MyDD :: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality

Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality

by Matt Stoller, Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:18:13 PM EST

Over the next few weeks, you're going to hear a lot more about net neutrality, which as I've described is basically the first amendment for the internet. Now, I'm starting something called the 'primary project' to put more competition in the political system. The primary project is mostly a list of Democrats who are out of touch and no longer listening to their constituents, and who might be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2008. One of the ways that I'm going to identify bad Democrats is by figuring out who votes against a free and open internet. But that's for another day, since net neutrality isn't actually a partisan issue.

For now, let's talk about net neutrality and how the campaign against it is being somewhat astroturfed by the telecom industry. I've explained before what net neutrality means. It's a standard which says that no telecom company can discriminate against content that flows over its pipes. Allowing telecom outfits to treat content differently will basically turn the internet into another cable TV system, with telecom companies deciding who can effectively publish a web site and who can't.

The politics here are a fight between money and organizing. The telecom companies pump absolutely enormous sums of money into political campaigns; they are also highly educated on the political process and how to lobby. For this effort to turn the internet into another closed cable system, they have hired former Clinton White Press secretary Mike McCurry to represent their astroturf group Hands off the Internet (or HOTI), they are pushing heavily in the Senate and the House; their faux libertarian streak has even infected the Elecronic Frontier Foundation, which won't take a stand on net neutrality (on the board of the EFF is a high profile telecom exec).

There's substantial public pushback on this issue already. What you have to know about the politics here is that telecom issues don't usually spark popular pressure, and that's why insiders tend to win the fights. It's not really a partisan issue. Most members don't really care that much about telecom regulation; but once they see letters rolling in, it will change their minds.

For my money, I'm particularly saddened at what's become of Mike McCurry, the former press secretary for Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton changed the world, and while I don't agree with everything he did, I did look up to the professionalism and idealism of the staffers who worked in the White House with him. McCurry was in the eye of the storm as press secretary, and handled a hostile press corps and a strange media environment with grace and kindness. He was set after his time there to do remarkable and wonderful things for the world, yes maybe make some money along the way, but set to continue a career in politics and public service doing what he thought was right. Like David Gergen, a lot of options were and still are open to him.

Instead, he seems to have taken a different path, selling his service and brand name to whoever will pay the most. In this case, that means heading up a mostly-astroturf group HOTI to eviscerate the free internet. It's so rare to have a Democrats with the kind of experience that McCurry has, and yet, he chooses in this pivotal moment in history to dedicate his talent and his name to something as grand as ... the short-term interests of the telecommunications industry?

I hope that McCurry will come around and realize that his career in politics and government - working for such luminaries as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Glenn, Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton, the State Department, Lloyd Bentson, Bob Kerrey, Warren Christopher - doesn't have to end with a disgraceful period in which he lobbies for those he knows are wrong because they pay well. I hope he realizes that he can do more with his name, his experience, and his connections, and that at this moment in history, the world needs for him to turn into something other than a former Clintonista Do Nothing.

Tags: Mike McCurry, net neutrality, primary project (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

I'm not sure that net neutrality is a non-partisan issue, Matt. The right has a near-endless font of cash (Scaif, Coors, etc.), which would allow people like Reynolds and Malkin to pay the extra money required to deliver their tripe to the masses. The right already props up vanity presses like Regnery and I think it's likely they'll just do the same thing with the web.

It'll be interesting to see which of the right-wing bloggers actually jumps on this issue. My guess is that the right has no need to worry but we certainly do.

by Tod Westlake on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:34:54 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Reynolds is a part of the coalition that has formed on this issue. See here for members. There are others, too, and there will be more.

by Sean Paul on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Well that's certainly encouraging. However, you'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I decide to remain a bit wary on the motives of Perfeser Reynolds.

PJ Media is an example of what I'm talking about, btw. Didn't they have millions in seed money from the very foundations to which I refer? Paying for bandwidth wouldn't be as big a problem to them as it is to us, no?

Sorry if I'm being overly cynical. Cynicism is like crack: I simply can't help myself.

by Tod Westlake on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (2.00 / 1)

The EFF is nearly as bad at the FSF as a front for very large corporations and their interests.

by flyoverperson on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:41:40 PM EST

EFF (none / 0)

Can you provide any info or links to back that up? If that is true, I would like to know about it.

miasmo.com

by miasmo on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: EFF (none / 0)

I overstated but, for example look at
http://www.eff.org/patent/ for EFFs "patent busting" project.
IBM and Microsoft get, what 20,000 patents a year, but of those terrible 10 noted by EFF, only one belongs to a big company - Clear Channel ( you might make the case for nintendo). But isn't it odd that the worst guys are forcing big companies to pay royalties?

