This Week on the Web (February 17 – February 23)

********************************************************************************************

Quote of the Week:

Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?

The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.

Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.

- Alex Epstein




COMMENTARY

Religion vs. Liberty
Peter Schwartz, Capitalism Magazine

America's war on terrorism is being undercut--by the administration's efforts to inject religion into politics.

Our enemy in that war is the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism--an ideology which holds that one's life is to be lived entirely in service to Allah, that the dictates of the mullahs must be unquestioningly obeyed and that jihad must be waged against all who refuse. Islamic totalitarianism, which pervades Muslim societies, is a sweeping repudiation of reason in favor of faith, and of freedom in favor of force. That is what makes it America's deadly enemy.

When reason is categorically abandoned, people can deal with one another only by force. People who accept reason as their sole means of knowledge can settle differences by persuasion; the one with facts and logic on his side will prevail. But if faith--i.e., the embrace of beliefs contrary to reason--is one's ruling principle, there is no peaceful way to resolve conflicts.


**************************************************

Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent
John Linder, Washington Times

"Global Warming" had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel "State of Fear," brilliantly juxtaposes the world's current political embrace of "global warming" with the popular embrace of the "science" of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world's thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the "science" of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.
[…]

One must ask, "How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?" A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some "science" which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.


**********************************************************************

FCC Violates Free Speech on Principle
Robert Garmong, Capitalism Magazine

Each year since the early days of radio, every broadcast station must apply to the FCC for permission to use the airwaves. In exchange for their licenses, broadcasters must promise to serve the "public interest." Stations that the FCC regards as having failed to do so can be fined, or even shut down, at the FCC's sole discretion.

The putative justification for the FCC's regulation of broadcasters is that the airwaves are public property. But just as the government does not own--and so has no legitimate control over--the presses of the New York Times, so it has no business regulating what may be broadcast over airwaves. The airwaves, which would be useless without the transmission networks created by radio and television stations, belong to the individuals and companies that developed them. Broadcasters should not have to plead to the authorities for annual licenses, any more than a homeowner should have to beg for an annual license to use the patch of land he has developed.

No other media in America is subjected to such persecution. If the New York Times or Barnes & Noble publishes and distributes content some members of the public disapprove of, the government cannot threaten them with fines or penalties. But let Howard Stern offend a listener, and Clear Channel is hammered with over a million dollars in fines.

So far, only "indecency" has been targeted by the FCC's crackdown--but politicians on both sides of the aisle have begun whispering demands to censor PBS or the Fox News Channel, on the grounds that their alleged biases violate the "public interest." Both the liberals, with their political correctness, and the conservatives, with their puritanical religious ethic, claim to speak for the "public interest." Can it be long before the two sides begin the battle over which ideas and values Americans are allowed to see and hear on-air?




********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist



Web Logs

Principles in Practice– Principled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and Forkum – Political cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************
Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.
If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

This Week on the Web (February 10 – February 16)

********************************************************************************************

NEWS

New Wage Boost Puts Squeeze on Teenage Workers across Arizona

Arizona Republic

Oh, for the days when Arizona's high school students could roll pizza dough, sweep up sticky floors in theaters or scoop ice cream without worrying about ballot initiatives affecting their earning power.

That's certainly not the case under the state's new minimum-wage law that went into effect last month.

Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

And teens are among the first workers to go.

COMMENTARY

Expecting

Michael Hurd, DrHurd.com

Expectations are what you impose on others, consciously or subconsciously--accurately or not. Expectations are frequently disappointed, and usually not advisable because you cannot force another individual person to adopt, integrate and act upon your values.

Standards are what you hold to be true, correct and good. To live with integrity, as well as with psychological peace of mind, you require standards. Implicitly, you will hold some mixture or contradictory "hash" of standards whether you know it or not; it's obviously best to know, choose and act upon your rationally, consciously accepted standards.

Life without standards is impossible. Life without expectations is more possible than you think. If you hold to your standards, the right people will find you, and you will find them. Disappointment will be the exception, and not the rule. If you run around life with nothing but expectations of other people, you're doomed to needless frustration and even despair.

Advertising is Good Medicine

Wayne Dunn, Capitalism Magazine

Imagine that you spent years of research and millions of investors' dollars developing an idea that could save or prolong hundreds of thousands of lives. You put your product on the market and advertise.

But a few weeks later, various columnists and "talking heads" begin deriding you for it. Advertising, they say, harms consumers by raising the cost of the product they so desperately need (a product which wouldn't exist had you not created it). Soon there's a movement afoot to prevent you from advertising¾ in the name of "the public good," of course.

Unfair? That's exactly what's currently happening to drug companies.

The main fallacy of the anti-drug-advertising crowd is based on the premise that an individual (or group of individuals, i.e., a company) has a moral obligation to be charitable, e.g., to sell cheaply the product of his mind. Well, if your moral code demands charity, fine. Go invent a new lifesaving drug and simply give it away. No one will stop you. You certainly have the right to be generous with your own goods, but not with your neighbor's, even if he's the CEO of a pharmaceutical corporation.

Washington 's Make-Believe Policy on Iran

Elan Journo, The Ayn Rand Institute (via Principles in Practice)

The Bush administration claims to have a way to deter the militant theocracy of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and thwart its ambition to bring "death to America." Washington's plan aims to pressure Teheran, financially and psychologically. The idea is to cut off Iran's nuclear program from banks and businesses in other nations, and to undermine the confidence of Iranian officials. The right amount of pressure, we are told, can induce Teheran to give up its nuclear program.

In fact this policy is a pathetic sham. It is a cover-up for Washington's abdication of the responsibility to protect American lives.

George W. Bush's WW II World

Michael Hurd, DrHurd.com

The defenders of the war in Iraq often invoke World War II as an example. They cite the years it took to liberate, and rebuild, Europe from the threat of the evil Nazis. This comparison evades a huge, and overwhelmingly obvious, difference. The Europeans were civilized and, more or less, free nations before the invasion of the Nazis. They fell victim to the Nazis because they didn't take the threat seriously enough as Hitler built his power; but once they realized it was too late, they very much wanted their freedom and civilization back. The situation in Iraq could not be more different. The country was, for decades prior to our invasion, under the dictatorship of an evil thug not unlike Adolf Hitler, and nobody in that country has ever even tasted a whiff of freedom. It would have been nice had they embraced it the minute liberation from Saddam Hussein was handed to them, but clearly this didn't happen, and is not going to happen. Worse than that, the U.S. persists, under President Bush, to intensify its fixation on Iraq rather than fight the wider war on terrorism, something it claims to want to do, but clearly doesn't have the resolve to do--as Islamic Iran gleefully builds nuclear weapons and threatens to use them against the infidels, once developed.

It's easy to be against the Iraq war because it's such a self-evident, tragic bungle--on the Administration's part, not the military's part. What's much harder is to oppose the Iraq war for the right reasons--to oppose it NOT because it was an attempt by the United States to assert itself militarily against terrorism, but because its mishandling has set us back even further in the war against terrorism. Those painful lessons will have to be learned in the coming years, beyond the Bush Administration, as the U.S. pulls back, ignores the enemy until it strikes again--much stronger next time, to be sure. I don't hope for another attack against the U.S., but I see it as unavoidable given our weakness. Given that such a terrorist attack is all but certain, I can only hope that the people who oppose the war in Iraq for the WRONG reasons will be in charge, and be forced to take the blame they deserve, for promoting pacifism against such a dangerous enemy as Islamic fanaticism.

********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in Practice– Principled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and Forkum – Political cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

This Week on the Web (February 3 – February 9)

******************************************************************************************

Quote of the Week:

“We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? Do the police in America have on their hands the blood of the 16,000 murders they failed to prevent last year?”

- Charles Krauthammer

Editorial Cartoon of the Week:

Unresponsive

Cox and Forkum

NEWS

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

NWCN.com

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

COMMENTARY

Not So Dire After All

Fred Singer, New York Sun

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its "Fourth Assessment Report," but just in the form of a 12-page "Summary for Policymakers." The report itself, about 1,600 pages, will be available only in May. The IPCC explains it needs time to "adjust" the scientific report to make it consistent with its summary.

The summary actually is a semipolitical document negotiated by delegates from 150 governments. Evidently, the IPCC, which prides itself on being strictly scientific and policy-neutral, wants to make its report politically correct.

This raises legitimate doubts about the scientific credibility of the IPCC's conclusions.

[…]

Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true, but correlation is never proof of causation. In Europe, the birth rate is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation prove that storks bring babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide was increasing rapidly.

The Wicked West

Andrew Stuttaford, New York Sun

The dust of those doomed towers had barely begun to settle before some Americans began asking themselves who, beyond Al Qaeda, was really responsible. Suspects included the Jews (as usual), the sinister Bush White House, the complacent Clinton White House and, in the view of Jerry Falwell, God. It's a tribute to the power of his imagination that, despite this strong competition, in "The Enemy At Home" (Doubleday, 333 pages, $26.95), Dinesh D'Souza has managed to come up with a startlingly original selection of fresh suspects ranging from Madonna to Robert Mapplethorpe's awkwardly positioned whip. In essence, argues Mr. D'Souza, it's the "depravity" (a word he savors with a little too much enthusiasm) of our culture that has provoked a violent reaction among some fol lowers of Islam, and threatens to push large numbers of those he de scribes as "traditional" Muslims into the extremist camp.

[…]

But, as history shows us, there are some adversaries who can never be appeased. Mr. D'Souza may be conveniently vague about exactly what it is we are supposed to do to our lifestyle to win over our putative Muslim friends in waiting (Ban the bottle? Bring the burqa to Berkeley?), but he does find plenty of room for the grumbling and raving of one Sayyib Qutb. Poor, peculiar Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian philosopher whose writings have been a major inspiration for many of today's Islamic radicals, was disgusted by the "animalistic behavior" he claimed to have witnessed on a visit to America. That disgust clearly played a part in shaping his increasingly fundamentalist worldview, and Mr. D'Souza naturally sees this as important evidence in support of his case. In fact, it's the opposite. Qutb's visit to America took place in the Truman era, a time not usually remembered for its wild abandon. The event that appears to have shocked him the most was, wait for it, a church social.

You see, Dinesh, there really is no pleasing some people.

UCLA Penalizes Student Group's Exercise of Free Speech

ARI Media (via Principles in Practice)

UCLA has cravenly scuttled a student-sponsored forum on U.S. immigration policy—and revealed the administration's contempt for freedom of speech. The administration not only refuses to protect free speech, but also penalizes those who wish to exercise it on campus.

Scheduled for Feb. 6, the canceled event was to feature a debate between Carl Braun of the Minutemen and Dr. Yaron Brook, an open-immigration advocate and president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The forum, sponsored by the UCLA student group L.O.G.I.C., was approved by the administration weeks ago. When the student group learned that protesters from outside the university threatened to disrupt the event, it asked UCLA to protect the group's exercise of free speech by providing security for the event.

UCLA refused either to let the student group pay for its own security—claiming not enough security would be available—or to hold the event without security.

"The administration's decision is a double injustice," said Dr. Yaron Brook.

[…]

"By preventing the event from taking place, UCLA apparently hopes to appease the protesters by doing their work for them. That an American university is suppressing, rather than enshrining, freedom of speech is a moral travesty."

[…]

"Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular views. UCLA—which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom—ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it," said Brook.

Quotable

At the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, the senator from New York said, “The oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in an alternative energy fund.”

Take? Isn’t that a confiscation of private property? Author P.J. O’Rourke framed it perfectly on a recent edition of CNBC’s Kudlow & Co.: She’s “Hugo Chavez in a pants suit.”

- Lawrence Kudlow

********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in Practice– Principled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and Forkum – Political cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.

This Week on the Web (January 27 – February 2)

********************************************************************************************

Video of the Week:

Hillary on Oil Profits: "I want to take those profits"
Cspan (via YouTube)

Editor’s note: But don’t worry, it’s all for the common good (as she defines it).

NEWS

With Iran ascendant, U.S. is seen at fault

MSNBC.com

Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, in part to transform the Middle East, Iran is ascendant, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries, their own feelings of weakness accentuated, are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating.

Iran has deepened its relationship with Palestinian Islamic groups, assuming a financial role once filled by Gulf Arab states, in moves it sees as defensive and the United States views as aggressive. In Lebanon and Iraq, Iran is fighting proxy battles against the United States with funds, arms and ideology. And in the vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Iranian foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is exerting a power and prestige that recalls the heady days of the 1979 Islamic revolution, when Iranian clerics led the toppling of a U.S.-backed government.

COMMENTARY

A Savings Disaster? Hardly

Investor’s Business Daily

"Savings at 74-year low," screams one headline. "Baby-boom crisis," shouts another. No question, the savings rate is low. Time to panic? No, time to stop fretting about a statistic of such marginal importance.

'People once again spent everything they made and then some last year, pushing the personal savings rate to the lowest level since the Great Depression more than seven decades ago," went the lead on the Associated Press story, typical of many others like it. But nothing could be more misleading.

It seems the media and even some economists who should know better have no problem pushing the panic button over any data that suggest the economy is struggling — but studiously ignore anything that suggests we're actually thriving economically.

One Person, One Vote?

George Will, Townhall.com

There they go again. House Democrats should at least provide variety in their venality. Last Wednesday, fresh from legislating new ethics regarding relations with lobbyists, they demonstrated that there are worse forms of corruption than those involving martinis and money.

They again voted to give the delegates to the House from Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico, the right to vote in the House when it is sitting as the "Committee of the Whole," which is how it sits almost all the time. It is in that status that almost all debate about and amending of legislation occur.

[…]

What part of the words "several states" do House Democrats not understand? Their cynical assumption is that "the people of the several states" will not notice this dilution of their representation in the House.

[…]

The 58,000 Samoans pay no federal income taxes, but their delegate will be able to participate in raising the taxes of, say, Montanans. Samoa's delegate will have virtually the same power as Rep. Denny Rehberg, who represents all 944,000 Montanans. Obviously the Democrats' reverence for the principle "one person, one vote" is, well, situational.

Free Markets or "Corporate Social Responsibility"

Wayne Winegarden, Townhall.com

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) advocates and business magazines point to these companies and claim that CSR is not only the right thing to do, it also enhances profits. These companies can “do well by doing good!” Such simplistic claims miss the grander danger that CSR, as a movement, represents.

CSR activists start the discussion with the answer: GE should invest in wind power; Wal-Mart should pay its workers more. By its very name, “Corporate Social Responsibility” activists are advocating the socially responsible position. If you disagree with CSR policies, you are obviously socially irresponsible. The CSR activists’ policies forget one fundamental fact of life that dooms their policies from the start: scarcity.

Executive Camp: Congress tries again to hit CEO pay. Watch out, middle class

Opinion Journal

Here we go again. This week Democrats are partying like it's 1993 in the Senate, where they are about to fire what promises to be only the first salvo in their latest war on "excessive" CEO pay.

By an overwhelming majority yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture on the minimum-wage hike. But in order to get the provision past the Republican minority, Senate leaders attached it to tax cuts that are supposed to help the small businesses that stand to be hurt by the minimum-wage increase. And, in order to "pay for" those tax breaks, our solons had to find offsetting "revenue raisers"--that is, tax hikes. So, to review: To raise the minimum wage, the Senate had to cut taxes. But to cut taxes, the Senate had to raise taxes.

Specifically, to raise taxes on "the rich"--for which, read: corporate executives.

[…]

Jim Webb and his "new populist" mates can flog CEOs all they want in their speeches. But the people who will end up paying will be shareholders and the ordinary Americans who don't have the luxury of avoiding yet another millionaire's trap when it gets sprung on them.

The nonscandal of CEO pay

Rich Lowry, Jewish World Review

Once something officially becomes a crisis, that means that it is certain there will be a raft of foolish proposals to address it, and sure enough, legislative measures to crimp corporate pay already are bubbling up. There are, of course, some abuses in CEO compensation packages, but the broad picture justifies the truism, "You get what you pay for." Skyrocketing CEO pay has coincided with two decades of wondrous economic performance, during which the value of all stocks traded in the U.S. rose from $1.3 trillion in 1981 to more than $15 trillion in 2000.

The scolds of corporate pay yearn, in effect, for the bad old days of the 1970s. Then, CEOs were paid relatively small amounts, but corporations weren't particularly innovative and were run with little concern for the interests of shareholders. The hostile-takeover revolution of the 1980s changed all that. Buyout firms sought out undervalued companies, which they bought and turned around. This required top-notch managers who had to be rewarded handsomely for their performance.

As The Economist magazine puts it, CEOs had been paid like bureaucrats; now they are paid like entrepreneurs.

Big, Big Government

John Stossel, Jewish World Review

The U.S. government says its drug laws trump the states' laws, and in 2005, the Supreme Court agreed.

This is not the way it was supposed to work. The constitutional plan presented in the Federalist Papers delegated only a few powers to the federal government, with the rest reserved to the states. The system was hailed for its genius. Instead of having decisions made in the center — where errors would harm the entire country — most policies would be determined in a decentralized environment. A mistake in California would affect only Californians. New Yorkers, Ohioans, and others could try something else. Everyone would learn and benefit from the various experiments.

It made a lot of sense. It still does. Too bad the idea is being tossed on the trash heap by big-government Republicans and their DEA goons.

Drug prohibition — like alcohol prohibition — is a silly idea, as the late free-market economist Milton Friedman often pointed out. Something doesn't go away just because the government decrees it illegal. It simply goes underground. Then a black market creates worse problems. Since sellers cannot rely on police to protect their property, they arm themselves, form gangs, charge monopoly prices, and kill their competitors. Buyers steal to pay the high prices.

********************************************************************************************

Other links

The Ayn Rand Institute

The Objective Standard

Capitalism Magazine

4Commonsense.net

OpinionJournal.com

Junk Science

Activism Humor

The Intellectual Activist

Web Logs

Principles in Practice– Principled commentary on cultural matters and current events from “The Objective Standard”

Cox and Forkum – Political cartoons and commentary

Noodle Food

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid – Donald Luskin

Dollars and Crosses – CapitalismMagazine.com

Rule of Reason – The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

4CommonSense

**********************************************************************************************************

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone who may be interested (or they can sign up by sending an email with “Week on the Web” in the subject line to rsmurphy@hotmail.com).

Send links to articles that you feel would be a good addition to this newsletter to rsmurphy@hotmail.com.

To receive this newsletter in Microsoft Word format, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - MS Word” on the subject line.

If you wish to unsubscribe, please reply to this email and include “Week on the Web - unsubscribe” on the subject line.