Its angering how much lip service though little progress has been made since 1973 on freeing America from her chemical dependence on petroleum in general and mid-east oil specifically. If the U.S. had no direct economic interests in the mid-east would it be propping up the governments of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or contending with Iran and Iraq, etc? More likely our response to problems in the area would be similar to our involvement in West Africa. This dependance has made us little more than oil junkies and you know that junkies will do whatever it takes to get their next fix. If America wants to break this cycle of state violence and co-dependency it needs to get energy therapy in a hurry. steve
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
Its angering how much lip service though little progress has been made since 1973 on freeing America from her chemical dependence on petroleum in general and mid-east oil specifically. If the U.S. had no direct economic interests in the mid-east would it be propping up the governments of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or contending with Iran and Iraq, etc?
While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-( Unfortunately, we are just as interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet. The U.S. has a rather intense ego problem. This is *not* to say that your point doesn't have a great deal of validity, for obviously it does. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:41 PM 9/30/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-( Unfortunately, we are just as interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet. The U.S. has a rather intense ego problem.
Actually that raises the interesting question- If we could do so without stolen money and without collateral damage, would it be moral to invade countries and kill their governments to prevent the oppression of their people? That is, since all governments violate people's rights and some violate them more than others, would attacks on governments by outsiders be proper (as internal revolution presumably is)? My poli sci prof once said "after the 'Revolution' of 1845 in England, the Liberals imposed laissez-faire." Can one impose non-imposition? Is it wrong to kill a government? Sic Semper Tyrannis. DCF
At 06:02 PM 10/2/2001 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:41 PM 9/30/01 -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
While I would *like* to think that your point is _completely_ valid and all-encompassing, I'm afraid I can't :-( Unfortunately, we are just as interested in "liberating" everyone else (read: forcing them do do as we please, but not necessariily as we do) on the planet. The U.S. has a rather intense ego problem.
Actually that raises the interesting question-
That is, since all governments violate people's rights and some violate them more than others, would attacks on governments by outsiders be proper (as internal revolution presumably is)?
My poli sci prof once said "after the 'Revolution' of 1845 in England, the Liberals imposed laissez-faire." Can one impose non-imposition?
Is it wrong to kill a government?
I had a debate with my poli-sci prof, too. I asked her, specifically, about anarchic institutions and the role of government. After a preamble about there being nothing to discuss if there weren't any government, she replied something like, "The role of government is to plot a vector towards the unobtainable, in hopes that people will reach for it. Bad regimes will throw lines at horror. Good ones throw them at the stars. If a set of people with the reins of power steer things the wrong way, it is indeed the duty of those governed to set them right." I am sure I misquoted her, so I am not including her name. On another note, I just rejoined the CP list after a rather long hiatus. I hope people will be just as abusive as when I left before. -j
At 03:32 PM 10/02/2001 -0700, Jamie Lawrence wrote:
On another note, I just rejoined the CP list after a rather long hiatus. I hope people will be just as abusive as when I left before.
Welcome back! Is your password still "No"? :-) No worries on the "abusive" part .... As far as anarchy and government go, the US has had Neutrality Laws in place since somewhere around the 20s or 30s to keep us from getting into another War To End All Wars, and they also cover individuals as well - Americans aren't allowed to go make war on people without their government's permission.* If those laws aren't repealed in the next couple of weeks, we'll see how many of the patriot-militia types break them and go shoot up a bunch of the wrong Afghans... [* I don't remember if they applied to individuals at the time of the Spanish Civil War, but they have since then.]
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Duncan Frissell wrote:
If we could do so without stolen money and without collateral damage, would it be moral to invade countries and kill their governments to prevent the oppression of their people?
No, such a policy is nothing more than 'might makes right' and 'mob rule' in the worst sort of way. What makes your 'oppression' any diffrent than theirs? When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....
That is, since all governments violate people's rights and some violate them more than others, would attacks on governments by outsiders be proper (as internal revolution presumably is)?
That's an assertion not a 'fact'. I look forward to your 'proof'. You might start with Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and work from there. Somebody around here doesn't understand the concept of 'freedom of choice'. It is based around a incorrect understanding of 'citizen' and 'government'. To say 'all government' is abusive is to state in equivalent terms 'all people' are abusive. You make a distinction between 'people' and 'government' that is not warranted by the facts. -- ____________________________________________________________________ The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. Edmund Burke (1784) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Until Sep. 11, at least, we may have adopted a cost-benefit approach. Non-oil fuels are far more expensive, and more radical approaches like wiring homes for solar would be quite intrusive and also expensive. So perhaps (note I'm not saying our politicos were actually this smart or that this is good foreign policy) the thinking was that by interfering in the middle east, which has a high cost, the benefits of cheap oil justified it. -Declan On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 03:48:39PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
Its angering how much lip service though little progress has been made since 1973 on freeing America from her chemical dependence on petroleum in general and mid-east oil specifically. If the U.S. had no direct economic interests in the mid-east would it be propping up the governments of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or contending with Iran and Iraq, etc? More likely our response to problems in the area would be similar to our involvement in West Africa. This dependance has made us little more than oil junkies and you know that junkies will do whatever it takes to get their next fix. If America wants to break this cycle of state violence and co-dependency it needs to get energy therapy in a hurry.
steve
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Until Sep. 11, at least, we may have adopted a cost-benefit approach. Non-oil fuels are far more expensive,
Not true at all. Biodiesel is being marketed in the US today at competitive prices, and obviously, like anything else, economies of scale would bring down that price. Ethanol is another one. Brazil run a large portion of it's vehicles on ethanol. Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry. http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Not true at all. Biodiesel is being marketed in the US today at competitive prices, and obviously, like anything else, economies of scale would bring down that price. Ethanol is another one. Brazil run
Biodiesel and bioethanol are horribly inefficient as far as conversion of solar energy and agricultural area is concerned. Large scale agriculture is not exactly environmentally neutral. They're extreme niche or gimmick fuels at best. Synfuel and synthetic methanol as well as hydrogen via fuel reforming from fossils and biomass/renewables is another thing entirely, and entirely worthwhile. Both synthetic methanol and fuel reforming allows slow migration to fuel cells, without pissing off the fossil fuel people.
a large portion of it's vehicles on ethanol.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry.
I think this canard has been debunked on the list in the last week. The current cost (say, US$1.50 a gallon) would probably be closer to half that without taxes on each step of the process. As for ethanol, which you cite, if it's so splendid an alternative, one would think that ADM could survive without such lavish corporate welfare. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. -Declan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry.
I think this canard has been debunked on the list in the last week.
The current cost (say, US$1.50 a gallon) would probably be closer to half that without taxes on each step of the process.
As for ethanol, which you cite, if it's so splendid an alternative, one would think that ADM could survive without such lavish corporate welfare.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government.
-Declan
A far more productive application of corporate welfare would be if that money were spent on engineering research and development of geosynchronous solar power microwave relays, fusion and advanced fission reactors, permanent manned statons on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. The planet and its politics would likely be a lot cleaner. Just one beneficial side effect. If govts. didn't insist on scarfing up so much in taxes and thwarting markets at the behest of vested interests, private parties probably would already be doing most of this by now. But what else is new? jbdigriz
At 01:25 PM 10/1/2001 -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote: A far more productive application of corporate welfare would be if that money were spent on engineering research and development of geosynchronous solar power microwave relays, fusion and advanced fission reactors, permanent manned statons on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. The planet and its politics would likely be a lot cleaner. Just one beneficial side effect.
Research in geosynchronous power satellites is still being funded. One program, started in Japan but which is now also funded by NASA, uses 5.7 GHz transmission to a ground based RECifying anTENNAs. Another project intends to use IR lasers. My understanding is these projects are receiving serious funding and prototypes should fly soon. steve
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Steve Schear wrote:
At 01:25 PM 10/1/2001 -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote: A far more productive application of corporate welfare would be if that money were spent on engineering research and development of geosynchronous solar power microwave relays, fusion and advanced fission reactors,
GEO is lousy: it's too far away, and it's packed already. Newer concepts assume LEO with active microwave focus tracking of the rectenna ground array with phased array antennas integrated into the solar array. You have to have sufficient amounts of hardware in the sky for continuous line of sight presence.
permanent manned statons on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. The planet and
Luna is closest, and it's near enough for relativistic lag being low enough to allow teleoperation. Sending monkeys elsewhere would seem a later stage.
its politics would likely be a lot cleaner. Just one beneficial side effect.
Research in geosynchronous power satellites is still being funded. One program, started in Japan but which is now also funded by NASA, uses 5.7 GHz transmission to a ground based RECifying anTENNAs. Another project intends to use IR lasers. My understanding is these projects are receiving serious funding and prototypes should fly soon.
Problem is high LEO launch costs. It would seem easier to build automated and teleoperate fabbing and (linear motor) launching facilities on Luna, and circularize orbit mostly by aerobraking. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
At 11:33 AM 10/1/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
As for ethanol, which you cite, if it's so splendid an alternative, one would think that ADM could survive without such lavish corporate welfare.
You shouldn't hold pork-politics against a technology. Ethanol *is* a great fuel from a number of angles, but it *is* (currently) more expensive than petrol. There are a number of fuel sources like that, just waiting to become desirable if/when petrol prices rise. (Modulo the inertia of conversion costs and distribution problems.) dh
Declan McCullagh wrote:
I think this canard has been debunked on the list in the last week.
No, it wasn't debunked at all -- no evidence was given, only unsupported suppositions. If you only take one subsidy alone, the military cost, oil has an absurd price, and that cost is rapidly going thru the roof.
US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year
The current cost (say, US$1.50 a gallon) would probably be closer to half that without taxes on each step of the process.
http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).
Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.
As for ethanol, which you cite, if it's so splendid an alternative, one would think that ADM could survive without such lavish corporate welfare.
Biodiesel is a much better alternative than ethanol, but each has it's place. All farming is subsidized at this point, biofuels have the potential to make farming profitable again. Besides, as long as the oil industry has even greater corporate welfae payments, why not? Speaking of program subsidy, how about this:
Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).
-- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry.
The study says $5.60 to $15.14, not $10-15. A quick glance find some glaring errors-- -it completely ignores taxes paid by the oil industry. -under Environmental Health and social costs they count: "noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles." It's quite a stretch to claim those as costs of oil. We'd have significant costs for those kind of items even if we all used electric cars or even horse and buggy. Although I suppose that unlike a car's engine, when your horse fails, you can eat it. Eric
Eric Murray wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry.
The study says $5.60 to $15.14, not $10-15.
Sorry, other studies say $10.
A quick glance find some glaring errors--
-it completely ignores taxes paid by the oil industry.
No, it points out that they are not taxed at nearly as high a rate, that's part of the subsidy.
-under Environmental Health and social costs they count: "noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles."
It's quite a stretch to claim those as costs of oil. We'd have significant costs for those kind of items even if we all used electric cars or even horse and buggy. Although I suppose that unlike a car's engine, when your horse fails, you can eat it.
True - but most of their points are pretty damning. Let's get rid of all those that *are* direct subsidies and see where the true cost of gas is -- I'll bet close to $10. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
On 1 Oct 2001, at 11:05, Eric Murray wrote:
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:55:34AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Besides which, the true cost of gasoline at the pump would be $10-15 @ gallon without all the gov't subsidies to the oil industry.
The study says $5.60 to $15.14, not $10-15.
A quick glance find some glaring errors--
-it completely ignores taxes paid by the oil industry.
-under Environmental Health and social costs they count: "noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles."
It's quite a stretch to claim those as costs of oil. We'd have significant costs for those kind of items even if we all used electric cars or even horse and buggy. Although I suppose that unlike a car's engine, when your horse fails, you can eat it.
Not to mention things like "travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)," which not only would still exist with electric cars, but is a cost ALREADY paid by automobile users. To call something like that a "hidden subsidy of the oil industry" should be enough to get this "study" rejected by a reesponsible reviewer. George
Eric
on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:57:18AM -0700, georgemw@speakeasy.net (georgemw@speakeasy.net) wrote:
On 1 Oct 2001, at 11:05, Eric Murray wrote:
Not to mention things like "travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)," which not only would still exist with electric cars, but is a cost ALREADY paid by automobile users. To call something like that a "hidden subsidy of the oil industry" should be enough to get this "study" rejected by a reesponsible reviewer.
Electric vehicles are far more efficient idlers than ICE vehicles.
Idling is essentially paying the oil companies for the privilege of
sitting still. It's not an inconsequential cost.
Other congestion costs are not as attributable to oil, but direct
combustion is.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self
On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 12:32 PM, Karsten M. Self wrote:
on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:57:18AM -0700, georgemw@speakeasy.net (georgemw@speakeasy.net) wrote:
On 1 Oct 2001, at 11:05, Eric Murray wrote:
Not to mention things like "travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion)," which not only would still exist with electric cars, but is a cost ALREADY paid by automobile users. To call something like that a "hidden subsidy of the oil industry" should be enough to get this "study" rejected by a reesponsible reviewer.
Electric vehicles are far more efficient idlers than ICE vehicles.
Idling is essentially paying the oil companies for the privilege of sitting still. It's not an inconsequential cost.
Other congestion costs are not as attributable to oil, but direct combustion is.
If people don't want to pay this "cost" of idling then they won't. But it's not in any sense of the word a "hidden subsidy." Calling various costs "hidden subsidies" does a disservice to the language. --Tim May
At 10:13 AM 10/1/2001 -0400, you wrote:
Until Sep. 11, at least, we may have adopted a cost-benefit approach. Non-oil fuels are far more expensive, and more radical approaches like wiring homes for solar would be quite intrusive and also expensive.
While I agree that all non-oil energy has, until recently, been more expensive its been a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you don't make the investments or provide the incentives to innovation then progress is slow or stopped. Breakthroughs in efficiency and economics are finally being made but their delayed arrival can be laid directly on the doorstep of Congress and past administration inattention. -Wind power is finally competitive with on-grid fossil fuel plants (i.e. $0.04 - $0.05/KWh). -Improvements in fuel cell efficiency and fuel choice http://www.llnl.gov/str/June01/Cooper.html should make them competitive within a decade for transportation, on-grid and off-grid applications. -Solar, while still not yet competitive with fossil fuel on-grid is steadily improving. (Off-grid its already competitive.) Recent, non-public developments, should enable substantial commercial breakthroughs soon.
So perhaps (note I'm not saying our politicos were actually this smart or that this is good foreign policy) the thinking was that by interfering in the middle east, which has a high cost, the benefits of cheap oil justified it.
As Tim and others have pointed out oil only looks cheap if all the costs are not exposed at the pump. The most cost-effective measures to energy reform are conservation but since consumers and business have been shielded from directly/visibly bearing much of the true costs for petroleum-based power production the market signals were absent and conservation was too often ignored. A link to what could be saved with reasonable and currently available consumer and commercial choices http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid509.php One of the philosophical sources for RMI is Natural Capitalism http://www.natcap.org/ Has anyone on the list read this work or have an opinion? steve
On Monday, October 1, 2001, at 09:04 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
As Tim and others have pointed out oil only looks cheap if all the costs are not exposed at the pump.
Gee, I recall making a much different point. I recall disputing the claim that the "real, unsubsidized" price of oil is $10 a gallon for gas. Oil looks cheap because oil _is_ cheap. It gets a lot more expensive at the pump because various shakedown artists apply taxes, which they rationalize to their proles in various ways. --Tim May
participants (15)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
Eric Murray -
Eugene Leitl -
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Harmon Seaver -
James B. DiGriz -
Jamie Lawrence -
Jim Choate -
Karsten M. Self -
measl＠mfn.org -
Steve Schear -
Tim May