THURSDAY!
I've been working on my novel and procrastinating about coming here.
1
Bob Hope is dead.
It is a interesting thing to watch a new generation struggle with acknowledging some old geezer they heard of but have no interest in. The America of 2020 is already here. It will be a culture where aging Rap stars will inhabit UHF TV or VH1 and it's grandchildren. All the hip starts of 2025 are alive and getting ready. They will probably be cleaner, more suburban that today's gritty urban Rap Stars. There will as always happens a rebirth of Pop and the old time Rock. Nothing ever really dies it just hibernates a few decades and then is brought out and everyone gets excited over this "New" thing.
Some where there is a guy who will be the Bob Hope of the 21st century. A sweet but sometimes tart fellow who chides us and makes us laugh.
2
Sam Phillips is dead. He was like Hope, a predictable person in history. He stood up to the stupid white bigotry in the recording industry and he enabled white men to sing black music without having to be in a minstrel show! Phillips liberated country and western and married them to rhythm and blues. He gave us a wonderful era of wild expressive and magical sound.
3
The Media is beating the drums on Gay Marriage. The GOP will use it as a wedge issue in 2004. It won't go anywhere for long. They shrillness of the debate will tire most folks and by 2008 there will be civil marriages with some religious backing. When middle class Catholics start having Gay weddings in the backyard, the whole thing will fade away.
No one under 40 gives a damn about it anyway.
More later!
David Star@Audiea.com
God awaits us in the kitchen of imagination
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
TUESDAY!
Think of all theevil in the world. Think of those who live so long and thewn read this article from todays NY Times! Such tragedy!
July 22, 2003
Atlanta Philanthropist and Family Die in Kenyan Plane Crash
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
ATLANTA, July 21 — George Brumley Jr. pioneered research that helped save thousands of tiny babies and pumped millions of dollars into this city, looking out for poor children, the homeless and the dying.
Yet, in the end, most people here had never even heard his name.
That is, until this weekend.
In an accident 8,000 miles away, a plane carrying Dr. Brumley, one of Atlanta's most respected philanthropists, and 11 of his relatives slammed into Mount Kenya. The crash killed members of three generations and in an instant finished 12 entries on the Brumley family tree.
Since then, Atlantans have learned how much the Brumleys did for their city. And how quietly.
Over the years, Dr. Brumley, a pediatrician, built a network of charities that touched nearly every neighborhood and social stratum. But he avoided publicity like a disease. His main charity was not named after himself but after a little Dutch city, Zeist, where he once lived.
"George had no ego," said Thomas Lawley, dean of the Emory University School of Medicine. "He was always focused on results, not credit."
Well bred and well educated, Dr. Brumley, 68, was known as a gentleman doctor. Each day he would show up at the laboratory in a pressed shirt and tie. He was even polite to the rats. "You could tell by the way he handled the lab animals how much he cared for life, any life," said Lou Ann Brown, a pediatrics professor at Emory University.
The crash was the top story in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today. The Brumleys may not have created the vast philanthropic empires of say, Robert Woodruff, the former president of Coca-Cola, or Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN. Maybe every city has people like them. But years of understated giving earned the Brumleys a special place in Atlanta.
Dr. Brumley made a name researching the weak lungs of premature babies. His studies, colleagues said, led to a new generation of drugs that have saved thousands of infants born weighing less than a pound.
His main charity, the Zeist Foundation, sponsors children's medical clinics, hospices, shelters, fathering classes, juvenile justice programs and events at which musicians would perform with inner city kids.
His wife, Jean Stanback Brumley, 67, was on the board of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. She had reservations about going on safari.
"She was no nature girl," said a friend, Dr. Veda Johnson.
In their Christmas letter announcing the family vacation to East Africa, the Brumleys joked: "It should be a great trip provided certain family members can adapt to the wild; stay tuned for next year's report on Jean and the bucket shower."
Dr. Brumley was smitten with Africa. Two years ago, at 66, he had scaled Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest peak on the continent.
On Saturday, 12 members of the Brumley clan took off from Nairobi, headed to Samburu, a game reserve known for its stunning stocks of giraffe, zebra and gazelle.
The chartered plane, a twin-engine Fairchild turboprop flown by two South African pilots, took off around 4:15 p.m. The time is significant. Kenyan officials say it is dangerous to fly too close to Mount Kenya in the late afternoon because storms begin to lash the craggy peaks about then.
Friends of the Brumleys said the plane crashed as the pilots were pulling a tight circle around the mountain to give the family a closer view.
Chris Kuto, director of Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said: "This time of year the weather gets bad in the afternoon. Clouds, fog, rain. It's dangerous."
The Kenyan aviation authority requires pilots to get permits if they plan to circle Mount Kenya, which reaches to 17,058 feet. In this case, Mr. Kuto said, no permit was issued.
In Atlanta, the news has been a lot to absorb. George. Jean. Three of their five children: George III, 42; Lois, 39; Beth, 41. George III's wife, Julia, 42, and their two children, George IV, 14, and Jordan, 12. Lois's husband, Richard Morell, 43, and their son, Alex, 11. And Beth's husband, William Love, 41, and their daughter, Sarah, 12. Brumleys, 68 to 11, were on that plane.
Allison Vulgamore, president of the orchestra, said the entire family was known for giving. "When you worked with Jean and George, you always knew of their family legacies, but they did not want to focus on themselves."
Most of Dr. Brumley's family stayed near Atlanta , including Mr. Morell who quit his job as a lawyer to become a psychologist at an inner-city clinic Dr. Brumley set up.
Children were the Brumleys' key interest. Dr. Brumley, who received his bachelor's and medical degrees from Duke University, moved from Durham, N.C., to Atlanta in 1981 to become the chairman of Emory's pediatric department. By the time he retired 14 years later, the size of the department had tripled.
"We must not fail the children," he once wrote to a local paper.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
More later.
David Star@Audiea.com
Think of all theevil in the world. Think of those who live so long and thewn read this article from todays NY Times! Such tragedy!
July 22, 2003
Atlanta Philanthropist and Family Die in Kenyan Plane Crash
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
ATLANTA, July 21 — George Brumley Jr. pioneered research that helped save thousands of tiny babies and pumped millions of dollars into this city, looking out for poor children, the homeless and the dying.
Yet, in the end, most people here had never even heard his name.
That is, until this weekend.
In an accident 8,000 miles away, a plane carrying Dr. Brumley, one of Atlanta's most respected philanthropists, and 11 of his relatives slammed into Mount Kenya. The crash killed members of three generations and in an instant finished 12 entries on the Brumley family tree.
Since then, Atlantans have learned how much the Brumleys did for their city. And how quietly.
Over the years, Dr. Brumley, a pediatrician, built a network of charities that touched nearly every neighborhood and social stratum. But he avoided publicity like a disease. His main charity was not named after himself but after a little Dutch city, Zeist, where he once lived.
"George had no ego," said Thomas Lawley, dean of the Emory University School of Medicine. "He was always focused on results, not credit."
Well bred and well educated, Dr. Brumley, 68, was known as a gentleman doctor. Each day he would show up at the laboratory in a pressed shirt and tie. He was even polite to the rats. "You could tell by the way he handled the lab animals how much he cared for life, any life," said Lou Ann Brown, a pediatrics professor at Emory University.
The crash was the top story in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution today. The Brumleys may not have created the vast philanthropic empires of say, Robert Woodruff, the former president of Coca-Cola, or Ted Turner, the billionaire founder of CNN. Maybe every city has people like them. But years of understated giving earned the Brumleys a special place in Atlanta.
Dr. Brumley made a name researching the weak lungs of premature babies. His studies, colleagues said, led to a new generation of drugs that have saved thousands of infants born weighing less than a pound.
His main charity, the Zeist Foundation, sponsors children's medical clinics, hospices, shelters, fathering classes, juvenile justice programs and events at which musicians would perform with inner city kids.
