As buy cialis from india a result, the author warns that people with AS should pharmacy cialis seek emergency medical attention if they develop chest discomfort or buy atarax without prescription any sensation of an irregular heartbeat. If someone is not buy cheap retin-a online usa able to adequately manage or treat the underlying condition, the buy discount accutane sale jelly nerve damage may progress and worsen over time, leading to order celexa overnight delivery long-term or permanent complications. This can be especially helpful for buy compazine in canada those who experience nausea or vomiting as part of their order spiriva migraine symptoms and may have trouble swallowing or keeping down celexa sale a pill. Nutrition therapy, herbal medicine, and therapies such as discount alesse (ovral l) massage or meditation are just a few examples. They concluded cephalexin prescription that baking soda could be an inexpensive, safe, effective, and order no rx cialis easily accessible way to reduce inflammation in the body, benefitting a.

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.