As many of you may have noticed already, ASUA presidential candidate Anthony Stuart reports that fifteen people (as of his first reports) have filed complaints against ASUA Senator Steven Gerner for setting up a website containing two frames: one with his candidate endorsement and the other with the official polling website.

Stuart posted a reply through a comment on the previous post as well as mistakenly emailing the entire ASUA listserv when he only wanted to send it to me. After some outcry, I clarified the situation and Stuart subsequently apologized for the mistake. There is a provision of the Elections Code that prohibits campaigning on listservs unless a club which owns a listserv is making an endorsement. Stuart clearly wasn’t intending to campaign on a listserv here; let’s hope the Elections Commission agrees.

In addition to the allegations in the comment and email, Stuart contends that not only is Gerner posting the website after it had been struck down by the Elections Commission, but also that this constitutes an egregious violation of both the Elections Code and his personal integrity. Moreover, the posting of the site endangers the candidates listed to major action from the Elections Commission. I recall that Elections Commissioner David Martinez III did mention during the mandatory candidate meeting following the petition deadline that individual candidates would be held responsible for clubs’ violations of the elections code, e.g. putting more than one candidate’s name on a single flyer. I didn’t talk to Stuart long on the phone (as he has a campaign event tonight), but I think this restriction is what he was talking about. As I’ve mentioned way too many times lately, Gerner is the central figure in the recent “Red” dealings (1 | 2 | 3 | 4) on which only the Growler has been reporting.

Should this particular issue come to the ASUA Supreme Court, it may come to an issue of the definition of “campaign staff” as debated in a case last year. At that time, it was ruled that candidate Rhonda Tubbs could not be punished for a campaign violation that fellow “Orange” ticket candidate Matt Van Horn committed on her behalf. As I understood it, Tubbs could not be disqualified because Van Horn technically wasn’t a member of her campaign staff. (By the way, the violation was for putting “Vote Rhonda Tubbs” on his AOL Instant Messenger profile. This act is no longer a violation under the new elections code.)

It is my belief that the ASUA Supreme Court is quite corrupt, at least after my experience with getting stonewalled either for not being a real journalist or for having criticized their inherent claim to objectivity after Justice Shar Bahrmani wrote a letter to the Wildcat concerning the Cade Bernsen sexual harassment allegations. Bahrmani still sits on the court. That’s right; Rep. Grijalva wasn’t the first guy to ever stonewall me for not being a real journalist in case you were wondering.

Meanwhile, the “Judicial Court” at Texas A&M University recently ruled that their elections rule concerning multiple candidate names was unconstitutional. Should a club make the exact mistake Commissioner Martinez was citing, this could be another constitutional issue for the court to decide.

I’m one to think Steven Gerner is within his constitutional rights regardless of whether Anthony Stuart was correct in calling him a “slimeball” over the phone. Constitutional rights unfortunately do not always entail etiquette, though if I was in his position I would have done what I’m doing now: endorse the candidates and avoid getting them in trouble.

The Elections Commission according to the Elections Code has 24 hours to respond to each of the 15 or more complaints received today. Stuart claims he sent his complaint within one hour of his reading it this morning, so expect something soon. Meanwhile, I’m contacting Gerner for comment and keeping a very watchful eye on everybody.

Coming tomorrow morning is a report concerning the current visit of mall evangelist “Brother” Jed Smock, including my confrontation with him and various candidates mocking him or using his crowd in order to campaign. I’ve actually had a change of heart about the guy, and I’m quite peeved at the candidates who decided to take advantage the way they did. If you haven’t voted yet and you’re considering candidates other than my endorsements, you will want to read this report before casting your ballot.

Full disclosure: I consider Steven a friend and we are registered as friends on Facebook after having taken a class together. I can always pledge to do my best to remain objective in such matters, but disclosure matters as well. Take that as you wish.

The Politico has two stories (1 | 2) concerning the departure of Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and others from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus after Sanchez accused its chairman Joe Baca of calling her a “whore.” Count Rep. Grijalva in among the defectors according to the first article there.

If you’re from Yuma, attempt to combine the kooky, hat-wearing mentality of former mayoral candidate Carol Engler combined with a teenage girl’s affinity/tendency for showing off her legs, except that Sanchez has a cat, not a hat. That’s Loretta Sanchez.

• Christmas card #1
• Christmas card #2
• Christmas card #3 (INNUENDO WARNING. I’M SERIOUS.)

I may be a conservative blogger, but I’m also completely against animal brutality. Somebody please rescue the cat.

