Sarah Palin

[Len Colby]

Both candidates Obama and McCain support the bailout proposal of Secretary Paulson. So what does that tell you? Under conditions of collapse the financial oligarchy will be wanting a Hitler or Mussolini in the White House, so I wouldnt be surprised if neither man ever sets foot in the White House. Nothing at this point is setlled. Many things can happen between now and November.

The bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is tantamount to treason. They want to keep these institutions functioning so they can throw all the toxic paper in the banking system onto US taxpayers.

Thus spoke the messiah -

Unless Vice-President Cheney can start World War III very soon, in which case neither Obama or McCain would ever be President. The situation right now, is that the election could be called off, while the nation operates under an unelected "emergency government," for the duration of the presently onrushing global, economic breakdown-crisis.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. September 2, 2008

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/02...-candidate.html

there's a present move to bring the crisis under control by establishing a Mussolini type of fascist government in the United States under Mayor Bloomberg! That's what the whole election is about. And therefore, the people who are behind this are trying to destroy her. This is like what put Hitler into power in Germany.

January 31, 2008

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/01/31...coordinati.html

However, Fannie and Freddie are at the heart of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's insane scheme to bail out the banks by dumping all their bad mortgage paper into the two government-sponsored enterprises, effectively transferring the banks' losses to the government, and ultimately to the taxpayer. The government is not really bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but merely funding their conversion into the largest toxic waste dumps in history. Far from being saved, Fannie and Freddie are being destroyed.

[…]

Not only is this scheme insane, LaRouche stressed, but it is “tantamount to treason”

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/06...ut-taking-.html

September 7, 2008 (LPAC)--Economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche has denounced U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's `unlimited' bank bailout announcement today, as "tantamount to treason"

[…]

Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama announced they backed the bailout.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/07...obama-mcca.html

Amazing! You do derive your entire worldview from the pronouncements of a single person and his disciples. Aren’t you capable of independent though? No comparisons to GG are valid, we only influenced each others taste in music and I definitely turned him on to more stuff than vice-versa.

[Craig Lamson]

I would have thought that McCain, as the owner of seven houses, needed to someone who could relate to the American population. Pain is the representative of a very untypical state that has a population of only 700,000 people. Alaska is essentially an oil company. Her main problem when in office was what to do with a $5 billion oil surplus. She decided to split half a billion dollars among every Alaskan this summer. No wonder she is a popular governor.

The main issue in the election is the economy. This is causing real hurt yet Alaska is the one state that is not having to deal with these problems. As one political commentator put it: “It would be very hard to pick a governor in America who knows less about the struggles of most Americans in the current economy.”

Then there is the issue of McCain’s green policies. This used to be against the drilling for oil in the protected Alaska National Wilderness Reserve. However, that is the one policy that Palin has advocated over the last couple of years.

Her "main problem"! Good grief John, your posts continue to grow more bizarre. I guess all the other things she has done while Governor were just a sideshow. Palin connects to the voters in a way that simply can't be matched by Obama, Biden nor McCain. When was the last time any of these three went to Walmart and did the family shopping?

Good for Palin for being an advocate for drilling in ANWR. We need it..and badly! The first step in turning around the economy is to DRILL BABY DRILL! Man made global warming is the scan to end alll scams. Time to put that canard where it belongs...in the dustbin of history.

Its no wonder this chick scares the living crap out of the left.

[David G. Healy]

I would have thought that McCain, as the owner of seven houses, needed to someone who could relate to the American population. Pain is the representative of a very untypical state that has a population of only 700,000 people. Alaska is essentially an oil company. Her main problem when in office was what to do with a $5 billion oil surplus. She decided to split half a billion dollars among every Alaskan this summer. No wonder she is a popular governor.

The main issue in the election is the economy. This is causing real hurt yet Alaska is the one state that is not having to deal with these problems. As one political commentator put it: “It would be very hard to pick a governor in America who knows less about the struggles of most Americans in the current economy.”

Then there is the issue of McCain’s green policies. This used to be against the drilling for oil in the protected Alaska National Wilderness Reserve. However, that is the one policy that Palin has advocated over the last couple of years.

the GOP heads, McCain and the rest of us mere mortals know the presidential debates and vice president debate will seal the fate as to whom will be the next President of the United States. McCain had to get to the debates running at least, a respectable second. Till 2 weeks ago the best the GOP could looked forward to, was the chance to make a decent showing. Forget winning, they needed a decent showing for one simple reason, ensuring the GOP would not fade into obscurity, FOREVER. Now, for the GOP in general, the reich-wing of the party and the far right Christian Coalition in particular, they've now had their "2nd Coming of Jesus" moment; so enter sweet Sarah! Now the race is at least, interesting.