I'm sympathetic to a lot of what they do, but freedom of Sony to not pay royalties for V-chip doesn't strike me as a progressive cause.

by flyoverperson on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

one of the ways... not the only way.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:07:45 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Matt,

I think he just misses the daily give and take of the White House press operation. Maybe he's auditioning to replace Scott McClellan?

by dtmky on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:47:04 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (3.00 / 1)

The chairman of the EFF has a blog, and wrote an essay stating that attacks on network neutrality are attacks on what makes the internet work:

"I wrote an essay here a year ago on the internet cost contract and how it was the real invention (not packet switching) that made the internet. The internet cost contract is "I pay for my end, you pay for yours, and we don't sweat the packets." It is this approach, not any particular technology, that fostered the great things that came from the internet. (Though always-on also played a big role.)

It's time to re-read that essay because two recent big issues uncover attacks on the contract, and thus no less than the foundation of the internet...

[example of an attack on this foundation- a proposal to charge per message for email]

"The charging per message sets a nasty precedent which is an attack on the internet cost contract. It violates the rule about not sweating the individual traffic. I pay for my end, you pay for yours. As soon as we start deciding some traffic is good and bad, and some traffic has to pay to transit the pipes or get through the filters, we've taken a step backwards to the settlement based networks that the internet defeated decades ago.

"In the 70s and 80s the world had many online services you paid for by the hour. It had MCI mail, which you paid to send. It had packet switched X.25 networks you paid for by the kilopacket. They were all crushed by the internet, not just in cost, buy in innovation. AOL, the last of the online services, had to adopt the internet model in almost all respects to avoid a slope to doom.

"The idea of a two-tier internet, which many have been writing about recently, has generated the debate on a subject called network neutrality. Sometimes the problem is attempts to block services entirely based on what they are (such as blocking VoIP(o) that competes with the phone service of the company that owns the wires.) Other times it's a threat that companies providing high-bandwidth services, like video and voice, should "pay their share" and not get a "free ride" on the pipes that "belong" to the telco or cable ISPs.

"Once again, the goal is to violate the contract. The pipes start off belonging to the ISPs but they sell them to their customers. The customers are buying their line to the middle, where they meet the line from the other user or site they want to talk to. The problem is generated because the carriers all price the lines at lower than they might have to charge if they were all fully saturated, since most users only make limited, partial use of the lines. When new apps increase the amount a typical user needs, it alters the economics of the ISP. They could deal with that by raising prices and really delivering the service they only pretend to sell, or by charging the other end, and breaking the cost contract. They've rattled sabres about doing the latter.

"The contract is worth defending not just because it gives us cheap internet or flat rates. It is worth defending because it fosters innovation. It lets people experiment with services that would get shut down quickly if people got billed per packet. Without the cost contract, great new ideas will never get off the ground. And that would be the real shame.
http://ideas.4brad.com/node/373

by kathryn from Sunnyvale on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 06:03:33 PM EST

If this is the one issue, then by God, yes!! (none / 0)

Remember how Karl Marx wanted to restore the means of production to the people? If Marx were alive today, he'd say, "screw the means of production - the people who control the means of communication are the ones who call the tune."

Just as the moneymen finally got a stranglehold on the old print, broadcast, and cable media, a new medium - which will ultimately be THE medium - has grown up outside of their control.

If we let them own this medium too, we're screwed. The independence of the Web is the one thing we've got going for us in this country - the one medium where ideas can't be overwhelmed by money. If the telecoms win this battle, they can shut us up - and if they do, where will we complain about it?

by RT on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:00:36 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (2.00 / 1)

You know, I've been trying to follow this issue, but as far as I can tell, there's a lot more heat, shouting, namecalling, and paranoia than actual substance to this controversy. I listened to Anna Eshoo spend twenty minutes on C-SPAN recently talking about net neutrality, unable even to explain what it was beyond saying she was for it.