I just noticed in my statistics this afternoon that somebody had clicked to the Growler from the Wikipedia article of Rep. Raúl Grijalva, with whom I had a well-known incident back in early October.

During the winter break, I’ve been a regular contributor to Wikipedia, making over 400 edits.  Some have been mistakes, but otherwise, I’m glad to have been fighting hundreds of vandalism cases inbetween working out and resting back in Yuma.  Nonetheless, I affirm that this was not my edit.  As evidenced in the article’s history, user Kynn Bartlett made the edit at 10:51 MST yesterday.

I will be contributing to the discussion in order to have a more-specific link included, but I will refrain from editing the article myself, as Wikipedia is rightfully strict concerning neutral point of view.  I expect Congressmen’s pages may receive extra traffic and editing today, as the new Congress has been sworn in.

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes or other podcatcher

Some random, unorganized thoughts…

• The microphone was one of those cheap Labtec desktop microphones.  It has much better frequency range than the one the Grijalva staffer disabled.  The audio is best heard with speakers capable of good bass (i.e. not my notebook speakers).
• The Grijalva staffer who disabled my microphone on the night of October 6th was not present.
• Tedski of RRR notes that Drake supporters (College Republicans?) were yelling "Vote for the American name[!]"  I can confirm that Tedski was present; we shook hands and talked for a bit.  It’s safe to assume this was outside at the north roundabout since I never heard or saw any such thing in the Kiva room.  I have friends within the CR’s, but if this is true, it’s absolutely uncalled for.
• What I did hear was Native American drumming outside the north windows of the Kiva Room.  The microphone did pick up some of this.  I can’t say whether this is their regular thing on Wednesday night or an effort to show support for Grijalva.
• I had two Grijalva staffers sitting to my left, the nearest of whom would take occasional glances at my computer while I was liveblogging and recording.  Quite annoying.  I need to get myself a privacy screen for things like this.
• Those weird vibrating noises early in the recording are me adjusting the microphone upon industrial carpet.  It would have been fine to leave it where it was; I’ll remember that next time.
• I estimate that Drake’s open right hand (palm down) came about four inches away from Rep. Grijalva’s face at eye level when he motioned for him to be quiet and exclaimed "Excuse me!" (about 42:16-42:18 in the audio file).  Grijalva apologizes; Drake doesn’t accept.
• Libertarian District 8 candidate David Nolan was also present.
• "We record.  You decide." was a concoction of my warped mind during breakfast this morning.  I subsequently recorded the audio after washing the dishes.
• No reaction from any of the candidates’ websites spotted.  Sole media reaction to this specific debate is from the Wildcat.
• Check the liveblogged comments for more.
• Intro music is "A Pizza Without Time" by Derek K. Miller of Penmachine.
• Audio is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.  Do whatever you want with it so long as you credit me (and Mr. Miller for the music).

(8:53) Back at my apartment with some closing remarks.  I’m not sure whether the audio will be good; reception was low.  Video camera actually belonged to the Drake campaign; no word on whether they’ll release the product.  Drake and staff darted out following debate towards the 2nd Street Garage.  Grijalva hung out for a while near Great Clips.  Cobb hung out at the site of the debate and performed the best at least according to my own ideological bent.  Loudness highlight was around 7:44 during rebuttals over some OSHA controversy.  Drake and Grijalva disagreed on a factual basis there.   Somebody please expain this to me. 

(7:56) Closing statements.  Cobb: "Think outside the box."  Constitution is not set up around two-party system.  Would like to see Green party on ballot in Arizona.  Instant-runoff voting.  Won’t be "wasting your vote."  "Packaged deals are just bad things."  Open up the market.  "One term is enough."  Grijalva: Politics is not what it should be.  Nation built on great values and traditions.  Elected officials have responsibility to uphold such values.  Diversity (ugh…).  Opportunity / American dream not about "privileged few."  Drake: Thanks panel.  "[T]ime for a change."  World is not coming crashing down on us.  Great opportunities.  Leadership.  Invest in the people.  Debate ends at 8:02.

(7:50) Federal deficit.  Cobb: Debt approaching $7 trillion; will never be paid off.  Deficit is $300 billion.  Interest has to be paid by current taxes to bond owners.  Debt is shameful, but won’t be paid off, not as bad as people think.  Grijalva: Programs should require revenue accountability.  Repeal tax-cuts to wealthiest 1%.  Big oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance making too much money.  Republicans notorious for borrow-and-spend policies.  Drake: Republicans have disgraced themselves with earmarks, money spending.  Tax cuts produced a net-gain.  Farmer in Yuma had to pay $4.2 million to inherit father’s estate.  Grijalva would like that.  Don’t create burden on college generation.  Cobb: Rebuttal against myself.  Eliminate most federal spending.  After cutting spending, cut taxes.

