LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for COMMUNET Archives


COMMUNET Archives

COMMUNET Archives


COMMUNET@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMMUNET Home

COMMUNET Home

COMMUNET  August 2003, Week 2

COMMUNET August 2003, Week 2

Subject:

Re: Fwd: Al Gore and other news [and Howard Dean]

From:

"W. Curtiss Priest" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Community and Civic Network discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 8 Aug 2003 13:20:02 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (568 lines)

Jack Hirschfeld wrote:
>
> An ongoing issue for Cyber-soc has been how we can use the Internet
> to exercise our citizenship.
...

Dear Jack and others,

Yes!  Last night was quite a line-up on CSPAN.

First, Howard Dean was broadcast live from Iowa,
and, I thought, was extremely eloquent, yet
down-to-earth, and convincing.

I just noticed that CSPAN will re-air that
at 2:02 PM (EDT) TODAY  (uum, their page has EST,
most likely they mean EDT)

I don't see that it is being aired via the net
(CSPAN.ORG), so only via cable or satellite TV.

Consult:

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

(requires realplayer or windows media player)

Expect the text to appear at: http://www.deanforamerica.com/

***

Then, I thought Gore delivered a speech of "statesman
quality."

One quality of Gore's speech was its brevity.  There
was no rhetoric, no beating of drums, just "the facts
Ma'm, just the facts."

One can watch the Gore speech via moveon.org:

http://netstream.nyu.edu:8080/ramgen/archive/20030807-algore.rm

Here is a text of the speech:

Former Vice President Al Gore Remarks to MoveOn.org New York
University August 7, 2003

-AS PREPARED-

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Thank you for your investment of time and energy in gathering here
today. I would especially like to thank Moveon.org for sponsoring this
event, and the NYU College Democrats for co-sponsoring the speech and
for hosting us.

Some of you may remember that my last formal public address on these
topics was delivered in San Francisco, a little less than a year ago,
when I argued that the President's case for urgent, unilateral,
pre-emptive war in Iraq was less than convincing and needed to be
challenged more effectively by the Congress.

In light of developments since then, you might assume that my purpose
today is to revisit the manner in which we were led into war. To some
extent, that will be the case - but only as part of a larger theme
that I feel should now be explored on an urgent basis.

The direction in which our nation is being led is deeply troubling to
me -- not only in Iraq but also here at home on economic policy,
social policy and environmental policy.

Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic
has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values
are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.

The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem.
Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the
choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen
with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many
of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic
miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have
put them and our nation in harm's way.

I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better
public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the
impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to
have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question
of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be
healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and
clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and
what changes might need to be made.

In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include
the following:

(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on
September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be
to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively
supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them
weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against
Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.

(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly
germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill
millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we
should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones
and ourselves against a grave threat.

(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them
to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from
acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our
spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed
and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little
time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election
campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead
focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.

(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who
would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and
Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US
soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.

(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war,
they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots
of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk
that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.

Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these
impressions was just dead wrong.

For example, according to the just-released Congressional
investigation, Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of
Sept. 11. Therefore, whatever other goals it served -- and it did
serve some other goals -- the decision to invade Iraq made no sense as
a way of exacting revenge for 9/11. To the contrary, the US pulled
significant intelligence resources out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in
order to get ready for the rushed invasion of Iraq and that disrupted
the search for Osama at a critical time. And the indifference we
showed to the rest of the world's opinion in the process undermined
the global cooperation we need to win the war against terrorism.

In the same way, the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not
want to work with Osama Bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons
of mass destruction. So our invasion of Iraq had no effect on Al
Qaeda, other than to boost their recruiting efforts.

And on the nuclear issue of course, it turned out that those documents
were actually forged by somebody -- though we don't know who.

As for the cheering Iraqi crowds we anticipated, unfortunately, that
didn't pan out either, so now our troops are in an ugly and dangerous
situation.

Moreover, the rest of the world certainly isn't jumping in to help out
very much the way we expected, so US taxpayers are now having to spend
a billion dollars a week.

In other words, when you put it all together, it was just one mistaken
impression after another. Lots of them.

And it's not just in foreign policy. The same thing has been happening
in economic policy, where we've also got another huge and threatening
mess on our hands. I'm convinced that one reason we've had so many
nasty surprises in our economy is that the country somehow got lots of
false impressions about what we could expect from the big tax cuts
that were enacted, including:

(1) The tax cuts would unleash a lot of new investment that would
create lots of new jobs.

(2) We wouldn't have to worry about a return to big budget deficits --
because all the new growth in the economy caused by the tax cuts would
lead to a lot of new revenue.

(3) Most of the benefits would go to average middle-income families,
not to the wealthy, as some partisans claimed.

Unfortunately, here too, every single one of these impressions turned
out to be wrong. Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing
millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row. That hasn't
happened since the Great Depression. As I've noted before, I was the
first one laid off.

And it turns out that most of the benefits actually are going to the
highest income Americans, who unfortunately are the least likely group
to spend money in ways that create jobs during times when the economy
is weak and unemployment is rising.

And of course the budget deficits are already the biggest ever - with
the worst still due to hit us. As a percentage of our economy, we've
had bigger ones -- but these are by far the most dangerous we've ever
had for two reasons: first, they're not temporary; they're structural
and long-term; second, they are going to get even bigger just at the
time when the big baby-boomer retirement surge starts.

Moreover, the global capital markets have begun to recognize the
unprecedented size of this emerging fiscal catastrophe. In truth, the
current Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is radically different
from any since the McKinley Administration 100 years ago.

The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, went
even further last week in Germany when he told Der Spiegel, "This is
the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of
history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the
impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What
we have here is a form of looting."

Ominously, the capital markets have just pushed U.S. long-term
mortgage rates higher soon after the Federal Reserve Board once again
reduced discount rates. Monetary policy loses some of its potency when
fiscal policy comes unglued. And after three years of rate cuts in a
row, Alan Greenspan and his colleagues simply don't have much room
left for further reductions.

This situation is particularly dangerous right now for several
reasons: first because home-buying fueled by low rates (along with
car-buying, also a rate-sensitive industry) have been just about the
only reliable engines pulling the economy forward; second, because so
many Americans now have Variable Rate Mortgages; and third, because
average personal debt is now at an all-time high -- a lot of Americans
are living on the edge.

It seems obvious that big and important issues like the Bush economic
policy and the first Pre-emptive War in U.S. history should have been
debated more thoroughly in the Congress, covered more extensively in
the news media, and better presented to the American people before our
nation made such fateful choices. But that didn't happen, and in both
cases, reality is turning out to be very different from the impression
that was given when the votes -- and the die -- were cast.

Since this curious mismatch between myth and reality has suddenly
become commonplace and is causing such extreme difficulty for the
nation's ability to make good choices about our future, maybe it is
time to focus on how in the world we could have gotten so many false
impressions in such a short period of time.

At first, I thought maybe the President's advisers were a big part of
the problem. Last fall, in a speech on economic policy at the
Brookings Institution, I called on the President to get rid of his
whole economic team and pick a new group. And a few weeks later,
damned if he didn't do just that - and at least one of the new
advisers had written eloquently about the very problems in the Bush
economic policy that I was calling upon the President to fix.

But now, a year later, we still have the same bad economic policies
and the problems have, if anything, gotten worse. So obviously I was
wrong: changing all the president's advisers didn't work as a way of
changing the policy.

I remembered all that last month when everybody was looking for who
ought to be held responsible for the false statements in the
President's State of the Union Address. And I've just about concluded
that the real problem may be the President himself and that next year
we ought to fire him and get a new one.

But whether you agree with that conclusion or not, whether you're a
Democrat or a Republican -- or an Independent, a Libertarian, a Green
or a Mugwump -- you've got a big stake in making sure that
Representative Democracy works the way it is supposed to. And today,
it just isn't working very well. We all need to figure out how to fix
it because we simply cannot keep on making such bad decisions on the
basis of false impressions and mistaken assumptions.

Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has
gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we
seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for
debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we
all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.

That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy
will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of
faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself
on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a
systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic
ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic
honesty.

Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the
conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush
Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the
common source for most of the false impressions that have been
frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.

Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know
the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of
self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred
method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of
Reason as the best way to establish the truth.

The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole
basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they
already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any
facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that
belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each
other's agendas.

There are at least a couple of problems with this approach:

First, powerful and wealthy groups and individuals who work their way
into the inner circle -- with political support or large campaign
contributions -- are able to add their own narrow special interests to
the list of favored goals without having them weighed against the
public interest or subjected to the rule of reason. And the greater
the conflict between what they want and what's good for the rest of
us, the greater incentive they have to bypass the normal procedures
and keep it secret.

That's what happened, for example, when Vice President Cheney invited
all of those oil and gas industry executives to meet in secret
sessions with him and his staff to put their wish lists into the
administration's legislative package in early 2001.

That group wanted to get rid of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, of
course, and the Administration pulled out of it first thing. The list
of people who helped write our nation's new environmental and energy
policies is still secret, and the Vice President won't say whether or
not his former company, Halliburton, was included. But of course, as
practically everybody in the world knows, Halliburton was given a huge
open-ended contract to take over and run the Iraqi oil fields--
without having to bid against any other companies.

Secondly, when leaders make up their minds on a policy without ever
having to answer hard questions about whether or not it's good or bad
for the American people as a whole, they can pretty quickly get into
situations where it's really uncomfortable for them to defend what
they've done with simple and truthful explanations. That's when
they're tempted to fuzz up the facts and create false impressions. And
when other facts start to come out that undermine the impression
they're trying to maintain, they have a big incentive to try to keep
the truth bottled up if -- they can -- or distort it.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, the White House ordered its own
EPA to strip important scientific information about the dangers of
global warming out of a public report. Instead, the White House
substituted information that was partly paid for by the American
Petroleum Institute. This week, analysts at the Treasury Department
told a reporter that they're now being routinely ordered to change
their best analysis of what the consequences of the Bush tax laws are
likely to be for the average person.

Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and
selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by
Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the
best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best
available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax
and budget proposals.

In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies
chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends
and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American
people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the
kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks
and balances.

The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine
to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one
central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which --
in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be
done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that
redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their
way into the inner circle.

For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad,
they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the
public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And
what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be
left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through
taxes.

Perhaps the biggest false impression of all lies in the hidden social
objectives of this Administration that are advertised with the phrase
"compassionate conservatism" -- which they claim is a new departure
with substantive meaning. But in reality, to be compassionate is
meaningless, if compassion is limited to the mere awareness of the
suffering of others. The test of compassion is action. What the
administration offers with one hand is the rhetoric of compassion;
what it takes away with the other hand are the financial resources
necessary to make compassion something more than an empty and fading
impression.

Maybe one reason that false impressions have a played a bigger role
than they should is that both Congress and the news media have been
less vigilant and exacting than they should have been in the way they
have tried to hold the Administration accountable.

Whenever both houses of Congress are controlled by the President's
party, there is a danger of passivity and a temptation for the
legislative branch to abdicate its constitutional role. If the party
in question is unusually fierce in demanding ideological uniformity
and obedience, then this problem can become even worse and prevent the
Congress from properly exercising oversight. Under these
circumstances, the majority party in the Congress has a special
obligation to the people to permit full Congressional inquiry and
oversight rather than to constantly frustrate and prevent it.

Whatever the reasons for the recent failures to hold the President
properly accountable, America has a compelling need to quickly breathe
new life into our founders' system of checks and balances -- because
some extremely important choices about our future are going to be made
shortly, and it is imperative that we avoid basing them on more false
impressions.

One thing the President could do to facilitate the restoration of
checks and balances is to stop blocking reasonable efforts from the
Congress to play its rightful role. For example, he could order his
appointees to cooperate fully with the bipartisan National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks, headed by former Republican Governor Tom Kean.
And he should let them examine how the White House handled the
warnings that are said to have been given to the President by the
intelligence community.

