Larry Wall & Cults

[Patrick Scheible]

It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
did nothing to prevent it.

They can have a nice chat with the 40-some-odd percent of the people
who think Saddam was working with al-Qaida...

-- Patrick

 

[CBFalconer]

It's apparently having the desired effect. The subject of
the radio talk show last night was about the results of a poll
where 41% of the people asked (New York state residents) believed
that Bush and Co. knew that the WTC was going to be attacked and
did nothing to prevent it. The Bush-bashing is working. The
Democrats are opening the city gates to the barbarians.

I deplore your tast in radio talk shows. It doesn't take much to
create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.

There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
(due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.

Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration, but we
have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.

 

[Steve O'Hara-Smith]

On Wed, 08 Sep 04 11:48:36 GMT

*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
[an old, slow '486]:

% uptime
2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
%

That's over *20* months!!

I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.

The Yahoo! server farm ran to very long uptimes last time I had
any details. The reason being that they commission a machine, add it to
the farm and leave it running until it is replaced two or three years
later.

 

[Morten Reistad]

+---------------
| As you may know XP is not particularly good as a server.
....
| I would go for some Unix implementation (perhaps free-BSD)
| As a workstation XP seems OK.
| I hear a lot of complaints about XP's stability.
| Since I have not administered a XP network, yet, I cant comment on that.
| But in my personal experience it is a stable system.
| I frequently let my computer run 24 hrs. a day for more than a month
| without a need to reboot. So for me it is adequate.
+---------------

*Only* a month?!? Here's the uptime for one of my FreeBSD boxes
[an old, slow '486]:

% uptime
2:44AM up 630 days, 21:14, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.02, 0.00
%

That's over *20* months!!

I bet we can measure the youngster's age by the uptimes he boasts.

-Rob

p.s. I remember the time back in the early 70's (at Emory Univ.) when
we called DEC Field Service to complain that our PDP-10 had an uptime
of over a year. Why were we complaining? Well, that meant that DEC Field
Service had failed to perform scheduled preventive maintenance (which
usually involved at least one power cycle)... ;-}

One? Had to be two. FS was supposed to use their service pack
as the system disk, not the customers!!! I believe that was
true even in 1970. The dangers of smushing bits was too great.

But with a PM you had to do a cold start. All the disks had to be
spun down, filters changed, and they had to spin for an ungodly long
time after the filter change before heads could be enabled again. This
was to bring all the dust that was let loose in the process into the new
filters before heads went to fly over the platters again.

Also power supplies had to be checked for the dreaded capacitor
problems. Tape drives also had these. This was industry-wide
problems; and news from a few burned UPS'es the last couple of
months tell me that the capacitor problems are still with us.

It was a real accomplishment when we in 1988 could do a full
PM (Prime gear) without shutting down the system. All disks were
mirrored, and all power duplicated, so we shut down half of the
hardware and did PM on that; and took the other half next week.

SMD filters were used at a quite high rate; even inside well
filtered rooms. ISTR 6 months was a pretty long interval between PM's.

-- mrr

 

[Chuck Dillon]

<Sorry for this off-topic post but I couldn't resist.>

There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'

You should consider investing some time in learning some civics. The
president has no power to wage war without a *mandate* from congress.
It's assinine to suggest that the administration could have tricked or
lied it's way into a war in Iraq. People like Sen. Byden (D) who are
now considered experts with more than enough experience in overseeing
our intelligence organization take the lead on criticizing the
administration. But Sen. Byden and the rest were briefed before they
voted and they had the experience to make their own judgements. They
chose to effectively declare war on Iraq.

There's no question the legislative branch declared war and the
administrative is prosecuting it. The only question is how the
politics plays out.

propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
rate, medical care, deficit,

Yes there are economic cycles and we've been in a bit of a trough for
the past few years. There's nothing the government, nor any
administration, can do to significantly effect economic cycles. If it
can then the Clinton administration must have intentionally induced a
downturn for political purposes.

death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
and Iraqis),

But noticebly not in Chicago, L.A or anywhere else in "the great evil".

abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt,

Capturing of OBL would be counterproductive. The problem won't go away
if he's caught but many people will assume it did.

abridgement of
civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),

Back to civics 101, laws are created by the legislature. They also
have the power to revoke them if a problem is demonstrated. How many
U.S. citizens have been victimized? How many dead U.S. citizens does
it take to justify that victimization? Both numbers are quire small.

