"On or around May 5,2000 (give or take a few days) these planets (see picture) Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the Sun plus our moon will line up on one side of Earth creating major stress on Planet Earth. Predictions range from a few earthquakes to major earth crust movement (slippage), polar ice cap movement, sea levels rising 100 - 300 feet or more, huge tidal waves, high winds 500 to 2000 mph, earthquakes so massive that Richter 13 or more could be possible, both coasts of USA under water, magnetic shift and much more.

Has this happened before? Yes say scientists. Remember the woolly mammoth found with fresh grass still in their mouth? This type of earth change is what they believe happened to them. Could it happen again on May 5th 2000?"

I was led to this site by an excellent astronomy column that was discussing the rather rare planetary alignment. Although the alignment described is accurate, the physics of what will happen is a little exaggerated. May 5 won't even show as a minus tide in most areas of the country. This is because the alignment has all of the other planets on the far side of the sun from us and the moon and earth are not at perigee. Gravitation from Jupiter and Saturn, being a square of the distance force, does not have the effect that it had the last year or two, when these two great planets were often paired with the Full Moon in the night sky. The other big variable in tides is the orbits of the moon and the earth. When the moon is at its closest point to the earth and coincidentally the earth is at the closest point to the sun (perigee), then we see big minus tides. Luckily, neither of these events is occurring in May.

However, you still might see some fun sightings along the Pacific Coast -- the story is that the Age of Acquarius types are going to join the End of the Worlders in a major party.
Have fun !!

We are writing to express our deep concern for the detrimental effects your anti-gay commentaries are having on America's children.

Dr. Laura, with 20 million listeners, you are one of the leading talk radio show hosts in the country. Though you have publicly acknowledged that your Ph.D. is in physiology and not psychology, the loyalty of your listeners derives, in part, from their trust that you are relying on mainstream scientific opinion. Yet the anti-gay beliefs you espouse on a regular basis - that homosexuality is "deviant" and that gays can and should be cured - are entirely outside the mainstream of scientific thought.

This is an interesting exercise, I'm looking forward to seeing the entries:

Are you troubled by a vexing moral issue? Submit your problem to Forum 2000 and let our Digital Philosophers ponder your problem for you! You'll receive a variety of advice from (simulations of) the world's greatest thinkers. It's easy, it's free, and best of all, it's not blocked by CyberWatch!

Honesty is the best policy?: Philadelphia Inquirer readers were surprised to see this boxed note on the editorial page Tuesday: "To comment briefly on editorials, call 215-854-5060. The Editorial Board members will roll their eyes and chuckle at your remarks." John V.R. Bull, assistant to the editor, tells MediaNews that staffers were "astonished" when they saw the message, which was part of a gag mock-up page made last week for a departing staffer. Bull says he's not sure how it got in the paper. The newsroom reaction? "Mouths fell open -- literally," he says.

Message to all viewers of "Sports Night" and viewers of quality television from Dorothy Swanson:

"Sports Night" is being pulled by ABC after nearly two seasons, leaving two episodes unaired. The network has said these two remaining episodes will air sometime during the summer. This move does not bode well for the series, which has struggled in the ratings for its entire two-year run.

Viewer support for "Sports Night" must be expressed now, by letter, by phone, by Email. I recommend that in your communication with ABC you acknowledge a few basic things:

(1) You recognize that ABC kept this low-rated series on the air despite marginal ratings for nearly two full seasons.

(2) You give ABC credit for not moving the show around.

(3) You give ABC credit for putting the show in a time slot where it would have a good lead-in and a good lead-out.

(4) Thank ABC for putting the show on the air in the first place, and encourage them to continue to air it despite the apparent fact that its audience will be limited and select. Stress that there should be room for a show like this (intelligent and literate) on their schedule.

Contact the following people/addresses to support "Sports Night":

Stu Bloomberg,
Entertainment Chairman
ABC Television
2040 Avenue of the Stars7th Floor
Century City, CA 90067

My wife asked "What is the difference between that and porn?"

I had to think about it. "It's art," doesn't seem too good an answer. It may or may not be art, but mostly it's about people deciding that marriage vows don't mean anything. It was also so very very English and civilized, don't you know, and you almost had the feeling that after she died, painlessly with good cheer and great looks -well, opera teaches us that nothing is better for a soprano's voice than a deadly case of tuberculosis or syphilis, and one supposes that's now true of the English coughing sickness - after she dies, perhaps the so understanding husband and the so sensitive lover will have their own affair. "I'll help you, Henry."

Why not?

Graham Green's The Power And The Glory is a wonderful novel, and his Burnout Case has some intriguing things to say, but really, this one isn't much. I don't know how faithful this was to the book, but my guess would be "quite"; it has the earmarks of a book written by a man who once said that, forced to choose between living in the United States and the USSR would choose the USSR of Kruschev and Brezhnev. Of course he knew he never would have any such choice forced on him, and in fact he spent considerable time in the US, but it was a good safe politically correct thing to say. We can have all kinds of angst here, and a whackingly exciting porno flick as well, and still get nominated for Oscars. Why not? Porn sells, and if you can make it ART...

But the true fact is that it was a sordid little affair, complicated only by the lover being killed and brought back to life by a miracle (perhaps) that the woman hadn't the strength to pay for. Now one can say that's the story of life in general: we are all redeemed then we fall again. I don't know how many promises have been made in foxholes, and not many of them are kept. The problem with this film is that the lover isn't likable at all, and the woman seems defined only by her adultery: we never find out what else she is interested in, and she is in fact only shown to us after we know she is interesting for having an affair. Does she knit? She doesn't do church socials, and she doesn't seem much interested in her husband's career, although he appears to be successful: he's going to get a knighthood anyway. But we never see what he does, actually, and we certainly know that all she does is sleep around, and sometimes throw parties, but at one of them she meets a man she's decided to bed within ten minutes of the meeting.

Avoid the occasion of sin, said Sister Mary Elizabeth in grade school, but that's too hard for us now. And we get to be Best Actress for portraying a woman who seems to have a bit of a problem keeping her panties and stockings on.

So - just how WAS it different from porn?

Of course what's wrong with porn?

We just watched "Ideal Husband" on video. We liked it quite a bit.

We decided on Serendipity III. It's a great restaurant. Very funky. There were weird mirrors, mixed with pieces of Americana and Greek pedestals with black and white photographs and oil paintings and live tropical plants and waterfalls. Very cool. They also have great ice cream. I had a frozen "hot" chocolate with peanut butter. Orgasmic. I also had Chicken a la garden of Allah which was delicious.

[We] took a cab over to the Frick. I really like the courtyard and the art collection in general. I had to write a paper about any piece, but it wasn't too difficult to just take some notes and buy some postcards.

I ended up buying a pair of stockings with seams, something I've wanted for years, although now I have to wear a shortish skirt to show them off or I will have bought them solely out of eccentricity.

We stopped at the Maison du Chocolat. The only branch in the states. I had the best hot chocolate of my life. I didn't realize hot chocolate could be that thick or that good. Oh my god, perhaps I'll take you guys there when you come. They sell nice expensive truffles there too.

The following is sent pursuant to and in reliance on the representation that non-attributable content is accepted for PSACOT; further a worldwide non-exclusive non-royalty bearing license is hereby granted personally to Paul E. Schindler, Jr., ("PES") to use the ideas set forth below solely in PSACOT on the condition that the text must be retyped and can not and will not be block copied electronically into any communication said PES decides to make of the ideas set forth below and on the further condition that any use of the ideas set forth below must be solely without attribution of any type, kind, or description to the source: