People cheap lipitor price dangers with eczema usually have an over-reactive or sensitive immune system buy cheap mirapex to an allergen or irritant. The author discovered that smoking spiriva for order links to a reduced quality of life and an increased cialis in australia risk of secondary tumors, tumors that form in another part buy augmentin of the body. Another type of MS treatment that may cheapest erythromycin price reduce the immune system's efficacy is hematopoietic stem cell transplantation aldactone without a prescription (HSCT). Low electrolyte levels may be an indicator of heart (ovral free delivery disease and other conditions that may cause heart palpitations. The buy erythromycin treatment of barrel chest focuses on managing symptoms of the free betnovate online order underlying condition and limiting the extent of lung damage. This buy cheap clindamycin gel supports the idea that eating slower can be an effective strategy.

Last night a team consisting of myself, Siva Vaidhyanathan (of UVa, author of Copyrights and Copyrwrongs and The Anarchist in the Library), and Randy Picker (of Chicago Law School) debated a team of Esther Dyson (author of Release 2.0), Jeff Jarvis (author of the forthcoming What Would Google Do?), and Jim Harper¬†(director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute). It was fun for everyone, I think. I could have argued either side, but I was recruited for the affirmative. I focused my argument strictly on Google cooperating with the Chinese government by producing a censored version of its search engine, which I rather too dramatically also referred to as an “instrument of thought control” and likened to a “brainwashing serum” that no responsible American pharma company would make for a foreign government. It was an Oxford-style debate; I took it as my job to sway the crowd and win the argument, without lying but perhaps by exaggerating if the other side would let me get away with it. I think several of the other participants took it rather more as an actual religious war.

In the pre-debate poll, the voting was very much against the motion; when the poll was repeated, it was a dead tie, 47%-47%, with 6% undecided. By the debate rules — winner whoever changes the most minds — our team won. Fitting, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Harvard’s great comeback 29-29 win over Yale in football!

The debate is in the Intelligence Squared series. A bouquet to the sponsors and staff of the series; it’s a great thing to do. Last night’s will be up on Youtube by the end of the week and in an NPR one-hour edited version shortly thereafter.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am and is filed under Miscellaneous, Search. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.