There are actual technical issues at stake here, and proponents of net neutrality who are unable to raise the dialogue above the level of the oversimplifications and namecalling I've heard risk being perceived by those with a command of the technology as uninformed, paranoid Luddites.

There is a third way, a middle way, here. If we can engage in informed dialogue, we can have the innovations that the telecoms want to bring about, innovations that will result in more responsible, more efficient use of bandwidth, while maintaining the kind of open access we have today. I encourage those who really want to understand the technical issues at stake to read the discussion here.

Broadcasting on the internet is not cheap or free. It never has been. A large part of that is because the Internet architecture we have today requires a live broadcaster to buy thousands of times more bandwidth than would be necessary were we to make some simple architectural changes in intercarrier peering arrangements. If the discussion going on in Washington were being carried on by level-headed technologists rather than propagandists with axes to grind, we would have some chance of seeing those changes implemented in a way that preserves flat-rate subscriber access.

Please, people, inform yourselves.

by xfrosch on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:17:51 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

No one is saying it should be free. We're just asking that no one discriminate between bits.

Pretty simple concept, if you ask me.

by Sean Paul on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Well, here's what one "level-headed technologist", Vernon Cerf, has to say on the subject:

Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.

Larry Lessig, no slouch he, described as a "fundamental fact about the Internet" the following in his testimony before Congress:

...the innovation and explosive growth of the Internet is directly linked to its particular architectural design. It was in large part because the network respected what Saltzer, Clark and Reed called "the 'end-to-end' principle" that the explosive growth of the Internet happened. If this Committee wants to preserve that growth and innovation, it should take steps to protect this fundamental design.

A description of Lessig's presentation at a recent VoIP conference properly illustrates what's at stake:

By drawing parallels between the Internet and previous innovations such as radio and newspapers, Lessig illustrated how quickly technologies can go from being "unlocked," that is, inexpensive and commonly available for people to innovate, to "locked" or "relocked," where the technology and the means to create are owned by very few. He sees the potential for this to happen to the Internet as a real and possible threat, as the few large companies who currently own the physical infrastructure lobby for more control over the Internet and move to create a pushed-content format, much like today's corporate-owned newspapers and radio. (Courtesy of the CNET Blog)

Anyone interested in this issue can learn more at sites like Free Press or the Center for Digital Democracy.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

by patachon on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Note that Lessig, like Templeton (quoted above) is on the board of the EFF.

by kathryn from Sunnyvale on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 05:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (3.00 / 1)

Agreed, inform yourselves. Firstly, understand the First Amendment. It says that government shall not dictate the means of communication. Net neutrality legislation intends to do exactly that.

The First Amendment does not ask government to guarantee a platform for anyone that wants to speak, or what form speech can or cannot take. It says, government has no say.

It is not a question of finding the right laws for the 'net, it is a question of whether you believe it to be within the government's purview. The 'net is private bits flowing over private networks. It is the speech of private citizens. Neutrality legislation takes that speech and makes it the government's business.

Matt

by ORinSF on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:56:21 PM EST

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

"The 'net is private bits flowing over private networks."

This is so unhistorical it's amazing anyone bothered to utter it. The Internet began as a wholly owned operation of the U.S. Government. Under what other circumstances could you possibly imagine a system that's open to all and where the cost of access is so low being created other than in an Academic/Research Environment at tax-payer expense?

We had the closed systems prior to the Internet. There was AOL and CompuServ. Sprint used to offer email -- but only to other members of the Sprint network. That's the "private" model.

Indeed, it's precisely to avoid going back to these bad old days that Net Neutrality is so important.

There's every reason for government to regulate this platform -- first, because it's the only one we have and second, because the ability to participate at a minimal cost of entry is an enormous public good.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

by patachon on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 04:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (3.00 / 1)

Yup, it started that way, back in the days when it was measured in baud. The current success of the net is entirely predicated on private investment. Everything from the PC you type on (private invention), over the Ethernet (private invention) or WiFi (private), through the router (private) over the DSL (private) or the cable modem (private), back to the central office (private), and over the long-haul fiber (private) to a server (private). The Arpanet, while seminal, has little to do with the benefits we all derive today. Unless you believe it is still 1970. That is some strange nostalgia you got there.

Seriously, as you read this, exactly which part of the chain was provided to you by the state?

Why you want the gov't to sponsor and legislate your speech is beyond me.

Matt

by ORinSF on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 01:27:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Er, TCP/IP seems to be the foundation of the whole thing -- unless you're running on something we don't know about.

In any case, absolutely nothing you list makes the Internet inherently different from what it was before the publicly owned backbone was handed over to the Telcos in the Mid-Ninties (and not the 70's).

The only difference is that things are a bit faster now.

The first attempt to inherently change this successful arrangement is the attack on Net Neutrality which apparently you have no trouble with.

Talk about free speech is nothing but hot air if you don't have the means to make yourself heard. As they used to say in the days of print, free speech is for he that owns the printing press.

We see the negative consequences of the government removing its regulatory arm from our airwaves: Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell 24 hours a day. That might be the model you're happy with but you'll find few on the web who share your views.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

by patachon on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

"The 'net is private bits flowing over private networks." - not as long as it depends on monopoly right of way or bandwidth allocation. When long haul nets are a competitive business, come back and talk.

by flyoverperson on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 07:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

"When long haul nets are a competitive business, come back and talk."

Long haul is EXTREMELY competitive. Apparently you've fallen for the telco deception when they say this is an issue of what travels over their "backbones"--it's not. The telcos exercise control not via their backbones (where there are lots of players, just like long distance voice), but via their last mile connectivity where their only competition is the cable companies (and, in a growing number of markets, wireless providers). Read the Stifel/Nicolaus analysis of net neutrality, "Value Chain Tug-of-War," which I think is the most accurate and clueful commentary on the net neutrality debate to date.

Sean Paul wrote: "No one is saying it should be free. We're just asking that no one discriminate between bits."

But there are lots of legitimate reasons to discriminate between bits--I want a provider who will kick spammers off their network, who will block denial of service attacks against my servers, and who will give priority to packets carrying services that are highly sensitive to latency and jitter (e.g., real-time voice and video).

I'd also like to see innovation in mobile technologies that ride over the Internet, which may or may not involve "full Internet connectivity."

I'd also like to not see the FCC get involved in regulating the details of the Internet, because they've pretty much screwed up everything they've touched. If you invite them to get involved in the details, they are going to end up deciding that "parental controls" need to be implemented "for the children." And then we'll see kinds of "discrimination against bits" that we don't want, based on what the "Parents Internet Council" thinks is appropriate content.

(Disclosure: I am employed by Global Crossing, where I work in the network security field. Global Crossing is a non-RBOC which is not in the consumer Internet business, but which is a major competitor in long haul data.)

by Jim Lippard on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 01:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

I agree to a certain extent about the over-simplification in Sean-Pauls argument, but "common carrier" regulation works. And even where there is nominal competition between big players, the common interests or perceived interests of large corporations in both focusing on their large customers and in supporting corporate political positions are dangerous to the economy and democracy. Note that banking is now a lot like comms - competition on the back end among a small group of players, huge "last mile" players that are merging rapidly. The result is starvation of capital for small business and reduction of consumer service. Or consider radio/cable where the effin United Church of Christ cannot BUY advertising.

by flyoverperson on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:02:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

"But there are lots of legitimate reasons to discriminate between bits--I want a provider who will kick spammers off their network, who will block denial of service attacks against my servers, and who will give priority to packets carrying services that are highly sensitive to latency and jitter (e.g., real-time voice and video)."

You emphasize generic "services" as if my real-time voice and video would be handled in exactly the same way as that from Disney and Fox News. This in fact is not the model that the Telcos seem to be promoting.

Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com

by patachon on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 09:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

It's clear the telcos want to be able to offer their own real-time voice and video in a preferential way, but historically the telcos' own services have been inferior to the competition and I think they are poor at innovation.

To the extent they take action to actively block or degrade services of competitors on their network, I think they'll run afoul of the existing FCC policy statement on net neutrality, which the Barton bill gives the FCC the power to enforce through the imposition of continuing fine for violations. I'm not sure I actually favor the Barton bill, but I don't think requiring that anybody who sells anything called "Internet access" should have to provide exactly the same set of services--that itself is anti-innovation.

