pa-ftth

This is a place for people to discuss the proposal to have the City of Palo Alto be involved in a Fiber to the Home. (Note: I am in favor of the FTTH imvolvement, but will add links as people tell me of either side)

See:

WeMatter.com ftth discussion july 2004 -- I can update this, but there are links to other sites that are more up to date.

Palo Alto Weekly articles on FTTH


High-speed Internet dreams kept alive in Palo Alto July 27, 2005

Please add a Comment, that starts with: PRO or CON, and then contains your comment on the involvement of Palo Alto in the project so that the city council can determine if there are a sufficient number of people who support or oppose this involvement. Of course, if you want to Email to the City council, city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org do so, but you may also want to put the comment below to share it with others.

access

"Phone company blocks access to telecoms union's website"

On first read, this is the type of action that I think needs to be covered by the FCC and legislated as part of our Internet, Telecommunication acts.

We need to assure that:

1. Areas that are not served by high speed internet access at costs that the citizens would be willing to pay, both directly and perhaps through their taxes can be served by their own communities if they so decide.


2. Any Internet service be available on an open basis so that no content provider is prevented from access through the service or unreasonably charged or limited.


3. In the case of Cable TV and Satellite TV, the "wire" vender should make a reasonable case for choosing and bundling channels as the presumption should be that the community is benefited by a diversity of opinions and the flexibility to pay for the channels that they want.

The case suggests that an internet "cable or ISP" provider is controlling access for corporate reasons. If we permit limited and "difficult to switch" internet accesses to our homes via the public right of ways than we may also require that there be no such discrimination of the content over these channels.

judgements

Now that we have a supreme court nominee we want to consider how to judge him:

• His opinions in NON UNANIMOUS decisions
  
• His opinions
• New York Times analysis
  
• His "work" affiliations
  
• His positions (as employee)
  
• His supporters/opponents
  

In addition we could consider that he would be a Thomas, Scalia type judge. This means we want to look at how the court is currently organized and what decisions would be changed if 5/4 decisions with the Thomas/Scelea as in the "4" were in the "5", See:

A Mathematician Crunches the Supreme Court's Numbers (NICHOLAS WADE, June 24, 2003, NY Times)

A pattern analysis of the second Rehnquist U.S. Supreme Court -- Dr. Sirovich has found that just two dimensions are needed to describe almost all the decisions of the Rehnquist court. [Abstract]

7 Questions for John Roberts -- What I'd like the Senate to ask the Supreme Court nominee (Reason)

Five Questions for Roberts (Dallas news)

Reader questions (Newsweek blog)

Republican internal briefing memo on Roberts by kos, Jul 21st, 2005

Judical review...

• Judical review and executive responsibility, {The supreme court should only judge judical decisions} Alen Keyes
• Constitution in Exile? {Many of the decisions after 1937 were in error}-- Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett legal affairs > debate club archives.
• On Constitutional Interpretation- Originalism v. A Living Constitution - Daily Kos
  

• Supreme court blog (Nomination)
  
• Becker and Posner log on Economics and Law
• Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice"
• The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court in American Politics
  

John Roberts re: Federalist Society

What Could He Rule On? (DailyKos) -- The faith of John Roberts -- If he had to rule on an issue that the Catholic Church considers a sin, ...he would have to recuse himself -- (latimes)

Durbin disputes column on Roberts , Charles Hurt, (wahington times) -- It never happened?

A John Roberts Roundup -- Slate

5 recent cases that were decided 5/4 that Roberts could be asked about (nyt)

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Judical-Nomination BLOG (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations

Previous wematter postings: Activists , Candidates

---

Also interesting

Stigmatized Abortion -- Three positions on abortion seem possible. One view is that abortion should (almost) always be legal. Another is that abortion should (almost) always be illegal. The third is that abortion should be legal, but stigmatized, Jack M. Balkin

Links-10

Remodeling the political spectrum, a 3d model of political choice.(Kuro5hin)

• The real question before the court, Greatness vs Goodness (July 10, 2005 Boston Globs)
  
• 
  O'Connor departure may alter redistricting law (July 7, 2005 USNews)
  

Conservative/Liberal information networks (April 27, 2005. AlterNet)

• The Emerging Progressive Media Network
  
• The Conservative Media Machine

Decline in the Employment-Population Ratio (July 10, 2005, Angry Bear)

Digital Photography Review (Site)

Google map Mania (Blog)

No More Socks Technological gagets (New Scientist)
Personal Laffer curve does not work (Angry Bear)

Are the new employment figures so bad (Econbrowser)
The case for more uniform fuel standards(Econbrowser)

Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Dying to Win)
Consumer Search

timetable

I am updating the subject of this as Iraq is our country:

1) Iraq is starting to want us out!

