A FOLLOW UP FROM DANIEL
I don't think they actually want or need to keep it off our screens, as long as the spin is right. The Blackhawk Down movie was an attempt to force a certain view of 'them' onto the screens, no? War as entertainment, as long as we aren't 'them'? I doubt that particular movie went down well in Somalia.

> his elite class controls the INFORMATION they get!  that's the front line.
That's where I disagree. The front line is still real, and it exists somewhere in the third world. When whoever brought the front line to New York for a single day did so, people were surprised precisely because it was happening on their own doorstep for once.

As much as it might excite the westerner to think that they are on the front line of WWIII because they watch TV, let's have some respect for the real targets.
Daniel
- am tempted to just agree because of your last point, daniel. maybe it depends whether you're looking from a foot soldier's or a general's pov but i say the people in new york were surprised (to say the least) because they were forced to realise they WERE the front line. or, put another way, the Struggle is probably a losing one viewed simply from the 3rd world. i mean the best they could ever achieve is a stand off nightmare for everyone – kinda like it's starting to look. it's the renaissance from within, the Angel Within as thatcher almost said, that must make the difference. it's masses of people changing their view and behaviour in the west. we are creating the problem, and we're the only ones who can solve it. and a lot of what we have to learn, of course, is what those 3rd world people have to teach, their real wealth that we converted into the fast plastic of convenience.
UP - A winter thunderstorm was once thought to be an omen of death for a great man.


“WAR ON TERROR NOT OVER YET” EMPEROR DECLARES
CORUSCANT -- Presiding over a memorial service commemorating the victims of the attack on the Death Star, the Emperor declared that while recent victories over the Rebel Alliance were “encouraging, the War on Terror is not over yet.”

“We will continue to fight these terrorists, and the rogue governments who harbor them, until the universe is safe, once and for all, and the security of the Neo-New Cosmik Order ensured.”

It was one year ago today that the Death Star, perhaps the greatest symbol of the Empire's might, was destroyed in an attack by fanatic Rebels, who used small, single-person crafts to infiltrate seemingly impenetrable defenses. Thousands of mourners were on hand to remember and pay tribute to the victims and their families.

“We lost our innocence that day,” reflected one mourner. “I guess we thought we were immune from the kind of violence that happens in other galaxies. We were wrong.”

“I lost hundreds of buddies that day,” said one teary-eyed Stormtrooper. “Guys whose only crime was trying make the Universe a safer place.”

Although the day was colored by sadness, the mourners found some relief in the news of a decisive victory over the Rebels.

In an attack led by Darth Vader, Empire forces were able to rout hundreds of Rebels from a network of caves underneath the surface of the planet Hoth.  “We're not sure we got them all,” says a Vader spokesman. “There are a lot of places to hide in those caves. But we've delivered a powerful blow to the terrorist's infrastructure, that's for sure. Today, the Empire has struck back.”

Initial reports are unclear as to the fate of Luke Skywalker, a hero among the Rebels, who is rumored to have delivered the fatal blow to the Death Star.  Skywalker, a former desert-dweller from the planet Tattooine, became a part of the Rebellion after family members were killed. Skywalker was trained by a militant wing of the Rebels, known as “Jedi Knights.” Fanatical in their religious beliefs, the Jedi Knights claim to derive their power from the mystical “Force.”

It's believed that Skywalker was specifically trained by infamous terrorist O bin Wankanobi.   Wankanobi, occasionally called “Ben” and easily recognized by his bearded visage and long, flowing robes, achieved near-martyr status among the Rebels after his death last year during a spy mission.  His more fervent followers believe that Wankanobi lives on within them today, some even claiming to hear his voice during times of duress.

The attack on the Death Star came shortly after the Empire's destruction of Alderstaan, a planet whose government was known to harbor terrorists.  Responding to criticism over the total annihilation of the planet, Vader stated, “There is no middle ground in the War on Terror. Those who harbor terrorists are terrorists themselves. Alderaan was issued ample warning. The fight for continuing Freedom is often burdened by terrible cost.”

The cost of this war can still be seen today in the continuing efforts to build a coalition government on Tattooine.  Longstanding animosities among the planets various ethnic groups, including the Jawas, Tusken Raiders and scattered human settlers, have been an impediment to the peace process. The Empire continues to maintain a small peace keeping force until a provisional government is finally in place.

Much of the difficulty in fighting the Rebel forces stems from their lack of a central organizing structure. “They don't play by the traditional rules of war,” complained one spokesman.  “They come in all shapes and sizes, united only by their single-minded desire to destroy the Empire before it destroys them.”

The Emperor closed his comments today by stating that “the cowardly attack on the Death Star left a deep scar on the Empire. However, we will not stop fighting until every last evildoer has been brought to justice.” He paused for several moments, wiping away a tear and then added with determination, “We will never forget.”

“I wish we could all just get along,” said one of the mourners. “But it's hard to offer an olive branch to a cult of religious fanatics whose main tool is violence and who insist on calling us 'the Dark Side.'”
erick / deep undercover in sunny LA :)
UP - 'Thunder in spring rain will bring'.

london
SUN APRIL 28        NEW CROSS RADICAL HISTORY WALK
A radical history ramble through New Cross and Deptford, starting at 3 pm sharp outside the Hobgoblin Pub (opp New Cross Gate station) and ending up at another pub or maybe on the beach, tide permitting.
Peasants Revolt 1381 - Cornish Uprising 1487- Christopher Marlowe 1593 - demonic possession in Deptford 1684 - Deptford Bread Riot 1867 - New Cross 'bomb outrage' 1884 - Gas workers strike 1889 - General Strike 1926 - V2 attack 1944 - Malcolm McClaren and the Goldsmiths Free Festival 1969 - Jah Shaka and the Moonlight Club 1970s - anti-National Front march 1977 - Alternative TV and Deptford punk 1977 - New Cross Fire 1981 - Slavery, Slaughteryard and Shipbuilding and more...
wot no hippies?!
practicalhistory@hotmail.com
UP - In 37% of Western Urbanites, the thirst mechanism is so weak it's often mistaken for hunger.


OpenCola: THE GREAT GIVEAWAY
Good ideas are worth money, right? So why are hard headed operators giving them away for free? Join the GREAT EXPERIMENT to find out!!

LEGALLY LIFTED FOR FREE FROM
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/copyleftart.jsp

IF YOU'VE BEEN to a computer show in recent months you might have seen it: a shiny silver drinks can with a ring-pull logo and the words "opencola" on the side. Inside is a fizzy drink that tastes very much like Coca-Cola. Or is it Pepsi?
There's something else written on the can, though, which sets the drink apart. It says "check out the source at opencola.com".
Go to that Web address and you'll see something that's not available on Coca-Cola's website, or Pepsi's--the recipe for cola. For the first time ever, you can make the real thing in your own home.
OpenCola is the world's first "open source" consumer product. By calling it open source, its manufacturer is saying that instructions for making it are freely available. Anybody can make the drink, and anyone can modify and improve on the recipe as long as they, too, release their recipe into the public domain. As a way of doing business it's rather unusual--the Coca-Cola Company doesn't make a habit of giving away precious commercial secrets. But that's the point.
OpenCola is the most prominent sign yet that a long-running battle between rival philosophies in software development has spilt over into the rest of the world. What started as a technical debate over the best way to debug computer programs is developing into a political battle over the ownership of knowledge and how it is used, between those who put their faith in the free circulation of ideas and those who prefer to designate them "intellectual property".
No one knows what the outcome will be. But in a world of growing opposition to corporate power, restrictive intellectual property rights and globalisation, open source is emerging as a possible alternative, a potentially potent means of fighting back. And you're helping to test its value right now.

THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT
The open source movement originated in 1984 when computer scientist Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT and set up the Free Software Foundation. His aim was to create high-quality software that was freely available to everybody. Stallman's beef was with commercial companies that smother their software with patents and copyrights and keep the source code--the original program, written in a computer language such as C++--a closely guarded secret. Stallman saw this as damaging. It generated poor-quality, bug-ridden software. And worse, it choked off the free flow of ideas. Stallman fretted that if computer scientists could no longer learn from one another's code, the art of programming would stagnate (New Scientist, 12 December 1998, p 42).
Stallman's move resonated round the computer science community and now there are thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is Linux, an operating system created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in the early 1990s and installed on around 18 million computers worldwide.
What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to pay a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying or sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several companies will sell you the software bundled with support services. You can also modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it without restrictions.
This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and winkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system that adapts rapidly to technological change.
Linux is so successful that even IBM installs it on the computers it sells.
To maintain this benign state of affairs, open source software is covered by a special legal instrument called the General Public License. Instead of restricting how the software can be used, as a standard software license does, the GPL--often known as a "copyleft"--grants as much freedom as possible (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Software released under the GPL (or a similar copyleft licence) can be copied, modified and distributed by anyone, as long as they, too, release it under a copyleft. That restriction is crucial, because it prevents the material from being co-opted into later proprietary products. It also makes open source software different from programs that are merely distributed free of charge. In FSF's words, the GPL "makes it free and guarantees it remains free".
Open source has proved a very successful way of writing software. But it has also come to embody a political stand--one that values freedom of expression, mistrusts corporate power, and is uncomfortable with private ownership of knowledge. It's "a broadly libertarian view of the proper relationship between individuals and institutions", according to open source guru Eric Raymond.

NEXT THE WORLD?
It's not just software companies that lock knowledge away and release it only to those prepared to pay. Every time you buy a CD, a book, a copy of New Scientist, even a can of Coca-Cola, you're forking out for access to someone else's intellectual property. Your money buys you the right to listen to, read or consume the contents, but not to rework them, or make copies and redistribute them. No surprise, then, that people within the open source movement have asked whether their methods would work on other products. As yet no one's sure--but plenty are trying it.
Take OpenCola. Although originally intended as a promotional tool to explain open source software, the drink has taken on a life of its own. The Toronto-based OpenCola company has become better known for the drink than the software it was supposed to promote. Laird Brown, the company's senior strategist, attributes its success to a widespread mistrust of big corporations and the "proprietary nature of almost everything". A website selling the stuff has shifted 150,000 cans. Politically minded students in the US have started mixing up the recipe for parties.

MUSIC? BELONGS TO EVERYONE, RIGHT?
OpenCola is a happy accident and poses no real threat to Coke or Pepsi, but elsewhere people are deliberately using the open source model to challenge entrenched interests. One popular target is the music industry.
At the forefront of the attack is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group set up to defend civil liberties in the digital society. In April of last year, the EFF published a model copyleft called the Open Audio License (OAL). The idea is to let musicians take advantage of digital music's properties--ease of copying and distribution--rather than fighting against them. Musicians who release music under an OAL consent to their work being freely copied, performed, reworked and reissued, as long as these new products are released under the same licence. They can then rely on "viral distribution" to get heard. "If the people like the music, they will support the artist to ensure the artist can continue to make music," says Robin Gross of the EFF.
        It's a little early to judge whether the OAL will capture imaginations in the same way as OpenCola. But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify.
        It's also not clear why any mainstream artists would ever choose to release music under an OAL. Many bands objected to the way Napster members circulated their music behind their backs, so why would they now allow unrestricted distribution, or consent to strangers fiddling round with their music? Sure enough, you're unlikely to have heard of any of the 20 bands that have posted music on the registry. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Open Audio amounts to little more than an opportunity for obscure artists to put themselves in the shop window.

ENCYCLOPEDIAS? SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE EVERYONE, RIGHT?
The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open source methods elsewhere. Encyclopedias, for example, look like fertile ground. Like software, they're collaborative and modular, need regular upgrading, and improve with peer review.
But the first attempt, a free online reference called Nupedia, hasn't exactly taken off. Two years on, only 25 of its target 60,000 articles have been completed. "At the current rate it will never be a large encyclopedia," says editor-in-chief Larry Sanger. The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them.
It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit.
There's another possibility: trust the collective goodwill of the open source community. A year ago, frustrated by the treacle-like progress of Nupedia, Sanger started another encyclopedia named Wikipedia (the name is taken from open source Web software called WikiWiki that allows pages to be edited by anyone on the Web). It's a lot less formal than Nupedia: anyone can write or edit an article on any topic, which probably explains the entries on beer and Star Trek. But it also explains its success. Wikipedia already contains 19,000 articles and is acquiring several thousand more each month. "People like the idea that knowledge can and should be freely distributed and developed," says Sanger. Over time, he reckons, thousands of dabblers should gradually fix any errors and fill in any gaps in the articles until Wikipedia evolves into an authoritative encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of entries

OTTA BE A LAW AGAINST IT?
Another experiment that's proved its worth is the OpenLaw project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Berkman lawyers specialise in cyberlaw--hacking, copyright, encryption and so on--and the centre has strong ties with the EFF and the open source software community. In 1998 faculty member Lawrence Lessig, now at Stanford Law School, was asked by online publisher Eldritch Press to mount a legal challenge to US copyright law. Eldritch takes books whose copyright has expired and publishes them on the Web, but new legislation to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death was cutting off its supply of new material. Lessig invited law students at Harvard and elsewhere to help craft legal arguments challenging the new law on an online forum, which evolved into OpenLaw.
        Normal law firms write arguments the way commercial software companies write code. Lawyers discuss a case behind closed doors, and although their final product is released in court, the discussions or "source code" that produced it remain secret. In contrast, OpenLaw crafts its arguments in public and releases them under a copyleft. "We deliberately used free software as a model," says Wendy Selzer, who took over OpenLaw when Lessig moved to Stanford. Around 50 legal scholars now work on Eldritch's case, and OpenLaw has taken other cases, too.
        "The gains are much the same as for software," Selzer says. "Hundreds of people scrutinise the 'code' for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on them, then patch them in." Armed with arguments crafted in this way, OpenLaw has taken Eldritch's case--deemed unwinnable at the outset--right through the system and is now seeking a hearing in the Supreme Court.
        There are drawbacks, though. The arguments are in the public domain right from the start, so OpenLaw can't spring a surprise in court. For the same reason, it can't take on cases where confidentiality is important. But where there's a strong public interest element, open sourcing has big advantages. Citizens' rights groups, for example, have taken parts of OpenLaw's legal arguments and used them elsewhere. "People use them on letters to Congress, or put them on flyers," Selzer says.

WELL, A PRETTY BIG PART OF THE WORLD!
The open content movement is still at an early stage and it's hard to predict how far it will spread. "I'm not sure there are other areas where open source would work," says Sanger. "If there were, we might have started it ourselves." Eric Raymond has also expressed doubts. In his much-quoted 1997 essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he warned against applying open source methods to other products.
"Music and most books are not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or maintained," he wrote. Without that need, the products gain little from others' scrutiny and reworking, so there's little benefit in open sourcing. "I do not want to weaken the winning argument for open sourcing software by tying it to a potential loser," he wrote.
But Raymond's views have now shifted subtly. "I'm more willing to admit that I might talk about areas other than software someday," he told New Scientist. "But not now." The right time will be once open source software has won the battle of ideas, he says. He expects that to happen around 2005.

And so the experiment goes on. As a contribution to it, New Scientist has agreed to issue this article under a copyleft. That means you can copy it, redistribute it, reprint it in whole or in part, and generally play around with it as long as you, too, release your version under a copyleft and abide by the other terms and conditions in the licence. We also ask that you inform us of any use you make of the article, by e-mailing copyleft@newscientist.com.
One reason for doing so is that by releasing it under a copyleft, we can print the recipe for OpenCola without violating its copyleft. If nothing else, that demonstrates the power of the copyleft to spread itself.
But there's another reason, too: TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS. To my knowledge this is the first magazine article published under a copyleft. Who knows what the outcome will be? Perhaps the article will disappear without a trace. Perhaps it will be photocopied, redistributed, re-edited, rewritten, cut and pasted onto websites, handbills and articles all over the world. I don't know--but that's the point. It's not up to me any more. The decision belongs to all of us.
For a selection of copylefts, see http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/open_alternatives.html
http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS FREE
it may be copied, distributed and/or modified under the conditions set down in the Design Science License published by Michael Stutz at http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
UP - Even MILD dehydration will slow down one's metabolism as much as 3%.


A PSEUDO DEMOCRACY IN PALESTINE
Our Belgium Jewish ambassador said the reason why Bush and America are accepted to negotiate is because they are the only ones who understand terrorism. They say they're democratic, and want to live next to their Palestinian neighbours as a Jewish state. But that means also that they never accept any fusion of people in one country. Jews for the Jews. I don't see much democracy in this. In most countries, like in Israel it often was the case, except for the government's interpretation, several races and people can live nicely together. Why can't they build anything up together any more? Separation of thought contains dangerous egoism and egocentrism, treating others like animals as long as their own people come out the best. The so called fighting against terrorism is also taking away all self-defence and armed force of Palestine. In the end the Israelis are the only ones who can decide who to kill with any excuse.
Now they're trying to find a way to imprint a pseudo democracy in Palestine, similar like in most countries, so that the ones with power will be safe for as long as they can...
gerald / belgium
UP - 75% of Western Urbanites are chronically dehydrated.


THE 10 WORST CORPORATIONS OF 2001
<a penny gray remix of original text from Multinational Monitor, Dec 2001>

SARA LEE: For poisoning the public with impunity
Perhaps no prosecution in the history of corporate criminality can compare in its duplicity to the prosecution in the Ball Park Franks Fiasco.
Bil Mar Foods is a unit of the Chicago-based giant Sara Lee Corporation, the maker of pound cakes, cheesecakes, pies, muffins, L'Eggs, Hanes, Playtex and Wonderbra products - your typical food and underwear conglomerate.
Bil Mar makes hot dogs - Ball Park Franks hot dogs.
Last July, Sara Lee pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts in connection with a listeriosis outbreak that led to the deaths of at least 21 consumers who ate Ball Park Franks hot dogs and other meat products. One hundred people were seriously injured. The company paid a $200,000 fine. According to Kenneth Moll, a Chicago attorney representing the families of the victims, this is what happened:
Bil Mar has a hot dog facility in Zeeland, Michigan. The company shut down the facility over the July 4th weekend of 1998 to replace a refrigeration unit that was above the hot dog processing facility. The hot dogs are heated at one end and sent down a conveyer belt to the other. Moll's theory is that the removal of the air conditioning unit and its replacement dislodged some dangerous bacteria in the ceiling. When the plant reopened, steam from the passing hot dogs went up to the ceiling, condensed and dripped back down with the dangerous bacteria onto the hot dogs.
In November 1998, Paul Mead from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta started receiving calls from the state health departments around the country that had isolated strains of a deadly bacteria, Listeria monocytogenes.
Mead looked at the bacteria and found they were the same strain. He sent out questionnaires and discovered there was an open package of hot dogs in the home of one of the people who died. The CDC tested the hot dogs and isolated the same bacterial strain - a DNA fingerprint of the type of bacteria.
According to Moll, Mead went to the Bil Mar plant in Zeeland, Michigan, tested unopened packages of hot dogs and was able to isolate the same DNA fingerprint bacteria. In December 1998, Sara Lee ordered a recall of millions of pounds of hot dogs and deli meats.
According to a series of reports in the Detroit Free Press, plant workers were regularly testing work surfaces for the presence of cold-loving bacteria - a class of bacteria that includes the deadly Listeria monocytogenes as well as some harmless bacteria.
According to the Free Press, beginning in July 1998, after the replacement of the old refrigeration unit, workers recorded a sharp increase in the presence of cold-loving bacteria. The number of positive samples remained high until the company stopped performing tests in November 1998 - a month before the Sara Lee recall.
"Sara Lee was doing testing of the environment in the plant for cold-loving bacteria," says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Then their tests started coming up positive, so they stopped testing. They knew they had a problem with bacteria in the plant. But instead of solving it, they chose to ignore it."

This is crucial, because if the company knew that it had a Listeria monocytogenes problem and ignored it, it could be hit with a felony conviction. And felony convictions have all kinds of collateral consequences, including possible loss of federal contracts - Sara Lee had a big hot dog contract with the Department of Defense.
In an interview, U.S. Attorney Phillip Green said there was insufficient evidence to bring a felony charge.
"There was simply no evidence that Sara Lee Bil Mar knew that the food product that they were producing and shipping out was adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes," Green says. When asked about the allegations raised by the Free Press that the company was testing for cold-loving bacteria, Green told us, "the testing you are referring to is known as Low Temperature Pathogens testing - that is a very general test that does not necessarily indicate the presence of Listeria monocytogenes."
"The USDA regulations don't require a plant to conduct testing on finished products for the presence of deadly pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes," Green said. "And Bil Mar was following accepted industry practices in conducting general testing for the low temperature pathogens."
But he refused to answer specific questions about evidence concerning a possible felony violation.
Moll - the attorney representing the victims - says that the evidence "does necessarily indicate the presence of Listeria monocytogenes." The CDC's Mead found studies showing that, had Sara Lee done further testing for the deadly strain of listeria, almost half of the cold-loving bacteria could have tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes.
But U.S. Attorney Green never read Mead's report. He never called on Mead, perhaps the crucial expert in this case, to testify before the grand jury. In fact, it is apparent that federal prosecutors were overpowered by Sara Lee's outside lawyers in this case - the Chicago firm of Jenner & Block, led by former Chicago U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas.
Valukas refused, on advice of his client, to comment.
But the extraordinary degree of the collaboration between Sara Lee and the federal prosecutors in this case can be seen on Sara Lee's web site where it has posted a "joint press release."
No, that's not a typo. The U.S. Attorney and Sara Lee issued a joint press release announcing the plea agreement in which no mention is made of Ball Park Franks hot dogs. The issuance of a joint press release is an extraordinary event. U.S. Attorney Green can't name another case where the prosecutor and convict issued a joint press release announcing their plea agreement. Neither can the current chief of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice, Michael Chertoff. He calls it "unusual."

In a number of ways, the Sara Lee prosecution brings home the double standards in the criminal justice system. A company pleads guilty to a crime that leads to the death of 21 human beings. The company pleads to two misdemeanors. The company is fined $200,000. Think about that next time you buy a hot dog.
UP - One glass of water shut down midnight hunger pangs for almost 100% of dieters in a U-Washington study.


san francisco
SUN APRIL 28        DELPHI: THE RITES OF SPRING
A DAYTIME DIONYSIAN DANCE EXPERIENCE in a beautiful location, surrounded by nature trails overlooking the City, presented by MOKSHA TRIBE
A free day party for friends and family.
DJs: Nomadic DJ - trance/darkwave, ShezTek - tech-trance and techno, Redstickman – house, Jauncy and ShezTek - breaks tag-team Sound by Neuroscience Creations Visuals by the goddess Lighting by the Sun god Apollo

The Amphitheater of the gods (McLaren Amphitheater, McLaren Park, SF) 12pm – 6pm Donations will be accepted for Larkin Street Youth Center.
Bring blankets, a picnic basket and good vibes. Water available nearby.
Directions to the McLaren Amphitheater (near the Cow Palace) will be posted before the party and on their website
www.mokshatribe.com
UP - Lack of water, the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue.
UP - Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.