Two years ago yesterday, for example, according to the Wall Street
Journal, the President was apparently advised in specific language
that Al Qaeda was going to hijack some airplanes to conduct a
terrorist strike inside the U.S.

I understand his concern about people knowing exactly what he read in
the privacy of the Oval Office, and there is a legitimate reason for
treating such memos to the President with care. But that concern has
to be balanced against the national interest in improving the way
America deals with such information. And the apparently chaotic
procedures that were used to handle the forged nuclear documents from
Niger certainly show evidence that there is room for improvement in
the way the White House is dealing with intelligence memos. Along with
other members of the previous administration, I certainly want the
commission to have access to any and all documents sent to the White
House while we were there that have any bearing on this issue. And
President Bush should let the commission see the ones that he read
too.

After all, this President has claimed the right for his executive
branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and
secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law
ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such
a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of
terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National
Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific warning
of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11.

And speaking of the Patriot Act, the president ought to reign in John
Ashcroft and stop the gross abuses of civil rights that twice have
been documented by his own Inspector General. And while he's at it, he
needs to reign in Donald Rumsfeld and get rid of that DoD "Total
Information Awareness" program that's right out of George Orwell's
1984.

The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that
defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously
abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens,
up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo
totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both
wrong and fundamentally un-American.

But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and
the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our
security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole
cluster of new myths:

For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort
to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all
others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This
administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on
a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it
hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true
madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear
testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.

Similarly, the Kyoto treaty is an historic effort to strike a grand
bargain between free-market capitalism and the protection of the
global environment, now gravely threatened by rapidly accelerating
warming of the Earth's atmosphere and the consequent disruption of
climate patterns that have persisted throughout the entire history of
civilization as we know it. This administration has tried to protect
the oil and coal industries from any restrictions at all -- though
Kyoto may become legally effective for global relations even without
U.S. participation.

Ironically, the principal cause of global warming is our
civilization's addiction to burning massive quantities carbon-based
fuels, including principally oil -- the most important source of which
is the Persian Gulf, where our soldiers have been sent for the second
war in a dozen years -- at least partly to ensure our continued access
to oil.

We need to face the fact that our dangerous and unsustainable
consumption of oil from a highly unstable part of the world is similar
in its consequences to all other addictions. As it becomes worse, the
consequences get more severe and you have to pay the dealer more.

And by now, it is obvious to most Americans that we have had one too
many wars in the Persian Gulf and that we need an urgent effort to
develop environmentally sustainable substitutes for fossil fuels and a
truly international effort to stabilize the Persian Gulf and rebuild
Iraq.

The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its
own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves
credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the
case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of
the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion. And in
both cases, the aftermath has been badly mishandled.

The administration is now trying to give the impression that it is in
favor of NATO and UN participation in such an effort. But it is not
willing to pay the necessary price, which is support of a new UN
Resolution and genuine sharing of control inside Iraq.

If the 21st century is to be well started, we need a national agenda
that is worked out in concert with the people, a healing agenda that
is built on a true national consensus. Millions of Americans got the
impression that George W. Bush wanted to be a "healer, not a divider",
a president devoted first and foremost to "honor and integrity." Yet
far from uniting the people, the president's ideologically narrow
agenda has seriously divided America. His most partisan supporters
have launched a kind of 'civil cold war' against those with whom they
disagree.

And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: we know what that was
all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as
an American citizen who loves my country:

For eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave this nation
honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued
the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the
environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our
military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes
were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the
face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form
of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory
has displayed it.

So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and
integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also
looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their
behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.

I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to
those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into
their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the
political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we
must stand for a future in which the United States will again be
feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the
effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a
nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to
be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a
nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government
scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the
health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which
citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again
comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the
powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on
facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and
decisions.