As of July, 4, 2005, over 37% (103/275) of the The Iraqi National Assembly has proposed the adoption of a resolution:

1) cancelling the request made by the Government to the UN Security Council to extend the presence of multinational forces, and

2) urging the Government to put “a clear plan for army building and a timetable for the withdrawal of occupation troops” from Iraq. Informed Comment and Wikipedia


Note: 2 weeks before that, June 22, the number was 83

2) Iraq is "cooperating" with Iran

BAGHDAD - Iraq signed a military pact with Iran ... agreeing to accept Iranian military training and other cooperation ... Responding to the suggestion that the thaw in ties with Iran would anger Washington, Dulaimi said: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countrie -- (Reuters)

Discussion: TheLeftCoaster

activist

There are a number of things one may OBJECTIVELY say about a supreme court decision, in addition to saying things that just indicate whether one is in favor or against the decision.

1) Constitutionist -- e.g. Pro: if the decision overturns the law because of the constitution, Anti: if the law is upheld despite the constitutional challenge. -- Note: In general this is also Anti/Pro originist and often is the definition of Pro/Anti Activist.

2) Federalist -- e.g. Pro: if the state law or practice is supported. Anti: if the decision strikes down a state law because of a federal law, or federal constitutional condition.

3) Simplicity -- e.g. Pro: if the decision stated the results so that it is easier to decide similar cases or not: e.g. Anti: the decision seems to "split the difference" so that another set of cases seem to be required to determine where the "boundary" is.

4) Corporate Economic -- Pro: If the decision is for regulations that help business or against regulations that limit business, Anti: If eliminates business supports or supports regulations that limit business.

5) Social control -- Pro: If the decision supports laws that control the activity of an individual, Anti: if the decision supports controlling laws.

=====================

Flag Phrases. The following, I consider, not objective but "Flag Phrases", in that the generally are looked at as good, but tend to be subjectively judged by a person as satisfied by decisions.

a) Originist -- If the decision is what the framers of the constitution clearly stated (or meant), though if it was clear, then one wonders why anyone would think that the Supreme court, or any other court would oppose it.

b) Activist -- If the decision is overturning a law as being against the constitution. Note: This might also be considered Constitutional Extension, e.g. if the law makers really thought the constitution was opposed to the law, they might not have passed it.

. See: So Who Are the Activists? {e.g. Constitutionist) (nyt), and DalyKos

{C} Thomas 65.63 %
{C} Kennedy 64.06 %
{C} Scalia 56.25 %
{C} Rehnquist 46.88 %
{?} O'Connor 46.77 %
{L} Souter 42.19 %
{L} Stevens 39.34 %
{L} Ginsburg 39.06 %
{L} Breyer 28.13 %

. Key: {C} Conservative, {L} Liberal

I look forward to any other objective classifications for decisions.
Also see:

• Unleash the Activist Judges (Reason)
  
• Defining Judicial Activism (TalkLeft)
  
• Candidates (WeMatter,com)
  

candidates

The following are some possible Supreme Court nominees

1. Brown, Judge Janice Rogers SCTN ,


2. Clement, Judge Edith Brown SCTN ,


3. Jones, Judge Edith Hollan SCTN ,


4. Gonzales, Attorney General Alberto SCTN ,

The top runner's position on abortion (Slate)

SCTN = SctNomination.com

---

My Prediction 7/4/2005

As far as I can see the only question is whether the group of 14 decide to over-ride the Filibuster.

1) Bush will put up a "Strict Constructionist"

2) There will be a lot of Yammering, all predictable, given the (R) or (D) of the yammerer.

3) The nominee will be voted out of the committee on a partisan vote.

4) There will be a Filibuster, after the same predictable yammering, and then either:

. 5) The filibuster will be broken and the nominee is approved,

. 6) Or it holds and then after a sufficient time there is a recess and the nominee is recess appointed until the next Senate

=======

So let's sit back and see the show, given the outcome is determined!!!

I estimated that it would take 6 weeks, but forgot about the time it took to "vet" the nominee.

=======

Note: The compromise, even if it holds, only lasts until the end of this session, and that, by chance?, is the time at which a recess appointment would expire.

greenhouse

A comment (media matters.com) on the graph of the WSJ -- It's old and early measurements, as I indicated are rough.

• Variations of the Earth's surface Temp... 1000 to year 2100 (Obviously 2000+ are projections) Raw? data , 2001 reports (intergovernmental panel of climate change )
• The feverish WSJ (The washington monthly)
• The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus (RealClimate.com)

---

factoid

There are a large number of things people believe that either can be uantifiable or are mistaken. The following will state the true version of these.

1. The recidivism rate of sex offenders was 3.5% ... a lower reoffense rate of almost any other type of crime (BJS: 5.3% arrested) , (Hawai'i: 2.3-5.7%) , Others higher
   

See:

• Internet ScamBusters Helps You Protect Yourself From Clever Scams
• Urban Legends and Folklore (About.com)
• Urban Legends Reference Pages (Snopes)

second

F.D.R. proposed to start working on passing the "Second Bill of Rights". It is evident that they would not be passed today, and perhaps should not be, but as a taking point, I wonder what would happen if these were passed, as negative rights, e.g. What laws, regulations... would actually be in VIOLATION to them?

The proposed rights are: "The right to..."

1. A useful and remunerative job;
2. Earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
3. Every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return that will give him and his family a decent living;
4. Every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
5. Every family to a decent home;
6. Adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
7. Adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
8. A good education.

See: Blog for America

pa-term

The Palo Alto city council is considering extending the term limits of its members from 2 terms to 3. As I have been thinking about the problem of incumbency, I am opening this Blog entry to discuss the Palo Alto Term Limit proposal, and perhaps my own proposal for "gentle" limits:

My initial proposal is that there be no hard term limits but that it be harder and harder for incumbents to keep their office as their vote would be decreased by "N"*5% if they had served for "N" terms. Thus, for example, a person who had already served for 2 terms would have to get 10% more vote than his rivals to stay in office a third term.

See: Palo Alto Weekly on term limits
2003 City Council results

Comments, and previous proposals and links can be added as desired, and if I see any links that are related to this subject I may add them to this Blog entry.

Unrelated, but interesting:

• Randomly found on the web
  

unmatch

The funding for PBS is proposed to be decreased from $400m to $300, and the president of PBS is suspected as a strong conservative.

If PBS continues to be funded, even 25% by the Federal government, then it will be open for funding cuts and changes in objectives, so I propose that the viewers take over the portion of the funding that the government is now supplying and the management, and thus its direction be determined by its funding viewers.

First: I propose to give money to PBS under an UnMatching condition, e.g. for every dollar I contribute, I will require that PBS cut their government funding by half a dollar. In this way they will have an increase in their funding while still removing their dependance on the government.

Second: I propose that PBS management be elected by their members. either by one person one vote, or by one dollar one vote (excluding coprorate advertisers).

In this way as the viewers can control the direction of PBS as their support increases relative to government funding.

See:

The Armstrong Williams NewsHour By FRANK RICH , June 26, 2005 NYT

Free Press decries House move to defund public broadcasting

Who pays for PBS -- it looks as though about 1/4-th comes from each of: People, Business/Fondations, Local/State, Federal

Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- WikiPedia -- Funding

PBS local station -- WikiPedia

PBS funding elimination by Snoops

Destroying PBS by Molly Ivans: (at AlterNet)

srsa

States Rights Separation Act

1) Hereafter all federal acts, bills, regulations shall only apply to interstate commerce and not be extended to state declared legal activities wholly within a state unless there is a separate section defining how they effect the internal state activities.

2) These separate sections must separable in that they must be voted upon separately, be veto-able separately, as well as be able to be declared unconstitutionally separately.

3) Specifically the laws dealing with marijuana shall not be extended to the states that have, or may, pass laws permitting such use.

4) The congress may pass other specific sections to existing bills that limit their application to interstate commerce if they so choose.

==================================================

I am suggesting that the proceeding "States Rights Separation Act", SRSA, be passed by the US government to allow the states to reasonably independent. It is my hope that it allow the congress to do what it does now, but still provide, as a default, that federal laws, regulations, etc. do not automatically limit the states.

This act allows the federal government to specify when they need the states follow a law, but otherwise it permits the states to enact their own laws.

=======================================

I plan to submit this to my representatives, other blogs, and some lawyers to determine if this act is legal, how it should be re-written and if it is possible to have it passed by the congress.

It is hoped that there will be suggestions as to how the act might improved as well as comments that indicate approval or disapproval.

======================================
Also see:

The New Republic. on the decision

My opinion on the decision

New York Times news on the decision

Paul Compos on the decision

Nick Gillespie, of Reason magazine on the decision

Support: H.R. 2087, the "States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act" discussed over at the Drug War Rant

Wall Street Journal on the decision

The Talent Show on the decision

D. T. Armentano on the decision, Lew Rockwell

marijuana

It is my "thought" that the Supreme court decision on the California vs.. Federal marijuana law is wrong in two areas. As I am not a law person, this thought is based on my ideas of right-ness and not law.

1) I personally think that the extension of the Congress’ Commerce Clause should not be extended to the commerce totally within a state even if it can be rationalized as somewhat effecting the flow of products between states. We see how this leads to the stretching of the national law into the area that one would logically think is the state's domain, and that our federal society would be better served if the federal government did not impose itself in the states affairs except perhaps where the state is restricting people's rights further than the constitution permits.

2) Secondarily, the use of the commerce clause to control activity within the state where the interstate activity is ILLEGAL seems even more a stretch. If one is to reject the general argument "1)" that it would be better if the federal government only controlled interstate commerce, then it seems reasonable that the federal goverment only has the right to control activity within a state where the activity leads to an increased violation of the interstate law. On the other hand, the California law, if properly enforced, will, if anything decrease the amount of illegal interstate traffic and thus assist the federal government in reducing the flow of illegal interstate drugs.

Thus, it seems to me that both on

a) general considerations, The commerce clause should not be extended to activities within the state that have only minor effects on interstate commerse, and on a

b) specific condition, that the California mariuana law may well decrease the illegal flow of mariuana, the Supreme court
"got it wrong"

Gerrymandering

I am writing the following to my Governmental representatives and other opinion groups supporting an effort to reduce the Gerrymandering.

---

I have just read the editorial in the New York Times discussing:
"Ending the Gerrymander Wars"

I think that this effort is one of the most important ones in this congress, and I hope that you look into this proposal, evaluate it, and either work in a bipartasan way to revise it or pass it.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30mon1.html?8br
Comments:
http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/editorialsoped/todayseditorials/index.html?page=recent


Thanks...

NotePad V5

(NOTE: I mispelled it as NotePad, and except in the "title"s have corrected it to NoteTab, Sorry, My Bad)

I like NoteTab, and as it has been over a year and a half since it has been upgraded, I am starting this Blog entry to allow the status of the upgrade to be posted and, if appropriate, Feature enhancements to be suggested.

Status:

• May 27, 2005 -- When/What NoteTab NT5, V5 -- mll
• Dec 16, 2004, -- Making and Discussing Feature Requests - Hold Off Please.., the author said he was working on it
• Fri Oct 8, 2004 -- RE: [NRN] Re: NT5 update? (a set of Feature Requests), ron_riche
  

My post to the mailing list asked for an update on the current status and suggested that we offer to help pay for a new version with specific features. Please feel free to add your suggestions to this Blog, or to NoteTab yahoo group. I will update this posting as I get more information or if it seems "reasonable" to start collecting a list of the Feature requests

Enhancements:

• Customizable syntax highlighting -- ron_riche
• Tree view outlines -- ron_riche
• Customizable keyboard shortcuts -- ron_riche
• Shortcuts to clips -- ron_riche
• Blocking/columnar selecting -- ron_riche
• Make line numbers paragraph numbers when word wrap
  is on -- ron_riche [pet]
• Make 'scroll past end of line' buffer dependent -- ron_riche [pet]
• $10 -- Allow the Replacement window to be "hidden" by the Main window -- mll
• $10 -- Click on a blank area in the tabs bar to open a new text area NoName... -- mll
• $10 -- Retain the "Regular Expression" and "All" setting in the replacement dialog between activations -- mll

Also see:

• InSight V2.0.1 - 2005/05/23 ($49.95) , features

---

Unrelated Links:

• Scott Berkun? A ten year veteran in leading software development teams, and designing software/web UI. #40 - Why smart people defend bad ideas
• Corporate Profits at Record Highs, While Labor Compensation at 38-year Lows (OMB Watch, May 17, 2005)
• What are the most prestigious jobs? -- But I'd love to compare this to the Most Profitable ones (17% of those making less than $15,000 a year say they are very satisfied with their jobs, vs. 14% of those who make more than $50,000 a year.)
  

definitions

In discussing politics there are a number of words/phrases that are used differently by various people. The following is my attempt to define/discuss some of these.

• Position classification
  1. Universial -- If 90% of the population supports it.
     
  2. Consensious -- If 66% of the population supports it.
     
  3. Majority -- If 50% supports.
  4. Extreme -- If 10% of the population supports it.

• Bipartisan -- A position that is supported by at least 33% (or 10%) of both parties. Note: Given that there are often a few people of each party who might support any position, I would reserve this to one that is supported by a significant percent of each party.
  • Partisan -- Reverse -- A position that is supported by at least 66% of one party and opposed by 66% of the other party
    

• Flag phrase -- A phrase that indicates the positon of the speaker. Often the same issue can be refered to by different phrases depending on which side of the issue one is on. Various people have indicated that the "framing" of the issue may also help to convince the un-decided the valdity of a specific side.
  

• Toxic Terminology also Black Hole issue -- A word, phrase, etc. that is so emotional that it prevents any further discussion, e.g. Hitler, Partial birth abortion, etc.
  

• Wedge Issue (used by Democrats), Moral Issue or Faith based issue (used by Republicans) -- An issue that is emotionally very important to a small group within the population but has little direct effect on most people's lives.
  
  Note: Wikipedia defines this as an issue that "splits" one partie's voters

Also See:

• The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce (Wikipedia)
  
• The Devil's Derivatives Dictionary Last revised: 08/13/00
• The New Political Dictionary -- Anti-globalization -- Indispensable for understanding the globalized world.
  

memo-of-understanding

Memorandum Of Understanding On Judicial Nominations (RedState.org)

• but Frist hangs tough on 'nuclear' (The Hill)
• The group of 14 (CNN)
  
• Democrats
  
  1. Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
  2. Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
  3. Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
  4. Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
  5. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
  6. Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
  7. Ken Salazar (Colorado)

  Republicans
  

  1. Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
  2. Susan Collins (Maine)
  3. Mike DeWine (Ohio)
  4. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
  5. John McCain (Arizona)
  6. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
  7. John Warner (Virginia)

Sequence of events?

1. Vote on, and in general confirm:
   
   Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla R. Owen, William H. Pryor, Jr., "FS", William G. Myers III, Henry Saad, Terrence W. Boyle, Richard Allen Griffin, William Haynes, Brett M. Kavanaugh.
2. Sometime the President proposes a Judge (perhaps for the Suprime Court) who a sufficient number of the "Group" Democrats wish to filibuster. (Note: this might occur after the first 3 of the preceeding judges are confirmed.
   
3. Either a sufficient number of the "Group" Republicans
   

• a) decide that this is not an extraordinary circumstance, and thus vote to overturn the filibuster rule, or they
  
• b) decide that the commitment to retain the filibuster rule is to be maintained and thus they vote to retain the filibuster rule.

If "a)" then the memo is a "winner" for the Republicans as they got the first 3 approved before there was a test of the filibuster rule. if "b)" then the memo is a compromise, the Republicans get the first 3 approved in return for ensuring that the Filibuster rule is retained thry 2006

Political Calculations -- easy-to-use, simple calculators are created and presented to do math related to current events, in addition to more traditional analysis

• The Classic Cow Model....
• Your Education and Your Earnings

spin

THE SPIN TIMELINE: It has gone chronologically something like this:

1. It's not true. It's not true.
   
2. It may be true but it's not ...
   
3. Okay, it's ..., but isn't official policy.
   
4. It may be true and official policy, but we changed the policy and we uncovered the abuses ourselves.
   
5. It may be true, it may have been widespread, but we've punished the culprits. (Low Level)
   
6. It may be true, it may have been widespread, it may still be happening, but all these reports are old news.
7. "6.", but it is also being done by our enemies.
8. "6." but it was done for a higher good.
   

Examples of ...:

• Torture
• Stating that there were WMD's
• Calling the others "like" Hitler
  

taken from Andrew Sullivan on Torture spin

software-voip

Implement the 911 service by VoIp software/Hardware?


If one is "building" a VoIp system, is it possible, LEGAL?, to set it up so that the user could initally enter their current zipcode/areacode and then have the hardware/software that they are using intercept the 911 dial and re-direct it to the proper 911 system.

It seems to me that this might not require much on the part of the supporting DSL/CABLE system, but could be reasonably easly implemented by the VoIp software/hardware.

See:

• 911 is a joke (Good Morning Silicon Valley, May 20, 2005)
• 911 for the 21st century (The Technology Liberation Front, May 21, 2005)
• Is the FCC Ruling Out VoIP on PCs? (Freedom to Tinker, May 23, 2005)
• 911 For Deregulation (The TechnologyLiveration Front, May 23, 2005)
  

world-taxes

The Tax World Gets Flat & Happy Jack Anderson, 05.23.05 -- Forbes

• The [Tax] Misery* score is the sum of the taxes shown [on the image to the right], at the highest marginal rate in each locale. It is our best proxy for evaluating whether policy attracts or repels capital and talent
• Tax Misery by country chart Original source Mahalanobis.

Links

• E-democracy "Building online public space in the heart of real democracy and community since 1994." > Groupserver "best social software platform we've seen to date for online communities that average citizens actually use" (Britsh)
• Free Press.net > National conference for Media Reform (may 15, 2005, Program Archives...)
• Media Minutes is a weekly radio review (~5 min) of news at the intersection of media and democracy from the FreePress.net every Friday
  
• Public radio -- xml feeds
• Posner... on estate taxation
  

Judical review...

• Constitution in Exile? -- Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett legal affairs > debate club archives.
• Judical review, Alen Keyes

dtnna-leafblower

On June 13, 2005 Palo Alto will deal with leaf blowers. This Blog entry will point to the material that I have recieved on the issue as well as allowing comments on it.

So far the information that I have is:

• A page on the DTNNA site discussing the issue, pointed to by an Email to the DTNNA membership
• Implementation of leaf blower ordinance at $2 million; deferred until fiscal 2007-
  08 Page 28/30 of February 3, 2004 Council meeting
• Liz Lee,... said the timeframe for leaf blowers was not being enforced ..., March 1, 2004 special meeting
  

On May 26, 2005 there will be a meeting discussing this situation: (flyer) , (Letter)

Patricia Targ

Thursday, May 26, 7:30 PM
1010 Harriet Street, 94301
325-2657

links-12

Funny FoxFire video (not viewed yet)

Telling the truth with statistics. (CERN lectures)

Investment in Knowledge (The USA seems to invest more in knowledge than almost any other country) From: Mahalanobis

Creationism

What Matters in Kansas, The evolution of creationism. (slate)

• Listen to this story on NPR's (4:08)

Creationism vs. Intelligent Design, Is there a difference? (slate)

• Listen to this story on NPR's (2:18)

---

See:

• Intelligent Design website
  

• Human nature deparment Slate

Links-08

Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism

WHAT TO DO ABOUT DARFUR?..

• See? Harvard Univirsity, April 5, "FORUM: DARFUR: "HOW CAN THE WORLD STOP THE HORROR?" " 1 hr, 17 min.

Audio/Video site (WeMatter links)

• C-Span (recent)
  
• Cato institute [Conservative]
  
• Commonwealth Club Speaker Archive
  
• Heritage Foundation [Conservative] .2004 , 2003 , 2002 , 2001 , 2000...
• National Constitution Center
• World Affairs council of Northern California