BTW, the telcos and cable companies could free up a lot of the allegedly scarce bandwidth on their networks if they more aggressively kicked spammers off their networks. AT&T's former SBC component is the #2 worst network in the world for spammers, and Verizon's MCI component is #1. See http://www.spamhaus.org/

by Jim Lippard on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 12:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (3.00 / 1)

Matt, I guess I should get a few words in on this subject in my own defense. You are correct that net neutrality is not a partisan issue, therefore Democrats even good Clinton Democrats can disagree because the debate is about what is best for the future of the Internet.
I joined the effort opposing regulated net neutrality because, contrary to what you write, it's absolutely consistent with the Clinton Administration's policies toward the Internet. The Internet became a true mass-market medium during our eight years. As the President once said, "When I took office, only high energy physicists had ever heard of what is called the World Wide Web ... Now even my cat has it's own page."
During this time, there were repeated attempts to bring Internet regulation under the federal government's umbrella. To the Administration's credit, we consistently resisted the temptation - see Ira Magaziner's 1997 report, "A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce." Also, in 1998, the President signed a moratorium on conflicting state and local Internet taxes that helped promote the explosive growth of online commerce.
These so-called "net neutrality" regulations would completely undercut this legacy. And for what purpose? Are networks being degraded? Is content being discriminated against? Is there a clear problem that government needs to address? In fact, the only clear definition of "net neutrality" itself was put forth in the principles laid down last year by the Federal Communications Commission and my Coalition supports those. Companies have agreed to abide by them.
But once you try and define what is to be regulated, unintended consequences will surely result. If broadband providers are made liable in court for the way their pipes "carry" digitized information, you're going to have Congress and FCC regulators writing rules that cover the basics of Internet traffic. Do we really think the Internet will benefit by having government officials write rules on caching, collocation, packet reassembly and the like? And when these rules are challenged in court (meaning more delays), will that help or hurt efforts to improve America's broadband deployment?
Trying to guess at a regulated formula for network neutrality that would protect the public interest and not impede innovation and investment for the Internet is a high-risk proposition. I'd rather try and get a 100% perfect NCAA basketball bracket together because your chance of success is about the same. Can you give your audience a clear idea of how you would define and regulate neutrality on the net? (And if not, why not leave it to the FCC principles that have already been articulated?)
There's another aspect of net neutrality that's even more problematic: the way it mixes two separate entities, namely the public Internet and private networks. For twenty years, private networks have been helping business, government, universities, and others that need specialized communication. There's nothing wrong with groups that are willing to pay a little extra because they need a specialized service - think of UPS vs. the postal service.
So if net neutrality regulations are passed, would federal regulators have to write separate rules for public vs. private networks? Would there be different federal rules for low-bandwidth IP services that use the public Internet and high-bandwidth services that don't?
Entire forests will be sacrificed to produce all the legal and technical filings that would surround these and other neutrality questions. In my view, we're far better off continuing on the sound path the Clinton Administration established.
Having federal regulators and Congressional staff writing Internet regulations is not the best way to promote online diversity. Letting the technology continue to evolve unfettered is. Network companies are going to spend billions developing the infrastructure necessary to bring us the Internet of the future. We will get in the way of that robust deployment if we make it harder for those companies to get a return on their investment. (If you don't trust me, listen to the Wall Street analysts who said exactly that in their congressional testimony recently - the unintended consequences of regulated net neutrality will make investors skeptical about providing the capital needed to make the net capable of what we are soon going to demand of it.)
How will the "little guy" with interesting content or a good idea or the next "new, new thing" succeed if he or she finds a clogged Internet that can't get the job done? How does that help the constituencies we Democrats need to represent? How does that enhance free speech on the web?
Look, I have to make a buck sure. But I am happy to be on my side of debate and not yours.
--Mike McCurry
CoChair, Hands Off the Internet

by HandsOff CoChair1 on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 10:34:22 AM EST

Just one note (none / 0)

re: During this time, there were repeated attempts to bring Internet regulation under the federal government's umbrella. To the Administration's credit, we consistently resisted the temptation.

Except, say, signing the Communications Decency Act into law on February 8, 1996, which you yourself called "basically a good deal for the American people".

by Adam B on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 10:06:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike McCurry and Astroturfing Net Neutrality (none / 0)

Mike,

Change "Net Neutrality" to something that gets peoples attention:
What about, "STAMP OUT PAY-FOR-VIEW INTERNET!"

That says it all. Get out and support your congressman to vote against having to PAY to view the Internet.

'Nuff said,

Bob Jennings
San Antonio

by bobster3522 on Fri May 05, 2006 at 11:48:31 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.