poor
choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and

That's just stupid. I'm sure the families of those Halliburton
employees who have died in Iraq and Afganistan would take issue with
you on this. Are you also leary of Clinton because his administration
contracted the same Halliburton subsidiaries in the Balkan conflict?

trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
gang),

It would be astounding if there was no Veteran backlash in response to
Kerry's activities and statements after he came back from Vietnam. You
bring up Halliburton as if it were somehow on topic and then in the
next phrase suggest that legitimate angst against Kerry's anti-war
activies (with Kerry building his campaign on his Vietnam service) is
somehow invalid. Strange thought process.

irritation of allies,

It seems to me that from a geo-political perspective it would be a bad
thing if 100% of non-Muslim/non-Arab/non-Middleeastern states followed
the lead of the U.S. in a seemingly rash response to 9/11. It seems
like it would be much better if there was an overwhelming (as there
was) response balanced by some strong dissention so that it didn't look
like a world war.

inability to deal with North Korea
(due to involvement with useless adventures),

Patience grasshopper. Just because CNN isn't "breaking news" on a
daily basis doesn't mean nothing's being done. North Korea is
extremely fragile economically. They're not in the position to demand
they're just trying to barter.

abandonment of
efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.

You might not have noticed but on 9/11 the stakes were raised by about
an order of magnitude. They went up significantly again this weekend
in Beslan. As long as there are terrorist activities in "Palestine"
don't expect to see anyone giving ground.

Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration, but we
have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.

We know...
- Kerry voted to effectively declare war on Iraq and still stands by
that vote, most of the time. He only quibbles about the details.
- Kerry has no more power to affect the economy than W.
- Kerry's administration would continue to contract with Haliburton
subsidiaries. There's no reason not to, there's no other company who
can do the jobs they contract to do.

-- ced

 

[Jeff Shannon]

abridgement of
civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag),

[...] How many U.S. citizens have been victimized?

That's the problem -- we have *no* way of finding out, because part of
the Patriot Act is a gag rule that prevents the public from knowing how
it's used. It *may* be a small number, and we'd all like to think that
it is, but we really don't know.

How many dead U.S. citizens does it take to justify that
victimization? Both numbers are quire small.

Here there's a lot of room to disagree -- it's a tragedy when U.S.
citizens are killed, but it's an even greater tragedy when the entirety
of the U.S. loses its freedoms in the name of "security".

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," as Benjamin Franklin said.
The Patriot Act takes away our liberty in the name of temporary safety.
We need better security than we had pre-9/11, certainly, but we can get
it with a much lower cost to our personal liberty than has come with the
Patriot Act. We *don't* need secret police investigations, secret
courts, and secret detentions for secret reasons.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International

 

[Dave Hansen]

[...]

Don't you dittoheads ever get your facts right?

What's a "dittohead"? Are you trying to convey a personal insult of
some kind? Please let me know, so I can call you a name, too.

A "dittohead" is someone who regularly listens to and agrees with Rush
Limbaugh (popular conservative U.S. radio talk show host). It is a
tradition that callers on his show (at least those that agree with
him) start their call with something like "Country redneck dittos to
you, Rush," or "Hey, Rush, blues-pickin' Cajun dittos" before
launching into the subject of their call. It is intended to be an
insult implying the "dittoheads" don't have any thoughts of their own,
but merely are told what to think (probably by Rush), and do so. The
"dittoheads" have embraced the moniker but not the implication, seeing
the insult as an act of desperation attacking the person (ad hominem)
rather than addressing the issues.

FWIW, I listen to Rush because he's the most entertaining thing on the
radio during my lunch hour, but I don't agree with him often enough to
be a dittohead.

ObPython: Rush could have been the basis of a great Monty Python skit.

AFWIW, My youngest nephew (5 months old) is named for his father. My
sister doesn't want him known as "Junior," so she is contemplating the
nickname "Ditto."

ObPerl: There really _is_ more than one way to do it.

ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
different.

ObLisp: I can't think of a thing. Weclome to afc thread drift...

Regards,

-=Dave

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Internet was discovered long before this. (In 1965 a research
project, by the Rand cooperation, for a network that could survive a
nuclear attack. Sponsored by DARPA. These is the real creators of
the Internet technology. Not Unix hackers.) It was the realization
of www (CERN) that spawned the movement toward the Internet.

So the year in question is about 1987.

packet networking was "discovered" in the 60s(?) ... but it was
homogeneous networking with pretty much homogeneous infrastructure
implementation.

the great switch-over to internetworking protocol was 1/1/83. i've
frequently asserted that one of the reasons that the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

was larger than the arpanet from just about the beginning until
sometime mid-85 ... was because the internal network nodes effectively
had a form of gateway functionality ... which showed up in the
internetworking protocol switchover on 1/1/83.

packet switching technology for the (homogeneous) arpanet is somewhat
orthogonal to internetworking protocol technology .... which was
deployed in the great switchover on 1/1/83.

some minor other references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/internet.htm

CERN and SLAC were sister sites, did some amount of common tool
development, used common infrastructures and were big GML users
..... which had been done at the science center circa 1970
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

which morphed into SGML and then html, xml, etc. SLAC had the first
web server outside of europe .... running on vm/cms system
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/history/earlyweb/history.shtml

the distinction of internetworking protocol isn't packet switching
.... it is gateways and interoperability of lots of different kinds of
networking.

OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp

the switch-over to internetworking protocol on 1/1/83 somewhat also
coincided with the expanding role of csnet activity ... and more &
more NSF involvement .... compared to the extensive earlier arpa/darpa
involvement; aka csnet ... and then nsfnet1 backbone rfp and then
nsfnet2 enhanced backbone rfp.

misc. internet and nsfnet related history pointers:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietf.htm#history

the proliferation of the internetworking protocol and use in the
commercial sector was also happening during the 80s .... which you
could start to see by (1988) at the interop '88 show. misc. interop
'88 references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :

Project start : 1964
First link : 1969
Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
Congested : 1976
TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
Web launced : 1992
Web got momentum : 1994
Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
Dotcom burst : 2001

nsfnet1 backbone RFP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#12

misc. reference to award announcement
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#10

was for backbone between regional locations ... it was suppose to be
T1 links. What was installed was IDNX boxes that supported
point-to-point T1 links between sites ... and multiplexed 440kbit
links supported by racks & racks of PC/RTs with 440kbit boards ... at
the backbone centers.

the t3 upgrades came with the nsfnet2 backbone RFP

my wife and i somewhat got to be the red team design for both nsfnet1
and nsfnet2 RFPs.

note that there was commercial internetworking protocol use long
before 1991 ... in part evidence the heavy commercial turn-out at
interop '88
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88

the issue leading up to the cix war was somewhat whether commercial
traffic could be carried over the nsf funded backbone .... the
internetworking protocol enabling the interconnection and heterogenous
interoperability of large numbers of different "internet" networks.

part of the issue was that increasing commercial use was starting to
bring down the costs (volume use) .... so that a purely nsfnet
operation was becomming less and less economically justified (the cost
for a nsfnet only operation was more costly and less service than what
was starting to show up in the commercial side).

part of the issue was that there was significant dark fiber in the
ground by the early 80s and the telcos were faced with a significant
dilemma .... if the dropped the bandwidth price by a factor of 20
and/or offerred up 20 times the bandwidth at the same cost .... it was
be years before the applications were availability to drive the
bandwdith costs to the point where they were taking in sufficient
funds to cover their fixed operating costs. so some of the things you
saw happening were controlled bandwidth donations (in excess of what
might be found covered by gov. RFPs) to educational institutions by
large commercial institutions .... for strictly non-commercial use
Such enourmous increases in bandwidth availability in a controlled
manner for the educational market would hopefully promote the
development of bandwidth hungry applications. They (supposedly) got
tax-deduction for their educational-only donations .... and it
wouldn't be made available for the commercial paying customers.

 

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Since I am on a roll with timelines; just one off the top of my head :

Project start : 1964
First link : 1969
Transatlantic : 1972 (to Britain and Norway)
Congested : 1976
TCP/IP : 1983 (the effort started 1979) (sort of a 2.0 version)
First ISP : 1983 (uunet, EUnet followed next year)
Nework Separation : 1983 (milnet broke out)
Large-scale design: 1987 (NSFnet, but still only T3/T1's)
Fully commercial : 1991 (WIth the "CIX War")
Web launced : 1992
Web got momentum : 1994
Dotcom bubble : 1999 (but it provided enough bandwith for the first time)
Dotcom burst : 2001

oh, and here is a recent referenct to some bitnet activity:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004k.html#66
in the listserv history section

some general bitnet/earn posts:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet

more than 20 year old email reference about earn
http://www.garlic.com.~lynn/2001h.hytml#65

 

[Charlie Gibbs]

A "dittohead" is someone who regularly listens to and agrees with Rush
Limbaugh (popular conservative U.S. radio talk show host). It is a
tradition that callers on his show (at least those that agree with
him) start their call with something like "Country redneck dittos to
you, Rush," or "Hey, Rush, blues-pickin' Cajun dittos" before
launching into the subject of their call.

The way I heard it (which I can't confirm since I've never actually
listened to Limbaugh's show) is that so many people were calling
in to say what amounted to nothing more than "I agree with you"
that Rush himself suggested they just say "ditto" to save time.
Thus were "dittoheads" born.

ObPython: Rush could have been the basis of a great Monty Python skit.

What a thought! That _would_ be fun. Eric Idle, are you reading this?

ObUnix: Max OS X has a "ditto" command that's the same as "cp" only
different.

Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
utilities that would copy anything to anything? (Another version
was known as DEBE, which stood for "Does Everything But Eat".)
I got my hands on some source code and got one working on the Univac
9400 and 90/30. Thanks to our convention of prefixing such utility
program names with "UV" (for Univac Vancouver), it wound up being
called UVDITO (so that it would fit into the 6-character name limit).

 

[Reynir Stefánsson]

So spake CBFalconer:

There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
intrinsically evil intentions.

Merely remember Occam's and Hanlon's Razors.

 

[Reynir Stefánsson]

So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:

OSI can support x.25 packet switching and/or even the arpanet packet
switching from the 60s & 70s .... but it precludes internetworking
protocol. internetworking protocol (aka internet for short) is a
(non-existant) layer in an OSI protocol stack between
layer3/networking and layer4/transport. misc. osi (& other) comments
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp

Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?

 

[Morten Reistad]

[i'll snip the excellent references you always come up with]

was for backbone between regional locations ... it was suppose to be
T1 links. What was installed was IDNX boxes that supported
point-to-point T1 links between sites ... and multiplexed 440kbit
links supported by racks & racks of PC/RTs with 440kbit boards ... at
the backbone centers.

It was an upgrade from 56k. The first versions of NSFnet was not really
scalable either; noone knew quite how to design a erally scalable network,
so that came as we went.

the t3 upgrades came with the nsfnet2 backbone RFP

For the grand timeline I'll see the two nsfnets as a continuing
development.

my wife and i somewhat got to be the red team design for both nsfnet1
and nsfnet2 RFPs.

note that there was commercial internetworking protocol use long
before 1991 ... in part evidence the heavy commercial turn-out at
interop '88
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#interop88

Yes, commercial internet offerings were available as early as in
1983-84; but until Cisco, IBM, Wellfleet and Proteon made real router
gear (1986?) it was a little lame. I remember lamenting the software
of the IBM routers in ca1988; because they were light years ahead
of the competition in the actual hardware design.

But until 1991 (Gordon Cook has the gory detail) you had to accept the
NSFnet AUP if you wanted full connectivity. (academic only, in
principle; although dissimination of Open Source products was probably
acceptable). A lot of the important servers and sites was only reachable
through this "full connectivity"; so uunet, EUnet, PSInet and others
had a collaboration to build around NSFnet. The first 'Ix was born
to exchange traffic; the CIX.

It didn't go smoothly though. Some institutions had to be threatened
with retribution; and "Inverse AUP" to accept connectivity. But the
"CIX war" was won by the good guys; and the Internet became a commercial
endeavour.

In other jurisdictions it took a little longer. In Norway it took a
parliamentary debate to make it crystal clear that a soggy half-commercial
model was unacceptable; and the threat of legislation was used.

We had plans for a fully commercial ISP ready, in practice since 1986;
and in 1992 we ran to implement them.

the issue leading up to the cix war was somewhat whether commercial
traffic could be carried over the nsf funded backbone .... the
internetworking protocol enabling the interconnection and heterogenous
interoperability of large numbers of different "internet" networks.

part of the issue was that increasing commercial use was starting to
bring down the costs (volume use) .... so that a purely nsfnet
operation was becomming less and less economically justified (the cost
for a nsfnet only operation was more costly and less service than what
was starting to show up in the commercial side).

It was the pains of the Internet growing out of academia, without a
good model to regulate it.

part of the issue was that there was significant dark fiber in the
ground by the early 80s and the telcos were faced with a significant
dilemma .... if the dropped the bandwidth price by a factor of 20
and/or offerred up 20 times the bandwidth at the same cost .... it was
be years before the applications were availability to drive the
bandwdith costs to the point where they were taking in sufficient
funds to cover their fixed operating costs. so some of the things you
saw happening were controlled bandwidth donations (in excess of what
might be found covered by gov. RFPs) to educational institutions by
large commercial institutions .... for strictly non-commercial use
Such enourmous increases in bandwidth availability in a controlled
manner for the educational market would hopefully promote the
development of bandwidth hungry applications. They (supposedly) got
tax-deduction for their educational-only donations .... and it
wouldn't be made available for the commercial paying customers.

But this cannot be enforced without firewalls; and these institutions
didn't want to erect those; and wanted the policy hammered into the
Internet itself. That would have killed the Internet. Fortunatly
the "second internet"; a commercial Internet on purely commercially
obtained hardware and circuits; was built around the NSFnet. But the
two needed to interconnect. For a while there were two internets;
one commercial and one academic that only half-way interconnected.
It was finally resolved in 1991; and from then on the Internet as
such was a fully comemrcial internetwork; where AUP's only applied to
local networks.

-- mrr

 

[Morten Reistad]

So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:


Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?

There were provisions for many networks; but it was a design that
requires (large) service providers; aka Phone Companies to provide
service.

Self-provisioning like we do all the time on the Internet was difficult.

-- mrr

 

[Brian Inglis]

Wasn't "ditto" the name of one of those console-driven mainframe
utilities that would copy anything to anything? (Another version
was known as DEBE, which stood for "Does Everything But Eat".)
I got my hands on some source code and got one working on the Univac
9400 and 90/30. Thanks to our convention of prefixing such utility
program names with "UV" (for Univac Vancouver), it wound up being
called UVDITO (so that it would fit into the 6-character name limit).

IBM DOS/VSE Data Interfile Transfer, Testing, and Operations utility

 

[Brian Inglis]

So spake Anne & Lynn Wheeler:


Wasn't the idea behind ISO/OSI that there should be One Network for
everybody, instead of today's lot of interconnected nets?

A common network run by PTTs with ISDN terminal links IIRC.

 

[Brian Inglis]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:04:52 +0100 (BST) in alt.folklore.computers,

On Tuesday, in article
<[email protected]>


You'll have seen my later post about "TCP/IP Services for Vax/VMS"
(which, a niggle tells me, had a different name, either before or after).
This was written by the Unix developers at DEC, and consequently was very
kuldgy and astonishingly badly-documented (for those of us used to the
high quality of VMS documentation).

Did you never see a
UCX>
prompt?


Can you say "Colour Book Software"? :-(

I thought it was "Colouring Book Networking" ;^>

(Mind you, unattended file transfer running overnight beats FTP hands
down.)

Until you measure the transfer rate. Reliable unattended FTP file
transfer is doable with some work (mainly due to FTP not always
returning useful error codes), and finishes much faster.

 

[Brian Inglis]

Does this mean that XP is getting less stable?

Well MS touted their SP2 security upgrade, then backed down rather
quickly, as it created as many new bugs and holes as it fixed, and
also broke a large number of third party applications, possibly
because they were coded to work with the way XP actually behaved,
rather than as it was documented to work.

 

[jmfbahciv]

I deplore your tast in radio talk shows.

Oh! Taste in talk shows.

.. It doesn't take much to
create a rabble rousing poll to increase ratings.

I listen to them for data about how the rabble is thinking
and the logic they use to form their opinions. I also
watch those religious cable TV shows to gather the same kinds
of information; note that I can only manage to listen to these
about 10 minutes and not more than once/year. I also listen
to Rushie to see what kinds of lies that half of the world is
listening to. I watch CSPAN who never cut out for commericals,
don't edit too much, and tend to leave the mike on after the
meetings break up.

There is no need, nor cause, to impute Bush & Co. with
intrinsically evil intentions. It is quite enough to point to
their lack of capability, and bull headed 'revenge for daddy'
propensities. The state of the economy, unemployment, poverty
rate, medical care, deficit, death rate in Iraq (both of Americans
and Iraqis), abandonment of the Bin Laden hunt, abridgement of
civil liberties (as in the Patriot Act and the Gitmo gulag), poor
choice of companions (Halliburton and other political donors and
trough feeders, and the 'plausible deniability' of the Swiftboat
gang), irritation of allies, inability to deal with North Korea
(due to involvement with useless adventures), abandonment of
efforts towards a Palestinian peace, all spring to immediate mind.

Well, your Bush-hater campaign is working beyond all your
expectations. One day, you will have to live it.

Yes, we have had no experience with a Kerry administration,

OH, fuckmeverymuch. I am in Mass. We do have some
experience of a Kerry administration. For those you who don't,
watch how he runs his campaign. He will run the country in the
same manner.

.. but we
have had far too much experience with a Bush administration.

Do you think that hiring a person who doesn't like to do
work will make things better? Things can be worse..a lot
worse.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.