(7:46) First priority.  Drake: Community summit of people within district.  90-day town halls throughout district.  Cobb: Would be only Libertarian there.  Would take first 100 days to visit every other congressman.  Try to build a coalition around "me."  "[G]et my ideas advanced."  Party-line votes on important bill.  9/11 bill was crap; Grijalva’s vote was good.  Grijalva: Depends on make-up of Congress.  Betting on change of leadership, clean house ethically.  Medicare part D.  Protect environment; not selling it out.  Education.

(7:40) Minimum wage.  Grijalva: Raise it.  $5.15 is not sustainable.  Raise to $7.25.  Supports Prop 202.  Drake: Thinks it’s a bad law, but will support if Arizonans do.  Talk about getting jobs into Arizona.  Attacks Grijalva on job growth.  Cobb: Minimum wage is feel-good.  "Go ask anybody on the faculty of economics."  "The answer is unemployment."  Silly idea that doesn’t work; "causes unemployment among weakest and least well-trained in our society."  Get them additional job training.  Most minimum-wage workers are teenagers.  Grijalva 30-sec rebuttal: No record of Grijalva opposition to such job growth, but particular refinery didn’t have financing.  Somebody look this up for me.  Beryllium emissions.  Drake: OSHA requirements met.  Has had a tour; still here.  Confrontation!!  Yow!!  Cobb: "Gee whiz, I don’t know what to say."  More on minimum wage.

(7:33) Iraq.  Cobb: Vote against keeping troops in Middle East.  Afghanistan and Iraq are different countries.  Congress has power to declare war; ought to declare end of war.  "Iraq never really has been a real country."  Stop looking at my screen, please, Mr. Grijalva staffer.  Grijalva: Congress declares war.  Six-month exit strategy.  Bush on ABC: Similarities between Tet Offensive and Iraq.  Disengage.  Drake: "[W]e need to be in Iraq because we’re there now."  Rebuilding the country.  Democracy.  Jihadists have declared war.  Disengagement will create power vacuum.  "Americans don’t cut and run."  We weren’t in Iraq in the 90’s when they attacked us.  Cobb 30-second rebuttal: "I certainly heard the Republican National Committee soundbytes!"  Would create a power vacuum; would be disaster for Iraqi people.  But it’s not the function of the military.  Grijalva 30-sec rebuttal: Bloody month for U.S. troops.  Halliburton.  Drake 30-sec rebuttal: Drake initially declines; then takes it.  Those aren’t my soundbytes; I haven’t taken in NRCC money.  I don’t like to hear about American cowardice.

(7:27) Voter turnout.  Drake: No societal focus on politics.  Define your generation as the one that got involved in politics rather than turning around 50 years later to say "What happened?"  Cobb: Two-party system a "bipolar disorder."  Negative ads are more effective statistically.  Libertarian Party is "party of ideas."  Instant-runoff voting (mentioned in third-party presidential debate two years ago).  Grijalva: Disillusionment with special interests making decisions.  Same-day registration.  Vote by mail.  Early voting.  "This election will be different."

(7:23)  Grijalva: In favor of McCain-Kennedy.  Immigration is so divisive.  "It’s about realism."  McCain-Kennedy was most realistic plan out there.  Drake: Slams Grijalva on wanting citizenship for illegal immigrants.  Secure the borders first.  Keep us safe and keep Mexican nationals from killing themselves.  Fix Visa programs.  Tamper-proof ID cards for Social Security and INS.  Cobb: Sending them home is silly.  Give them a green card and photo ID.  Abolish the quota system.  Enforce 10-year prohibition on welfare for immigrants.  America needs workers.

(7:19)  Santa Cruz to Cobb: What are the strengths of your opponents?  Cobb: Drake is tall.  Grijalva has four years in a predominantly Democratic district.  "I have the advantage of being a fresh, new thinker."  Credits Grijalva for voting against recent military commissions act.  Grijalva: Cobb is direct.  Drake has joined a race about ideas; respectful campaign.  Drake: Cobb is from Avondale.  Grijalva is the incumbent.  That’s all he said.

(7:15) On high school dropouts / education, Drake wants more vocational training in high schools, etc.  Cobb wants "some kind of fundamental reform" against bureaucratic model.  Gov’t schools follow bureaucratic model.  Privatize all schools, but let gov’t pay for it.  Grijalva says have young people ready for post-secondary education.  More funding.  Education should not be "survival of the fittest."  Better teacher pay.

(7:13) Grijalva wants pell grant increases.  Drake wants that and fraud prevention; attacks Grijalva’s record.  Cobb says higher education is important; cut taxes to keep government from being around people’s necks.

(7:10) Federal involvement in college education.  Adjusting microphone placement.

(7:05) Cobb espouses the Libertarian Party.  (:07) Grijalva: "I’ve represented this district with independence, strength…"  "What kind of country are we going to be?"  "…legacy of last four years…"  (:08)  There’s some Native American drumming going on outside.  Is this some sort of subversive cheerleading?  (:09)  Drake: Blames Grijalva for lower graduation rates in high schools and college.  "It’s time for a change."  People "don’t know who their congressman is."  "I’m gonna work for the people."

(7:04) Start of introduction.  Moderators are ASA guy Matthew Boepple, Wildcat editor Nicole Santa Cruz, and Tucson Citizen columnist Mark Kimble

(7:02) We’re past the start time right now; let’s get this thing going.

(6:57) Looks like the College Republicans are getting video of this.  I might make contact and see if we can get that up as well.  Redundancy is important here, though, so I’ll still be recording.

(6:55) I could use one of those privacy screens right now. (hint)

(6:47) By the way, I’m using another microphone; it’s one of those Labtec brand desktop microphones that sell for about $17.  My biggest fear is that it’ll pick up too much within the room.  We shall find out.

(6:43) Now that Rep. Grijalva has spotted me, I can report that I’m liveblogging the debate among Congressional District 7 candidates in person.  Special thanks to University of Arizona wireless internet access and the presence of an accessible power outlet here in the Kiva Room of the Student Union Memorial Center.

Tuesday’s article about me in the Arizona Daily Wildcat wasn’t the only thing in there concerning bloggers and journalism.  Their website also included a poll question: "What is the role of a blogger in journalism?"  Results were as follows.

• 13%: They are journalists.
• 15%: They are watchdogs.
• 16%: They provide entertainment.
• 56%: They are not real journalists.

Despite all the talk about me, I’m inclined to agree; not all bloggers are journalists.  And as I mentioned earlier, I don’t consider myself to be a traditional journalist.  The poll misses an important point, however.  Some bloggers are traditional journalists.  Others are watchdogs.  Others provide entertainment.  Others simply provide unique insight from a different perspective.

It would be a mistake to attempt to categorize every political blogger into singularly distinct categories.  Rather, bloggers can be one or more of these.  Just because there happen to be three satirical podcasts on the Growler doesn’t mean that I don’t watchdog, nor does my watchdogging keep me from producing satire.  I even made a movie poster featuring Rep. Grijalva a while back after I had interviewed him for the first time back in the fall of 2003 as a freshman.

Some questions over the role of bloggers in elections still exist.  What is answered is that not all bloggers covering the elections are doing the same job.  Not all go out on the streets and interview candidates.  Not all simply provide witty commentary or satire.  And only a very small minority would go as far to say that they are trying to pose as "objective journalists."

Ultimately, we’re all citizens, whether we be citizen satirists, commentators, or journalists.  And it’s important to remember that the former two of that list don’t give up rights for not being the third.  Long live the blogosphere.

The Wildcat has the story on the Grijalva incident today.

Natalie Luna, press secretary for Grijalva, said O’Hara passed himself off as a journalist although he was a blogger.

Bloggers have more of a "mouthpiece," as they can be objective or not objective as they choose, Luna said.

Luna said there was initial confusion because Grijalva though O’Hara was a reporter with the Arizona Daily Wildcat.

However, when O’Hara did not get the answers he wanted, he began attacking Grijalva, Luna said.

Funny how other candidates didn’t feel I was "attacking" them, let alone think I was trying to turn public schools into "armed camps."

I’m currently trying to figure out the best way to include links to the rest of the Grijalva story to accomodate usability.  Expect a few random changes throughout the morning. 

I spoke with "Jake" from the Arizona Daily Wildcat over the phone this afternoon, so expect a story to come up very soon.  We ended up talking more about bloggers’ role in politics than the incident itself, following up from Daniel Scarpinato’s comments in the Daily Star, which was nice as the issue is largely undiscussed within the mainstream media. Certainly, the concept in the context of the Internet is relatively new, but I’m certainly not the first person to become involved in an incident like this one within the context of Internet journalism or commentary, nor is this the first time I’ve been snubbed.  I also highly doubt that a college paper like Wildcat hasn’t had its fair share of events such as these in its long history.