--


           W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
   Research Affiliate, Comparative Media Studies, MIT
      Center for Information, Technology & Society
         466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA  02176
   781-662-4044  [log in to unmask] http://Cybertrails.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2017, Week 4
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 2
January 2015, Week 2
June 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 1
October 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 3
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 2
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3
September 1998, Week 2
September 1998, Week 1
August 1998, Week 5
August 1998, Week 4
August 1998, Week 3
August 1998, Week 2
August 1998, Week 1
July 1998, Week 5
July 1998, Week 4
July 1998, Week 3
July 1998, Week 2
July 1998, Week 1
June 1998, Week 5
June 1998, Week 4
June 1998, Week 3
June 1998, Week 2
June 1998, Week 1
May 1998, Week 5
May 1998, Week 4
May 1998, Week 3
May 1998, Week 2
May 1998, Week 1
April 1998, Week 5
April 1998, Week 4
April 1998, Week 3
April 1998, Week 2
April 1998, Week 1
March 1998, Week 5
March 1998, Week 4
March 1998, Week 3
March 1998, Week 2
March 1998, Week 1
February 1998, Week 4
February 1998, Week 3
February 1998, Week 2
February 1998, Week 1
January 1998, Week 5
January 1998, Week 4
January 1998, Week 3
January 1998, Week 2
January 1998, Week 1
December 1997, Week 5
December 1997, Week 4
December 1997, Week 3
December 1997, Week 2
December 1997, Week 1
November 1997, Week 5
November 1997, Week 4
November 1997, Week 3
November 1997, Week 2
November 1997, Week 1
October 1997, Week 5
October 1997, Week 4
October 1997, Week 3
October 1997, Week 2
October 1997, Week 1
September 1997, Week 5
September 1997, Week 4
September 1997, Week 3
September 1997, Week 2
September 1997, Week 1
August 1997, Week 5
August 1997, Week 4
August 1997, Week 3
August 1997, Week 2
August 1997, Week 1
July 1997, Week 5
July 1997, Week 4
July 1997, Week 3
July 1997, Week 2
July 1997, Week 1
June 1997, Week 5
June 1997, Week 4
June 1997, Week 3
June 1997, Week 2
June 1997, Week 1
May 1997, Week 5
May 1997, Week 4
May 1997, Week 3
May 1997, Week 2
May 1997, Week 1
April 1997, Week 5
April 1997, Week 4
April 1997, Week 3
April 1997, Week 2
April 1997, Week 1
March 1997, Week 6
March 1997, Week 5
March 1997, Week 4
March 1997, Week 3
March 1997, Week 2
March 1997, Week 1
February 1997, Week 5
February 1997, Week 4
February 1997, Week 3
February 1997, Week 2
February 1997, Week 1
January 1997, Week 5
January 1997, Week 4
January 1997, Week 3
January 1997, Week 2
January 1997, Week 1
December 1996, Week 4
December 1996, Week 3
December 1996, Week 2
December 1996, Week 1
November 1996, Week 5
November 1996, Week 4
November 1996, Week 3
November 1996, Week 2
November 1996, Week 1
October 1996, Week 5
October 1996, Week 4
October 1996, Week 3
October 1996, Week 2
October 1996, Week 1
September 1996, Week 5
September 1996, Week 4
September 1996, Week 3
September 1996, Week 2
September 1996, Week 1
August 1996, Week 5
August 1996, Week 4
August 1996, Week 3
August 1996, Week 2
August 1996, Week 1
July 1996, Week 5
July 1996, Week 4
July 1996, Week 3
July 1996, Week 2
July 1996, Week 1
June 1996, Week 5
June 1996, Week 4
June 1996, Week 3
June 1996, Week 2
June 1996, Week 1
May 1996, Week 5
May 1996, Week 4
May 1996, Week 3
May 1996, Week 2
May 1996, Week 1
April 1996, Week 5
April 1996, Week 4
April 1996, Week 3
April 1996, Week 2
April 1996, Week 1
March 1996, Week 6
March 1996, Week 5
March 1996, Week 4
March 1996, Week 3
March 1996, Week 2
March 1996, Week 1
February 1996, Week 5
February 1996, Week 4
February 1996, Week 3
February 1996, Week 2
February 1996, Week 1
January 1996, Week 5
January 1996, Week 4
January 1996, Week 3
January 1996, Week 2
January 1996, Week 1
December 1995, Week 6
December 1995, Week 5
December 1995, Week 4
December 1995, Week 3
December 1995, Week 2
December 1995, Week 1
November 1995, Week 5
November 1995, Week 4
November 1995, Week 3
November 1995, Week 2
November 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week 5
October 1995, Week 4
October 1995, Week 3
October 1995, Week 2
October 1995, Week 1
October 1995, Week -15
September 1995, Week 5
September 1995, Week 4
September 1995, Week 3
September 1995, Week 2
September 1995, Week 1
August 1995, Week 5
August 1995, Week 4
August 1995, Week 3
August 1995, Week 2
August 1995, Week 1
July 1995, Week 5
July 1995, Week 4
July 1995, Week 3
July 1995, Week 2
July 1995, Week 1
June 1995, Week 5
June 1995, Week 4
June 1995, Week 3
June 1995, Week 2
June 1995, Week 1
May 1995, Week 5
May 1995, Week 4
May 1995, Week 3
May 1995, Week 2
May 1995, Week 1
April 1995, Week 5
April 1995, Week 4
April 1995, Week 3
April 1995, Week 2
April 1995, Week 1
March 1995, Week 5
March 1995, Week 4
March 1995, Week 3
March 1995, Week 2
March 1995, Week 1
February 1995, Week 4
February 1995, Week 3
February 1995, Week 2
February 1995, Week 1
January 1995, Week 5
January 1995, Week 4
January 1995, Week 3
January 1995, Week 2
January 1995, Week 1
December 1994, Week 5
December 1994, Week 4
December 1994, Week 3
December 1994, Week 2
December 1994, Week 1
November 1994, Week 5
November 1994, Week 4
November 1994, Week 3
November 1994, Week 2
November 1994, Week 1
October 1994, Week 5
October 1994, Week 4
October 1994, Week 3
October 1994, Week 2
October 1994, Week 1
September 1994, Week 5
September 1994, Week 4
September 1994, Week 3
September 1994, Week 2
September 1994, Week 1
August 1994, Week 5
August 1994, Week 4
August 1994, Week 3
August 1994, Week 2
August 1994, Week 1
July 1994, Week 5
July 1994, Week 4
July 1994, Week 3
July 1994, Week 2
July 1994, Week 1
June 1994, Week 5
June 1994, Week 4
June 1994, Week 3
June 1994, Week 2
June 1994, Week 1
May 1994, Week 5
May 1994, Week 4
May 1994, Week 3
May 1994, Week 2
May 1994, Week 1
April 1994, Week 5
April 1994, Week 4
April 1994, Week 3
April 1994, Week 2
April 1994, Week 1
March 1994, Week 5
March 1994, Week 4
March 1994, Week 3
March 1994, Week 2
March 1994, Week 1
February 1994, Week 4
February 1994, Week 3
February 1994, Week 2
February 1994, Week 1
January 1994, Week 5
January 1994, Week 4
January 1994, Week 3
January 1994, Week 2
January 1994, Week 1
December 1993, Week 5
December 1993, Week 4
December 1993, Week 3
December 1993, Week 2
December 1993, Week 1
November 1993, Week 5
November 1993, Week 4
November 1993, Week 3
November 1993, Week 2
November 1993, Week 1
October 1993, Week 5
October 1993, Week 4
October 1993, Week 3
October 1993, Week 2
October 1993, Week 1
September 1993, Week 5
September 1993, Week 4
September 1993, Week 3
September 1993, Week 2
September 1993, Week 1
August 1993, Week 5
August 1993, Week 4
August 1993, Week 3
August 1993, Week 2
August 1993, Week 1
July 1993, Week 5
July 1993, Week 4
July 1993, Week 3
July 1993, Week 2
July 1993, Week 1
June 1993, Week 5
June 1993, Week 4
June 1993, Week 3
June 1993, Week 2
June 1993, Week 1
May 1993, Week 5
May 1993, Week 4
May 1993, Week 3
May 1993, Week 2
May 1993, Week 1
April 1993, Week 5
April 1993, Week 4
April 1993, Week 3
April 1993, Week 2
April 1993, Week 1
March 1993, Week 5
March 1993, Week 4
March 1993
February 1993

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager