Because he's the computer industry's equivalent of idiotic movie stars opening their mouths about politics.

From what I can tell, he hasn't read enough military or political history to fight his way out of a paper bag, but of course that won't stop him from mouthing off!

Why does he advocate abandoning the Iraqi people to Saddam?

The answer is simple, though it's taken me nearly a half-century of observing people to figure it out: liberals don't care about people, except in the abstract. Most lefties I have known are deeply alienated, damaged people who can't connect with others, for whom other people are no different from inanimate objects.

To use Dave Winers own metaphor from his post that's linked to here, we're in their house doing an intervention, because mom's a crack-whore and dad is a drunk who molests the kids.

But then again most on the far Left don't do anything in that case either, so of course they don't like it.

Why, we're there to TAKE OUT the thought police!!
MUSTN'T have that!

Is this the all-Daves all the time comments? ;-)Anyway, who was it that said the left loves The People but hates actual people (or something similar)?

Hey man, Dave's not here.

(I'm sorry, I'm sorry, yes, we all know it was coming, please forgive me...)

Why are the antiwar people so dumb? Why?

How the hell are we supposed to "bring the troops home now"? Does Mr. Winer think that we can just beam them up??

Idiot idiot idiot...

We tried the abandonment route in 1991, when we "gave Peace a chance." It got us-- 12 more years of murder and tyrrany in Iraq and elsewhere, a people who justifiably don't trust us, a bigger and more dangerous area of the world that to be cleaned up, and exposed what a sham international diplomacy has become.

This time we should demand nothing less than "Peace through Victory".

Thanks for the "alienated, damaged people...who can't connect with others" generalization - that was introspective. I'll be sure to let my girlfriend know in the morning about all of this - she'll be quite dismayed to know about my inablity "to connect", as will my parents and friends.

Silly parents should of known better than to not allow me to play with GI Joes and toy guns, I wouldn't of got all caught up in that respect other human beings crap and violence is wrong jargon. And I sure wouldn't have picked up all these weird history books and now got a degree in it and then travelled the world and learned foreign languages. Silly parents...if it weren't for them I could be in foreign countries helping liberate people right this moment.

But look here in one of those dumb abstract history books, there's a chapter on the US intervention in the Middle East during the last fifty years. All this stuff about us (USA) putting the Ba'ath party in power, selling Saddam chemical, biological, nuclear (parts) weapons. Then gave him food aid after he liqudated the Kurds (they lived in the breadbasket of Iraq). And wait, no...we even gave him military information to help kill the Kurds and Iranians. Something here about Donald Rumsfeld spending the weekend in Saddam's palace in 1984.

Then there's a few pages on the first Gulf War. Neat quote from Assistant Defense Sec. Lawrence Korb "If Kuwait grew carrots we wouldn't care." hehe. Look here, our president told the Iraqi people to rise up and they did - on two occasions (Kurds in the north, shites in the south). But it turns out we backstabbed both of them and let Saddam suppress the rebellions (that is let him fly his gun-ship helicoptors over the no-fly zone to slaughter the Kurds).

Ahh, pointless history. I'm glad to know now that these are just fun stories. Got go now, I have some fun calls to make and some relationships to work on re-connecting.

"Why does he advocate abandoning the Iraqi people to Saddam?" - classic

Your ignorance of history is as profound as it is hateful, Jared.

You know nothing about your own country's history, and even less about Iraq's, apparently.

You have, quite obviously, soaked up the hard-left, America-hating ideology that's so pervasive in American universities, and has so distorted young people's views of history. I weep for the future if this is what universities continue to turn out.

Oh ok, which part was distorted? The Korb quote, the receipts of over 20 US companies that sold weapons which can be found at the Department of Commerce archives, the food aid which is also trackable, how about the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam (I guess it must be faked). And maybe you could give the "truthful" and "un-distorted" history of the CIA's involvement in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter). I myself, as many other "educated" students of history, would benefit from a "non-hateful" history, which I am looking forward to hearing from you. All the best.

Ok, so the fact that Korb can say something stupid proves.. what about the US? As well claim that Regans old joke about outlawing the Soviet Union proves that he was a warmonger.

I would love to see just what those receipts were for. The Iraquis have never used US military systems. Guns: ak-47. Artillery: Soviet & South African. Aircraft: Soviet, Chinese, and French. Tanks: Soviet and Chinese. Missles: Soviet, Chinese, and Korean.

Damn. Just can't find the American stuff they've used. :) Must be hidden in Saddam's secret bunker. Maybe we can get Geraldo to open it for us.

Whoa. Rumsfeld shook hands with a foreign head of state... Well, shitfire, j, you nailed me right there. So two politicians shook hands, so what? Chirac and Bush shook hands not too long ago; does that mean that we have secret, evil deal with France after all?

I'm not commenting on "CIA involvement", since you don't give any specifics. Or do you claim that the CIA is repsponsible for... everything? We all know they started AIDS, right? And they have this really neat gizmo that causes earthquakes (they just came out with a movie about it, too; maybe you should go and take
notes for evidence).

Sorry if this seems a little sarcastic, but unless I'm missing something, your "evidence" is:
-a quote (just proves that Korb can be a jerk)
-a photo (two politicians B/S'ing each other, big news flash there)
-unspecified CIA conspiracy theories (comments already noted)
-the reciepts. Now I have to admit that I don't know exactly what's printed on those receipts, but I have to ask: where's the weapons?? Hm? Where? I've already pointed out that Iraq does not use American ordnance, so just what "weapons" did they buy? BB guns? Sling-shots? I do recall some standard commercial helicopters were sold to Iraq, but those are about as "military" as the Toyota trucks that the Fedayeen are currently mounting machine guns and mortars on. That is to say, not very.

When I go back and look at your first post, I'm amazed at the sarcasm and condecension I see. Apparently playing with GI Joes and toy guns leads irretrivably to intolerant, violent behavior. And also apparently, those who learn to speak a foreign language are intellectually and morally superior to those who play with guns. If you translate "guns" to "footballs", it sounds exactly like the old geeks vs. jocks stereotype. And we all know the brainy geeks were always superior to the dumb jocks, yes?

If you want credibility you might want to try avoiding cliches and stereotypes. Actually both Dean and I favor the military (yes, I had Joes when I was a kid, even if my favorite was the non-militaristic Mercury Astronaut figure. What about you, Dean?), we both speak a foreign language (Dean: Spanish,yes?), me French, and both of us are well up on history, tho I think Dean is stronger than I on a lot of 20th Century political detail. I tend to wander all over the place.

So, you see, we've already broken your stereotypes and, frankly, we aren't impressed with the degree either. You want me to whip out my Phi Kappa Phi pin, or trade GPA's? (Dean, you go first, yours is bigger than mine)

So really all you've come up with so far are arguments by association, conspiracy by coincidence, cliches, and appeal to authority (that sacred degree). Gotta work harder than that, bunky.

Hold on, you do have one fact right: yes, the US did provide satellite intelligence to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Shocking! The horror of it! Why, we must have caused dozens of paper cuts passing those photos out...

In case you forgot, at the time Iraq qualified as "enemy of our enemy". Giving them some satellite intel ain't all that.

Dean, you wanna take a turn, spanking this red-headed stepchild? :)

Ok, you do have one valid point: the US screwed up big time back in '91 by not backing the uprisings. But, if you ask Dean, he'll freely admit that. No one has perfect judgement. It was a stupid call. Actually Dean will tell you that's why we should feel the obligation to help them now, to make amends.

Si, si, yo habla espanol--and a smattering of French. But I'm very rusty on it all.

My specialization in history is 20th century history. I like all of it but especially 20th century American history.

Yes, I have a 3.9 GPA.

But so what? Degrees don't mean anything. Grades don't mean anything. It's what you know, and understand. It's also in your ability to question authority and think for yourself.

Of course, Casey is right that the Iraqis use almost no American military hardware. Now, it does appear to be the case that, some time in the mid-80s, the Centers for Disease Control sent a university in Baghdad a sample vial of anthrax. That may be the genesis of his anthrax supply. To date there's no credible evidence that I've seen that this was a military or CIA operation--the CDC is not a military or intelligence organization.

And yes, it's true we gave other assistance to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. Because, for Cold War purposes, we simply did not want the Mullahs of Iran to take over much of the Middle East. So yes, we helped Saddam with some intel and some funds. And, as we also said at the time, "It is too bad we cannot find some way for both sides to lose," because the regimes of both countries were deplorable to us.

If we are to take seriously the notion that we bear responsibility for Saddam because we gave him some limited assistance during that era, then we must say that America is to blame for the spread of Stalinism since we allied with Stalin during World War II. Indeed, it makes us instantly responsible for anything any dictator ever did that we were at all friendly with, ever.

Does that strike Jared, or anyone else, as truly reasonable?

There are reasons we do things that we might look back on with regret. Does that mean our motives were bad? Does that mean our choices were always wrong? Is it never okay to choose the lesser of two evils?

Ever?

Handshaking:
Interview with Jeremy Scahill
Zmag
Excerpt:

Ronald Reagan dispatched his special envoy to Iraq
with a hand-written letter from Reagan to be given to
Saddam Hussein, with a clear message that what
Washington wanted was to restore normal relations.
They had been severed in 1967 during the Arab-Israeli
War. Iraq broke them off in protest of U.S. policy.

So when this envoy arrived in Baghdad, not only did he
have a hand-written letter, but he also gave Saddam
Hussein a pair of golden cowboy spurs, as a present
from Ronald Reagan. He shook Saddam’s hand, called him
“Mr. President,” and had a meeting that the Iraqi
foreign ministry described at the time as being about
“topics of mutual interest.” That envoy, who began the
process of restoring relations between Washington and
Iraq, a man who stood with Saddam Hussein in 1983, was
Donald Rumsfeld, the current U.S. Defense Secretary.
Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the U.S. was aggressively
selling to Iraq, and just a short time after that
visit, some allegations started to emerge about Iraq’s
use and possession of chemical weapons.

On March 5, 1984 (Rumsfeld’s visit was in 1983), the
U.S. State Department issued a public alert, saying
that it had evidence that Iraq was using chemical
weapons against Iranian solders. A couple weeks after
that report came out, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad,
meeting with Tariq Aziz, then Iraqi Foreign Minister.
The day that Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad, the United
Nations issued a report saying that a team of UN
scientists on the ground in the front lines of the
Iran-Iraq war had determined that chemical weapons had
been used multiple times against Iranian solders.
Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad when the United Nations
had said yes, we have proof from our scientists that
chemical weapons had been used against Iran and
Rumsfeld said nothing. He was in the prime position to
address the alleged Iraqi threat when it first
emerged.

According to an article in Covert Action Quarterly a
number of years ago, the U.S. government provided the
elements for Saddam’s chemical weapons through the
U.S. Agricultural Department.

Not only that, it was at a time when the Reagan
administration was faced with the prospect that the
American economy was in trouble and so he viewed the
wealthy economy of Iraq as an open market for U.S.
corporations. It wasn’t so much a covert thing, there
were companies in Maryland selling components that
were used to make chemical weapons. It wasn’t just the
United States. It was German, French, and British
companies—all of the major western powers in Europe
and the Western hemisphere were bolstering Saddam
Hussein’s military capacity.

Western so-called democracies were major supporters of
Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons program. You can
also find receipts on the Internet from U.S. companies
that sold these chemical components to Iraq.

The whole story of U.S. sales to Iraq was openly
talked about under the Reagan administration and at
the beginning of Bush, the Elder’s administration. It
wasn’t something that Washington was ashamed of.
Remember, Saddam Hussein was considered an SOB, but he
was considered Washington’s SOB.

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.03/iraq-0308.html

Korb:
The Korb aptly exhibits the US role in the first Gulf War - which had nothing to do with "liberating" (such a fun word lately) Kuwait (you fill in the rest). Saddam's aggression was not the problem, nor has unwarranted aggression really been a focal point of foreign policy:

Deterring Democracy Copyright © 1991, 1992 by Noam Chomsky
In numerous similar cases, the U.S. has been quite happy to reward aggression, conduct lengthy negotiations, and pursue "linkage" (even putting aside those cases in which the criminal acts are approved). In the case of Namibia, for example, the U.N. condemned South Africa's occupation of the territory in the 1960s, followed by a World Court judgment calling for South Africa's exit. The U.S. pursued "quiet diplomacy" and "constructive engagement" while South Africa looted and terrorized Namibia and used it as a base for its murderous attacks against its neighbors (on the estimated human and material cost, see p. 239, below). Secretary of State George Shultz's "peace plan" for Lebanon in 1983 cheerfully "rewarded the aggressors." The plan in effect established a "Greater Israel," as the passionately pro-Israel New York Times conceded, while Syria was simply ordered to conform to the U.S.-Israeli dictates (as, predictably, it refused to do); an extreme form of linkage.62 Israel was also "rewarded" for its invasion of Egypt in 1956. U.S. clients or the master himself are not expected to slink away from aggression and terror without satisfaction of their "needs" and "wants." The pattern is general, as Third World commentators commonly observe, with little effect on the well-disciplined Western political culture. (just a snipit)
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c06-s14.html

Hell if we were interested in "liberating" small third-world countries everytime they got invaded we'd be awful busy!

WOD:
U.S. Firms That Supplied Iraq's Weapons Program*
1.Honeywell (R, K)
2.Spectra Physics (K)
3. Semetex (R)
4. T.I. Coating (A, K)
5. Unisys (A, K)
6.Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7. Tektronix (R, A)
8. Rockwell (K)
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10. Finnigan-MAT-U.S. (A)
11. Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12. Dupont (A)
13. Eastman Kodak (R)
14. American Type Culture Collection (B)
15. Alcolac International (C)
16. Consarc (A)
17. Carl Zeiss--U.S. (K)
18. Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19. Electronic Associates (R)
20. International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21. Bechtel (K)
22. EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23. Canberra Industries, Inc. (A)
24. Axel Electronics, Inc. (A)

Key:
A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, and building of military plants

*According to the German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, which identified this list as a since-deleted portion of Iraq's 11,000-page report to the U.N. Security Council.

CIA: just a couple.

CIA Diary
Inside the Company
by Philip Agee
Penguin Books, 1975
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_Diary_Agee.html

The CIAs Greatest Hits
by Mark Zapezauer
Odonian Press
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/CIA_GreatestHits.html

John Stockwell page
former CIA agent
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/John_Stockwell.html

The Chile Coup -- The U.S. Hand
by Peter Kornbluh
iF magazine, Oct. 25, 1998
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/ChileCoup_USHand.html

Referring to the CIA: "We all know they started AIDS, right?"
That's a pretty unfair statement to make about the folks in the CIA. I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Should I get documentation?
See: "I'm amazed at the sarcasm and condecension I see"

"I don't know exactly what's printed on those receipts":
Well my friend I'd take a little trip to DC and check it out for yourself. It's called the Freedom of Information Act and you'll look under the Department of Commerce. Or check congressional hearings after the war in which the companies that sold Iraq weapons complained that they would not be able to do so anymore thanks to UN sanctions.

"enemy (Iraq) of our enemy(Iran)"
If Iran was our enemy why were we selling them weapons too?
Documents related to the Iran/contra affair
http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/irancontra.html

"When I go back and look at your first post, I'm amazed at the sarcasm and condecension I see"

Yea, maybe you should of scrolled up a little further:
"The answer is simple, though it's taken me nearly a half-century of observing people to figure it out: liberals don't care about people, except in the abstract. Most lefties I have known are deeply alienated, damaged people who can't connect with others, for whom other people are no different from inanimate objects."
Posted by Dave D. at March 31, 2003 09:32 PM

The sarcasm was directed at the above comments, not just for the sake of sarcasm in itself. Usually a good tactic in showing someone how ridiculous their stereotypes are is to turn the tables and present it in an absurd manner to their face.

I obviously don't think playing with GI Joes makes people violent (I played plenty of violent video games in my day). That's why it was "sarcasm". Possibly the following quote would be better directed at the intial author: "If you want credibility you might want to try avoiding cliches and stereotypes."

I just found it ironic how a "damaged" person, like myself, could graduate college and learn foreign languages, that's all. I wanted that point clarified, possibly you shall enlighten me?I don't need to toot my own horn on some message board to feel good about myself, I have other activities that fulfill that purpose.

"Sorry if this seems a little sarcastic"
Apology accepted, as I have elaborated already my sarcasm was not directed at you at all, nor any of my comments for that matter. Yet, I've had a good time chatting.

Well that's what got for now - I'm away from home at the moment, so my apologizes for not being more concise.

You're a Phi Kappa Phi too? I guess that makes us brothers!

It's brown hair Casey, peace,
j

PS I'd love to trade GPA's - you tell me yours first;)

Again here guys, this is fun and rather cute, but I'm gonna have to ask you scroll your mouses in the upward motion to:

"Most lefties I have known are deeply alienated, damaged people who can't connect with others, for whom other people are no different from inanimate objects."
Posted by Dave D. at March 31, 2003 09:32 PM

Your resume is very impressive Dean, congrats. But you see you have an unfair advantage over me. You're not a "damaged" person who can't connect with others.

I've managed to get a 3.9, learn Russian and German, live and socialize in their cultures while "other people are no different from inanimate objects" to me. It's been quite the handicap, but alas I've done it (disclaimer: that was sarcasm, as well, directed again at the childish stereotypes I have been alluding to all along).

Uh-oh, Communist alert! My rich friends and I at the Yacht club have a joke about there only being two parties (Republican and Communist) LOL! I think Mr. J (if that is even your real name) is not a republican. I bet he goes to some joke of a university like Georgetown. Not like me I went to Yale. Actually it wasnt till last week that I was informed that there were other schools than Yale, Princeton, and Harvard. When the hell did this happen? LOL! JOKE! Well not really. J how much did you make last year 300,000 , 400,000 at most. I made that today alone. Actually no I made that by lunch. What do I look I am on welfare or something? LOL! Oh well, I got to go my stockbroker is on the phone. Dow went up 17 points today. Looks like Richard is getting a new Ferrari, maybe I will buy one for my girlfriend too. I know what your saying which one? The hot one with the big knockers silly! God bless America! I cant wait till we take over other "turd" world countries. I only made $126 million last year, you expect me to pay an extra .10 to fill up my SUV, no way silly!

Richard Guy III
Richard Guy III

Just so you know, Jared, I was just replying to what you were saying generally.

As for your long list of quoted materials: an awful lot of that is from familiar, often rather disreputable names on the far left. I hope you realize that this doesn't mean they're all wrong, exactly, but I also hope your critical thinking hat's on when reading them, and that you ALSO seek out alternative viewpoints.

If you're really interested in having an informed opinion.

Also some of what you quote isn't particularly sinister-sounding. All the parts about Rumsfeld visiting Iraq, leaving a small gift, asking to normalize relations---perfectly normal stuff that every administration has done with countless questionable dictators. As for the rest, I mean really man: Agee? Chomsky? You take these people as gospel? That's not just left-wing stuff man, that's WAAAAAY left.

Are you even aware that there are people who've debunked much of the stuff on Chile you mentioned, just for example?

Peace bro.

Dean

I'm happy to say that I totally agree with you on this one (critical thinking that is). My bookshelf is not just filled with Chomsky and Zinn (though there are many), there are plenty of others up there as well (I even received the recent Kissinger book on foreign policy as a present recently). With any average news story, I like to read CNN first (bland main media coverage), something on the left, then an article from the right. Along with hitting a few boards (I haven't been able to find anything on right wing boards about Richard Perle, obviously a huge deal with the liberals as you know I'm sure - possibly you know of some discussion?)

I do not think what I do or do not take as "gospel" is apparent from these posts. As a wonderful philosophy teacher has shown me, its great to take devil's advocate in any argument to see what people are made of (if this was all left wing rhetoric I'd be more willing to challenge them as well). Yes I lean to the left but I'm more than willing to listen to any viewpoint (pending it's respectful, see: "damaged people"), no matter what the topic.

I personally think Chomsky does quite good scholary research on his work, but I also know many think he's satan. As any scholar he is not without his flaws. Now being honest (no sarcasm) I haven't come across a lot of scholarly work debunking many of his claims (as say I see tons of work debunking Michael Moore), maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Most just insult him, make bad un-researched arguements in my opinion (David Horowitz for one), and talk about the Khemer Rouge.

For example, I finished "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democracy" a few months ago. The main thrust of book dealt with the media's handling of the Nicaragua situation in the '80s (now I was in kindergarten when this went down so I don't exactly remember how the media covered it). Chomsky made well-illustrated heavily cited arguements. I've been looking all over for rebutals on this book or some sort of conservative/right wing response and can't find one. I could take the book as the be all end all, but I know that would accomplish nothing - I'd only have one side of an arguement. Possibly you could direct me to so some sources on this (in all seriousness here, no sarcasm)?

As for the Chile matter, I've been repimanded here for not citing sources, so a link in return would be apperciated on this end as well.
'night,
j

Jared:
Ok, I had you tagged wrong, since I took your satire of a twisted view (the "nerds are better than jocks" POV that I blasted in that post) as a serious essay. You were pulling my leg, and it came off in your hand...

For a sec I thought (in your reply) that you agreed that the CIA started AIDS. Whoopsie. Let's hear it for proof-reading! (g)

The "enemy of my enemy" remark: simple; the (apparent) deal was that Iran released the hostages in exchange for spare parts for all the US stuff they got under the Shah. My memory could be wrong on this.

BTW, I don't speak for Dave D. :)))

I'm with Dean in that I call the Rumsfeld visit as typical international glad-handing. I would like to call attention to the context: at the time (c. 1983-84) the Soviet Union was in full bloom, and (with the exception of a very few analysists) was seen as the primary threat. It may seem callous now, but I think that, at the time, the main focus was on an evil empire that had ten thousand nuclear warheads aimed at our homeland. Somehow, a couple thousand Kurds getting gassed seemed trivial compared to that.

(Hmmm. The fall of the Soviet Empire introducing a new era of humanity; I'll have to play with that idea for a while)

I was going to say that anyone who cited Chomsky automatically lost credence in my book, but I'll agree that -within his field- he's ok. The problem is that the silly bastich won't stay there. :)

Regarding the "big list": ever hear of dual-use? One of the more popular listing lately is a table showing (definably) military aid to Iraq. The US is around $40 million. France around $1 billion, and Russia $10 billion. So maybe you need to direct your wrath in another direction, no? (VBG)

Dean: There is some factual basis for the chem/bio charges, but it is based on very bad reasoning and terrible bias. Here's the thumbnail version:
-Iraq is an agricultural nation. (n.b. agricultural == "farming") Farming nations raise things like cows and sheep. Cows and sheep suffer from diseases like anthrax. Therefore, the US -in the course of agricultural aid- delivered anthrax to Iraq in order to help reduce or eliminate anthrax there.
-Iraq is an agricultural nation. It was orginally known as "Mesopotamia". (i.e. "The land between two rivers") This may be one of the reasons that agriculture was originally developed in Iraq. The problem is that another term for "land between two rivers" is "swamp". What grows in swamps? Mosquitos, among other things, which explains why the US sent samples of the West Nile virus to Iraq.
-To follow up on the above, mosquitos also transmit malaria. Swamps also support other insects (known in the vulgar as "bugs") that are not good for people. Farmers and other river dwellers tend not to have a Maia-oriented point of view, so they tend towards a low opinion of bugs. So, they would be only too happy accept the gift of an insecticide plant (and/or processes) from the US. The problem is, that nerve gasses were originally derived from insecticide in 1930's Germany. So how do you decide, ahead of time, which countries will use the technology to develop WMDs and which will work to improve their agriculture, and standard of living?

I still want to know just which conventional arms with which the US supplied Iraq. :)

Jared, I can see your point about respectful disagreement. I have discovered that respectfully disagreeing with Reason Online writers via email resulted in some well-thought out replies that made me decide that the authors weren't watermelon twinkies after all. (grin)

I, I almost forgot: the entire "degree/GPA argument" was based on the belief that an approach to authority (re: critical thinking) was the actual basis for your original post. I was trying to debunk that approach. :)

Anyway, all I have is a weak, anemic 3.3. And that may be in danger as my Senior Capstone project in System Analysis is teaching a team of AIBO robot dogs to play soccer. Think about it... :(