Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:August:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/8/5 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:32701 Activity:very high
8/4     Is it just me or is the current Politburo a bunch of unresponsive
        monkeys?  Turned off kchang, have not been responsive to creating
        and official motd repository, do not answer email to root etc.
        \_ If the day ever comes when the CSUA Poliburo are not jackasses
           you'll know: that will be the day they stop calling it the
        \_ How about this proposal: ask kchang to donate a license of his
           archive program to CSUA, which houses it on its own site.  (Or
           maybe he can donate the source code to all of us sodans.)  This way
           everybody will be happy.  Also, in time of crisis, the poliburo
           can still exert emergency power and keep motd from being world
           readable like 3 years ago to protect the organization.
           \_ Um.  Why should he?  The CSUA got him squished twice already.
              As for '3 years ago' the organization did not need protecting.
              The then president's gf complained about feeling 'threatened' and
              he squished the motd.  As if that made said gf feel any safer...
              \_ What eventually happened to her?  Gang banged?
        \_ afaik, no email to root has gone unanswered. if you think we've not
           responded to either an email to root or a request in that email, feel
           free to email me personally. -erikk
        \_ why did they turn off kchang?
                \_ It was overheating.  -John
        \_ It's still the summer.  Don't get your panties in a bunch.
        \_ First of all, no one except the old boys cares about the motd.
           Secondly, it is evil. It has been the focal point of many
           squishage and controversies (kchang writing a script to
           modify it, paolo abusing his power to render it completely
           useless, emarkp using an auto script to take out profanity,
           tom partially nuking threads that make him look
           like a moron, ilyas using a script to taking out active but
           old threads, twinks cursing at each other for not using
           motdedit, asswipes writing politically incorrect statements
           and really REALLY offensive remarks on the Jews and
           minorities, blah blah blah the list goes on and on.
                Now imagine this. If there were no motd.public, then
           there would not exist any controversy. Therefore, I propose
           that the public motd be shut down for good. It's a bad
           tradition to keep and it needs to go. Thank you.
           \_ it is, and always has been, the only point of the CSUA.
              fuck off.
2004/8/5 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/HW/Memory] UID:32702 Activity:high
8/4     Lunar landing computer: 74kb:
        \_ Does anyone else think the switches in the picture look
           somewhat rude?
           \_ Those switches serve dual purposes.  Why else do you think they
              are installed at mouth level?
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:32703 Activity:very high
8/4     What is a decent book on general US history?  One that is intelligent
        and well researched, not consists of fairy tale or only diatribes,
        and the intended audience are neither freepers nor Spartakusbund.
        Ok thanks.
        \_ I am Spartakusbund!
                \_ No, I am Spartakusbund!
        \_ Personally, I think that the people with an axe to grind tend to
           be the best writers, and that it's useful to read biased stuff
           like "A People's History of the United States" as long as you
           recognize and igore the bias and the propoganda.  I'd be curious
           to know what the conservative equivalent of Zinn's book is.
           A history text with no bias at all which attempts to cover all
           of U.S. history will probably be a massive compilation of
           dry facts with no focus on anything that's not very readable, IMHO.
           I'd love to see a counterexample to this, however.
           \_ agreed.  one (of many) good things about 'peoples history...'
              is that he specifically chooses his biases, and states them
              in the introduction.  and his biases cover a lot of information
              that is rarely touched upon in more conservative history books.
              plus it was a fun read.
        \_ The Americans series by Daniel J. Boorstin (former Librarian of
           Congress and yaDJB :-)) is pretty good:
           Colonial Experience:
           Democratic Experience:
           National Experience:
           I also liked his Discovers:
           \_ What's yaDJB?  Yet another himself????
        \_ A People's History of the United States is pretty good and
           non-biased. by Howard Zinn.
           \_ your idiocy knows no bounds.
              \_ and your recommendation is ....
              \_ yes! I think this counts as my first successful troll.
                 \_ whatever.  i was calling you an idiot because the first
                    reply was about Zinn's book, and the reply to that
                    was also about Zinn's book.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32704 Activity:moderate
8/5     a funny poke at bush, kerry and friends set to this land.
        flash, probably not work safe:
        \_                    <-- fewer characters
        \_ jibjab again.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32705 Activity:moderate
        Norman Mailer and son discuss GWB, RNC in NYC, McCain, Kerry,
        Nader, others.
        \_ Who is this guy?
        \_ Mailer is about as U.S.-friendly as Chirac is
           \_ Ah, attacking the patriotism of those who disagree with you.
              \_ Why do you hate nationalist jingoism?
                 \_ Why do you hate the Jews?
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:32706 Activity:high
8/5     Hey, what happened to my "Obama as Max Headrom" post?
        \_ I'd like to see it if you can repost it.
           \_ It wasn't all that interesting.  I was just pointing out
              that Obama's angluar face and vinil like skin remind me of
              Max Headrom.  Only interesting because it's been deleted
              twice and edited once.
              \_ Well, Ronald Reagan looks more like him, IMO!
                 \_ One of the "Back to the Future" movies had a diner scene
                    in which all the waiters were celebs "headroomized".
                    The MJ Fox character is helped by Reagan.
2004/8/5 [Uncategorized] UID:32707 Activity:nil
8/5     Africans really have bigger penises than Caucasians
        \_ yermom already knew that
2004/8/5 [Science/Space] UID:32708 Activity:high
8/5     Fishtank in your toilet:
        \_ What happens when you flush?  Goodbye Nemo!
           \_ It says the tank is standard 1.6gpf and the tank in picture looks
              bigger than 1.6gal.  So I guess there's a tank within the fish
              tank which holds the actual water for flushing, and the fish
              lives in the surrounding task.
              lives in the surrounding tank.
        \_ I saw something like this in Korea.  They had a fish in the
           water tank that took up about a quarter of the total tank
           volume.  (Big fish, small tank.)  Everytime you flushed all the
           water would drain out and the fish would just sit there and
           flop around until the water got back up to where it could
           breath again.  It was kinda disturbing, but I guess it keeps
           your Sushi fresh. -jrleek
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32709 Activity:nil
8/5     I just ran the numbers again, and I was wrong.  Even if Bush wins
        Florida, I have Bush leading Kerry a little on electoral votes, before
        counting seven medium states in a dead heat.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32710 Activity:moderate
8/5     And McCain says it better than I could:
        \_ from
        \_ "I wish they hadn't done it," McCain said of his former advisers. "I
           don't know if they knew all the facts."  So he condemns it without
           knowing if it's true?  My respect for McCain is waning.
           \_ perhaps he thinks they acted before they knew everything?
              \_ That's how I read it too.  The PP sounds like he's saying
                 "Dear God!  He formed an opinion based on an assumption,
                  rather than a gauranteed fact!"
        \_ Three veterans on Kerry's boat that day -- Jim Rassmann, who says
           Kerry saved his life, Gene Thorson and Del Sandusky, the driver on
           Kerry's boat, said the group was lying on all fronts. They say
           Kerry was injured, and Rassmann called the group's account "pure
           fabrication." ... McCain: "It was the same kind of deal that was
           pulled on me ... I can't believe the president would pull such a
           cheap stunt." ... The ad, scheduled to air in a few markets in
           Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin, was produced by Stevens, Reed,
           Curcio and Potham, the same team that produced McCain's ads in
        \_ How does what McCain says bear any factual relevance to what
           Kerry did when he returned from Vietnam?  Why won't any of you
           leftists answer this question?
           \_ He's calling the commercial a dirty political trick, and compares
              it to what the Bush campaign did to him 4 years ago.  What Kerry
              did after Vietnam was condemn a war of which he had firsthand
              knowledge, a war which didn't need to be fought and which killed
              far too many young men.
           \_ Easy.  McCain says the Bushies found some vets to smear his
              record in vietnam.  If McCain is telling the truth, it would
              suggest that the vets dissing Kerry now are also making stuff up
              for Bush's benefit.
              \_ How many times do I have to repeat this.  I'm interested
                 in facts not the messenger.  Why are leftists so impassioned
                 about OPINIONS.
                 \_ Okay, let's discuss:  What fact are you looking for?
                 \_ There are no facts to discuss.  There's only what I think
                    about what McCain thinks about what some people are saying
                    about Kerry.  Don't start a conversation about people's
                    opinions and then complain that you wanted facts.
                    \_ The facts are what Kerry did in Vietnam, and more
                       more importantly what he did AFTER Vietnam.
                       \_ This thread is about anti-Kerry attack ads on
                          the Vietnam War.  If you have an issue with what
                          Kerry did after the war, you would do us a big
                          favor by saying what exactly it was, and maybe in
                          a new thread.  Or, you could stay as you are,
                          wondering why leftists aren't answering your
                          \_ I have, repeatedly.  They are deleted.
                            \_ Dewd, you're not going to get very far
                               with laundry lists from partisan web sites.
                               Pick one or two individual items you like, and
                               post it.  After you have established
                               credibility, the sky's the limit.
                               \_ Partisanship in the Congressional record...
                                  I see.  The audio is fake and so are the
                                  \_ Please don't forget the advice I just
                                     gave you.  Start with one or two items.
                                     New thread.
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32711 Activity:very high
8/5     For the person who brought up Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh:
        What are we supposed to glean from this one time meeting?  Or
        from his meeting with Ortega (out of which sprung the investigations
        into Iran-Contra)?  That he's a traitor by association?  The same
        argument can be applied to nearly everyone in the current administ-
        ration.  Cheney for his company's dealings in countries with standing
        sanctions, Rumsfeld for his handshakes and arms sales to Saddam after
        him gassing his own people, and yes that picture of Bush holding
        hands with bin aziz.  The difference in my eyes: Kerry was trying
        to open a dialog to end a conflict that we couldn't afford, even if
        he may have been very naive in the manner.  It's 30 years later.  I'd
        like to think his goal is still the same but his execution has been
        seasoned by experience. -scotsman
        \_ You are imagining reasoned dialogue with people who still think they
           are fighting communism and/or that the Vietnam war wasn't a bad
           idea. -- ulysses
           \_ The fight against communism isn't over yet. The great dragon
              and the fine cigar remain.
              \_ you forgot the old ginseng and the yummy pho
              \_ and I see the fight against communism in Yemen and Afghanistan
                 turned out *REALLY* well.  Why don't you continue your policy
                 of supporting Islamic Fundamentalist?
           \_ Don't be an idiot.  I've never met anyone who thought
              Vietnam was a good idea.  The amazing thing about Vietnam
              was that _everything_ was done wrong.  The other thing I
              always find amazing, is that every wrong thing was done by
              "liberals," and yet conservitives are always blamed.  Wierd.
              Just because getting in the war was a bad idea, doesn't
              mean that wasting thousands of lives and allowing South
              Vietnam to fall were GOOD ideas.
              \_ South Vietnam government were puppet government set up by
                 French / American.  North Vietnamese government were
                 underground organization who fought French and Japanese
                 occupation years before S. Vietnam was created.  S. Viet
                 never had a chance.
              \_ You need to write a book:
                 "Vietnam:  The Liberal Failure - The Republican Scapegoat"
                 \_ the beauty of this idea is that if you put Kerry's picture
                    on the cover, you can have it ghost written by a total
                    hack, and still make millions of dollars.  good idea.
           \_ Well S. Vietnam was free for over a year until N. Vietnam
              invaded.  Do you think S. Koreans would say their was a
              good idea?
              \_ actually, they probably would, i don't know why but
                 a lot of south koreans believe the propaganda and somehow
                 think the presence of US troops is keeping them
                 from peacefully reuniting with their n. korean
                 brothers.  they might be right, except for the
                 peaceful part.
                 \_ that is very true.  American want a base in Pacific
                    Rim.  If Koreas are united, there will be no reason
                    for having a US military base there.  For that reason
                    alone, USA will do everything to prevent Koreas to be
              \_ "their?"
                    \_ Ha!  Where'd you get this load of BS?  The
                       communist World Weekly?  Not to mention, even if
                       the Koreas did reunite, there would still be reason
                       to have army bases there.  Every here of a friendly
                       little country call China?
                       \_ Where the hell do you think chicom troll is from?
                \_ I don't think n. korea is as benevolent and fun
                   as some s. koreans believe.
                \_ It's basically the same as similar movements we get
                   over here.  The college students with a poor knowledge
                   of history and poor critical thinking skills descide
                   that NK is run by friendly teddy bears. Korea is very
                   nationalist, and they'd like to be re-unitied.  This
                   leads to the usual set of wackiness by certain groups.

        \_ I posted it, and if you can't distinguish between what Kerry
           did and those other acts I think your judgement is lacking.
           There is difference between meeting an
           enemy or official in a public capacity and assiduoulsy
           advocating his position.  Kerry is repeatedly guilty of the
           As for Kerry's Vietnam activities, his contemporaries vets are
           much more articulate than I:
           Lastly, have you bothered to learn what actions these groups
           are most upset about?
           Doesn't it bother you Kerry published a book mocking Iwo Jima
           with anti-war figures and upside down flag?
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32712 Activity:very high
8/5     John Kerry: The Chameleon Senator (from 1996)
        \_ Assertion:  We shouldn't have gone to war in Vietnam; we didn't
           understand it was a fight to form a new nation more than a
           Communist one.  When they saw Americans coming over, they thought
           we were just colonialists like the French.
           Kerry returned after fighting for four months, and opposed the
           war.  He got it right before history did.
           \_ he got it right, um. a communist nation was formed
           where everyone got their wealth stripped and freedom taken
              \_ ~ 5 million Vietnamese (North and South combined) died
                 in that war.  I wonder what percentage of the population
                 that was.
                \_ since millions died in WWII , we should have just let
                Hitler take over the world without fighting back
                   \_ What percentage of the population was 5 million
                      Vietnamese back then?  WWII was clear -- Vietnam was not.
                      At what price do we fight a war which the U.S. people
                      aren't certain about?
           Rapes. Razed villages. Ears and heads cut off. Random shootings of
           civilians. Bodies blown up. Wires from portable telephones taped to
           genitals, with the power then turned on. Food stocks poisoned. Dogs
           and cats shot for the fun of it. ... To those who were against the
           war, he was a courageous hero standing up for the truth; to those
           who supported it, he was a treasonous pariah aiding the enemy.
           \_ that's only the things Kerry admitted to doing,
              for being only their 2 months, he has weak character to
              immediately start committing those atrocities
              \_ are you ted rall now? - danh
                 \_ hehe,
              \_ can I say "troll" yet
           \_ Wait a minute, some of the quotes in this seem to have Kerry
              as either saying, "I lied then," or "I would lie if asked
              the same question today."
              \_ You should be more careful in your use of quotation marks.
                 I doubt you can find a politican ever saying, "I lied" or
                 "I would lie" about anything.
                 \_ It would have looked very funny without the quotes.
                    Just imagine Kerry saying "some bitter sysadmin from
                    UC Berkeley lied back in the 70's, and may lie again!"
              \_ So, what do you think he lied about back then, and which
                 part would he lie again today about? (referring to the
                 \_ Well, he talked about all this rape and whatnot.  But

                    the article says:  "The senator concedes he wouldn't
                    say the same things in the same way today, that talk
                    of "atrocities" back then was over the top."  "I'm
                    older, I'm wiser. I'm farther from it. But they were
                    the words that came out of my gut at that time, based
                    on the anger and frustration that I felt back when it
                    was happening."  So... they weren't true, they just
                    came out of your gut?  Huh?
                    \_ My interpretation is that, although the things he
                       said were described to him by other fighting soldiers,
                       if he had another chance, he would have put more
                       blame on the Administration rather than the soldiers.
                    \_ You're trying to blame him for haveing overly-passionate
                       opinions when he's young?  He overstated his case a
                       bit 30 years ago and that somehow makes him a bad man?
                       Let he who is without exaggeration cast the first stone.
                           \_ I don't call late 20's young.
                              \_ So Bush wasn't young when he was a boozing
                                 coke-head drunk driver?
                       \_ No, I'm saying that if a congressional committe
                          asks you about the facts of what you say, you
                          should probably stick to the fact regaurdless of
                          your opinions.
                          \_ I'm not the one you responded to, but I believe
                             Kerry did tell the truth:  Remember, he did
                             qualify his remarks by saying they were stories
                             told to him by other soldiers
                             \_ w00t!  We descide world affecting issues
                                on hearsay!
                                \_ Hell, happens on wall all the time.
                             \_ "I... I heard about this Kid?  In Vietnam?
                                His name was Mai Kay?  And like, so
                                this GI?  Like, gave him some coke, and
                                like, some pop-rocks?  And the kid?  His
                                head, like, totally exploded man.  It
                                was crazy.  Serious war crimes, man."
                             \_ Actually, re-reading the transcript, I got
                                it wrong.  The stories were told by 150
                                honorably discharged soldiers -- some soldiers
                                personally confessing to atrocities.  All you
                                other losers didn't bother to check the URL
                                at all.
2004/8/5 [Uncategorized] UID:32713 Activity:nil
8/5     Is having trouble fulfilling orders? I've got a order sent
        on 7/30 and it still shows "Sent to warehouse". Anyone got a number
        I can call them about?
2004/8/5 [Recreation/Dating, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32714 Activity:high
8/5     Do you hate your life?  Or love it?
        \_ I'm indifferent about it.
           \_ (indifferent == apathy)?
              \_ No, indifferent == pointing out a false dichotomy.
        \_ Hate it with an undying passion. -geordan
        \_ Of all the places and periods of history that a person
           could be born in, I was lucky enough to be born in
           America in the 20th, attend one of the finest institutions
           of learning in the world and find a job programming
           computers. Considering that just 50 years ago my family
           was living in a part of the world where running water,
           telephones and electricity were unheard (and considering
           that I could have been born in a place like that even
           in this day and age), I love my life.
2004/8/5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:32715 Activity:nil
        Yes, I'm a hater. Now get your huge ass vehicle off my roads.
        \_ YES!
2004/8/5 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:32716 Activity:high
8/5     Berkeley homeowners:  what are the bad things about owning
        in Berkeley?            -brain
        \_ I have some friendss whose property splits thhe oakland/berkeley
           border, which made them happy because they could get a number of
           permits cheaper in oakland. --scotsman
           \_ your friends should be happy, nay, *proud*, to pay the higher
              berkeley fees because those fees support the community.
        \_ Socialism.
        \_ You can't rent it out without dealing with the
           city rent control board.
