Anyone get a speech from management about the economy? We got one last
week at a staff meeting. Nothing awful, but they recognized that
everyone is tweaked. And went on to intriduce 4 new hires. They are
cautiously optimistic.
Anyone get any sort of speeches or know of lay-offs?
How about sudden price jumbs or declines?
This is all so strange.... the fringe people like me are screaming
"the room is on fire" and so is the establishment. Everyone else seems
to be standing around confused, after all, there are no soup lines.
Its a little weird, I think, for most people to understand there is a
crisis when they and everyone they know is employed.
Any stories out there?
As they haggled about creating a fourth branch of government in DC,
the Fed has been injecting $600 billion of liquidity into the
international banking system TODAY in order to stablize world markets.
A commentator on CNCB said: "The numbers are so large it doesn't even
seem to matter."
Wachovia bought by Citi via FDIC "deal" last night.
Changes
Andi, hi, welcome, if you need to know anything about this Syndicate's members, ask Kieran.
I was just going through some old emails, and we had a bit of a convo on Rahm Emmanuel, specifically about his father's involvment in a militant Zionist group. It is interesting to note that on the other side, his mother was a civil rights activist who marched with MLK in Chicago, so whose to say which parent influences him the most!
And also going back through those emails, and seeing the various opinions we held on pre-election Obama, I have to say, that some little things are happening that have to be considered good. For one, he has overturned some loosening of environmental regulations that
Bush put in place at the end of his term. Now that, I can see how some people may have a more "pro-business" attitude, and disagree with O's move, but I have a hard time thinking that any on this list would find the repeal of these legal memos a bad thing:
Declassified Memos Provide Look Into Bush Policies
The Obama administration declassified nine Justice Department legal memos
on Monday that asserted a sweeping view of presidential power,
including authorizing the military to search Americans' homes without a
warrant and sending detainees to other countries regardless of
congressional statutes that might dictate otherwise.
Now civil liberties groups are pushing for the release of dozens of similar memos that remain classified.
About
a month ago, the American Civil Liberties Union sent the Justice
Department's Office of Legal Counsel a letter and a chart. The chart
listed 55 classified Bush administration legal memos on national
security issues. The letter basically said, "release these memos."
Some of the memos that the Justice Department declassified Monday were not even on the ACLU's list.
"So
there are dozens of memos that are still secret," said Jameel Jaffer,
director of the ACLU's national security project. They include "memos
that provided the basis for the national security agency's warrantless
wiretapping program and memos that provided the basis for the CIA's
torture program."
"Those are critical memos, and they're all
still secret," he said. Jaffer knows they exist because the government
has summarized or listed them in court documents.
Some secret
memos have been mentioned with no description of their contents. And
presumably some memoranda have never been mentioned at all. So, to
paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, there are known
unknowns and unknown unknowns.
Surprises In The Memos
One
reason there's a lot of interest in these documents is that they could
contain some surprises. For example, one memo declassified Monday is
dated Oct. 23, 2001. It asserts that the military can ignore Americans' Fourth Amendment privacy rights
and conduct searches against suspected terrorists without a warrant.
It's a controversial claim, but the public learned about the assertion
years ago in a footnote to another Justice Department document. The
public did not know about a line in the same memo that said: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."
The
Justice Department withdrew all nine of the newly released memos in
January. The acting head of the office of legal counsel, Steven
Bradbury, formally repudiated them five days before President Bush left
office.
Duke Law Professor Chris Schroeder was acting head of
the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration, and he
was on the Obama administration's Justice Department transition team.
He called the wholesale overturning of legal opinions such as these,
"Absolutely unprecedented. I know of no comparable experience that
comes remotely close."
Liberal activists say the Bush
administration's last-minute about-face is evidence of how far off the
rails the Justice Department went in the last eight years.
Conservatives say it's a sign that things are going off the rails right
now.
David Rivkin worked at the Justice Department under
President Reagan and the first President Bush. He says he never would
have written these legal memos, and he might have even withdrawn them,
but not like this.
"In a normal environment," Rivkin says, "you
gently pull it back. In an abnormal environment, you engage in
recrimination, vilification, demonization and public repudiation —
almost show-trial like. That's a very, very bad way to proceed."
Establishing A 'Truth Commission'
The government seems committed to pulling back the curtain further than it already has.
The
attorney general and other Justice officials have said they want to
declassify more documents from the Office of Legal Counsel. And
Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing into
whether to create a "truth commission" — an independent panel to
investigate Bush administration policies.
The ACLU's Jaffer
says a truth commission could investigate a question that the Justice
Department cannot answer: "What conduct was authorized on the basis of
these legal memos? Because in some senses these legal memos tell us
what the Justice Department thought the executive branch was authorized
to do, but they don't actually tell us what the executive branch did."
For
example, we now know the military was told it could secretly search
Americans' homes. The next question is: Did those searches ever happen?
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Changes
I too have been busy. But i have been listening to the "loyal" (my ass) opposition via savage and limbaugh these days.
i wish i had more time, but there's some interesting stuff going on. you guys heard about the rush v michael steel (RNC chairman i think - and black of course) thing?
so rush says some things like - "i want Obama to fail". the RNC chair says rush is incendiary and ugly. rush flips out saying the repubs have totally lost their way. rnc chair APOLOGIZES to rush. Obama spokesperson makes great joke about some guy apologizing to the head of the republican party.
so i was listening to rush and he is going on and on and on about how the dems are saddling us with debt, they are going to cause our children to have lower living standard etc etc etc bunch a bullshit obviously.
and it occus to me - this is the republican philosophy in a nutshell:
it is completely abhorable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a result of trying to help poor people.
it is completely acceptable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a result of KILLING poor poeple (mostly in other countries).
my point is this: rush and every other repub spouting this nonsense should ask their children - if they have them, this:
"son (or daughter) would you rather be saddled with debt for your entire adult life as the result of trying to help poor people or killing them?"
now, i assume rush's son would prolly say KILL EM! but i think most children, being children, would pick the correct answer.
honestly, this is what the repubs have become to me. they have lost ANY credibility they once had. after 8 years of bitching non stop that liberals wanted GW to fail (and liberals saying no, that's not really true) the repubs are now stating with complete aplomb that they want O to fail. and that's cool - cause he is trying to help poor people, not kill them.
savage went on for 15 minutes yesterday about how Hillary Clinton is an appeaser because she is pushing a 2 state solution in the holy land. he then called her a zionist. ummmmm.....huh?
i mean, they just got nothing.
i fully believe, 100%, that had mccain won, the same exact goddamn bill, except maybe tax cuts would be 40% of total instead of 30% would be being pushed right now. and the dems would prolly be supporting most of it (tax cuts aside.) i really think the repub stategy (if you can call it that) is twofold -
get as many brown republicans as possible into the national spotlight. as long as they are men.
subvert the dems in congress and in the media to the point where they have to fail. because even if they suceed, socialism is still a failure.
i really just dont get it. i feel like the political discourse in the country is at an all time low in my lifetime right now. there basically is none. the dems have stars in their eyes and the repubs have hatred. this does not make for a good political future. i think i should just give up. it all seems so hopeless.
RE: Changes
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219518&title=cpac-after-party
From: oblio <>
To: PHL Syndicate <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:11:11 AM
Subject: RE: [syndicate] Changes
I too have been busy. But i have been listening to the "loyal" (my ass) opposition via savage and limbaugh these days.
i wish i had more time, but there's some interesting stuff going on. you guys heard about the rush v michael steel (RNC chairman i think - and black of course) thing?
so rush says some things like - "i want Obama to fail". the RNC chair says rush is incendiary and ugly. rush flips out saying the repubs have totally lost their way. rnc chair APOLOGIZES to rush. Obama spokesperson makes great joke about some guy apologizing to the head of the republican party.
so i was listening to rush and he is going on and on and on about how the dems are saddling us with debt, they are going to cause our children to have lower living standard etc etc etc bunch a bullshit obviously.
and it occus to me - this is the republican philosophy in a nutshell:
it is completely abhorable to pass on debt to our children
that comes as a result of trying to help poor people.
it is completely acceptable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a result of KILLING poor poeple (mostly in other countries).
my point is this: rush and every other repub spouting this nonsense should ask their children - if they have them, this:
"son (or daughter) would you rather be saddled with debt for your entire adult life as the result of trying to help poor people or killing them?"
now, i assume rush's son would prolly say KILL EM! but i think most children, being children, would pick the correct answer.
honestly, this is what the repubs have become to me. they have lost ANY credibility they once had. after 8 years of bitching non stop that liberals wanted GW to fail (and liberals saying no, that's not really true) the repubs are now stating with complete aplomb that they want O to fail. and that's cool - cause he is trying to help poor people, not
kill them.
savage went on for 15 minutes yesterday about how Hillary Clinton is an appeaser because she is pushing a 2 state solution in the holy land. he then called her a zionist. ummmmm.....huh?
i mean, they just got nothing.
i fully believe, 100%, that had mccain won, the same exact goddamn bill, except maybe tax cuts would be 40% of total instead of 30% would be being pushed right now. and the dems would prolly be supporting most of it (tax cuts aside.) i really think the repub stategy (if you can call it that) is twofold -
get as many brown republicans as possible into the national spotlight. as long as they are men.
subvert the dems in congress and in the media to the point where they have to fail. because even if they suceed, socialism is still a failure.
i really just dont get it. i feel like the political discourse in the country is at an all time low in my lifetime right now. there basically is
none. the dems have stars in their eyes and the repubs have hatred. this does not make for a good political future. i think i should just give up. it all seems so hopeless.
--- El mié 4-mar-09, D-Bone <> escribió:
> De: D-Bone <>
> Asunto: [syndicate] Changes
> A: "PHL Syndicate" <>
> Fecha: miércoles, 4 marzo, 2009, 5:11 am
> Well, I've been a bit busy these days, so here's a
> catch all.
>
> Andi, hi, welcome, if you need to know anything about this
> Syndicate's members, ask Kieran.
>
> I was just going through some old
emails, and we had a bit
> of a convo on Rahm Emmanuel, specifically about his
> father's involvment in a militant Zionist group. It is
> interesting to note that on the other side, his mother was a
> civil rights activist who marched with MLK in Chicago, so
> whose to say which parent influences him the most!
>
> And also going back through those emails, and seeing the
> various opinions we held on pre-election Obama, I have to
> say, that some little things are happening that have to be
> considered good. For one, he has overturned some loosening
> of environmental regulations that Bush put in place at the
> end of his term. Now that, I can see how some people may
> have a more "pro-business" attitude, and disagree
> with O's move, but I have a hard time thinking that any
> on this list would find the repeal of these legal memos a
> bad
thing:
>
>
> Declassified Memos Provide Look Into Bush Policies
> The Obama administration declassified nine Justice
> Department legal memos on Monday that asserted a sweeping
> view of presidential power,
> including authorizing the military to search Americans'
> homes without a
> warrant and sending detainees to other countries regardless
> of
> congressional statutes that might dictate otherwise.
> Now civil liberties groups are pushing for the release of
> dozens of similar memos that remain classified.
> About
> a month ago, the American Civil Liberties Union sent the
> Justice
> Department's Office of Legal Counsel a letter and a
> chart. The chart
> listed 55 classified Bush administration legal memos on
> national
> security issues. The letter basically said, "release
> these memos."
> Some of the memos
that the Justice Department declassified
> Monday were not even on the ACLU's list.
> "So
> there are dozens of memos that are still secret," said
> Jameel Jaffer,
> director of the ACLU's national security project. They
> include "memos
> that provided the basis for the national security
> agency's warrantless
> wiretapping program and memos that provided the basis for
> the CIA's
> torture program."
> "Those are critical memos, and they're all
> still secret," he said. Jaffer knows they exist
> because the government
> has summarized or listed them in court documents.
> Some secret
> memos have been mentioned with no description of their
> contents. And
> presumably some memoranda have never been mentioned at all.
> So, to
> paraphrase former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, there
> are known
> unknowns and
unknown unknowns.
> Surprises In The Memos
> One
> reason there's a lot of interest in these documents is
> that they could
> contain some surprises. For example, one memo declassified
> Monday is
> dated Oct. 23, 2001. It asserts that the military can
> ignore Americans' Fourth Amendment privacy rights and
> conduct searches against suspected terrorists without a
> warrant.
> It's a controversial claim, but the public learned
> about the assertion
> years ago in a footnote to another Justice Department
> document. The
> public did not know about a line in the same memo that
> said: "First Amendment speech and press rights may also
> be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war
> successfully."
> The
> Justice Department withdrew all nine of the newly released
> memos in
> January. The acting head of the office of
legal counsel,
> Steven
> Bradbury, formally repudiated them five days before
> President Bush left
> office.
> Duke Law Professor Chris Schroeder was acting head of
> the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton
> administration, and he
> was on the Obama administration's Justice Department
> transition team.
> He called the wholesale overturning of legal opinions such
> as these,
> "Absolutely unprecedented. I know of no comparable
> experience that
> comes remotely close."
> Liberal activists say the Bush
> administration's last-minute about-face is evidence of
> how far off the
> rails the Justice Department went in the last eight years.
> Conservatives say it's a sign that things are going off
> the rails right
> now.
> David Rivkin worked at the Justice Department under
> President Reagan and the first
President Bush. He says he
> never would
> have written these legal memos, and he might have even
> withdrawn them,
> but not like this.
> "In a normal environment," Rivkin says, "you
> gently pull it back. In an abnormal environment, you engage
> in
> recrimination, vilification, demonization and public
> repudiation —
> almost show-trial like. That's a very, very bad way to
> proceed."
> Establishing A 'Truth Commission'
> The government seems committed to pulling back the curtain
> further than it already has.
> The
> attorney general and other Justice officials have said they
> want to
> declassify more documents from the Office of Legal Counsel.
> And
> Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a
> hearing into
> whether to create a "truth commission" — an
> independent panel to
> investigate
Bush administration policies.
> The ACLU's Jaffer
> says a truth commission could investigate a question that
> the Justice
> Department cannot answer: "What conduct was authorized
> on the basis of
> these legal memos? Because in some senses these legal memos
> tell us
> what the Justice Department thought the executive branch
> was authorized
> to do, but they don't actually tell us what the
> executive branch did."
> For
> example, we now know the military was told it could
> secretly search
> Americans' homes. The next question is: Did those
> searches ever happen?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
> Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your
> subscription preferences:
>
>
>
¡Sé el Bello 51 de People en Español! ¡Es tu oportunidad de Brillar! Sube tus fotos ya. http://www.51bello.com/
--
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Changes
"it is completely acceptable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a result of KILLING poor poeple (mostly in other countries)."
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, D-Bone <> wrote:
Powered by http://DiscussThis.com
Visit list archives, subscribe, unsubscribe or change your subscription preferences
Start a new conversation (thread)
RE: Changes
i dont have time to respond in full, but i gotta jump back in real quick:
> "it is completely abhorable to pass on debt to our
> children that comes as a result of trying to help poor
> people."
>
> "it is completely acceptable to pass on debt to our
> children that comes as a result of KILLING poor poeple
> (mostly in other countries)."
>
> My answer is that they are both wrong. It is always wrong
> to pass debt on to children for any reason since they
> can't vote on it.
first of all, it wasn't a question. it was a statement. this is basically how i see it: Dems - ok to pass on debt to help poor people, ok to pass on debt to kill them (usually). repubs - not ok to pass on debt to help poor people, but ok to pass on debt to kill poor people.
my position is irrelevant. i was simply pointing out that imo, the repubs are remarkably MORE hypocritical and immoral.
greg, i agree with you in principle. however, your philosophy simply does not apply to the real world. it is not practical, so it is basically irrelevant.
government simply is not going to nothing. saying it should do nothing is not helpful.
its like this oldest moral quesion in the book:
you have 2 children and a terrorist makes you chose which one will live - do you pick one or let both die?
the dem position would be to pick one - lesser of two evils. the repub would be we dont negotiate with terrorists, they both die. your position would seem to be - giving in to coercion is wrong, so both die.
all i'm saying is that we totally screwed because we can only think within the context we have created. this is nothing new of course.
> One, the claim of helping poor people is dubious as such
> measures rarely achive their stated goals,
irrelevant. many things do not acheive their stated goals. does that mean that if you are unable to be first in your class, you should settle for last? no, that makes no sense. you do the best you can.
and neverly
> really calculate the full cost of the help.
again, this does not seem relevant to me. nothing the government ever does calculates the full cost. hell, i can't even do that with my food budget.
It is easy to
> identify the beneficiaries of the help, but it is very
> difficult to estimate the unseen costs. As with any
> government expenditure to help someone, the money (i
> should say value -since the government can just print
> "money") came from somewhere and is not being used
> for the purupose it otherwise would have had the government
> not taken it. This translates into enourmous lost
> opportunitys which are vbery difficult to quantify since
> they never happened.
so what your saying is that helping poor people is dubious because it costs more than people are willing to admit, doesn't meet lofty goals and is taking money that would be spent somewhere else.
i'm sorry, absolutely none of that is compelling enough to me to say that new deal type programs are failures.
let me be very clear. i disagree with government intervention in principle. however, i can't live my life saying everything the government does is wrong (even tho i basically believe it!) so, i gotta play the game. and that game to me is this:
it is better to help people than kill them.
i really truely think that is at the core of many conservative / liberal differences.
and yes savage and limbaugh represent the basest of the republican base, but they also have millions of listeners everyday. there are many MANY people who listen to them who would not admit it to you, or would not talk about it.
and in the end there are many pepole who would rather use tax payer money to kill people in other countries than to help poor people in this country. i realize that both are morally er...less than ideal. but, only someone with no sense of practical reality would say they are both equally immoral.
it is quite clear to me that killing people is more immoral than TRYING to help them.
so you see even the most unsuccessful of socal programs is better than the best of all possible wars.
that is just my opinion of course. but if my money is going to be taken at the barrel of a gun - and it is going to go to help people or kill them. i will chose helping them every single time. i do not think most republicans can say the same. Many democrats can tho. But by no means all.
RE: Changes
I don't know why you're listening to Rush and Savage ... in my mind,
those loons represent the very basest of all political discourse in
this country ... they live for nothing more than to attack those who
don't agree with them (or look like them in Savage's case) ...
listening to them for longer than say, five minutes, is enough to push
me into angry intolerant rage of all Republicans ... I just don't buy
it that all Republicans think like those loons ... I'm friends with
several Repubs and none of them are that extreme ... I get the same
kind of reaction when I listen to Al Sharpton blab on about some
insanity ...
I totally agree with you that no matter who is in power, we'd see
basically the same bailout bill ... it's a political fix to something
that can't be fixed, something that needs time to correct itself
without the intervention of gov't ... (except for AIG ... which, if it
collapses, would doom us all) ...
As much money as AIG is getting, that's the one aspect of this I think
is completely necessary ... if AIG goes down, this entire economy will
collapse
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:36 PM, D-Bone <> wrote:
> I hear you, man....check out these clips from CPAC on John Stewart....makes
> me wish we were a monarchy and these guys could be tried for treason.
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219518&title=cpac-...
>
> ________________________________
> From: oblio <>
> To: PHL Syndicate <>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:11:11 AM
> Subject: RE: [syndicate] Changes
>
>
> I too have been busy. But i have been listening to the "loyal" (my ass)
> opposition via savage and limbaugh these days.
>
> i wish i had more time, but there's some interesting stuff going on. you
> guys heard about the rush v michael steel (RNC chairman i think - and black
> of course) thing?
>
> so rush says some things like - "i want Obama to fail". the RNC chair says
> rush is incendiary and ugly. rush flips out saying the repubs have totally
> lost their way. rnc chair APOLOGIZES to rush. Obama spokesperson makes great
> joke about some guy apologizing to the head of the republican party.
>
> so i was listening to rush and he is going on and on and on about how the
> dems are saddling us with debt, they are going to cause our children to have
> lower living standard etc etc etc bunch a bullshit obviously.