Over the next 10 days the US electorate will know who Governor Palin is, and more importantly, what she isn't. The GOP has a history of horrible VeeP picks. This new one has been rocketed front and center (from my perspective: right under the bus). So expect the Dem's to keep her there as a display of John McCain's old and angry old man syndrome, aka: reckless instability.

p.s. I can't wait to see the photo's of Governor Palin hunting bears and wolves (do they actually eat the stuff, too?) from a helicopter no-less.....

Edited September 8, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

[Craig Lamson]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

Thanks for the quotes Stephen, you have done a mighty fine job of putting your foot firmly in your mouth. If your remember it is your claim that Palin claims creationism is "that this is a unimpeachable truth". Intellectual honestly demands you simply state you were wrong. Instaed we get a continued shuck and jive in a failed attempt to deflect.

Now do you want us to believe that evolution is true beyond all doubt, as witnessed by this statement of yours, "Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited)"? If so what do you have to fear from students being exposed to the idea of a second option or even a combination of the two...or maybe even perhaps a third? Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

Thanks for the quotes Stephen, you have done a mighty fine job of putting your foot firmly in your mouth. If your remember it is your claim that Palin claims creationism is "that this is a unimpeachable truth". Intellectual honestly demands you simply state you were wrong. Instaed we get a continued shuck and jive in a failed attempt to deflect.

Now do you want us to believe that evolution is true beyond all doubt, as witnessed by this statement of yours, "Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited)"? If so what do you have to fear from students being exposed to the idea of a second option or even a combination of the two...or maybe even perhaps a third? Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

Ok Craig, the term unimpeachable truth was incorrect, and it is not her postion to ONLY teach creationism. Sure teach creationism, as part of religious studies where it belongs, but on a science based agenda, without a scrap of supporting evidence? Thats not facism, its common sence.

[Len Colby]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

Thanks for the quotes Stephen, you have done a mighty fine job of putting your foot firmly in your mouth. If your remember it is your claim that Palin claims creationism is "that this is a unimpeachable truth". Intellectual honestly demands you simply state you were wrong. Instaed we get a continued shuck and jive in a failed attempt to deflect.

Now do you want us to believe that evolution is true beyond all doubt, as witnessed by this statement of yours, "Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited)"? If so what do you have to fear from students being exposed to the idea of a second option or even a combination of the two...or maybe even perhaps a third? Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

It seems that in keeping with a campaign promise she hasn’t pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska public schools.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU5...6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

But to frame this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd should Noah’s arc be taught as well? What about the myriad of creation myths from other cultures? I’m partial to the Iroquois one myself http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html . What about Holocaust denial and the “Apollo hoax” would Craig classify resistance to teaching those “theories” as “fascism” ?

And yes Craig as far as science is concerned "evolution is true beyond all [reasonable] doubt". If you believe otherwise perhaps you should team up with Jack White and argue the contrary. Last time I checked only one biologist and one bio-chemist said they doubted it and both (no surprise) acknowledged they were religious Christians. There is nothing wrong with that but it suggests their religious views clouded their scientific judgment

[Craig Lamson]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

Thanks for the quotes Stephen, you have done a mighty fine job of putting your foot firmly in your mouth. If your remember it is your claim that Palin claims creationism is "that this is a unimpeachable truth". Intellectual honestly demands you simply state you were wrong. Instaed we get a continued shuck and jive in a failed attempt to deflect.

Now do you want us to believe that evolution is true beyond all doubt, as witnessed by this statement of yours, "Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited)"? If so what do you have to fear from students being exposed to the idea of a second option or even a combination of the two...or maybe even perhaps a third? Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

It seems that in keeping with a campaign promise she hasn’t pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska public schools.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU5...6zwOqAD92V3VQG0

But to frame this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd should Noah’s arc be taught as well? What about the myriad of creation myths from other cultures? I’m partial to the Iroquois one myself http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html . What about Holocaust denial and the “Apollo hoax” would Craig classify resistance to teaching those “theories” as “fascism” ?

And yes Craig as far as science is concerned "evolution is true beyond all [reasonable] doubt". If you believe otherwise perhaps you should team up with Jack White and argue the contrary. Last time I checked only one biologist and one bio-chemist said they doubted it and both (no surprise) acknowledged they were religious Christians. There is nothing wrong with that but it suggests their religious views clouded their scientific judgment

Actually I'm all for teaching holocaustt denial, the Apollo hoax and others. Why would ANYONE want to limit any students access to competing points of view? Don't you REALLY need to hear ALL sides of a story to make informed decisions. Its surely not MY place to tell anyone how to BELIEVE when it comes to the orgins of life on earth. Science CAN'T tell us for absolute, nor can religion. It seems only LEN COLBY can....

So Len, the all other arguments that might show evolution just might not be all its cracked up to be should be allowed in schools because? Could it be it is YOUR belief system (no suprise) that is clouding YOUR judgement? Na..that could never happen.....

[Craig Lamson]

Normally this story would not really matter but as she is fighting a campaign on "family values" I think it does:

How would it be possible to make an objective decision to be moral without ever having sinned?

What worries me much more than wether this Woman was human enough to have an sex with someone other than her husband, is that she apparantly believes, against all scientific evidence, that a God created the Universe, and everything in it, in Seven days, and further wants to teach young vulnerable minds that this is a unimpeachable truth.

Bold mine.

Surely you can back that up with some sort of evidence...right? Or is it yet one more interenet rumor being passed along as truth? Seems the net is quite full of them about Palin...

During her race for the Govenorship of Alaska Palin offered up the clasic anti evolution answer when asked whether creationism should be taught with evolution in public schools.

"Teach both, you know, don't be afraid of information. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited) has long been the mantra of the religious right. Are you claiming that her beliefs on this subject have changed?

Thanks for the quotes Stephen, you have done a mighty fine job of putting your foot firmly in your mouth. If your remember it is your claim that Palin claims creationism is "that this is a unimpeachable truth". Intellectual honestly demands you simply state you were wrong. Instaed we get a continued shuck and jive in a failed attempt to deflect.

Now do you want us to believe that evolution is true beyond all doubt, as witnessed by this statement of yours, "Teaching the debate, (As if any debate exited)"? If so what do you have to fear from students being exposed to the idea of a second option or even a combination of the two...or maybe even perhaps a third? Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

Ok Craig, the term unimpeachable truth was incorrect, and it is not her postion to ONLY teach creationism. Sure teach creationism, as part of religious studies where it belongs, but on a science based agenda, without a scrap of supporting evidence? Thats not facism, its common sence.

Thank you. I've no problem teaching it in reglious studies EXCEPT that reglious studies are rarely or never taught fully in public schools. Libs will have none of that you know, unless we are talking about Islam. Given that, I guess it goes in the science department...and thats just common sense.

[Terry Mauro]

Both candidates Obama and McCain support the bailout proposal of Secretary Paulson. So what does that tell you? Under conditions of collapse the financial oligarchy will be wanting a Hitler or Mussolini in the White House, so I wouldnt be surprised if neither man ever sets foot in the White House. Nothing at this point is setlled. Many things can happen between now and November.

The bail out of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is tantamount to treason. They want to keep these institutions functioning so they can throw all the toxic paper in the banking system onto US taxpayers.

Thus spoke the messiah -

Unless Vice-President Cheney can start World War III very soon, in which case neither Obama or McCain would ever be President. The situation right now, is that the election could be called off, while the nation operates under an unelected "emergency government," for the duration of the presently onrushing global, economic breakdown-crisis.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. September 2, 2008

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/02...-candidate.html

there's a present move to bring the crisis under control by establishing a Mussolini type of fascist government in the United States under Mayor Bloomberg! That's what the whole election is about. And therefore, the people who are behind this are trying to destroy her. This is like what put Hitler into power in Germany.

January 31, 2008

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/01/31...coordinati.html

However, Fannie and Freddie are at the heart of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's insane scheme to bail out the banks by dumping all their bad mortgage paper into the two government-sponsored enterprises, effectively transferring the banks' losses to the government, and ultimately to the taxpayer. The government is not really bailing out Fannie and Freddie, but merely funding their conversion into the largest toxic waste dumps in history. Far from being saved, Fannie and Freddie are being destroyed.

[…]

Not only is this scheme insane, LaRouche stressed, but it is “tantamount to treason”

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/06...ut-taking-.html

September 7, 2008 (LPAC)--Economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche has denounced U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's `unlimited' bank bailout announcement today, as "tantamount to treason"

[…]

Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama announced they backed the bailout.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/07...obama-mcca.html

Amazing! You do derive your entire worldview from the pronouncements of a single person and his disciples. Aren’t you capable of independent though? No comparisons to GG are valid, we only influenced each others taste in music and I definitely turned him on to more stuff than vice-versa.

Oh my god I am in a cult.

Didnt we all see and hear Secretary Paulson tell the world that the US citizens would be on the hook for trillions of dollars in bad debt? I'll bet the financial markets take off like a rocket today now that they believe they can transfer their losses to the US Government.

And you take credit for influencing GG Allin? Was it your idea to have him take the photo with his "arse" sticking in the air preparing a bowel movement? That's quite a testimonial to your intellect. Artistic expression protected by the 1st amendment?

And why should anyone study Lyndon LaRouche? He's only been doing this since before you were "crapping" in your mouth.

Why not check out this article by Richard Freeman March 2003. They already had this mess pegged 5-1/2 years before Paulson's treasonous announcement of Friday September 5, 2008.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3010ofheo_rpt.html

Edited September 8, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Guest]

Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

As an educationalist I would certainly be in favour of banning the teaching of creationism as a valid and equal "alternative" to Darwinism. Of course it could appear in a curriculum which encompasses comparartive religion but only in that context.

[Craig Lamson]

Banning the teaching of creationism smacks of outright fascism. Surely you dont believe in that?

As an educationalist I would certainly be in favour of banning the teaching of creationism as a valid and equal "alternative" to Darwinism. Of course it could appear in a curriculum which encompasses comparartive religion but only in that context.

Why? Can you prove evolution as the orgins of life here on earth to an absolute? Can you prove to an absolute that creationism is NOT the origins of life here on earth as an absolute? Doubt exists. Again what is the fear in offering students the alternative and letting them decide exactly WHAT to believe in, given that all anyone has on this issue is "belief". Banning an idea seems quite fascist, again why the fear?

On another level, would you fail a student who refuses to answer in the affirmitive on evolution as the origins of life here on earth...in a science class, or would you regard his belief as vaild?

[Guest]

Why? Can you prove evolution as the orgins of life here on earth to an absolute? Can you prove to an absolute that creationism is NOT the origins of life here on earth as an absolute? Doubt exists. Again what is the fear in offering students the alternative and letting them decide exactly WHAT to believe in, given that all anyone has on this issue is "belief". Banning an idea seems quite fascist, again why the fear?

The problem is of course the use of the words "the alternative". Evolution is the best than science can offer us. Creationism is a load of made up stuff favoured by the particularly retarded and primitive version of religion which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States.

Richard Dawkins rather eloquently puts it thus;

"Evolution is not a faith position. Like the “theory” the earth is round and not flat, evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence, accepted by informed scientists and church people from the Pope on.

Young earth creationism is based on no scientific evidence at all. Its only support comes from a naively literalistic misreading of the beautiful myth of Genesis."

I also hold very strong views about not teaching about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus in science lessons but have no objection to them appearing in a curriculum based on comparative cultural beliefs.

[Craig Lamson]

Why? Can you prove evolution as the orgins of life here on earth to an absolute? Can you prove to an absolute that creationism is NOT the origins of life here on earth as an absolute? Doubt exists. Again what is the fear in offering students the alternative and letting them decide exactly WHAT to believe in, given that all anyone has on this issue is "belief". Banning an idea seems quite fascist, again why the fear?

The problem is of course the use of the words "the alternative". Evolution is the best than science can offer us. Creationism is a load of made up stuff favoured by the particularly retarded and primitive version of religion which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States.

Richard Dawkins rather eloquently puts it thus;

"Evolution is not a faith position. Like the “theory” the earth is round and not flat, evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence, accepted by informed scientists and church people from the Pope on.

Young earth creationism is based on no scientific evidence at all. Its only support comes from a naively literalistic misreading of the beautiful myth of Genesis."

I also hold very strong views about not teaching about the tooth fairy and Santa Claus in science lessons but have no objection to them appearing in a curriculum based on comparative cultural beliefs.

I can see you hold very stong views which appear to have clouded your judgement, not a pretty place for an educator.

Evolution may be the very best science can offer AT THIS POINT IN TIME. As you well know science also 'evolves" as it did in the case of the flat earth. It's kind of like the current global warming debate and those who claim the science is settled, except for those who have found the holes in the "mountains of scientific evidence" and the "acceptance by informed scientists".

Despite the "mountains of scientific evidence" and the "acceptance of informed scientists" there are still holes in the theory. Evolution as the origins of life on earth is very much a FAITH BASED position. It the faith in science, which in most cases is well placed, but it is faith never the less. Unlike the flat earth, no scientist can travel back in time to see the actual start. The best he can do is have FAITH that science has made the right guess.

You have failed to answer the question on how you would grade a student who would not accept evolution. I'm guessing we can sum up your position on that by reading this passage of yours,

"Creationism is a load of made up stuff favoured by the particularly retarded and primitive version of religion which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States."

Since you can't prove a word of that you are simply "taking it on faith", much like you are doing when it comes to evolution and the origins of life.

I asked why you feared teaching this in the sciences and I think now I understand your fear. It's not really creationism, but religion and the religious you really seem to fear.....

[Guest]

Since you can't prove a word of that you are simply "taking it on faith", much like you are doing when it comes to evolution and the origins of life.

This is the creationists stock response I am afraid and it really amounts to little more than than the wholly unsupported cry "see you're as stupid as we are".

The fact that you seem to wish to oppose rational and scientific education is worrying but here is something to hopefully start you on a very long but important journey.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2065619921419809608