According purchase generic clindamycin side effects and alcohol to the IHS, abdominal migraine occurs mainly in children and glyburide free sample involves pain in the abdomen, usually without a headache. Staying celexa sale in an unhappy marriage can result in harboring negative feelings levitra in uk toward the other person, frequent arguments, and conflict. Before you discount gel online start treatment with Yaz, it's important to tell your doctor cheapest artane if any of these contraindications apply to you. According to diclofenac online review the National Institutes of Health, doctors also prescribe thrombolytics and no rx cialis anticoagulants to treat ischemic strokes. For example, they may recommend cost of compazine taking an OTC pain medication such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or metronidazole gel without prescription ibuprofen (Advil). These include estrogen, oral contraceptives (birth control pills), buy discount lasix cholestyramine (Prevalite), or colestipol (Colestid). Green stools are usually the buy cialis from canada result of eating large quantities of green foods or consuming cheapest viagra price green food coloring. People who take prescription medications should speak order cheapest spiriva dose with their doctor before using any CBD products. Instead, doctors may.

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.