His wife, Jean Stanback Brumley, 67, was on the board of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra. She had reservations about going on safari.
"She was no nature girl," said a friend, Dr. Veda Johnson.
In their Christmas letter announcing the family vacation to East Africa, the Brumleys joked: "It should be a great trip provided certain family members can adapt to the wild; stay tuned for next year's report on Jean and the bucket shower."
Dr. Brumley was smitten with Africa. Two years ago, at 66, he had scaled Mount Kilimanjaro, the highest peak on the continent.
On Saturday, 12 members of the Brumley clan took off from Nairobi, headed to Samburu, a game reserve known for its stunning stocks of giraffe, zebra and gazelle.
The chartered plane, a twin-engine Fairchild turboprop flown by two South African pilots, took off around 4:15 p.m. The time is significant. Kenyan officials say it is dangerous to fly too close to Mount Kenya in the late afternoon because storms begin to lash the craggy peaks about then.
Friends of the Brumleys said the plane crashed as the pilots were pulling a tight circle around the mountain to give the family a closer view.
Chris Kuto, director of Kenya's Civil Aviation Authority, said: "This time of year the weather gets bad in the afternoon. Clouds, fog, rain. It's dangerous."
The Kenyan aviation authority requires pilots to get permits if they plan to circle Mount Kenya, which reaches to 17,058 feet. In this case, Mr. Kuto said, no permit was issued.
In Atlanta, the news has been a lot to absorb. George. Jean. Three of their five children: George III, 42; Lois, 39; Beth, 41. George III's wife, Julia, 42, and their two children, George IV, 14, and Jordan, 12. Lois's husband, Richard Morell, 43, and their son, Alex, 11. And Beth's husband, William Love, 41, and their daughter, Sarah, 12. Brumleys, 68 to 11, were on that plane.
Allison Vulgamore, president of the orchestra, said the entire family was known for giving. "When you worked with Jean and George, you always knew of their family legacies, but they did not want to focus on themselves."
Most of Dr. Brumley's family stayed near Atlanta , including Mr. Morell who quit his job as a lawyer to become a psychologist at an inner-city clinic Dr. Brumley set up.
Children were the Brumleys' key interest. Dr. Brumley, who received his bachelor's and medical degrees from Duke University, moved from Durham, N.C., to Atlanta in 1981 to become the chairman of Emory's pediatric department. By the time he retired 14 years later, the size of the department had tripled.
"We must not fail the children," he once wrote to a local paper.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
More later.
David Star@Audiea.com
Monday, July 21, 2003
Saturday, July 19, 2003
SATURDAY!
Read it and laugh, weep, whatever!
July 19, 2003
He Conned the Society Crowd but Died Alone
By DAN BARRY
David Hampton's pursuit of a fabulous Manhattan life ended last month in the early-morning hush of a downtown hospital. No celebrities keened by his bedside, no theatrics unfolded in the hall; there was no last touch of the fabulous. Just the clinical cluck that follows the death of a man who dies alone at 39.
His name may not resonate, but his story will. David Hampton was the black teenager who conned members of the city's white elite 20 years ago with an outsized charm. He duped them into believing that he was a classmate of their children, the son of Sidney Poitier, and a victim of muggers who had just stolen his money and Harvard term paper — a term paper titled "Injustices in the Criminal Justice System."
The scam yielded a modest payoff: temporary shelter, a little cash, and the satisfaction of having mocked what he saw as the hypocritical world of limousine liberalism. He also briefly experienced the glamorous Manhattan life that had first seduced him from his upper-middle-class home in Buffalo, a city that he once said lacked anyone "who was glamorous or fabulous or outrageously talented."
"New York was the place for him," Susan V. Tipograph, a lawyer and close friend, said. "In his mind, the fabulous people lived in New York City."
But Mr. Hampton paid long-term costs for his New York conceit and deceit. For beguiling the affluent under false pretenses — the formal charge was attempted burglary — he received 21 months in prison. And for being such a distinctive character, he received eternal notoriety as the inspiration for "Six Degrees of Separation," a 1990 play by John Guare that became a hit and then a movie.
The play indeed centers on a young black man who poses as Sidney Poitier's son, and uses many details from the case. For example, it includes the singular moment when Osborn Elliott, a former editor of Newsweek, and his wife, Inger, evicted Mr. Hampton after finding their charming houseguest in bed with a man he had smuggled into their apartment. But Mr. Guare created many other details in writing a play that is a meditation on race relations, art and self-delusion.
Still, the thought that others were profiting from his hoax — his performance art, really — galled Mr. Hampton; in a way, he was the mark. He sued Mr. Guare and others for $100 million, and lost. He was tried on charges of harassing Mr. Guare, but was never convicted. He took a shot at acting, but his artistry clearly resided in the con.
Mr. Hampton continued duping others for money, for attention, and for entree into what he saw as the V.I.P. room of New York life. He would meet men in bars, dazzle them with his good looks and intellect, drop celebrity tidbits gleaned from prior scams — and then fleece them. Sometimes he was Patrick Owens; sometimes Antonio Jones; sometimes, just David.
But his name appeared more often in crime reports than in the society pages, usually for matters that fell far short of being fabulous: fare-beating, credit-card theft, threats of violence. He once told a judge that he had missed a court date because of a car accident; the ambulance report that he produced to back up his claim was, of course, a fake.
"He would often call me for advice," said Ronald L. Kuby, a friend and well-known lawyer who had represented him in the harassment case. "All I could tell him was to stop doing these things."
Something about David Hampton, it seems, prevented him from the enjoyment of simply being David Hampton. Although he felt used by the Guare play, he was using people well before and well after the "Six Degrees of Separation" phenomenon. What's more, he could be a real snob in determining one's fabulousness.
"There were times when I was socializing with people who wouldn't even dare have an Elliott, much less a Guare, at their dinner table," he told New York magazine in 1991. "But yet I had been at their dinner table. Legitimately, too."
Ms. Tipograph, who cleaned out his small room at an AIDS residence after he died at Beth Israel Medical Center, said that in the end, Mr. Hampton had a difficult life.
She said that she chooses to remember the warmth of a con artist who was also a friend. "I'm a 52-year-old overweight lawyer with bad knees; clubbing is not my thing," she said. "But we had a very regular friendship. We had lunch together. We had a very un-fabulous relationship."
Mr. Hampton, she said, "gave enjoyment, even when he did bad."
One of his last victims, at least as far as law-enforcement officials know, was Peter Bedevian, who went out on a date in late October 2001 with the man he knew as David Hampton-Montilio.
Before heading for a restaurant, Mr. Hampton said that he wanted to take Mr. Bedevian to a 9/11 celebrity benefit, but that he needed to be fronted $1,000 for the two tickets. Mr. Bedevian withdrew the money from an A.T.M. Mr. Hampton dashed into a downtown hotel to buy the tickets — from "friends from L.A. who were in town," as Mr. Bedevian recalled — and then the two sat down to eat.
They lived it up. They ate and drank, and talked about everything from the need to break out of their post-9/11 funk to the extraordinary talents of Billie Holiday. "He was able to pick out a little information, extrapolate, and use it to make me feel even more comfortable," Mr. Bedevian remembered. He added, "He knew how to tease you with `Oh, we're going to go to this benefit, and so-and-so's going to be there.' "
Mr. Hampton ordered a couple of $23 shots of fine Scotch as after-dinner drinks, Mr. Bedevian recalled. But it seemed the right thing to do; both men were living for the day.
Later would come the pain of having been suckered. Of Mr. Hampton excusing himself to use the bathroom, never to return; of getting stuck with the $423 dinner bill; of pressing criminal charges to get back his $1,000; of identifying his charming dinner date through the glass of a police station's one-way mirror.
But Mr. Bedevian also had this to say about his night with the notorious David Hampton, seeker of the fabulous. "Honestly?" he said. "It was one of the best dates that I ever went on."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Read it and laugh, weep, whatever!
July 19, 2003
He Conned the Society Crowd but Died Alone
By DAN BARRY
David Hampton's pursuit of a fabulous Manhattan life ended last month in the early-morning hush of a downtown hospital. No celebrities keened by his bedside, no theatrics unfolded in the hall; there was no last touch of the fabulous. Just the clinical cluck that follows the death of a man who dies alone at 39.
His name may not resonate, but his story will. David Hampton was the black teenager who conned members of the city's white elite 20 years ago with an outsized charm. He duped them into believing that he was a classmate of their children, the son of Sidney Poitier, and a victim of muggers who had just stolen his money and Harvard term paper — a term paper titled "Injustices in the Criminal Justice System."
The scam yielded a modest payoff: temporary shelter, a little cash, and the satisfaction of having mocked what he saw as the hypocritical world of limousine liberalism. He also briefly experienced the glamorous Manhattan life that had first seduced him from his upper-middle-class home in Buffalo, a city that he once said lacked anyone "who was glamorous or fabulous or outrageously talented."
"New York was the place for him," Susan V. Tipograph, a lawyer and close friend, said. "In his mind, the fabulous people lived in New York City."
But Mr. Hampton paid long-term costs for his New York conceit and deceit. For beguiling the affluent under false pretenses — the formal charge was attempted burglary — he received 21 months in prison. And for being such a distinctive character, he received eternal notoriety as the inspiration for "Six Degrees of Separation," a 1990 play by John Guare that became a hit and then a movie.
The play indeed centers on a young black man who poses as Sidney Poitier's son, and uses many details from the case. For example, it includes the singular moment when Osborn Elliott, a former editor of Newsweek, and his wife, Inger, evicted Mr. Hampton after finding their charming houseguest in bed with a man he had smuggled into their apartment. But Mr. Guare created many other details in writing a play that is a meditation on race relations, art and self-delusion.
Still, the thought that others were profiting from his hoax — his performance art, really — galled Mr. Hampton; in a way, he was the mark. He sued Mr. Guare and others for $100 million, and lost. He was tried on charges of harassing Mr. Guare, but was never convicted. He took a shot at acting, but his artistry clearly resided in the con.
Mr. Hampton continued duping others for money, for attention, and for entree into what he saw as the V.I.P. room of New York life. He would meet men in bars, dazzle them with his good looks and intellect, drop celebrity tidbits gleaned from prior scams — and then fleece them. Sometimes he was Patrick Owens; sometimes Antonio Jones; sometimes, just David.
But his name appeared more often in crime reports than in the society pages, usually for matters that fell far short of being fabulous: fare-beating, credit-card theft, threats of violence. He once told a judge that he had missed a court date because of a car accident; the ambulance report that he produced to back up his claim was, of course, a fake.
"He would often call me for advice," said Ronald L. Kuby, a friend and well-known lawyer who had represented him in the harassment case. "All I could tell him was to stop doing these things."
Something about David Hampton, it seems, prevented him from the enjoyment of simply being David Hampton. Although he felt used by the Guare play, he was using people well before and well after the "Six Degrees of Separation" phenomenon. What's more, he could be a real snob in determining one's fabulousness.
"There were times when I was socializing with people who wouldn't even dare have an Elliott, much less a Guare, at their dinner table," he told New York magazine in 1991. "But yet I had been at their dinner table. Legitimately, too."
Ms. Tipograph, who cleaned out his small room at an AIDS residence after he died at Beth Israel Medical Center, said that in the end, Mr. Hampton had a difficult life.
She said that she chooses to remember the warmth of a con artist who was also a friend. "I'm a 52-year-old overweight lawyer with bad knees; clubbing is not my thing," she said. "But we had a very regular friendship. We had lunch together. We had a very un-fabulous relationship."
Mr. Hampton, she said, "gave enjoyment, even when he did bad."
One of his last victims, at least as far as law-enforcement officials know, was Peter Bedevian, who went out on a date in late October 2001 with the man he knew as David Hampton-Montilio.
Before heading for a restaurant, Mr. Hampton said that he wanted to take Mr. Bedevian to a 9/11 celebrity benefit, but that he needed to be fronted $1,000 for the two tickets. Mr. Bedevian withdrew the money from an A.T.M. Mr. Hampton dashed into a downtown hotel to buy the tickets — from "friends from L.A. who were in town," as Mr. Bedevian recalled — and then the two sat down to eat.
They lived it up. They ate and drank, and talked about everything from the need to break out of their post-9/11 funk to the extraordinary talents of Billie Holiday. "He was able to pick out a little information, extrapolate, and use it to make me feel even more comfortable," Mr. Bedevian remembered. He added, "He knew how to tease you with `Oh, we're going to go to this benefit, and so-and-so's going to be there.' "
Mr. Hampton ordered a couple of $23 shots of fine Scotch as after-dinner drinks, Mr. Bedevian recalled. But it seemed the right thing to do; both men were living for the day.
Later would come the pain of having been suckered. Of Mr. Hampton excusing himself to use the bathroom, never to return; of getting stuck with the $423 dinner bill; of pressing criminal charges to get back his $1,000; of identifying his charming dinner date through the glass of a police station's one-way mirror.
But Mr. Bedevian also had this to say about his night with the notorious David Hampton, seeker of the fabulous. "Honestly?" he said. "It was one of the best dates that I ever went on."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Friday, July 18, 2003
FRIDAY!
Warm day in The City.
1
In March of 2001 I auctioned a Toshiba Libretto 100ct on eBay and it sold for $920. It was just at P166 with 64MB of RAM. This week I auctioned a IBM 600E ThinkPad that is a P2 366 and it sold for $255! Times have changed. Two years ago Laptops were a luxury and seen as a risk toy, you could loose it or have it stolen. Now, everyone has a laptop or soon will. Desktops are not so different in power and in many instances people realize the real value of having everything on one machine and then store backup files on your old desktop.
Notebook computers are the most ego stroking and personal satisfaction toy there is. Personal screen colors, the music or movies, the way the machine is part of you and a slave to whim. Wireless allows unlimited access to the Internet and there has never been a more pleasing experience that the Internet. It offers every possibility and allows you to link to the world. By 2010 cell phones will have been reduced to ear buds and laptops will be as powerful as you can imagine. Your ear phone will link to your notebook and you'll listen to music or make calls over the Internet. Cost will be cheap.
Think, a device that offers unlimited movies, TV, Cable and Broadcast, DVD storage, telephone, fax, and paging, and the Internet with it's universal library and for a few bucks a moth.
Landline phones and AM radio will vanish and then by 2020 Notebook computers will have genuine civil rights as they develop the power of thinking ands reasoning. By 2040 laptops will think, reason, communicate, and be your best friend from childhood to death. Media giants will have you on this profitable tether all your life. Loose your "Friend" the police will chase heaven and Earth to find it.
Eventually the machine will look and act like a lover, friend, advisor, bodyguard, and critic. Androids will come because they will be the ultimate ego pleaser. A machine you can love hate talk to and run through life with. Sex and violence and wisdom as well as every song, video, and bit of knowledge you ever craved. Data come to life!
Imagine that world! And you think we are fools on a rock today!
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Warm day in The City.
1
In March of 2001 I auctioned a Toshiba Libretto 100ct on eBay and it sold for $920. It was just at P166 with 64MB of RAM. This week I auctioned a IBM 600E ThinkPad that is a P2 366 and it sold for $255! Times have changed. Two years ago Laptops were a luxury and seen as a risk toy, you could loose it or have it stolen. Now, everyone has a laptop or soon will. Desktops are not so different in power and in many instances people realize the real value of having everything on one machine and then store backup files on your old desktop.
Notebook computers are the most ego stroking and personal satisfaction toy there is. Personal screen colors, the music or movies, the way the machine is part of you and a slave to whim. Wireless allows unlimited access to the Internet and there has never been a more pleasing experience that the Internet. It offers every possibility and allows you to link to the world. By 2010 cell phones will have been reduced to ear buds and laptops will be as powerful as you can imagine. Your ear phone will link to your notebook and you'll listen to music or make calls over the Internet. Cost will be cheap.
Think, a device that offers unlimited movies, TV, Cable and Broadcast, DVD storage, telephone, fax, and paging, and the Internet with it's universal library and for a few bucks a moth.
Landline phones and AM radio will vanish and then by 2020 Notebook computers will have genuine civil rights as they develop the power of thinking ands reasoning. By 2040 laptops will think, reason, communicate, and be your best friend from childhood to death. Media giants will have you on this profitable tether all your life. Loose your "Friend" the police will chase heaven and Earth to find it.
Eventually the machine will look and act like a lover, friend, advisor, bodyguard, and critic. Androids will come because they will be the ultimate ego pleaser. A machine you can love hate talk to and run through life with. Sex and violence and wisdom as well as every song, video, and bit of knowledge you ever craved. Data come to life!
Imagine that world! And you think we are fools on a rock today!
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Thursday!
Wednesday came and went, all the better!
I have a minor rash and the medicine is $488.59 for 30 pills!Diflucan 150mg. Unbelievable!
I'll stick with Walgreens hand lotion!
2
Tuesday NY Times Science Section has a excellent article on speech and language development. There is also a fun article that details a new theory about aging and the way mothering and grandmothering prolong human life spans.
3
Tony Blair, the British PM comes to America today. The Bushies have abused him recently. He deserves better and all Americans should support him.
More later!
David Star@Audiea.com
Wednesday came and went, all the better!
I have a minor rash and the medicine is $488.59 for 30 pills!Diflucan 150mg. Unbelievable!
I'll stick with Walgreens hand lotion!
2
Tuesday NY Times Science Section has a excellent article on speech and language development. There is also a fun article that details a new theory about aging and the way mothering and grandmothering prolong human life spans.
3
Tony Blair, the British PM comes to America today. The Bushies have abused him recently. He deserves better and all Americans should support him.
More later!
David Star@Audiea.com
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
TUESDAY!
This last Sunday I marked 13 years in San Francisco. Not too much has changed. Art Agnos was mayor, he would be defeated by his chief of Police: Frank Jordan in the 1991 elections only to have Jordan whipped by Willie Brown in 1995.
The week I arrived in 1990 a man had a heart attack while driving along a street in Noe Valley. He rolled forward hit a small Toyota killing a mother and daughter. He hit two other cars, five people died! In 1991 we had the 101 California massacre and in 1992 a 70 year old man killed a 17 year old girl and her boyfriend. Later it was learned the man was in love with the boy! Talk about jealous lovers!
During the last 13 years nothing of substance has been done about the homeless population. The actual number of street people has declined, because SF has a reputation as being unfriendly.
The City is rich, thus not very exciting. Club life shifted from 9th and Folsom to Valencia and then went to the East Bay, mostly in Industrial Oakland.
Pac Bell Park opened in 1999 and has been a huge hit. That area, China Basin was a slum for decades, now it is a rich mans haven.
We are about to elect a new mayor and the main challenge is a credible tax base. San Francisco has an aging population, few new home owners and is crippled by propositions 13.
I have had a good run. I earned $341,000 in the last 13 years and had three jobs, all security. I've been here on Post Street for nine years. My neighborhood has gone upscale and without rent control I could not live here.
When I arrive George Bush the Elder was president. Now his son is president.
Life goes on. The best part are the friends I have made. Mike Terry, Rachel Garvey, Robert wooden, they are the tops and then there are a dozen folks I see all the time at Starbucks or at work. The sex has been very good. This city nevers cools off. Everyone is on the make.
I wrote three complete novels! "Nightwalk" "Alta Plaza" and now "Not Far From Here" I'm not published yet, but well, we'll see!
Borders, Original Joes, Starbucks, Metreon, and channel 44 make The City great fun. I am not unhappy, just older.
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
This last Sunday I marked 13 years in San Francisco. Not too much has changed. Art Agnos was mayor, he would be defeated by his chief of Police: Frank Jordan in the 1991 elections only to have Jordan whipped by Willie Brown in 1995.
The week I arrived in 1990 a man had a heart attack while driving along a street in Noe Valley. He rolled forward hit a small Toyota killing a mother and daughter. He hit two other cars, five people died! In 1991 we had the 101 California massacre and in 1992 a 70 year old man killed a 17 year old girl and her boyfriend. Later it was learned the man was in love with the boy! Talk about jealous lovers!
During the last 13 years nothing of substance has been done about the homeless population. The actual number of street people has declined, because SF has a reputation as being unfriendly.
The City is rich, thus not very exciting. Club life shifted from 9th and Folsom to Valencia and then went to the East Bay, mostly in Industrial Oakland.
Pac Bell Park opened in 1999 and has been a huge hit. That area, China Basin was a slum for decades, now it is a rich mans haven.
We are about to elect a new mayor and the main challenge is a credible tax base. San Francisco has an aging population, few new home owners and is crippled by propositions 13.
I have had a good run. I earned $341,000 in the last 13 years and had three jobs, all security. I've been here on Post Street for nine years. My neighborhood has gone upscale and without rent control I could not live here.
When I arrive George Bush the Elder was president. Now his son is president.
Life goes on. The best part are the friends I have made. Mike Terry, Rachel Garvey, Robert wooden, they are the tops and then there are a dozen folks I see all the time at Starbucks or at work. The sex has been very good. This city nevers cools off. Everyone is on the make.
I wrote three complete novels! "Nightwalk" "Alta Plaza" and now "Not Far From Here" I'm not published yet, but well, we'll see!
Borders, Original Joes, Starbucks, Metreon, and channel 44 make The City great fun. I am not unhappy, just older.
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Sunday, July 13, 2003
SUNDAY!
Here is a delightful article from Saturday 12/7/03 NYY TIMES
July 12, 2003
The Bright Stuff
By DANIEL C. DENNETT
BLUE HILL, Me.
The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.
The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."
A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.
But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.
From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.
I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.
Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.
Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.
And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."
Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Here is a delightful article from Saturday 12/7/03 NYY TIMES
July 12, 2003
The Bright Stuff
By DANIEL C. DENNETT
BLUE HILL, Me.
The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.
The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.
You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.
Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."
A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.
Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.
But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.
From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.
I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.
Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.
Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.
In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.
If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."
But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.
And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?
Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."
Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
TUESDAY!
1
Years ago, in Boston, I met a guy at my guard post. He was from the Midwest, soft spoken and a bit funny. He was a liar as well. In every conversation he possessed a evident need to tell me things that simply were not true. His lies were never to glorify himself or to scam me. He simply made things up, and often presented news or information in a way that I had to weed through the lies and get the facts. He was in every other way a decent man. He had a wife kids and a cat. He worked hard and as far as I know, he is still a guard in Boston.
But there came a day when he spoke to me and I guess I was tired, maybe just cranky, or perhaps some deep part of me said enough! I let him go as a friend. I was unhappy walking by his post. I regretted it and I some times think of him in a sad way.
Now I am starting to feel the same about George Bush. I don't like it at all. I want to like the president. I need to believe what he says. I am not a mindless partisan. I will give any man, even Hitler the benefit of a doubt. I don't hate anyone and I don't want to. But there is a limit. My heart rebel's and my mind grows cold. I can not live that way, it affects too many other parts of my life.
I'm not innocent here. I tell tall tales, invent weird news and generally dead pan every conversation with inside jokes ands smatass allusions. But I do not lie in a immediate or damaging way. No friend has ever left me because of a lie.
The President lies to the public every day. He misrepresents facts, distorts the truth and engages in a cruel game of treating the public as fools. He knows few people read federal legislation, he knows very few folks actually understand what most federal agencies are about. He miss labels programs and covers proposals with cynical public posturing that offends genuine liars and frauds.
His recent headstart reform package is a cancer, insert it in the Federal Program and the cancer kills the whole thing over several years. Bush is a malevolent genius with the fine print. The text peomises Utopia, but the fine print gives us hell. He cheats his party and his big business backers in that if an obscure security guard in San Francisco can glimmer the truth, what will the rest of America eventually conclude and how long will the anger last? His financiers will suffer for years. What gains the GOP makes today will be lost soon enough and it will take decades to get back.
The Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency and they now regret it. Scalia and Thomas are sincere conservatives, the real thing. Bush is a phony conservative. He is filling judgeships with crackpots and no counts and honest conservatives can see the scam. Bush hurts true intellectuals and he wounds the pride of men who supported him as they get tired defending him.
I am an American, proud of it. But I'm tired. I'm weary of the fakery and cynicism. Below is NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF column from todays NY Times. It is not exactly what I'm saying here. But it hints at it and I believe Kristof, a serious adult will catch up with me in print, soon enough.
2
In Blair We Trust
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
LONDON JULY 9 2003
NY TIMES COPYRIGHT
One of the saddest results of our war in Iraq is that it may finish off Tony Blair before Saddam Hussein.
Everywhere I go in Britain, people dismiss Mr. Blair as President Bush's poodle. Mr. Blair's Labor Party has fallen behind the Conservatives in the latest poll, for only the second time in 11 years. "The Iraq critics think that the prime minister has betrayed his country to a Texas gunslinger," William Rees-Mogg noted in The Times of London.
So it'll sound foolish when I suggest that President Bush should study Mr. Blair and learn a few things. But on the other hand, everybody likes Mr. Blair but the Brits.
A poll by the Pew Research Center found that Mr. Blair was the world leader Americans trusted most (Mr. Bush ranked second), respected by 83 percent of Americans, and he was also highly esteemed in countries as diverse as Australia and Nigeria. More interesting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat — and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."
The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.
Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.
Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues.
"Yes, there are countries that disagree with what we are doing; I mean, there's no point in hiding it — there's been a division," Mr. Blair told reporters at Camp David early in the war, when the two leaders were asked about opposition to the war among allies. But Mr. Bush gave no ground, saying: "We've got a huge coalition. . . . I'm very pleased with the size of our coalition."
Mr. Blair met Pope John Paul II and the archbishop of Canterbury to discuss their opposition to the war. But President Bush refused to discuss objections to the war with the head of the National Council of Churches or even the head of his own church, the United Methodists.
Political insults are a traditional British sport (Churchill famously described his rival Clement Atlee as a sheep in sheep's clothing, and as a modest man with much to be modest about). But Mr. Blair dignifies his opponents by grappling with their arguments in a way that helps preserve civility — and that we Americans can learn from.
Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more highly of him than many women do of their husbands. But he's also less interested in ideas than perhaps anybody I've ever interviewed, and his intelligence is all practical and not a bit intellectual. Nuance isn't his natural state, and yet he gives us glimmers to show he can achieve it.
The last time Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to wrestle with an issue was the summer of 2001, when he acknowledged the toughness of the stem cell debate. He showed an impressive willingness to puzzle through stem cell policy and seek a compromise.
If Mr. Bush had pursued that same model of policy-making into Iraq, then we would not have alienated our allies or bungled postwar planning because of rosy assumptions.
In 1979, James Fallows wrote a legendary critique of President Jimmy Carter's "Passionless Presidency." He argued that Mr. Carter was a smart, decent man who excelled in details but catastrophically lacked a sweeping vision to inspire the country and animate his presidency.
Well, now we've got a Passionate Presidency. But it's so focused on big-picture ideological campaigns that it doesn't bother with details (like what we will do with Iraq after we've conquered it). Mr. Blair offers a third way — passion tethered to practicality, idealism without ideologues.
Given that Mr. Blair might end up with time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Bush could hire him as an adviser.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
1
Years ago, in Boston, I met a guy at my guard post. He was from the Midwest, soft spoken and a bit funny. He was a liar as well. In every conversation he possessed a evident need to tell me things that simply were not true. His lies were never to glorify himself or to scam me. He simply made things up, and often presented news or information in a way that I had to weed through the lies and get the facts. He was in every other way a decent man. He had a wife kids and a cat. He worked hard and as far as I know, he is still a guard in Boston.
But there came a day when he spoke to me and I guess I was tired, maybe just cranky, or perhaps some deep part of me said enough! I let him go as a friend. I was unhappy walking by his post. I regretted it and I some times think of him in a sad way.
Now I am starting to feel the same about George Bush. I don't like it at all. I want to like the president. I need to believe what he says. I am not a mindless partisan. I will give any man, even Hitler the benefit of a doubt. I don't hate anyone and I don't want to. But there is a limit. My heart rebel's and my mind grows cold. I can not live that way, it affects too many other parts of my life.
I'm not innocent here. I tell tall tales, invent weird news and generally dead pan every conversation with inside jokes ands smatass allusions. But I do not lie in a immediate or damaging way. No friend has ever left me because of a lie.
The President lies to the public every day. He misrepresents facts, distorts the truth and engages in a cruel game of treating the public as fools. He knows few people read federal legislation, he knows very few folks actually understand what most federal agencies are about. He miss labels programs and covers proposals with cynical public posturing that offends genuine liars and frauds.
His recent headstart reform package is a cancer, insert it in the Federal Program and the cancer kills the whole thing over several years. Bush is a malevolent genius with the fine print. The text peomises Utopia, but the fine print gives us hell. He cheats his party and his big business backers in that if an obscure security guard in San Francisco can glimmer the truth, what will the rest of America eventually conclude and how long will the anger last? His financiers will suffer for years. What gains the GOP makes today will be lost soon enough and it will take decades to get back.
The Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency and they now regret it. Scalia and Thomas are sincere conservatives, the real thing. Bush is a phony conservative. He is filling judgeships with crackpots and no counts and honest conservatives can see the scam. Bush hurts true intellectuals and he wounds the pride of men who supported him as they get tired defending him.
I am an American, proud of it. But I'm tired. I'm weary of the fakery and cynicism. Below is NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF column from todays NY Times. It is not exactly what I'm saying here. But it hints at it and I believe Kristof, a serious adult will catch up with me in print, soon enough.
2
In Blair We Trust
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
LONDON JULY 9 2003
NY TIMES COPYRIGHT
One of the saddest results of our war in Iraq is that it may finish off Tony Blair before Saddam Hussein.
Everywhere I go in Britain, people dismiss Mr. Blair as President Bush's poodle. Mr. Blair's Labor Party has fallen behind the Conservatives in the latest poll, for only the second time in 11 years. "The Iraq critics think that the prime minister has betrayed his country to a Texas gunslinger," William Rees-Mogg noted in The Times of London.
So it'll sound foolish when I suggest that President Bush should study Mr. Blair and learn a few things. But on the other hand, everybody likes Mr. Blair but the Brits.
A poll by the Pew Research Center found that Mr. Blair was the world leader Americans trusted most (Mr. Bush ranked second), respected by 83 percent of Americans, and he was also highly esteemed in countries as diverse as Australia and Nigeria. More interesting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair took very similar positions over the last couple of years, and both exaggerated the Iraqi threat — and yet Mr. Blair is perhaps the leading statesman in the world today and Mr. Bush is regarded by much of the globe as a dimwitted cowboy. Or, as an Oxford don put it to me after perhaps too much sherry, "a buffoon."
The main reason is that the White House overdosed on moral clarity.
Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games. This fervor worked fine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and in proper doses, moral clarity is admirable. But too much hobbles policy-making and insults our intelligence.
Mr. Blair stands with Mr. Bush on Iraq but acknowledges the complexity of the issues.
"Yes, there are countries that disagree with what we are doing; I mean, there's no point in hiding it — there's been a division," Mr. Blair told reporters at Camp David early in the war, when the two leaders were asked about opposition to the war among allies. But Mr. Bush gave no ground, saying: "We've got a huge coalition. . . . I'm very pleased with the size of our coalition."
Mr. Blair met Pope John Paul II and the archbishop of Canterbury to discuss their opposition to the war. But President Bush refused to discuss objections to the war with the head of the National Council of Churches or even the head of his own church, the United Methodists.
Political insults are a traditional British sport (Churchill famously described his rival Clement Atlee as a sheep in sheep's clothing, and as a modest man with much to be modest about). But Mr. Blair dignifies his opponents by grappling with their arguments in a way that helps preserve civility — and that we Americans can learn from.
Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more highly of him than many women do of their husbands. But he's also less interested in ideas than perhaps anybody I've ever interviewed, and his intelligence is all practical and not a bit intellectual. Nuance isn't his natural state, and yet he gives us glimmers to show he can achieve it.
The last time Mr. Bush seemed genuinely to wrestle with an issue was the summer of 2001, when he acknowledged the toughness of the stem cell debate. He showed an impressive willingness to puzzle through stem cell policy and seek a compromise.
If Mr. Bush had pursued that same model of policy-making into Iraq, then we would not have alienated our allies or bungled postwar planning because of rosy assumptions.
In 1979, James Fallows wrote a legendary critique of President Jimmy Carter's "Passionless Presidency." He argued that Mr. Carter was a smart, decent man who excelled in details but catastrophically lacked a sweeping vision to inspire the country and animate his presidency.
Well, now we've got a Passionate Presidency. But it's so focused on big-picture ideological campaigns that it doesn't bother with details (like what we will do with Iraq after we've conquered it). Mr. Blair offers a third way — passion tethered to practicality, idealism without ideologues.
Given that Mr. Blair might end up with time on his hands, perhaps Mr. Bush could hire him as an adviser.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Sunday, July 06, 2003
SUNDAY!
1
Plenty of fog in The City this Sunday. We get lots of fog in late June early July. Things heat up after the 10th or so, and stay warm until late August when it starts to get hot. September and October are the hot months in San Francisco. Already 2003 has been unusually wet, warm, and windy.
2
Is prostitution moral or what? Can we accept the idea of a woman selling sex as pure business and not see her as betraying her dignity or in some fashion being a looser? What can you say to a 15 year old who sells sex at school to earn CD money or to buy DVDs? When she says that her vagina is just a product offered in a service transactions that she does not get emotionally involved, can adults accept this? And is it actually demeaning or perhaps adults panic at such independence?
There are girls all over America who are not abuse victims and do not use drugs but they rent out their vagina for x amount and if they are treated in a business like fashion allow a return visit. They have completely normal relationships with family and friends and develop healthy love lives. I have a hunch that we as a people are still uncomfortable with girls or women who are strong enough to act with such certitude.
What say you?
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
1
Plenty of fog in The City this Sunday. We get lots of fog in late June early July. Things heat up after the 10th or so, and stay warm until late August when it starts to get hot. September and October are the hot months in San Francisco. Already 2003 has been unusually wet, warm, and windy.
2
Is prostitution moral or what? Can we accept the idea of a woman selling sex as pure business and not see her as betraying her dignity or in some fashion being a looser? What can you say to a 15 year old who sells sex at school to earn CD money or to buy DVDs? When she says that her vagina is just a product offered in a service transactions that she does not get emotionally involved, can adults accept this? And is it actually demeaning or perhaps adults panic at such independence?
There are girls all over America who are not abuse victims and do not use drugs but they rent out their vagina for x amount and if they are treated in a business like fashion allow a return visit. They have completely normal relationships with family and friends and develop healthy love lives. I have a hunch that we as a people are still uncomfortable with girls or women who are strong enough to act with such certitude.
What say you?
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Friday, July 04, 2003
FRIDAY!
The 4th of July. The United States is in a reactive period as an older generation rebel's against rash changes. A younger generation desires to live an orderly life earning decent wages and to be left alone. The Bush Administration has a 1950s mentality. You can be sure that the wheel is turning! In five years there will be a rapid turn over in popular stars and cultural values. If Bush is re-elected, the backlash to his conservative administration will be sharp and noisy.
In the 1870s a new generation came and they trashed the culture of the 1840/1870 era. THe Gilded age came and with it a new urbanism. In the 1880s Grover Cleveland broke the Republican grip on everything and the country felt better about it. McKinley offered a modern vision of life and with the coming of Theodore Roosevelt the old agrarian culture vanished and 20th century radicalism took charge.
At some point, humanity will put the 20th century to bed and start to define the 21st in terms that will alarm and frighten the older set. Rock 'n Roll as well as Rap and their attendent cultures will finally disappear and a distinct personality of this new century will emerge. Just as every child rebells against parents in order to define themselves, each generation must develop a genuine identity. The Boomer generation has left a heavy footprint, but the Y generation will erase it soon enough!
2
Rachel Lucas has a interesting blog today concerning a neighbor who lived the holocaust. I recomend you stop by. Her link is to your right.
3
I'm well into Not Far From Here, the final Draft! Took two years, but I did it! You can read C1 at Flappdoodle.Blogspot.com
More Later
David Star@Audiea.com
The 4th of July. The United States is in a reactive period as an older generation rebel's against rash changes. A younger generation desires to live an orderly life earning decent wages and to be left alone. The Bush Administration has a 1950s mentality. You can be sure that the wheel is turning! In five years there will be a rapid turn over in popular stars and cultural values. If Bush is re-elected, the backlash to his conservative administration will be sharp and noisy.
In the 1870s a new generation came and they trashed the culture of the 1840/1870 era. THe Gilded age came and with it a new urbanism. In the 1880s Grover Cleveland broke the Republican grip on everything and the country felt better about it. McKinley offered a modern vision of life and with the coming of Theodore Roosevelt the old agrarian culture vanished and 20th century radicalism took charge.
At some point, humanity will put the 20th century to bed and start to define the 21st in terms that will alarm and frighten the older set. Rock 'n Roll as well as Rap and their attendent cultures will finally disappear and a distinct personality of this new century will emerge. Just as every child rebells against parents in order to define themselves, each generation must develop a genuine identity. The Boomer generation has left a heavy footprint, but the Y generation will erase it soon enough!
2
Rachel Lucas has a interesting blog today concerning a neighbor who lived the holocaust. I recomend you stop by. Her link is to your right.
3
I'm well into Not Far From Here, the final Draft! Took two years, but I did it! You can read C1 at Flappdoodle.Blogspot.com
More Later
David Star@Audiea.com
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Thursday!
1
Weather is cool. Angry dogs fought it out at Pier 96 this morning. A mutt was killed and then eaten. Desperate times in San Francisco.
2
Some kids brained a homeless man with a bottle at Polk and Geary. He bled to death before the wagon came. Other homeless stripped him of every thing except blood stained T shirt and underwear.
3
A mentally disturbed woman left her baby at a bus stop here in The City. Some kids found it, sold the baby to an Indian lady who works in a hotel on Turk. She called police.
4
The Bush Administration has offered Twenty Five Million Dollars for the capture of Saddam Hussein. Sounds a bit like O.J. Simpson offering a reward for Nicoles murderer.
5
Life goes on. I'm working on my novel. Please visit http://flappdoodle.blogspot to see what the fuss is all about.
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
1
Weather is cool. Angry dogs fought it out at Pier 96 this morning. A mutt was killed and then eaten. Desperate times in San Francisco.
2
Some kids brained a homeless man with a bottle at Polk and Geary. He bled to death before the wagon came. Other homeless stripped him of every thing except blood stained T shirt and underwear.
3
A mentally disturbed woman left her baby at a bus stop here in The City. Some kids found it, sold the baby to an Indian lady who works in a hotel on Turk. She called police.
4
The Bush Administration has offered Twenty Five Million Dollars for the capture of Saddam Hussein. Sounds a bit like O.J. Simpson offering a reward for Nicoles murderer.
5
Life goes on. I'm working on my novel. Please visit http://flappdoodle.blogspot to see what the fuss is all about.
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
WEDNESDAY!
Another one! They keep coming. Well!
1
Tuesday I spent hours setting up an IBM 600E I purchased on eBay last week. Wonderful machine. Perfect condition and operates like a charm! I am delighted!
2
The United States is coming under increased ridicule over its Administration of Iraq, not from foreign critics, but senator's and especially Democrats. This is not a good idea. I am a Liberal Democrat and proud of it! I am pleased that I can see both sides of an issue and that I'll never be asked to defend Newt Gingrich, Bill Friist, or Trent Lott! But this carping by Senator's. Boxer, Feinsteien, and others is not fair, reasonable, or productive.
The United States will do everything it can do, and verly likely never ask any compensation. US Soldiers are being killed day by day and my party has no suggestion other than give up and come home! Great thinking guys! We went there to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Everything else was horse shit and who was being fooled? Are we there for oil? Of course! We are a fools paradise when it comes to using other folks resources. The United States is not mature in every way! But we are in Iraq, and we will do every damn thing no one else would do, to help the Iraqis.
If The EU or Japan were in Baghdad, you'd see executions, abuse, and religious violence every day! Even Canada would employ the boot in ways we never will. Local thugs will not be tortured or simply shot by US forces. We are far more generous. Not out of squeamishness but a generous heart.
How ever foolish the Bushies might be, they deserve credit for the fact they keep slogging away.
The Democrats can not win anything in 2004 if they are seen as cynical sidewalk critics that have no alternative plan.
3
Here is a interesting article in todays New York Times.
During a conservative regime in DC we can see definate progress for the Gay Community.
New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers
July 2, 2003
New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers
By SARAH KERSHAW
SEATTLE, July 1 — Wal-Mart Stores, the nation's largest private employer,
has expanded its antidiscrimination policy to protect gay and lesbian
employees, company officials said today.
The decision to include gay employees under rules that prohibit workplace
discrimination was hailed by gay rights groups, already buoyed by a
Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down a Texas sodomy law, as a
sign of how far corporate America has come in accepting gay employees.
The decision was first disclosed today by a Seattle gay rights foundation
that had invested in Wal-Mart and then lobbied the company for two years
to change its policy. The group, Pride Foundation, which along with
several investment management firms holding stock in Wal-Mart had met as
shareholders with company officials to discuss the policy, received a
letter last week from Wal-Mart outlining the new employee protections.
Wal-Mart officials confirmed the policy change today.
"It's the right thing to do for our employees," Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's
vice president for communications, said in a telephone interview. "We want
all of our associates to feel they are valued and treated with respect —
no exceptions. And it's the right thing to do for our business."
Ms. Williams said the company was sending out a letter today to its 3,500
stores and that store managers would then convey the policy change to the
company's more than 1 million employees. She said that while investors
like Pride Foundation had a role in the decision, the most important
factor was a letter to senior management officials about six weeks ago
from several gay Wal-Mart employees, saying that unless the company
changed its policy the employees would "continue to feel excluded."
Wal-Mart has been careful not to alienate its customers who might hold
conservative views. In recent months, the company has decided to stop
selling three men's magazines it said were too racy and to partially
obscure the covers of four women's magazines on sale in checkout lines.
The company said customers felt the magazine cover headlines were too
provocative and planned to use U-shaped blinders to cover them.
Wal-Mart has also refused to sell CD's with labels warning of explicit
lyrics.
Ms. Williams said she saw no conflict between the decision to limit the
distribution of entertainment products based on content and the decision
to protect gay employees.
"In each case, we sit down and think through the individual decisions,"
she said. "Putting in the blinders was the right thing to do. In this
case, once again, we talked about it and decided it was the right thing to
do."
With Wal-Mart making the policy change, 9 of the 10 largest Fortune 500
companies now have rules barring discrimination against gay employees,
according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington,
D.C., that monitors discrimination policies and laws.
The exception is the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which was created in 1999
after Exxon acquired Mobil, and then revoked a Mobil policy that provided
medical benefits to partners of gay employees, as well as a policy that
included sexual orientation as a category of prohibited discrimination.
Wal-Mart said it had no plans to extend medical benefits to unmarried
couples, but gay rights groups that have pressed for coverage for domestic
partners said they would continue to lobby the company to do so.
Among the Fortune 500 companies, 197 provide domestic partners with
medical coverage, including several of the major airlines and the Big
Three automakers, and 318 have antidiscrimination policies that extend
protection to gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
With Wal-Mart now joining the ranks of companies with protections for gay
employees, and in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling, gay rights
groups said they expected many corporations, and possibly state
governments, to follow suit.
"A major argument against equal benefits, against fair treatment of
employees, has been taken away," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director
of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, referring to the Supreme
Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. "And so even within corporations it's a
very different dialogue today, a very different dialogue."
There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the
basis of sexual orientation, but 13 states, the District of Columbia and
several hundred towns, cities or counties have such legal protections in
place for public and private employees, according to the latest
information from the Human Rights Campaign.
As outlined in the letter to Pride Foundation, Wal-Mart's new policy
states, "We affirm our commitment and pledge our support to equal
opportunity employment for all qualified persons, regardless of race,
color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or status as a
veteran or sexual orientation."
It goes on to say that managers and supervisors "shall recruit, hire,
train and promote in all job positions" based on those principles and
"ensure that all personnel actions" are taken based on those principles.
The company said that it also revised its policy on harassment and
inappropriate conduct to include sexual orientation and that the new
written policy would encourage employees to report discriminatory behavior
to management.
As the nation's largest private employer and one whose stores are not
unionized, Wal-Mart has long been the target of organized labor, and some
of its labor practices have been challenged in lawsuits. One lawsuit,
filed in San Francisco, accused the company of favoring men over women in
promotions and pay.
In addition, the company faces more than 40 lawsuits accusing the company
of pressuring or forcing employees to work unpaid hours.
While Wal-Mart attributed the discrimination policy change to the letter
from its gay employees, it had been under pressure from several investors,
including the Seattle group and three other management investment firms
with stock in the company.
They are all members of the Equality Project, a nonprofit group in New
York that monitors corporate policies on sexual orientation and lobbies
for protections for gay employees.
Under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, any stockholder with
$2,000 or more in shares can introduce a "shareholder resolution" on an
array of company policy issues, including antidiscrimination rules. The
resolutions are not binding, and the shareholders have no influence over
"ordinary business," including benefits and wages, according to S.E.C.
officials.
The Seattle group and the other investors began discussions with Wal-Mart
in August 2001, when several members of the groups went to the company
headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to try and persuade officials to change
the policy, several group members said. As investors in General Electric
and McDonald's, the Seattle group had already pressured the companies,
through shareholder resolutions, and both companies have since extended
workplace protections to gay employees.
Wal-Mart initially said it would study the issue, said Zan
McColloch-Lussier, campaign director for Pride Foundation. But in a
conference call in the spring of 2002, Mr. McColloch-Lussier recalled,
company officials told the group, "Thanks, you've educated us, but we're
not going to change our policies, we'll do management training."
More letters and telephone calls were exchanged, and then last Friday a
letter came announcing the policy change.
Arthur D. Ally, president of the Timothy Plan, a religious-based
investment group that had pressured the company about the magazines, said
today that he would not sell Wal-Mart stock because of the revised
antidiscrimination policy but would object to certain sensitivity training
programs like "taking every employee in an organization and indoctrinating
them in the homosexual agenda."
It was unclear today exactly how Wal-Mart planned to train employees, but
Ms. Williams said that a computer-based training program would include
discussion of sexual orientation.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search
Pretty good eh? Wal Mart has a conscience many large corperations never get. Thanks Guys!
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
Another one! They keep coming. Well!
1
Tuesday I spent hours setting up an IBM 600E I purchased on eBay last week. Wonderful machine. Perfect condition and operates like a charm! I am delighted!
2
The United States is coming under increased ridicule over its Administration of Iraq, not from foreign critics, but senator's and especially Democrats. This is not a good idea. I am a Liberal Democrat and proud of it! I am pleased that I can see both sides of an issue and that I'll never be asked to defend Newt Gingrich, Bill Friist, or Trent Lott! But this carping by Senator's. Boxer, Feinsteien, and others is not fair, reasonable, or productive.
The United States will do everything it can do, and verly likely never ask any compensation. US Soldiers are being killed day by day and my party has no suggestion other than give up and come home! Great thinking guys! We went there to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. Everything else was horse shit and who was being fooled? Are we there for oil? Of course! We are a fools paradise when it comes to using other folks resources. The United States is not mature in every way! But we are in Iraq, and we will do every damn thing no one else would do, to help the Iraqis.
If The EU or Japan were in Baghdad, you'd see executions, abuse, and religious violence every day! Even Canada would employ the boot in ways we never will. Local thugs will not be tortured or simply shot by US forces. We are far more generous. Not out of squeamishness but a generous heart.
How ever foolish the Bushies might be, they deserve credit for the fact they keep slogging away.
The Democrats can not win anything in 2004 if they are seen as cynical sidewalk critics that have no alternative plan.
3
Here is a interesting article in todays New York Times.
During a conservative regime in DC we can see definate progress for the Gay Community.
New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers
July 2, 2003
New Wal-Mart Policy Protects Gay Workers
By SARAH KERSHAW
SEATTLE, July 1 — Wal-Mart Stores, the nation's largest private employer,
has expanded its antidiscrimination policy to protect gay and lesbian
employees, company officials said today.
The decision to include gay employees under rules that prohibit workplace
discrimination was hailed by gay rights groups, already buoyed by a
Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down a Texas sodomy law, as a
sign of how far corporate America has come in accepting gay employees.
The decision was first disclosed today by a Seattle gay rights foundation
that had invested in Wal-Mart and then lobbied the company for two years
to change its policy. The group, Pride Foundation, which along with
several investment management firms holding stock in Wal-Mart had met as
shareholders with company officials to discuss the policy, received a
letter last week from Wal-Mart outlining the new employee protections.
Wal-Mart officials confirmed the policy change today.
"It's the right thing to do for our employees," Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's
vice president for communications, said in a telephone interview. "We want
all of our associates to feel they are valued and treated with respect —
no exceptions. And it's the right thing to do for our business."
Ms. Williams said the company was sending out a letter today to its 3,500
stores and that store managers would then convey the policy change to the
company's more than 1 million employees. She said that while investors
like Pride Foundation had a role in the decision, the most important
factor was a letter to senior management officials about six weeks ago
from several gay Wal-Mart employees, saying that unless the company
changed its policy the employees would "continue to feel excluded."
Wal-Mart has been careful not to alienate its customers who might hold
conservative views. In recent months, the company has decided to stop
selling three men's magazines it said were too racy and to partially
obscure the covers of four women's magazines on sale in checkout lines.
The company said customers felt the magazine cover headlines were too
provocative and planned to use U-shaped blinders to cover them.
Wal-Mart has also refused to sell CD's with labels warning of explicit
lyrics.
Ms. Williams said she saw no conflict between the decision to limit the
distribution of entertainment products based on content and the decision
to protect gay employees.
"In each case, we sit down and think through the individual decisions,"
she said. "Putting in the blinders was the right thing to do. In this
case, once again, we talked about it and decided it was the right thing to
do."
With Wal-Mart making the policy change, 9 of the 10 largest Fortune 500
companies now have rules barring discrimination against gay employees,
according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington,
D.C., that monitors discrimination policies and laws.
The exception is the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which was created in 1999
after Exxon acquired Mobil, and then revoked a Mobil policy that provided
medical benefits to partners of gay employees, as well as a policy that
included sexual orientation as a category of prohibited discrimination.
Wal-Mart said it had no plans to extend medical benefits to unmarried
couples, but gay rights groups that have pressed for coverage for domestic
partners said they would continue to lobby the company to do so.
Among the Fortune 500 companies, 197 provide domestic partners with
medical coverage, including several of the major airlines and the Big
Three automakers, and 318 have antidiscrimination policies that extend
protection to gay employees, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
With Wal-Mart now joining the ranks of companies with protections for gay
employees, and in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling, gay rights
groups said they expected many corporations, and possibly state
governments, to follow suit.
"A major argument against equal benefits, against fair treatment of
employees, has been taken away," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director
of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, referring to the Supreme
Court ruling on Lawrence v. Texas. "And so even within corporations it's a
very different dialogue today, a very different dialogue."
There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the
basis of sexual orientation, but 13 states, the District of Columbia and
several hundred towns, cities or counties have such legal protections in
place for public and private employees, according to the latest
information from the Human Rights Campaign.
As outlined in the letter to Pride Foundation, Wal-Mart's new policy
states, "We affirm our commitment and pledge our support to equal
opportunity employment for all qualified persons, regardless of race,
color, religion, gender, national origin, age, disability or status as a
veteran or sexual orientation."
It goes on to say that managers and supervisors "shall recruit, hire,
train and promote in all job positions" based on those principles and
"ensure that all personnel actions" are taken based on those principles.
The company said that it also revised its policy on harassment and
inappropriate conduct to include sexual orientation and that the new
written policy would encourage employees to report discriminatory behavior
to management.
As the nation's largest private employer and one whose stores are not
unionized, Wal-Mart has long been the target of organized labor, and some
of its labor practices have been challenged in lawsuits. One lawsuit,
filed in San Francisco, accused the company of favoring men over women in
promotions and pay.
In addition, the company faces more than 40 lawsuits accusing the company
of pressuring or forcing employees to work unpaid hours.
While Wal-Mart attributed the discrimination policy change to the letter
from its gay employees, it had been under pressure from several investors,
including the Seattle group and three other management investment firms
with stock in the company.
They are all members of the Equality Project, a nonprofit group in New
York that monitors corporate policies on sexual orientation and lobbies
for protections for gay employees.
Under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, any stockholder with
$2,000 or more in shares can introduce a "shareholder resolution" on an
array of company policy issues, including antidiscrimination rules. The
resolutions are not binding, and the shareholders have no influence over
"ordinary business," including benefits and wages, according to S.E.C.
officials.
The Seattle group and the other investors began discussions with Wal-Mart
in August 2001, when several members of the groups went to the company
headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to try and persuade officials to change
the policy, several group members said. As investors in General Electric
and McDonald's, the Seattle group had already pressured the companies,
through shareholder resolutions, and both companies have since extended
workplace protections to gay employees.
Wal-Mart initially said it would study the issue, said Zan
McColloch-Lussier, campaign director for Pride Foundation. But in a
conference call in the spring of 2002, Mr. McColloch-Lussier recalled,
company officials told the group, "Thanks, you've educated us, but we're
not going to change our policies, we'll do management training."
More letters and telephone calls were exchanged, and then last Friday a
letter came announcing the policy change.
Arthur D. Ally, president of the Timothy Plan, a religious-based
investment group that had pressured the company about the magazines, said
today that he would not sell Wal-Mart stock because of the revised
antidiscrimination policy but would object to certain sensitivity training
programs like "taking every employee in an organization and indoctrinating
them in the homosexual agenda."
It was unclear today exactly how Wal-Mart planned to train employees, but
Ms. Williams said that a computer-based training program would include
discussion of sexual orientation.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search
Pretty good eh? Wal Mart has a conscience many large corperations never get. Thanks Guys!
More later
David Star@Audiea.com