>
> and it occus to me - this is the republican philosophy in a nutshell:
>
> it is completely abhorable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a
> result of trying to help poor people.
>
> it is completely acceptable to pass on debt to our children that comes as a
> result of KILLING poor poeple (mostly in other countries).
>
> my point is this: rush and every other repub spouting this nonsense should
> ask their children - if they have them, this:
>
> "son (or daughter) would you rather be saddled with debt for your entire
> adult life as the result of trying to help poor people or killing them?"
>
> now, i assume rush's son would prolly say KILL EM! but i think most
> children, being children, would pick the correct answer.
>
> honestly, this is what the repubs have become to me. they have lost ANY
> credibility they once had. after 8 years of bitching non stop that liberals
> wanted GW to fail (and liberals saying no, that's not really true) the
> repubs are now stating with complete aplomb that they want O to fail. and
> that's cool - cause he is trying to help poor people, not kill them.
>
> savage went on for 15 minutes yesterday about how Hillary Clinton is an
> appeaser because she is pushing a 2 state solution in the holy land. he then
> called her a zionist. ummmmm.....huh?
>
> i mean, they just got nothing.
>
> i fully believe, 100%, that had mccain won, the same exact goddamn bill,
> except maybe tax cuts would be 40% of total instead of 30% would be being
> pushed right now. and the dems would prolly be supporting most of it (tax
> cuts aside.) i really think the repub stategy (if you can call it that) is
> twofold -
>
> get as many brown republicans as possible into the national spotlight. as
> long as they are men.
>
> subvert the dems in congress and in the media to the point where they have
> to fail. because even if they suceed, socialism is still a failure.
>
> i really just dont get it. i feel like the political discourse in the
> country is at an all time low in my lifetime right now. there basically is
> none. the dems have stars in their eyes and the repubs have hatred. this
> does not make for a good political future. i think i should just give up. it
> all seems so hopeless.
>
RE: Changes
> I don't know why you're listening to Rush and Savage ... in my mind,
know they enemy ;)
> without the intervention of gov't ... (except for AIG ... which, if it
> collapses, would doom us all) ...
yeah, its epic fail.
as far as an aig fail, it would be a credit problem that would take
time to trickle down into the real economy. hell, it could cause a
3,000 point drop in the dow in a week for all i know. but in the case
of a GE or GM/Chrysler collapse, you're going to have a VERY LARGE
NUMBER of VERY ANGRY people who will have everything pulled from
beneath them all at once. they won't be unemployed wall street
bankers. you're talking masses of unionized blue collar works and some
and medium business that are in the supply chain - and pensions
(jeezus). you're talking major civil disorder and with most of the
national guard overseas... bad.
i was listening to some talk radio and there was a guy that called up
claiming to work in some capacity for a county gov't in indiana.
homeland security paid them a visit and told them that in the case of
a gm/chrysler bankruptcy, they can expect a 40% drop in local and
state gov't revenue. then they started asking lots of questions
like... do you have a procedure in place to "harden" gov't buildings?
do you have a plan to install barricades and do you have ways to block
entrance into and out of gov't buildings? the guy was all wtf?!? i
dunno, could be completely made up, but if state/fed/local gov't
aren't preparinig for upcoming civil disturbances, they sure as hell
should be.
RE: Changes
>> I don't know why you're listening to Rush and Savage ... in my mind,
>
> know they enemy ;)
At some point over the last couple years, Rush basically admitted that he
really didn't support a lot of what Bush did, but that he feels it's his
duty to support the cause. That combined with him RAILING against people
who use drugs for years while he was hiding a Perks addiction... why would
anyone take him seriously ?
Usually trolls just grow stronger when people pay attention to them, ann
coulter being a prime example. Her mission is to say the most vile, hateful
and repulsive things possible so that people get angry. Michelle Malkin,
O'Reilly, Rush, et al, it's all the same playbook.
HL Menken summed up demagogues as "one who will preach doctrines he knows
to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots".
Kieran
RE: Changes
--- On Wed, 3/4/09, TragicHipster <> wrote: