LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@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

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  August 2011

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2011

Subject:

Re: Please apologize, and soon

From:

Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:08:19 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (824 lines)

In my experience, younger generations of activists largely find their own
way and think that, just as they were the first to discover sex, they are
the first to fight the establishment. After about 10 or 15 years of
activism, they finally discover history and get terribly excited about the
unbelieveable fact that there were people who went down this route before
them. (I am a prime example of this myself - I began discovering my
forebears in the anti-apartheid struggle about ten years after 1976!)
Mandi

-----Original Message-----
From: Science for the People Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Balter
Sent: 11 August 2011 06:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please apologize, and soon

Herb promises us "facts" instead of speculation, and then proceeds to
immediately engage in the most rank speculation of his own: That
20-30% of the voting population would be prepared today to vote for a
socialist party. And what is this based on? An opinion poll finding
that 29% (not 36% as Herb states) of the subjects polled have a
positive reaction to the word "socialism".

This is quite a leap of logic for a man of science. It would mean that
the 29% are ready to translate an abstract sympathy for socialist
ideas into an action that would, at least in many peoples' minds,
guarantee a Republican president from here to eternity. All the
socialist party needs is enough campaign funds and election monitors
to make it happen.

I suppose that a pretty high percentage of people would have a
positive reaction to the term "bunny rabbit", but I think it likely
that many fewer would want one for a pet, or want to eat one for
dinner.

Herb is certainly right that this 29% figure is encouraging and
something to build upon. But until socialists shed their
self-deceptions and fantasies, they will never be able to figure out
how to do it. And while Carrol is wrong to say that I have a phobia
related to all this, I do have fears, including the fear that the old
generation of leftists will die out still not having learned from the
experiences of the past decades, and thus unable to impart much wisdom
to younger generations of activists.

MB

On 8/10/11, herb fox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I hate to upset all this speculation
> with facts.  Apparently if the
> system weren't rigged and require
> great scads of money to buy
> elections, we could very well have a
> Socialist Party today with anywhere
> from 20% to 30% of the vote.  That
> would be a decent base to build
> from.  Of course the hard core
> supporters of capitalism would try
> to paint the U. S. Socialists the
> color of Stalin or whomever; but if
> the ability to reach the public did
> not depend on immense resources, the
> New Socialist Party would have a
> chance to flesh out a program based
> on the needs and expectations of the
> U. S. working class.  If you don't
> trust PEW, try Gallup:
>
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx
> Gallup's poll is entitled *Socialism
> Viewed Positively by 36% of
> Americans**.
> *
> What needs to be emphasized is that,
> in spite of long standing propaganda
> against socialism and  continuous
> discrediting of it by relating it to
> repressive regimes and painting
> those regimes as evil as possible by
> the main stream press and others, it
> still is viewed positively by a
> substantial portion of the
> population.  Just imagine what kind
> of support it would have if we had
> democracy instead of
> corporatocracy.  Anyways, i didn't
> need these polls.  Working with the
> foreclosure movement, youth doing
> street theater and other art forms,
> and organizing adjuncts (in spite of
> being an old fart) i find a majority
> consider that capitalism has failed
> them.  They want an alternative and
> have some pretty well defined views
> of what some of its attributes
> should be.  They don't seem to be
> bothered by calling it socialism and
> hardly ever refer to other countries
> that use that word.  Unlike older
> persons like Michael Balter they
> don't even know who Stalin was and
> what it felt like to be part of a
> weirdo group like PLP.  As a matter
> of fact what they do know about Cuba
> and Venezuela is the cool music that
> comes out of there.  They definitely
> are tired of our being permanently
> at war and the government not having
> money for other more essential
> things.  I will admit they generally
> are not too happy with China, mostly
> because the Chinese work for such
> low wages that  they take our jobs
> away  So their negative view of
> Communism is of a nation full of
> economic opportunity for dudes with
> cash and hell for the workers, and
> with a government that lies and is
> not a government of, by, and for the
> people--sort of like the United States.
> Sweet dreams,
> herb
>
> Pew Research Center for the People &
> the Press
>
>
>   "Socialism" Not So Negative,
>   "Capitalism" Not So Positive
>
>
>     A Political Rhetoric Test
>
> May 4, 2010
>
> "Socialism" is a negative for most
> Americans, but certainly not all
> Americans. "Capitalism" is regarded
> positively by a majority of public,
> though it is a thin majority. Among
> certain segments of the public --
> notably, young people and Democrats
> -- both "isms" are rated about
> equally. And while most Americans
> have a negative reaction to the word
> "militia," the term is viewed more
> positively by Republican men than
> most other groups.
>
> These are among the findings of a
> national survey by the Pew Research
> Center for the People & the Press
> that tests reactions to words and
> phrases frequently used in current
> political discourse. Overall, 29%
> say they have a positive reaction to
> the word "socialism," while 59%
> react negatively. The public's
> impressions of "capitalism," though
> far more positive, are somewhat
> mixed. Slightly more than half (52%)
> react positively to the word
> "capitalism," compared with 37% who
> say they have a negative reaction.
>
> A large majority of Republicans
> (77%) react negatively to
> "socialism," while 62% have a
> positive reaction to "capitalism."
> Democrats' impressions are more
> divided: In fact, about as many
> Democrats react positively to
> "socialism" (44%) as to "capitalism"
> (47%).
>
> Reaction to "capitalism" is lukewarm
> among many demographic groups. Fewer
> than half of young people, women,
> people with lower incomes and those
> with less education react positively
> to "capitalism."
>
> The survey, conducted April 21-26
> among 1,546 adults, measured
> reactions to nine political words
> and phrases. The most positive
> reactions are to "family values"
> (89% positive) and "civil rights"
> (87%). About three-quarters see
> "states' rights" (77%) and "civil
> liberties" (76%) positively, while
> 68% have a positive reaction to the
> word "progressive."
>
> Reactions to the word "libertarian"
> are evenly divided -- 38% positive,
> 37% negative. On balance,
> Republicans view "libertarian"
> negatively, Democrats are divided,
> while independents have a positive
> impression of the term. "Militia"
> elicits the most negative reaction
> of the nine terms tested: Just 21%
> have a positive reaction compared
> with 65% who have a negative response.
>
>
>       Partisan Divide over "Socialism"
>
> The most striking partisan
> differences come in reactions to the
> word "socialism." Just 15% of
> Republicans react positively to
> "socialism" while 77% react
> negatively. By more than two-to-one
> (64% to 26%), independents also have
> a negative impression of
> "socialism." However, Democrats are
> evenly divided -- 44% have a
> positive reaction to "socialism"
> while 43% react negatively.
>
> "Capitalism" elicits a less partisan
> reaction. About six-in-ten
> Republicans (62%) react positively
> to "capitalism," compared with 29%
> who have a negative reaction. About
> half of independents (52%) have a
> positive impression while 39% react
> negatively. Among Democrats, 47%
> react positively to "capitalism"
> while nearly as many (43%) react
> negatively.
>
> There is a substantial partisan
> divide in views of the word
> "progressive." However, majorities
> of Democrats (81%), independents
> (64%) and Republicans (56%) have a
> positive reaction to "progressive."
>
> More than four-in-ten independents
> (44%) react positively to the word
> "libertarian," while 32% have a
> negative reaction. Democrats are
> nearly evenly divided (39% positive,
> 37% negative). However, Republicans
> on balance have a negative
> impression of this term (44%
> negative, 31% positive).
>
> Majorities of Democrats (70%),
> independents (66%) and Republicans
> (59%) react negatively to the word
> "militia." Nearly twice as many
> Republicans (27%) as Democrats (15%)
> have a positive view of this term.
>
>
>       Young People Lukewarm Toward
>       "Capitalism"
>
> Young people are more positive about
> "socialism" -- and more negative
> about "capitalism" -- than are older
> Americans. Among those younger than
> age 30, identical percentages react
> positively to "socialism" and
> "capitalism" (43% each), while about
> half react negatively to each. Among
> older age groups, majorities view
> "socialism" negatively and
> "capitalism" positively.
>
> People ages 65 and older have a
> particularly negative reaction to
> "socialism" -- 73% have a negative
> impression of the term compared with
> just 14% who are positive. But those
> 65 and older are no more likely than
> those ages 30 to 64 to have a
> positive reaction to "capitalism"
> (56% vs. 55%).
>
> More than twice as many blacks as
> whites react positively to
> "socialism" (53% vs. 24%). Yet there
> are no racial differences in views
> of "capitalism" -- 50% of African
> Americans and 53% of whites have a
> positive reaction.
>
> Those with a high school education
> or less are evenly divided over
> "capitalism" (44% positive vs. 42%
> negative). Among those with some
> college experience, 49% react
> positively to "capitalism" as do 68%
> of college graduates. Those with a
> high school education or less are
> more likely to express a positive
> view of "socialism" than do those
> with more education.
>
> People with family incomes of
> $75,000 or more are the only income
> group in which a clear majority
> (66%) reacts positively to the word
> "capitalism." Views of "socialism"
> also are much more negative among
> those in this income category (71%
> negative) and among those with
> incomes of $30,000 to $75,000 (64%
> negative) than among those with
> incomes of less than $30,000 (46%
> negative).
>
> Conservative Republicans stand out
> for their overwhelmingly negative
> reactions to "socialism" (84%
> negative) and highly positive
> reactions to "capitalism" (67%
> positive). No more than about half
> in other political groups, including
> moderate and liberal Republicans
> (51%), have a positive impression of
> "capitalism."
>
> Perhaps surprisingly, opinions about
> the terms "socialism" and
> "capitalism" are not correlated with
> each other. Most of those who have a
> positive reaction to "socialism"
> also have a positive reaction to
> "capitalism"; in fact, views of
> "capitalism" are about the same
> among those who react positively to
> "socialism" as they are among those
> who react negatively (52% and 56%,
> respectively, view "capitalism"
> positively). Conversely, views of
> "socialism" are just as negative
> among those who have a positive
> reaction to "capitalism" (64%
> negative) as those who react
> negatively (61% negative).
>
> There are some differences in the
> relationship between these terms by
> demographic groups, although the
> association is not particularly
> strong among any group. For
> instance, among college graduates,
> 71% of those with a positive
> reaction to "capitalism" have a
> negative reaction to "socialism." By
> contrast, among college graduates
> who have a negative view of
> "capitalism" a smaller proportion
> have a negative view of "socialism"
> (51%).
>
>
>
> On 8/10/2011 12:28 PM, Kamran Nayeri
> wrote:
>> Kamran, I'm out of posts today,
>> but perhaps you would care to post my
>> response to yours which is below.
>> That will be my last post for today.
>>
>> thanks, Michael
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message
>> ----------
>> From: Michael Balter
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:20:30 +0200
>> Subject: Re: Please apologize, and
>> soon
>> To: Science for the People
>> Discussion List
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>> When it comes to Marxist analysis,
>> I'm an amateur and so is nearly
>> everyone here, although it would
>> be refreshing if they would admit it.
>>
>> But more incisive analysts than us
>> have thought and written about
>> false consciousness (Stanley
>> Aronowitz and many others) and
>> sought to
>> explain the clear fact that it is
>> not just the working class being
>> badly led or mean capitalist
>> crackdowns a la Reagan that are to
>> blame,
>> but the consciousness of the
>> working class itself which has turned
>> away decisively from socialist
>> values over the decades. Or does
>> anyone
>> here want to argue that the
>> workers are just stupid and subject to
>> threats and suggestions and unable
>> to make up their own minds about
>> anything? The problem is that they
>> HAVE made up their minds, and the
>> job of socialists is to change
>> them. But JOB ONE has to be to
>> convince
>> workers that socialism doesn't
>> mean Cuba, Chavez, USSR, Chairman Mao,
>> etc. Is anyone other than David
>> Westman actually going out into the
>> street and trying to sell
>> socialist or Communist
>> publications? I did
>> it for years, and this is the main
>> argument I had to deal with every
>> time. Try it today, you will get
>> the same response.
>>
>> MB
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:25 AM,
>> Michael Balter
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     Kamran, I'm out of posts
>>     today, but perhaps you would
>>     care to post my
>>     response to yours which is
>>     below. That will be my last
>>     post for today.
>>
>>     thanks, Michael
>>
>>     ---------- Forwarded message
>>     ----------
>>     From: Michael Balter
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011
>>     18:20:30 +0200
>>     Subject: Re: Please apologize,
>>     and soon
>>     To: Science for the People
>>     Discussion List
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>>     When it comes to Marxist
>>     analysis, I'm an amateur and
>>     so is nearly
>>     everyone here, although it
>>     would be refreshing if they
>>     would admit it.
>>
>>     But more incisive analysts
>>     than us have thought and
>>     written about
>>     false consciousness (Stanley
>>     Aronowitz and many others) and
>>     sought to
>>     explain the clear fact that it
>>     is not just the working class
>>     being
>>     badly led or mean capitalist
>>     crackdowns a la Reagan that
>>     are to blame,
>>     but the consciousness of the
>>     working class itself which has
>>     turned
>>     away decisively from socialist
>>     values over the decades. Or
>>     does anyone
>>     here want to argue that the
>>     workers are just stupid and
>>     subject to
>>     threats and suggestions and
>>     unable to make up their own
>>     minds about
>>     anything? The problem is that
>>     they HAVE made up their minds,
>>     and the
>>     job of socialists is to change
>>     them. But JOB ONE has to be to
>>     convince
>>     workers that socialism doesn't
>>     mean Cuba, Chavez, USSR,
>>     Chairman Mao,
>>     etc. Is anyone other than
>>     David Westman actually going
>>     out into the
>>     street and trying to sell
>>     socialist or Communist
>>     publications? I did
>>     it for years, and this is the
>>     main argument I had to deal
>>     with every
>>     time. Try it today, you will
>>     get the same response.
>>
>>     MB
>>
>>     On 8/10/11, Kamran Nayeri
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     wrote:
>>     > Would you perhaps consider
>>     (1) the timing of the decline
>>     in membership (does
>>     > it not coincide with the
>>     anti-union push beginning with
>>     Reagan attack on air
>>     > traffic controllers strike),
>>     (2) inability /lack of
>>     interest of union
>>     > leadership to fight back
>>     (due to the rise of labor
>>     aristocracy and labor
>>     > bureaucracy that have more
>>     in common with the employer
>>     class than with
>>     > rank-and-file workers, in
>>     addition to the crimes of
>>     Stalinism?
>>     >
>>     > It is my observation (others
>>     can correct me if I am wrong)
>>     that Michael B.
>>     > typically blames "socialist"
>>     and "anti-imperialist"
>>     currents for much of
>>     > what is wrong with the
>>     world. This is a serious
>>     theoretical and
>>     > methodological error that
>>     share nothing with Marx's
>>     heritage if that is what
>>     > he aspires to follow.
>>     >
>>     > Kamran
>>     >
>>     > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:48
>>     AM, Michael Balter
>>     > <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>wrote:
>>     >
>>     >> Thanks to Carrol and Herb
>>     for taking my digs with humor,
>>     and to Herb
>>     >> for responding to them in a
>>     thoughtful way. Better
>>     responses than that
>>     >> of our moderator, who
>>     insists on silly apologies.
>>     >>
>>     >> The decrease in union
>>     membership can probably be
>>     traced to a number of
>>     >> factors, and anyone here
>>     who tried to explain it would
>>     probably just
>>     >> be guessing. My guess is
>>     that it is a combination of
>>     increasing
>>     >> disenchantment with the
>>     possibilities of socialism
>>     beginning in the
>>     >> 1950s with Hungary, the
>>     1960s with Czechoslovakia, the
>>     1970s with
>>     >> China, and the 1980s with
>>     the fall of the Soviet Union,
>>     along with
>>     >> capitalism's increasing
>>     ability to satisfy the major
>>     needs of an
>>     >> increasing number of people
>>     (a big middle class despite
>>     poverty and
>>     >> increasing wealth gaps.)
>>     Certainly the fall of
>>     Communism, which many
>>     >> on the American left have
>>     yet to come to grips with, has
>>     made
>>     >> socialist goals farther
>>     away than ever for both
>>     leftists and the
>>     >> people they might organize.
>>     >>
>>     >> But good to know that my
>>     remarks have generated a
>>     discussion, that's
>>     >> encouraging. I will keep on
>>     truckin.
>>     >>
>>     >> MB
>>     >>
>>     >> On 8/10/11, Mitchel Cohen
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     wrote:
>>     >> > At 10:54 AM 8/10/2011,
>>     herb fox wrote:
>>     >> >>Apparently either unable
>>     or unwilling to investigate
>>     what actually
>>     >> >>is the political practice
>>     or position of those whom he
>>     judges, he
>>     >> >>cavalierly invents their
>>     views.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Putting words in the
>>     mouths of one's opponents is
>>     an old
>>     >> > tried-and-true tactic.
>>     Sooner or later, some of that
>>     will inevitably
>>     >> > stick, tho' we never know
>>     beforehand which ones.
>>     >> >
>>     >> >>in 1952 (when this old
>>     fart's eldest son was born)
>>     21.6% of the
>>     >> >>workforce was organized
>>     and popular support was at
>>     75%.  Today about
>>     >> >>half, around 11% is
>>     organized and popular support
>>     of unions is below
>>     >> >>50%.  Explain that M. B.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Similarly, let me put
>>     Michael Balter's inevitable
>>     one-note response
>>     >> > in his mouth. Why should
>>     Michael have all the fun?
>>     Michael says: No
>>     >> > doubt 10.6 percent of the
>>     workforce withdrew support
>>     from labor
>>     >> > unions because they were
>>     disgruntled with the Soviet
>>     Union. And Cuba.
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Isn't it obvious?
>>     >> >
>>     >> > :-)
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Mitchel
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> > http://www.MitchelCohen.com
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> > Ring the bells that still
>>     can ring,  Forget your perfect
>>     offering.
>>     >> > There is a crack, a crack
>>     in everything, That's how the
>>     light gets in.
>>     >> > ~ Leonard Cohen
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >> >
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> --
>>     >>
>>     ******************************************
>>     >> Michael Balter
>>     >> Contributing Correspondent,
>>     Science
>>     >> Adjunct Professor of
>>     Journalism,
>>     >> New York University
>>     >>
>>     >> Email:
>>     [log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>     >> Web: michaelbalter.com
>>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>     >> NYU:
>>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>     >>
>>     ******************************************
>>     >>
>>     >> "Faced with the choice
>>     between changing one's mind
>>     and proving that there
>>     >> is
>>     >> no need to do so, almost
>>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>     >>
>>                          --John
>>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>     >>
>>     >
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     ******************************************
>>     Michael Balter
>>     Contributing Correspondent,
>>     Science
>>     Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>     New York University
>>
>>     Email:
>>     [log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>     Web: michaelbalter.com
>>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>     NYU:
>>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>     ******************************************
>>
>>     "Faced with the choice between
>>     changing one's mind and
>>     proving that there is
>>     no need to do so, almost
>>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>
>>                        --John
>>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     ******************************************
>>     Michael Balter
>>     Contributing Correspondent,
>>     Science
>>     Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>>     New York University
>>
>>     Email:
>>     [log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>     Web: michaelbalter.com
>>     <http://michaelbalter.com>
>>     NYU:
>>     journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>>     <http://journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/>
>>     ******************************************
>>
>>     "Faced with the choice between
>>     changing one's mind and
>>     proving that there is
>>     no need to do so, almost
>>     everyone gets busy on the proof."
>>
>>                        --John
>>     Kenneth Galbraith
>>
>>
>


-- 
******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
New York University

Email:  [log in to unmask]
Web:    michaelbalter.com
NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
******************************************

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
                                                  --John Kenneth Galbraith

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6366 (20110810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6366 (20110810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 
 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6366 (20110810) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com
 

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

March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager