From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #624 Dead-Flames Digest #624, Volume #48 Thu, 20 Oct 05 19:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: 'Crony-ism' - is this a word ??? (kamchatka1@gmail.com) Re: An update from college! (ndc) ("Richard Morris") Re: Republicans hate you and want you dead: the 10/20/05 edition (NDC) ("Richard Morris") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: An update from college! (ndc) (The Lord of Eltingville) Re: Clapton/Trucks Tour? (n9ck@earthlink.net) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") "Comes A Time" Permavine, noB, noP (bigchuck51@aol.com) Re: Open Apology to the RMGD Women (Joe) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Paul McCartney (ndc) (smack down) Re: NBA Players Now Must Adhere to Dress Code (NDC) (Ben) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kamchatka1@gmail.com Subject: Re: 'Crony-ism' - is this a word ??? Date: 20 Oct 2005 16:38:36 -0700 what i am more worried about is "Crosby-ism"... ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: An update from college! (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:59:21 -0700 "k sturm" wrote in message news:6dQ5f.862$Lv.578@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... > > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1129827945.635070.29520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> k sturm wrote: >>> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >>> news:1129816141.461274.214440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> > My daughter sent me this short video, it looks like things are going >>> > very well so far! Check is in the mail, honey. >>> > >>> > http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/1616564 >>> > >>> > Mark >>> > >>> >>> Ummm, what video?? >> >> Oh well, sorry 'bout that. For whatever reason it is gone now. Lets >> just say that it was a fine example of the perils of overindulgence. >> >> Mark >> > > Oh, well since I have a kid in his second year of college, maybe it's > better that I don't see it anyway. I'd much rather delude myself that the > kid spends his free time studying. I am sure that they do ... studying *what* is the question! R. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: Republicans hate you and want you dead: the 10/20/05 edition (NDC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:10:51 -0700 wrote in message news:1129818901.356862.59250@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > and Liberals think you are too stupid to decide on your own what you > should eat. > And judging from the amount of diet related disease out there, we are probably right about that. R. ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 17:12:55 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > Ray wrote: > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > > > > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > > > > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > > > > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > > > > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to > > > > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > > > > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > > > > > anyway!! > > > > > > The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality paper. > > > Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively biased > > > however - to the point that they are often either willfully distort the > > > truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as the New > > > Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that they have > > > "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of > > > hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity > > > normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But again their > > > general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > > > > > > > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > > > > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > > > > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > > > > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > > > > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > > > > > > Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a right-wing > > > rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, because they > > > don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are so > > > blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how distorted > > > their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ editorials. > > > > > > Ray > > > > You're obviously a very learned man, Ray. But to call NR a rag may be > > taking it a bit too far...You just don't happen to agree with most of > > what they are saying. > > No, the National Review is a rag. And it's not because I don't usually > agree with what they are saying, or just because they've declared Rush > Limbaugh to be the 'leader' of the conservative cause. It's because, > like Limbaugh, much of what they say is flat-out wrong or deceptive - > they are not a reliable source of information. Here's an example: > > The National Review, in their ongoing effort to smear White House > critic Joe Wilson, ran a 2004 article accusing Wilson of lying in his > now-famous 2003 NYTimes article questioning the Administration's > rational for going to war. Per the National Review: > > "But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV - he of the Hermes ties and > Jaguar convertibles - has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's > bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he > who has been telling lies." > > http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp > > This declaration is itself a gross distorion - the "bipartisan Senate > intelligence committee report" concluded no such thing. Only the > Republicans on the committee declared as much - the Democrats on the > committee refused to endorse that conclusion. > > The NR article continues: > > "In particular he [Wilson] said that President Bush was lying when, in > his 2003 > State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British > government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant > quantities of uranium from Africa." > > This too is false: in his 2003 NYTimes op-ed piece Wilson did not say > that Bush was lying when he used those "16 words" in his 2003 SOTU > address. > > The National Review is lying, and it's such a flagrant lie that even I > am amazed at their audacity and blatent disregard for the truth here - > especially given the irony that this article of theirs is an attempt at > character assassination where they are trying to impugn someone else as > a liar. > > But hey, all's fair in love and politics, right? ### > > Disgusting. The National Review is indeed a rag. > > > Some people would claim that OpinionJournal.com > > is too biased conservative, but you've used them for quotes to further > > your arguments. > > OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors. > > > You may get some good material from NR sometime. I'm > > not being factitious. Check this out-- > > http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html > > *Sometimes* - sure. Even a clock is right twice a day, as they say. > But in general they are unreliable as a source of information. > > Ray OK Professor, you site an example where NR stumbled. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Interestingly, you use the New York Times in your attempt to impugn NR. It's not like I couldn't sit here all night and list the errors and if not downright fabrications that have come out of that fine paper. Yes, National Review is very biased. But still, they have to fact check like everyone else or they wouldn't be celebrating a rather distinguished 50th Anniversary this year. Therefore, it should be taken as ONE source and not as THE source..Get me on record for saying that!! Again, you do not agree with the general philosophy that the magazine was/is based upon. And that is why you are calling it a "rag". I'm sure you will somehow disagree... peazzz, cpc ------------------------------ From: The Lord of Eltingville Subject: Re: An update from college! (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:59:28 -0400 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1129827945.635070.29520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > k sturm wrote: > >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > >> news:1129816141.461274.214440@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > My daughter sent me this short video, it looks like things are going > >> > very well so far! Check is in the mail, honey. > >> > > >> > http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/1616564 > >> > > >> > Mark > >> > > >> > >> Ummm, what video?? > > > Oh well, sorry 'bout that. For whatever reason it is gone now. Lets > > just say that it was a fine example of the perils of overindulgence. > > Like this? > > http://www.littlesummer.com/65240321/tour.html > > Or this? > > http://www.trixieteen.com/65240321/tour.html > > (all models over 18 blah blah blah.....) > > OK, maybe there aren't any perils, but there may be some overindulgence on > someone's part. Someone's got far too much time (among other things) on his hands... ------------------------------ From: n9ck@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Clapton/Trucks Tour? Date: 20 Oct 2005 17:26:05 -0700 I bought the new DVD (and CD). Awesome ! Great stuff. I wonder if they will change the setlist slightly from the London shows. I mean, I still expect that they'll play the same songs all 3 nights at MSG. But they have had many months to practice since the London shows, and maybe they'll break out a few more chestnuts that they hadn't before. Anyone For Tennis ? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 20 Oct 2005 17:46:00 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray wrote: > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > > > > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wall Street > > > > > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journals are worth > > > > > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section offers > > > > > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot about economics > > > > > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterbalance to > > > > > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most other news in > > > > > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for thought > > > > > > anyway!! > > > > > > > > The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality paper. > > > > Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively biased > > > > however - to the point that they are often either willfully distort the > > > > truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as the New > > > > Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that they have > > > > "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callousness of > > > > hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depravity > > > > normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But again their > > > > general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > > > > > > > > > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > > > > > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > > > > > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > > > > > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > > > > > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > > > > > > > > Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a right-wing > > > > rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, because they > > > > don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are so > > > > blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how distorted > > > > their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ editorials. > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > You're obviously a very learned man, Ray. But to call NR a rag may be > > > taking it a bit too far...You just don't happen to agree with most of > > > what they are saying. > > > > No, the National Review is a rag. And it's not because I don't usually > > agree with what they are saying, or just because they've declared Rush > > Limbaugh to be the 'leader' of the conservative cause. It's because, > > like Limbaugh, much of what they say is flat-out wrong or deceptive - > > they are not a reliable source of information. Here's an example: > > > > The National Review, in their ongoing effort to smear White House > > critic Joe Wilson, ran a 2004 article accusing Wilson of lying in his > > now-famous 2003 NYTimes article questioning the Administration's > > rational for going to war. Per the National Review: > > > > "But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV - he of the Hermes ties and > > Jaguar convertibles - has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's > > bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he > > who has been telling lies." > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp > > > > This declaration is itself a gross distorion - the "bipartisan Senate > > intelligence committee report" concluded no such thing. Only the > > Republicans on the committee declared as much - the Democrats on the > > committee refused to endorse that conclusion. > > > > The NR article continues: > > > > "In particular he [Wilson] said that President Bush was lying when, in > > his 2003 > > State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British > > government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant > > quantities of uranium from Africa." > > > > This too is false: in his 2003 NYTimes op-ed piece Wilson did not say > > that Bush was lying when he used those "16 words" in his 2003 SOTU > > address. > > > > The National Review is lying, and it's such a flagrant lie that even I > > am amazed at their audacity and blatent disregard for the truth here - > > especially given the irony that this article of theirs is an attempt at > > character assassination where they are trying to impugn someone else as > > a liar. > > > > But hey, all's fair in love and politics, right? ### > > > > Disgusting. The National Review is indeed a rag. > > > > > Some people would claim that OpinionJournal.com > > > is too biased conservative, but you've used them for quotes to further > > > your arguments. > > > > OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors. > > > > > You may get some good material from NR sometime. I'm > > > not being factitious. Check this out-- > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html > > > > *Sometimes* - sure. Even a clock is right twice a day, as they say. > > But in general they are unreliable as a source of information. > > > > Ray > > OK Professor, you site an example where NR stumbled. I could cite several more too - the National Review 'stumbles' (read: lies) on a regular basis. And my what a coincidence that the NR routinely 'stumbles' in such a way as to advance what is generally a right-wing agenda. > I'll give you the > benefit of the doubt here. Interestingly, you use the New York Times in > your attempt to impugn NR. I've 'used' the New York Times here only in the sense that Joe Wilson's Op-Ed article that the National Review was attacking was published in there. Wilson's Op-Ed could have been published anywhere - that wouldn't have made any difference about the FACT -- *not* opinion -- that the National Review repeatedly lied when attacking said article. > It's not like I couldn't sit here all night > and list the errors and if not downright fabrications that have come > out of that fine paper. Which makes zero difference in terms of my 'using' the New York Times here. Moreover, when the New York Times gets things wrong, unlike the National Review they don't routinely get things wrong to advance a specific left or right agenda - they get things wrong that advance both agendas. > Yes, National Review is very biased. But still, > they have to fact check like everyone else or they wouldn't be > celebrating a rather distinguished 50th Anniversary this year. What makes you say that? Do you think that their 'leader' Rush Limbaugh fact checks all of the misleading crap that he's been shovelling out for decades too? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. ("Sold, for one dollar, the Brookin Bridge!") Also: if so, how do you think the National Review ended up publishing the lies in the essay that I cited? And moreover has never corrected them? Both of those assertions were and are easily demonstrated to be wrong - all anyone had/has to do is read the source material. > Therefore, it should be taken as ONE source and not as THE source..Get > me on record for saying that!! It's ONE source for distorted and misleading right-wing propaganda - that much I'll agree with. There are indeed plenty of others. > Again, you do not agree with the general > philosophy that the magazine was/is based upon. And that is why you are > calling it a "rag". I'm sure you will somehow disagree... I disagree with the conduct of any purported news organization or enitity that routinely grossly distorts information -- to the left or to the right -- for political propaganda purposes. IMO the ends do not justify the means. YMMV. Ray ------------------------------ From: bigchuck51@aol.com Subject: "Comes A Time" Permavine, noB, noP Date: 20 Oct 2005 18:46:25 -0700 With huge thanks to Tony, I'm continuing the Comes A Time Benefit -- No B, No P offer. I'll send the dvd containing the shn and flac files to the first person who e-mails me(not the group)his or her postal mailing address and a promise to reoffer this back to rmgd in the same manner: no b, no p. You must have a dvd drive on your computer and be able to decode shn and flac files. There are a handful of shows on this besides the benefit show. They are JGB 3/18/78, JGB 7/23/77, JGB 8/15/84, JGB 9/15/84, and Taj Mahal 6/13/04. All files are on one dvd, and are mostly flacs; 3/18/78 is shn. later- The Comes a Time Benefit - For the Rex Foundation The Music of Jerry Garcia 9-24-2005 The Greek Thtr, Berkeley, CA Taper: Ian Stone (stone....@gmail.com) Source: MBHO 603a/ka200n>Sound Devices 722 @ 24bit/96khz Mics located Dead Center at the bottom of the lawn - top of bench seating Mics ORTF. (Resampled & Dithered to 16bit/44.1khz using soundforge 6.0) ***Not on recording*** David Nelson, Sandy Rothman, & Brian Godchaux 7 songs, approx. 25 minutes Disc 1: String Cheese members w/Scott Law on guitar: Approximately 30 minutes 1. Intro 2. Friend of the Devil 3. Catfish John 4. Casey Jones (also w/Jeff Chimenti) 5. Goin'Down the Road Feelin' Bad 6. Ripple 7. outro Disc 1 (Continued) The "Jerry" Band Approximately 40 minutes 8. intro 9. Cats Down Under The Stars 10. Rhapsody In Red 11. That Lucky Old Sun 12. My Sisters & My Brothers 13. *Deal 14. outro *with Warren Haynes, Merl Saunders joining Melvin Seals on keys Disc 2: Ratdog Approximately 30 minutes 1. intro 2. Mississippi 1/2 Step 3. Bird Song 4. Lazy River Road 5. Big Railroad Blues 6. outro 7.Rex Foundation speakers Annabelle Garcia, and family speak briefly Disc 3: The Jerry Garcia Tribute Band Approximately 2 hours, 50 minutes including encores 1. Olin Arageed (Hamza El Din) 5:24 2. Help on The Way (Trey) 14:13 *Power failure, house sound goes completely out for a minute or two.* (Sound was recorded from amps/monitors, and although faint i did my best to fix this in soundforge 7:20>8:38) 3. Slipknot! 1:20 4. Sugaree (Warren) 13:02 5. Loser (Bruce) 8:25 6. Brown Eyed Woman (Michael Kang) 6:11 7. crowd 0:07 8. Dark Star (Bobby) 11:10 9. Bertha (Warren) 8:08 10. Eyes of The World (Trey) 10:34 Disc 4: (Bobby intros a few folks) 1. Standing on The Moon (Bruce) 8:43 2. Scarlet Begonias (Bruce) 7:23 3. Fire on The Mountain (Mickey) 9:30 4. Stella Blue (Warren) 10:04 Disc 5: 1. The Wheel (Bobby) 6:43 2. Uncle John's Band (All) 10:09 3. He's Gone (Bobby) 11:24 4. Franklin's Tower (Trey) 7:54 5. crowd 1:13 Encores: 6. Brokedown Palace (Bobby) 5:47 7. Dark Star v.2 (Bobby) 4:04 8. Touch of Grey 7:59 9. outro/crowd Group bow 2:28 Mickey: "Take this spirit home with you..." ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Open Apology to the RMGD Women Date: 21 Oct 2005 01:53:48 GMT RickNBarbInSD wrote: > Sorry to hear about all this Joe. Good luck workin' it out! Despite Psycho Sandy, I did have a memorable experience in Mexico. My best friend moved there after his divorce, and he is involved in setting up an online virtual museum dedicated to the dying indigenous cultures of mexico. He first lived in Mexico in the early 1970s, and started buying "huipels" which are costumes worn by the native indigenous population. He has had shows in museums here in the Bay Area, but now, in the age of digital photography, he's not buying as many costumes; he's photographing them instead. One day, we arrived in a tiny village in the Sierra Norte in the state of Puebla, near Cuetzalan, and he asked an indigenous man wearing a t-shirt if there was anyone in the village who still wore huipels. The man said that only 5 women were left, and one of them was his 96 year old grandmother. He invited us into his home to meet her. These people have to be amongst some of the poorest on the planet, living in a house with a dirt floor, with chickens wandering around inside, and with maize being processed right before our eyes. The 96 year old didn't speak any Spanish, only Nuatatal. I'd never met a 96 year old person before. And, she gave us a fashion show. And, they fed us their tortillas that we'd seen being made. That scene was repeated just about daily. I got to see a world that will cease to exist in just a few years. A world that no other gringo has ever seen. We got to see things no other American could ever possibly see. We went to villages famous for weaving rugs, and they saw my friend, and hugged Roberto, so pleased that he'd returned. We got to see handicrafts of all sorts. And, when Bob got to talking technicalities of weaving technigues, he'd arrange for village children to take Psycho Sandy and I hiking to sacred sites. 3 children took us to the home of the Goddess of the Mountain, a goddess of a spirit world. And, it was the height of the wildflower season. My mind is completely blown. If this interests you, visit Bob's Mexican Textile site at http://www.mexicantextiles.com He's paying for all this out of his own pocket, so make a donation if you can. He is documentating a world that will cease to exist. And, check out his latest picture of the month...of Rosa, the 15 year old beauty queen whose house we were invited into. It was a learning experience. In more ways than one. I learned that in the 5 years since the divorce, I've had a fucked up priority, in that, all I cared about was chasing women. I hope I learned my lesson. Psycho Sandy sure is beautiful, and I learned a lot about food and plants from her. But, I chose to ignore her many character flaws, and incredible self-absorption and selfishness. The blinders came off. I feel like crying, not for her, but for me having wasted so much time, so many years, obsessed with women. I've now had 4 relationships, post-divorce, that each lasted 6 months. Enough already. I need to chase my own dream. That said, this is the first one where I'm the dumper rather than the dumpee, so I'm not quite as devestated. But still, to delude oneself into thinking they'd found the love of their life, while only finding an imbalanced person is quite a let-down. I'm being very honest in this post, and I hope for 2 things...that you do visit Bob's site, and that you don't use my honesty to give me a hard time because we disagree about politics. I'm not the only over 50 year old divorced person here, confused, unsure, and at times, in pain. I've learned a lesson, I hope. And, again, knowing rmgd, I hope I don't regret this post. In fact, I hope it might serve as a lesson for you other single 50 year olds who are also chasing your own tail. Back to reality, I have hundreds of amazing digital photos on CD. If anyone cares, I'm on dial-up, so I could mail this CD and you could put it online for any interested rmgd'er. Joe ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:54:45 -0700 On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:17:54 -0400, Brad Greer wrote: >Yeah, and that's why I won't go to work for a place that tests - it >has nothing to do with being able to pass a test or not, it has >everything to do with making a choice to not work for a company that >doesn't truly value the employees. I hope I'm never in a situation >where I have to consider working for a company that tests (if it comes >down to taking a job with a company that tests or not being able to >provide for my family, well, preservation is the higher value). > >The extra pay, the extra vacation, whatever else they offer might seem >nice, but the bottom line is the upper management views the employee >as an "asset" or a "resource", not as a human being. That's EXACTLY how my current employer views me now with any drug test. I work in a cost center and my boss has told our whole dept. that we aren't appreciated when things go well, but if there are problems - even when they're not our fault (company opted for the cheap network provider that can't keep an internet connection up during a thunderstorm), we catch all the heat. ------------------------------ From: smackdown27@webtv.net (smack down) Subject: Paul McCartney (ndc) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:42:23 -0500 Hello..... I just saw Paul McCartney in Chicago on 10/18, but I can't seem to find the setlist anywhere. Anybody know what sites I should look for for setlists? Thanks! :) ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: NBA Players Now Must Adhere to Dress Code (NDC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:55:26 -0700 On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:58:49 -0500, "Steve Terry" wrote: > >"band beyond description" <123@456.com> wrote in message: > >> Marcus Camby of the Denver Nuggets, whose contract will pay him nearly >> $50 million over the next five years, told an interviewer before the code >> was imposed, ``I don't see it happening unless every NBA player is given a >> stipend to buy clothes.'' > >ROTFLMAO! > Kind of funny, but also disgusting. ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:58:40 -0700 "Carlisle" wrote in message news:1129840847.405541.78130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the WSJ. > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertaining, > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > cc From that site: "The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end...." I guess this woman isn't very impressive in person................ Even Leahy was impressed with Roberts' intellect and persona. No one seems to be impressed with this woman. The hearings ought to be a hoot. Early on I was saying all they have to go by is the hearings. If she's as unimpressive as she apparently has been in one on one meetings with senators, buh bye. EGBH ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .