The segments would have to air between 6 a.m. and midnight."

• A government which regulates industry based on a honest belief in the need for regulation based on scientific assessments of risks or
  
• a government that considers regulation an opportunity for a shakedown of businesses.

This reminds of a recent LA Times article: "...Last year, two entomologists, one from Cornell University and the other from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, figured that a $60-billion-a-year chunk of the U.S. economy is supported by wild bugs such as dung beetles and bees that pollinate plants, hasten the decomposition of manure, feed on crop pests and end up as dinner for birds, small mammals and fish..."

So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history.

Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world.

Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?

So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?

How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it?

The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.

Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them, that's for sure.

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. [...] "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.

--MarkusQ

Yes, I do say Gates is performing sophisticated shell games with his money. And he is not the pure, socially responsible angel that his PR flacks tout and you ignorant morons suck up to. The LA Times carried an article about how sleazy some of the Gates Foundation investment methods are. I need to go find the other article that identified how Gates donates money for vaccine and at the same time has some ownership in the same companies that produce the vaccines. But for now, assuming you know how to read above a 3rd grade level, suck this up:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story?coll=la-home-headli nes

Chairman Bill doesnt seems to sleep at the Holiday Inn, and has lost interest in developing software and is now buying 4 star hotel chains with the Saudis.

For the answer, read this op-ed piece about why the current system is so screwed up, and what can be done about it. I don't think the column goes far enough, though; it gives all the reasons for going to a single-payer system but stops short of calling for one.

racism by the majority is rightfully condemned, but some minorities seem to be able to get away with inciting hatred.

I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!"

And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.

There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.

If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"

If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.

http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.

To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.

If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.

1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.

Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.

They don't n

Einstein was too busy banging his cousin (second wife) in his later years. His important work was discovered during his first marriage. I'm not sure if age was a contributing factor.

According to the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday, Dreamworks actually reported a $25-million loss on Wallace & Gromit . (If that link locks you out, the relevant quotes are in the next one.)

Since I remembered Wallace & Gromit opening at #1 and staying in the top 5 for about a month, I did the same kind of math you did, using IMDB figures. Even looking at the domestic figures, W&G pulled in $56 million -- that's $26 more than the movie's budget. I doubt they spent $50 million advertising a $30 million movie, so I really have to wonder where the money went. Factor in the overseas gross and it looks like a healthy success.

My best guess is that they charged the Flushed Away losses against Wallace and Gromit to make them look like two flops instead of one success and a flop.

That may seem to be the case on the surface, but the B&MG foundation is a massive corporate entity which currently has about $35 billion in investments, and endowed only around 1.5 billion in 2005. The other $30 odd billion remained invested in many companies which are contributing to global health and social problems in the first place. He intends to double the investment over time. Long LA Times article here. For example, while contributing hundreds of millions to fund AIDS treatment in poor countries, in 2005, the foundation held nearly $1.5 billion worth of stock in drug companies whose practices have been widely criticized as restricting the flow of key medicines to poor people in developing nations.

What really would be a contribution to actually changing the world, rather than simply boosting your public profile with meaningless gestures like this, would be for the Gates foundation to only invest in companies with certified environmentally sustainable and socially just practices. Sure, the net profit of the foundation would be cut significantly by this, but imagine the overall philanthropic effect of some of the world's biggest polluters and exploiters falling over themselves to clean up their act and get a part of one of the world's biggest investment funds

If the allegedly saintly Bill really wanted to change to world, that's in his power, but currently the foundation does more harm than good

Again, you need to do some research, fanboy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

And this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

Yes, Gates wants to appear to be saving the world, while destroying it...
Brings to mind that Vietnam classic:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it..."

Again, you need to do some research, fanboy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

And this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

Yes, Gates wants to appear to be saving the world, while destroying it...
Brings to mind that Vietnam classic:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it..."

Bzzzt. Wrong. I may be pretty cynical, but there are certainly bigger cynics than me, and even *I* can see that the B&MG Foundation is *still* doing more harm to world society than they are doing good. Here is a little informative reading for you.

Since the original article is registration-only, I will give you the gist of that one. B&MG Foundation funds are invested to the tune of about 85-90%. So the vast majority of funds are simply investments. Those investments are very often in companies that are causing gross harm to poor areas and polluting third-world environments. And don't think that the investments don't draw dividends for Microsoft. If B&MG are investing in your school, what kind of software and programming do you think you'll be teaching?

This is akin to driving 35,000 a year in your 5 MPG SUV, then claim you are an environmentalist because you gave $5 to Greenpeace last Christmas.

Obviously, the Wall Street Journal (and apparently many other readers) haven't seen this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

or this, for another example (and many others):

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

Obviously, the Wall Street Journal (and apparently many other readers) haven't seen this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

or this, for another example (and many others):

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

100% true. China is raking in the BILLIONS and a good chunk of it is due to outsourced American manufacturing. When they pay almost nothing for labor and can have entire towns devoted to making socks http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-socks10apr10 ,1,5181869.story?coll=la-broadband-left they're laughing their way all the way to the state-run banks. Worried about China's increasing power and influence in the world and their atrocious human rights record? Maybe it's time for a stop-buying-Chinese campaign...

> India Brings Back Orbiting Satellite to Earth

You think they're going to leave it out there for China to shoot it down?
It's like when you see someone practicing reverse parking on your neighbors car.
You briskly move yours into the garage.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washington dc/la-fg-satellite19jan19,0,2329821.story

Many countries, such as Britain, criminalize witholding encryption keys from law enforcement to the extent that unless you are actually a terrorist with detailed and executable plans of action labeled 'evil plot' stupidly stored on your laptop, you are probably better off (in the criminal liability sense) just giving it to them. Sadly, I don't think that the US is far behind on this one, either.

We're not there yet, AFAIK...

(And the Clipper Chip and key escrow were DOA.)

I agree why don't they post to a legitimate news source with real reporters?:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/californi a/la-me-water14jan14,1,1368543.story?coll=la-headl ines-pe-california

I agree why don't they post to a legitimate news source with real reporters?:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/californi a/la-me-water14jan14,1,1368543.story?coll=la-headl ines-pe-california

It may be leading edge to you, however as someone who's owned an XDA in Europe (and chatted on MSN Messenger when out in the countryside in 2002), it leaves me unimpressed. The Multi-touch screen is impressive, sure, but I didn't have too much trouble with the XDA's stylus and it allowed me to take handwritten notes with decent handwriting recognition.

Apple's stuff may be pretty, but you've got to remember that any cellphone sold in the US is behind the state-of-the-art by 18-24 months at least compared to markets like Europe and Asia. So I'd be careful about bandying about terms like 'leading edge'.

In a similar vein is this article, talking about the advanced 3G capabilities of Japanese cell phones.

According to this LA Times article:

Anderson [Cisco spokesman] said the networking company was not looking for money and recognized the hard work of the Apple team. But Cisco is looking for a "collaboration and joint development with Apple" to ensure that Apple's phone works with Cisco's networking gear.

Which could mean anything I suppose, sounds reasonable but may well not be.

Even Chris Paine, director of this summer's sleeper-hit doc "Who Killed the Electric Car?" ponied up. "I don't even own my house," says Paine, who is a familiar figure driving his Toyota RAV4 EV around Santa Monica.

"Now I'll have a $100,000 car in the driveway," he says. "I wouldn't ordinarily own a car like that -- that's so, you know, look-at-me -- but I figure if I was going to talk the talk, I should walk the walk.

... government is not after you.

That's a lame excuse for violations of your rights and it does not save you from real harm. When you give government the power to intimidate and harass, they might use it on people who are fighting for your rights.

Some interesting reading:

1. Atlantic on MLK wiretap
2. A better article on the same subject, drawing parallels to current policy.
3. An LA Times article on just how bad things got.
4. UK harassment of nonviolent protesters
5. The UK police state. The power to abuse has not stopped crime or terrorism.
6. Secret prisons, how bad it has gotten today.
7. They will take your laptop, just a small reminder of how it works.

The list of current issues goes on and on. When you allow government to abuse you, it will.

Your math is good up until you assume that even a minor percentage of wii accidents are reported to one particular little-known website.

I agree with you, which I included the comment that this Wii problem website is not going to be a reliably accurate portrayal of the incident amounts. However, this site does go beyond a 'little-known' website. It's been mentioned in a Reuters news article which gets published to various news outlets such as yahoo, Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN Money, and the Washington Post not to mention the hordes of local newspapers, blogs, TV and Radio stations who reported on this topic and mentioned that website.

Suffice it to say, they're not 'little-known' when talking about the topic of Wii remote damages. However, I would believe that they don't have accurate data or methods to accurately report the data. Though, as I mentioned in my earlier post, it would have to be off by 400% to even reach 1%, which would be an amount at which I can start to see an actual product defect, rather than 'user defect', so to speak, hehe.

I'm sure there's a large margin of error on that math as it's just using basic estimates and takes in a lot of assumptions, but I think it does put this 'Wii remote damage' phenomenon into a better perspective of how it's more of a 'bizarre' news story than an actual consumer problem. It seems more like FUD than a creditable concern. I'd boldly state that not even Kevin Bacon can be connected to a case. =P hehe Of course, there's plenty of room for me to be wrong on this. =)

Cheers,
Fozzy

McCain is not a liberal or a conservative. He is a statist.

Does anyone know what's happening about that? Apparently the university has announced an investigation headed by Merrick Bob, but I can't find any further info.