        \_ Anyone live near the N. Berkeley BART station? How do you like
           your neighborhood? We're thinking of buying there, within a few
           blocks (walking distance). Thoughts?
           \_ n berkeley is great, by n berkeley bart
           \_ Used to rent a few blocks east of there.  Nice neighborhood but
              busses and emergency vehicles favor taking MLK to I wouldn't
              want to buy a place on MLK or Sacramento.
        \_ Property taxes are thousands more per year than neighboring cities.
           \_ 1.8%/year, versus 1.2% in many other cities.  This adds $50/month
              This is based on the figure that mortgage,taxes, insurance and
              maintainance run you about $750/mo/100k
              per $100,000 your house costs over neighboring cities.  So a
              house in Berkeley is about 7% more expensive to own than a
              house that has the same price but is in a different city.
              \_ A $500,000 house will cost $3000 more per year in
                 property tax. This is significant. What do you get for
                 the extra money?
                 \_ Probably the biggest thing is public schools; Berkeley's
                    one of the better districts in the state, Oakland's one
                    of the worst.
                 \_ wildly inflated profits when your house appreciates? - danh
                    \_ does berkeley house prices appreciate faster than
                       the surrounding cities?
                 \_ A cable-access show where a bunch of hippie retards do
                    naked interprative dance and show off their wrinkles.
                    \_ I could do without
                       too. - danh
                 \_ What's your point?  If you can afford a half million
                    dollar house, you shouldn't complain about paying extra
                    $3k in property tax.  We should have a graduated property
                    tax schedule so that expensive houses pay a higher rate
                    of property tax.
                    \_ not necessarily, some people might have come across
                       a large wad of cash (inheritance for instance) but
                       do not have a high income.
                       \_ The homebuyer should know how much property tax
                          is owed for the house and should plan according.
                          If he spends his windfall in one wad and does not
                          plan for taxes, insurance, and other fees, then
                          he's an idiot.
                                \_ Hey asshole: maybe the homeowner did
                                   plan for taxes. The question was what
                                   sucks about Berkeley. Paying more taxes
                                   sucks. STFU.
                                   \_ If you planned for the higher tax, then
                                      you shouldn't complain you can't afford
                                      to pay it.  Buy a cheaper house, or buy
                                      it in another city than Berkeley, if you
                                      can't afford the tax here.
                          \_ This is the most stupid reply I've seen,
                             I mean really, STFU. -!op.
                             \_ I take it you're another selfish property
                                owner who doesn't want to pay his fair share?
                                But you'll vote Kerry and go to bed at night
                                with a clear conscience  because you've done
                                your share for democracy.  You make me sick.
                                \_ I agree.  Vote Bush!
                                \_ Ermm.   what does Kerry have to do with
                                   local property taxes?
                     \_ The point is that its $3K less in the city next
                        door. What am I getting for that extra money? By
                        the way, why the hell should more expensive houses
                        pay a higher % of property tax? Property tax is
                        beautiful in that it is FLAT. People pay more if
                        they buy a more expensive place. Why raise the RATE?
                        \_ Because it would be *fair*, the same way the
                           regular income tax is graduated, despite what some
                           Republican zealots would like to do otherwise.
                           Those who have more money, who can afford the big
                           expensive houses, should pay their fair share to
                           maintain the community.  Instead of making the
                           poor family who can barely pay the mortgage for a
                           broken down house in marginal neighborhood pay
                           more taxes, why not make the fat cat who can
                           afford it pay more?  Sounds reasonable to me.
                                \_ Fair share? The most fair system is
                                   the same tax rate, be it the income
                                   tax or the property tax. With
                                   income tax, people who makes more
                                   have the luxury (most of the time)
                                   to pay a slightly higher tax rate.
                                   With property tax, most home owners
                                   in the bay area do not have the
                                   luxury to pay a higher property tax
                                   rate. Ask most working family in
                                   the bay area, do they have extra
                                   10k to burn on property tax each
                                   year? This has nothing to do with
                                   fairness. I worked hard to save up
                                   the money to buy the house while at
                                   the same time paying my share of
                                   taxes. With income tax, we are
                                   talking about the top 1%, with
                                   property tax, you are talking about
                                   50% of the home owners (higher than
                                   the medium price). With income tax,
                                   you only pay when you make money,
                                   with property tax, you pay no
                                   matter what. Do you think it's fair
                                   that older people who have worked
                                   all their life has to move out of
                                   their homes into a dirty shit area
                                   because now they cannot pay the
                                   higher property tax rate you
                                   proposed? And what does this have to
                                   do with Kerry or Bush you troll?
                        \_ Actually, in CA property tax is largely regressive.
                           Because of Prop 13 the peopel who bought their
                           houses earlier are paying tax on a price far below
                           market value.  They are paying a lower tax rate
                           even though they have seen more appreciation and
                           have more equity than a recent buyer.  There are
                           legitimate public-policy reasons for progressive
                           taxation, and instituting it in property taxes would
                           not necessarily raise the average rate, though it
                           *would* raise it for people with more expensive
                           poor family who can barely pay the mortgage for a
                           broken down house in marginal neighborhood pay
                           more taxes, why not make the fat cat who can
                           afford it pay more?  Sounds reasonable to me.
                           \_ Even better, how about we do this?  Keep the
                              property tax rate as it is for houses under
                              some kind of state or regional median price.
                              Have a graduated property tax schedule for
                              houses more expensive than the median, and
                              use the additional tax revenue to fund schools
                              and other projects in poorer neighborboods.
                              \_ You obviously are not a home owner.
                                 Keep dreaming.
                                 \_ I am obviously not a selfish hypocrit.
                                    \_ Have you ever lived in a poor
                                       neighborhood? Do you think more money
                                       is the solution? I for one have lived
                                       in one and a bullet is a much better
                                       solution for some of those fuckers.
                           \_ I don't like the idea of a high property tax
                              at all.  It discourages savings.  It
                              discourages home ownership.  It forces people
                              to work forever.  For instance, I have a
                              good job and is earning big bucks, and
                              already bought a nice home.  Now I want to
                              devote the last 5 years of my working life
                              to charity work, but can't because I want
                              to keep my house but charity work job pays
                              very little and high property tax would be
                              a big hit.  High property tax is also bad
                              for older people and retirees who labored
                              all their life and should now enjoy the
                              fruits of their labor in the form of a
                              nice house.  A home is important part of
                              one's life and highly illiquid in that one
                              can't just move on a whim; but life circum-
                              stances changes, and a high property tax
                              (a recurring cost) would force people to move
                              when they suffer a bad break.  I don't mind
                              a graduated income tax and inheritance tax,
                              but property tax should be low (we are
                              already taxing rent income).
                              \_ You have no right to save money.  You have
                                 no right to live in a nice house.  You have
                                 no right to stop working when you can't
                                 afford to.
                              \_ Very well said, thank you!
                              \_ I don't think it's a good idea to just tax
                                 income and leave assets (like a house)
                                 un-taxable.  Your house needs police and fire
                                 protection whether or not you are retired, and
                                 I think you'd still like schools to run and
                                 roads to be repaired irrespective of how many
                                 of the homeowners are working.  For people
                                 who are retired or in your situation, there is
                                 something called a "reverse mortgage".  In any
                                 case, you still need money for food and
                                 clothes, so you should just budget for your
                                 property taxes too.
                           \_ I don't think housing price necessarily
                              reflects the income level. If you really
                              want the fat cats to pay more, then
                              increase income tax on the rich people.
                              Housing price reflects more than just the
                              income level, it reflects years of hard
                              working, saving up, sacrifice, family
                              contribution, etc. People should not be
                              punished for that. If you and I make the
                              same amount but I saved more than you do
                              and I bought a more expensive house, then
                              why should I cover your share? Home is not
                              a luxury, it is a necessarily.
                              \_ A house is a necessity, but a $750k house is
                                 a luxury.
                              \_ Your 1500 sq. foot half million dollar house
                                 in Berkeley is certainly a luxury and not a
                                 necessity.  Come back to me with that
                                 necessity line when you're in a 10' x 10' hut.

                                 \_ WTF? Can you find ANY DECENT HOUSE under
                                    half a million now a days? shut the fuck up!
        \_ Berkeley Hills homes are very nice.  You just have to worry about
           hill fire.
2004/8/5 [Uncategorized] UID:32717 Activity:nil
8/5     After spending some time doing research, it looks like the motd mudging
        fucker was around since 1999:
2004/8/5 [Uncategorized] UID:32718 Activity:nil
8/4     all deleted because all the threads were partially nuked
2004/8/5 [Uncategorized] UID:32719 Activity:nil 80%like:13438
8/5     The motd needs to be nuked!! someone nuke it!!
2004/8/5 [ERROR, uid:32720, category id '18005#5.73875' has no name! , ] UID:32720 Activity:nil 66%like:34064
8/7     Swift Boat Liars
2004/8/5 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:32721 Activity:nil
8/7     kchang, although you have been squished:
        Near, far, wherever you are, I believe that the trolling goes on ...
        \_ I ask again: what happed to kchang?
           \_ Read the top, in black:
              \_ You mean kchang is no longer archiving the motd?
                 Ok, let me think about whether this is a good thing
                 or a bad thing..... ;)
2004/8/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:32722 Activity:high
8/7     I'll say this again, terrorism is the only answer to superpower
        oppression. Why do you think the Muslim world hates the US?
        Just look at what we did to them. We either kill them all and
        be done with it, like we did to the Native Americans, or treat
        them with the proper respect. Anything else, you'll have
        terrorism and it will never end. I am sure some of you would
        like to do the former, but the world it is now, it's just not
        possible. But we also don't want to go with the 2nd option,
        because it's just so much better to rob (oil) than to buy.
        \_ it's mercy that is preventing the US from nuking the
           muslim world off the face of the earth
        \_ lets see, the US wasn't around in 1000 AD when the
           muslims slaughtered everything that didnt want to convert
           to islam.
        \_ It's obvious you have no real understanding of the
           Middle East or the Muslim world. The problem with the Muslim
           world is not the US, it is not Isreal, it is not Europe, it
           is not Asia. The problem with the Muslim world is itself.
           The 22 nations that comprise the Arab league has a population
           about the size of Europe, yet it's combined GDP is about the size
           of Belgium and Portugal combined. Their only real industry is
           oil. Within these 22 countries there are no real democracies,
           no real free press, no rights for women, an antiquated legal
                                     \_ Factually incorrect statement
           system that advocates stoning to death adulterous women, an
           education system that harkens back to the 12th century,
           an infrastructure in which some 25% of the general male population
           is unemployed. The governments of these 22 are either autocratic
           or corrupt. Dissent is dealt with swiftly and quietely, tolerance
           for other religions is non-existant. In the 21st century when
           all other nations on this planet (with few exceptions) have
           at least attempted to establish basic civil rights for their
           populations the Arab world continues to be completely intransigent.
           Their states sponsor terrorism and encourages extremist thought.
           They program their citizens by continously scapegoating the west
           and spread their lies to the uninformed. If you do not believe me
           you can try watching Al-Jezeera for a day.
           The point is that the the middle east is dysfunctional, and
           unless there are some fundmental changes in this part of the world
           the suicide bombings will continue. By attempting to respect
           the individuals who perpetuate the continued state of affairs
           like Arafat, like Qadaffi, like the insurgents in Iraq who still
           support Hussein you merely embolden them to continue their
           tyrannical regimes.
        \_ A neoconservative would probably argue that by spending hundreds
           of billions of dollars of our money to try to construct a liberal
           democracy in the middle east, we are (finally) treating them
           with respect.
        \_ The muslim world has been at war with the west since they met the
           west in the middle ages.  You might note this pre-dates the
           existence of the US.  And no, we didn't kill all the Native
           Americans.  As far as respect goes, if they treated their own
           people with some, it might set an example for the rest of the
           world in that regard.  This is all standard blame the victim
           mentality.  What's next up on your list?  We abandon the only
           democracy in the middle east?  The only place women are allowed
           to vote?  The only place where the court system holds the military
             \_ Factually incorrect statement
           in check despite the fact that security would be increased overall
           if the military was allowed a completely free hand?  Okey dokey!
        \_ You're framing your argument toward potential jihadis, not
           American voters.  Terrorism isn't the only answer to superpower
           oppression, but it is an expectable result.  Look at the converse
           of your argument: if there were no great injustices, there would be
           far fewer terrorists- people making a decent living, with hope of
           a better future for their children, simply cannot be persuaded to
           strap a bomb to their chest and storm a bus.  The way you phrased
           your post grants your rhetorical opponent the opportunity to claim
           that terrorists are fundamentally different (well, perhaps they are,
           but they weren't always that way).
        \_ The muslim "world" has been at war with the rest of civilization
           for centuries (don't forget all the bad things they have done
           and continue to do in India). Terrorism is nothing new for Islam,
           either. In the old days they would butcher entire families for
           refusing to convert (among other less than reputable things).
           The war with islam is the war against oppression and tyranny.
           If we start discussing terms with the armies of darkness, all
           hope for the free and civilized will be lost forever.
           \_ Kettle, please meet medieval era pot. Pot, kettle. Do say
                \_ The rest of the world has grown up a little in the
                   past thousand years, the islamic world has not. In
                   fact they have gotten worse. We must not forget that
                   during the dark ages it was the arabs who preserved
                   the knowledge and learning of the ancients and also
                   transmitted to renaissance italy the mathematics of
                   the east. Do you really think that the islamic world
                   is capable of such things today?
2004/8/5-6 [Reference/Tax] UID:32723 Activity:very high
8/5     On taxes from the housing thread below.  I think this deserves it's
        own thread.  I was thinking about what a 'fair' tax rate is, whether
        it is for income, property tax, whatever, doesn't matter.  If 'fair'
        means the tax has the same level of burden on each tax payer, there
        can be only 2 truly 'fair' tax rates: 0% and 100%.  Anything else
        is going to be unfair to someone.  What do you think?
        \_ I don't think there is anything inherently unfair in a progressive
           tax rate. It may however be stupid, discouraging of enterprise and
           hard work, etc. But as long as everyone is in the same system it's
           not unfair... no one forces the high income guy to do that work.
           Personally I do believe we'd be better off with a small tax rate,
           with some progressivity but a pretty low slope up to a defined
           "rich point" of at least $150k, and moving up to about 33% as the
           very top rate even for super high income. The fed. gov't may be too
           huge right now to make it ideal. But even at $150k I'd like to see
           less than 15%. Such a system would 1) encourage doing higher paying
           work since you can actually get ahead for your efforts, 2) keep
           the wealthy still with a big incentive to invest in the economy, and
           3) be more fair to those who are able to earn a lot in just a few
           years for some reason, rather than a smaller amount each year.
           Ideally the gov't would be a lot smaller in the first place. And
           I would prefer taxing from the consumption side than the income side
           although there are practical problems with that now. --foo22
        \_ you could also blame howard jarvis. - danh
        \_ Depends on your definition of fairness.  I think fairness is
           achieved when each tax-payer has approximately the same level
           of post-tax income.  This is similar to the scheduling definition
           of fairness, I think.
           \_ Why is that fair?  If someone works harder, they should make more
              money.  If money was not a hoardable resource, I would say
              fairness is achieved where everyone has the same results/reward
              ratio (note: not effort/reward).  Since money is hoardable,
              and reasonable people believe in property rights, things become
              a lot more complicated.  The feeling I get from people who
              know a lot more about 'fairness' (as a formal concept) is that
              the closest tax scheme to 'fair' (as most people define it)
              would be some sort of flat tax scheme. -- ilyas
              \_ Is hard work the only contributing factor to income?  Should
                 someone be rewarded for good luck, in the sense of having the
                 right parents, or born with natural ability, or having chosen
                 a career that turns out to be high paying rather than not?
                 Notice you did a switch in your argument.  In the beginning
                 you said "if someone works harder", then in the middle you
                 switched to "note: not effort/reward".  Which one is it?
                 Do you reward effort?  Do you reward result?  Do you reward
                 good luck?  Is money the measure?  Is societal benefit?
                 Might incentive for some of the above actually
                 be detrimental in some societal sense?  Fairness.  I prefer
                 the communications model where fairness is achieved when
                 all competing consumers of a resource have an equal share of
                 the resource.  In that case, a high-consumer of the resource
                 is throttled (or pay a greater tax, if you will) more than
                 an low-consumer of the resource.  I'd be perfectly happy to
                 discuss other models of fairness if you wish.
                 \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose). I meant
                    'results' not 'hard work.'  -- ilyas
                 \_ You are right, I did switch (not on purpose).  I believe
                    results are what's important, not effort.  I view money in
                    a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value.  Value is
                    a very basic sense: money are the symbol of value. Value is
                    that which people want.  I compared money to a resource,
                    but I don't believe it is, in the same sense as air or oil
                    or natural gas.  However, let's run with it for a while.
                    It seems your notion of fairness goes something like
                    this:  There are 2 people digging for oil in the desert.
                    One works 16 hour days, the other works 2 hour days.  Both
                    are equally good diggers, but one digs up about 8 times as
                    much oil.  You say, there are two agents competing for the
                    same resource, so each should get an equal share of the oil.
                    I say that's stupid.  They should keep what they dig up.
                      -- ilyas
                 \_ I'm not the pp.  Of course hard work isn't the only way to
                    make money.  Should it be?  Should we 100% tax gamblers in
                    Vegas?  The lottery?  Should people with greater natural
                    ability be paid the same as someone doing the same thing
                    with less natural ability?  Should I get the same money as
                    a million bucks a year NFL quarterback even though I lack
                    his natural physical ability?  To answer your question,
                    the result is what counts.  You don't 'reward' good luck
                    but I don't see a need to punish it either.  How exactly
                    would you go about taxing good luck, anyway?  Why is it
                    fair that all competitors for a resource get the same
                    amount?  What if one competes harder for it because they
                    want or need it more than someone who puts in less effort
                    to acquire the resource?  Should they be punished or capped
                    in their ability to acquire?  Should the lazy do nothing
                    get the same reward for little or no effort?  That is
                    certainly not fair in any sense of the word I know.
                    \_ When I raised my approximately equal post-tax income
                       proposal, people complained that it would kill the
                       incentive to work.  I merely observed that there are
                       many contributing components to income, and hard work
                       is but one.  How about a proposal that says we set up
                       a tax regime where we limit the post-tax income min-max
                       spread to 3x?   Would that still provide incentive to
                       succeed and at the same time be more fair?
                    \_ Do you think it should be results that counts or
                       ability (I include hardwork as part of ability, you
                       can say "ability + hardwork" if you wish) that counts?
                       I can achieve more results than someone more capable
                       and hardworking than me simply because I have more
                       resources, for instance.  Do you think that is fair?
                       \_ How can you include hard work in ability? If someone
                          decides to work hard at writing a book nobody wants
                          to read should he get the same as the guy who is a
                          bestseller? --foo22
                    \_ Just for sake of argument, what if the 2 hour guy
                       gets lucky and strikes oil and the 16 hour guy
                       never does? Tough luck? That's my answer, but I'd
                       like to hear yours.
                       \_ In my experience (with commercial fishing, not
                          with oil specifically) the two hour guy probably
                          did not just find the valueble stuff because
                          of luck.  The same skippers get "lucky" or
                          "unlucky" way too many times in a row for it to
                          be luck.  If one guy takes the time to read up
                          on the behavior of the fish they're hunting for
                          and catches all the fish he certainly earned
                          his massively larger keep even if there was some
                          luck involved.  I think the same thing is almost
                          certainly true in the oil industry.  Why do you
                          think that Monkey Boy was unable to find any
                          oil in texas with Arbusto?  it wasn't luck.
                          \_ You think oil company executives personally choose
                             where to drill?
                       \_ Them's the breaks.  Maybe we can create a government
                          entitlement system for oil hole diggers who never hit
                          it big?  Or maybe the 16 hour guy was just stupid and
                          didn't know as much geology as the 2 hour guy so
                          education wins out?  Or maybe the oil just wants to
                          be free so we should tax both of them at 100% and
                          take the oil by force and just keep it for the rest
                          of us because after all we stand on the shoulders of
                          (oil digging) giants and without the guys who came
                          before us to invent shovels we wouldn't have any oil
           \_ Mmmm, socialism.  You do realize that this is all well and good
              until someone loses an eye, right?
              \_ It's easy to give something a label and dismiss it based on
                 that label.  It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness.
                 that label.It's easy, but all it is is intellectual laziness.
                 Propose your model of fairness or attack mine, if you can.
                 \_ I'm not the pp, but, that pretty much sounds like
                    Socialism, man.  The reason it doesn't work is because
                    it removes incentives.
                    \_ I said "aproximately the same level of post-tax
                       \_ Do you know anything about Europe? There is very
                          little downward/upward mobility in Europe. The
                          rich have always been rich and will always be
                          rich. The poor and middle class have little chance
                          at being rich. My whole family is European and
                          this is what Europe is like. Do you really want
                          that? In the US, most uber-rich families are back
                          to the mean in about 3 generations and there are all
                          \_ Good post, dim.  One serious difference tho--a
                             lot of the immobility in Europe is the way the
                             educational systems and vocational training are
                             structured (there's also not as much sideways
                             professional mobility as in the US.)  -John
                             \_ Yes, but this ties into it. If your parents
                                went to a certain school or had a certain
                                vocation then you have a much better chance at
                                it. I know, for example, that science positions
                                in France factor in who your parents were
                                and your age. That's ridiculous and it is why
                                so many foreign students come to the US to
                                study and perhaps even to stay. --dim
                          \_ Not with the Bush tax cuts.  Goodbye estate taxes,
                             goodbye investment taxes.  This is the most
                             disturbing part of Bush the younger's policies.
                             \_ But you ignore the other side of the coin where
                                the poor stay poor in EU as well.  You seem
                                more interested in tearing down the rich rather
                                than raising up the poor.
                                \_ I haven't said anything to the other side
                                   of the coin.  That's not to say I ignore
                                   it.  Are you suggesting that Bush's tax
                                   policy raises up the poor?  How 'bout his
                                   other economic policies?  His environmental
                                   policies?  --scotsman
                                   \_ Haven't said = ignored.  Anyway, Bush's
                                      tax policies don't hold down the poor,
                                      they allow the poor to keep what they
                                      have should hard work and/or luck lead
                                      them to being rich.  What other economic
                                      policies are you refering to?  What about
                                      his environmental policies is bad for the
                                      poor or worse for them than the rich? We
                                      all drink the same water, breath the same
                                      air, and get the same cancers.
                                      \_ That's not true, although it's
                                         certainly not the fault of policy
                                         at the federal level.  A
                                         disproportionate number of destructive
                                         polluting industries get located in
                                         poor areas, such as power plants in
                                         cities.  Of course, this problem
                                         will really only get solved by
                                         making the factories and power plants
                                         not kill people anymore, which
                                         will only come from technology.
                             \_ Please explain how tax cuts for the rich some
                                how oppress the poor.
                                \_ It's a systemic effect.  These tax cuts
                                   create a tendency to horde.  Wealth begets
                                   wealth, and humans are horders.  I don't
                                   want to see a pure plutocracy in this
                                   country.  There's also the direct effect
                                   of massively shifting the tax burden onto
                                   income tax.  When it comes to paying of
                                   the current deficits it will be much harder
                                   politically to make the case for restoring
                                   those cuts than to tell the public "we all
                                   have to tighten our belts..."  -scotsman
                                   \_ So you think making people have less
                                      money will make them spend more absolute
                                      dollars of those they have left?  This
                                      makes no sense.  By your reasoning, the
                                      richest person would spend near zero
                                      absolute dollars and the poorest would
                                      spend more absolute dollars than the
                                      richest person.  This is clearly false.
                                      People who have more money available
                                      to spend will spend more money.  I don't
                                      understand how anyone could claim the
                                      opposite.  As far as hording goes, so
                                      what?  If someone somehow makes a billion
                                      dollars and doesn't spend any of it,
                                      hordes it as you say, so what?  It is
                                      their money to spend or save as they
                                      choose.  The government sure as hell
                                      won't spend it more efficiently.  If the
                                      government were more efficient then
                                      communism would be the most efficient
                                      economic system which we know to be
                                      false.  So, how exactly is it that rich
                                      people keeping more of their money is
                                      bad for poor people again?
                          sorts of rags-to-riches success stories. Hard work
                          here can get rewarded. The person who mentioned
                          incentives is exactly right. --dim
                       income".  You can go a long way to reduce the min-max
                       spread in American income distribution (the European
                       spread is, what, an order of magnitude or two less?)
                       and improve fairness without eliminating incentives.
                                   \- i havent read the entire thread above
                                      however if you look at say the bottom
                                      quintile in the US, they are essentially
                                      at the same place as the bottom 20%
                                      in sweeden in terms of purchasing power,
                                      or absolute terms. in relative terms,
                                      the top 10% here is a lot wealthier
                                      than all the other normal countries.
                                      which make "inquality" in the narrow
                                      statistical sense greater. as a crude
                                      measure you can see if you can find a
                                      number called the "gini coeficient"
                                      for the national economies you are
                                      interested in. --psb
                       \_ So, a heavier margin-based tax rate with a higher
                          exemption?  I can get behind that.  But i'm deeply
                          bothered by the european VAT taxes.
                       \_ Wow, so you're definition of "aproximately" is
                          "within 2 orders of magnitude?"  I guess it
                          kinda works on an astrophysics scale.
                          \_ You need to work on your reading comprehension.
                             You also need to learn how to use quotation marks.
                                      \_ So taxing the rich at a really high
                                         rate is really about bringing them
                                         down, not about bringing the poor up.
2004/8/5-6 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:32724 Activity:high
8/5     I have a VCD which is in PAL format. How can I convert it
        to NTSC, either in DVD or VHS, so I can play it in players
        here in the US? Do commercial video converter places know
        how to deal with VCD?
        \_ I have a link to a good site with all sorts of converters
           and media tools at home.  Mail me and I'll dig it out.  -John
        \_ on linux, mencoder/mplayer is very nice and supports all kinds
           of resampling/transcoding options.  i've never tried to change
           video framerate or interlacing, but i think it allows any
           playback filter to be used during translation.
        \_ i am looking for similiar beast: convert real video to
           mpeg-1 format.  Is there anything non-commercial exists for
           linux/unix platform?
        \_ Are there such things as PAL VCD and NTSC VCD?  I thought PAL and
           NTSC are TV formats, and all VCDs are of the same format that can
           be played on a PC.  I thought there are only such things as PAL VCD
           player which outputs PAL signals to the TV when playing a VCD, and
           NTSC VCD which outpus NTSC singals when playing the same VCD.  No?
           \_ No, totally wrong.  NTSC VCDs are 29.97 fps (or 23.976 fps) and
              352x240, whereas PAL VCDs are 25 fps and 352x288.  Anyhow,
              to the OP, if you're using Windows, you can use AviSynth +
              VirtualDub to do the conversion.  I probably can you walk you
              through this if you want.  Email me if interested. --jameslin
              \_ No, you're wrong. There is no such thing as a PAL/NTSC
                 VCD or DVD. The data is in digital format. The terms have
                 no real meaning but merely denote the resolution and the
                 fps. FPS and resolution have no real bearing on NTSC or PAL
                 format. A so-called PAL DVD can technically be played on
                 an NTSC device and vice versa. The device outputs NTSC or
                 PAL. NTSC and PAL are analog formats, not digital.
                 Relevant link:
                 \_ You're arguing technicalities in semantics.  Does it
                    matter?  You still can't play a "PAL" disc in an NTSC
                    player, because most NTSC players won't do any conversion
                    for you.  The grandparent post said that "all VCDs
                    are of the same format", but that's not true; there are
                    different frame sizes and frame rates, and they are real
                    issues. --jameslin
              \_ I see!  So is NTSC TV 29.97 fps or 23.976 fps?  Or does an
                 NTSC TV switch fps according to the broadcast signal?
                 \_ NTSC is 29.97 frames per second (well, 59.94 fields per
                    second).  A DVD or VCD that is 23.976 frames/second
                    (i.e., from a film source) gets telecined to 29.97 fps
                    by the DVD/VCD player by duplicating two fields of
                    every 10 (29.97 * 8/10 = 23.976). --jameslin
          \_ Say NO to PAL!  Support Freedom Videos!
2004/8/5-8 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Industry/Jobs, Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:32725 Activity:nil 50%like:36020
8/5     Another Mountain View job.  Senior C++ developer.
2004/8/5-7 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:32726 Activity:high
8/5     Who can hack together an RSS/Atom feed of the motd?  -- misha.
        \- kchang could do this easily.
        \_ what is rss/atom and what does it do to the motd?
        \_ Hey, that sounds like fun, and I've been looking for a small
           project to pick up RSS.  I'll see if I can whip something up
           this weekend. -dans
        \_ RSS works best when the content is entry based, like news
           articles. How do you propose to publish RSS of the motd?
           Are you going to republish the whole MOTD every time it's
           a comment is made? If so, you should at least come up w/ a
           mechanism to highlight what was changed.
           \_ diff.
           \_ I was looking into this yesterday and it looks like atom
              would be better than rss for this purpose, as there are
              some extensions to atom that allow for publishing followups.
              \_ Atom is generally better.  Not sure if you want to publish
                 followups as comments, though. -- misha.
2004/8/5 [ERROR, uid:32727, category id '18005#21.58' has no name! , ] UID:32727 Activity:nil 50%like:33089 57%like:34064
        Kerry's Swift boat rescue
2004/8/5 [Computer/Companies/Google, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:32728 Activity:nil
8/6     I am upset, my motd bitching is being archived forever like
        google/gmail? This is fucked up. The motd should be purged
        every now and then. Does kchang work for google? Is he into
        archiving everything??
        \_ You know motdedit records your id in a root read-only
           file right?
           \_ this is bullshit.
           \_ Then why haven't we caught the evil purgers yet?
           \_ If you care just fork motdedit and add your own privacy
              \_ You know that the above person is shitting you right?
                 \_ Yes, but I do have my own version of motdedit in case
                    whoever owns /csua/bin/me decides to change it.  Btw,
                    I do use the same merge routine so I'm not overwriting
                    your post or anything like that.
        \_ You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and
           will be used against you in a court of motd h0z3rs.  (In other
           words, your peers.)
2004/8/5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32729 Activity:nil
8/7     Didn't Bush snub CA a while back? How supportive do you think Arnie
        is going to be? Should he pull a few punches to try and
        negotiate or is he better off going 'all out' so that Bush 'owes us'.
        I don't like Bush, but you have to give him credit that he's pretty
        damn good at returning favors to his buddies...
2019/02/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:August:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>