I’ll repost those easy-to-find links once I see the Wildcat article come up tomorrow.  Ben Franklin had it right when he advocated early bedtimes and risings.

Update: Just to show this isn’t my first snubbing, here’s the other two notables from last semester.

• The ASUA Supreme Court didn’t see it fit to let me into an elections code violation hearing when the Wildcat was allowed in.  I believe it was in retaliation for my criticism of Justice Shar Bahmani, who had commented on what was looking to be an upcoming impeachment of ASUA President Cade Bernsen for sexual harassment.  There’s a lot more to the story, but I don’t feel like getting sued.
• Only two ASUA candidates bothered to respond to my candidate survey.  I responded by refusing to vote in the general election.

So basically, this incident is not a first time deal.

Update II: I really need to learn to think before I click ’save.’  The incident is a first time deal if you’re talking about a real government official rather than ASUA, or if you’re talking about physical force.

The Arizona Daily Star has a little note about my ordeal today.  Mr. Scarpinato did greet me at last night’s gubernatorial debate to let me know this was going to be in there, but I was not approached for comment before the story was submitted.

As a matter of full disclosure, my previous posts about Mr. Scarpinato are here and here. 

You can go to the Grijalva category page to see only the information directly related to the incident in reverse chronological order or start from the top of this list:

• The initial report on the confrontation (includes incident and interview audio)
• Interviews with six other candidates
• A rebuttal of a false representation found on another blog
• Clarification on the nature of the physical contact between myself and the Grijalva staffer, as much of the blogosphere had it wrong initially.

There’s mass confusion on various blogs concerning the nature of my physical contact with the Grijalva staffer, not the least of which is oddly enough on a post critical towards me, so let me set the record straight:

Initial contact with the staffer was during the interview with Rep. Grijalva.  She said "You’re done" and condescendingly laid her hand on my right forearm in order to appease me.  She did this again after the second podcast clip when Grijalva stopped speaking.  Simply put, it was condescending and downright disrespectful, especially when you factor in that I’m 21 and she was about 35.  One could argue that she was taking advantage of her gender.  I’d certainly be more willing to sock a man who had laid his hand on my arm in that manner.

During the conversation between Rep. Grijalva and Mr. Drake, she grabbed my microphone (in my right hand the entire time) and forcefully switched it off.  I then switched it back on, moved to my right (east) and raised my arm up to get a better vantage point for the microphone, at which point she ripped the microphone cable from my recorder (which was in my left hand).  As such, aggressive contact occured at the time when she switched the microphone off, not when she was trying to condescend me earlier.  Theft (at minimum) occured when she ripped the cable from my recorder, as a small 3/32" to 1/8" adapter was lost in the process.  I ended up combing my hand through the sand below me to see if this adapter was around; I have no way of telling whether she had the adapter in hand or simply threw it away whether by incident or intention.

If you’re still confused, ask me.

Note: I replaced some of the language in the second paragraph shortly after posting.  I didn’t really need to be calmed down, but ultimately she wanted to keep the little pipsqueak plebian from approaching The Great Raúl.

Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion thinks…

• …that was intentionally "trying to start an argument."  I was actually trying to get a fresh interview with Rep. Grijalva just like I did with the rest of the candidates.  Somehow, Tedski thinks that asking a question that hasn’t come up as hot-button is automatically off-limits.  I’m a citizen, and this issue is important to me.  A citizen should not need any more qualifiers than that to ask a question of his or her elected officials.

• …that I "nudged [my] way between the two candidates."  Also false.  I pointed my microphone at them, but I never physically nudged my way.  My only physical contact with Rep. Grijalva was an initial handshake.  The rest of the contact was the staffer trying to end the interview ("You’re done") or switching off my microphone and then ripping the microphone cable out from the recorder, losing a piece of my personal property in the process.
• …that I "called a reporter."  I emailed various bloggers, but I never personally called any reporters from the mainstream media.  Mr. Drake has done that for me.

I recorded the podcast in that tone precisely because I had to get my thoughts down and get news of the event out.  This isn’t about my victimhood; this is about the kind of action that a sitting United States Congressman condones if not outright advocates.

Some supplemental items:

• I have called the Tucson Police Department in order to at least file a report and possibly press charges if I can get the identity of the staffer whom I believe to have assaulted me on the night of October 6th (depending on legal definitions).

• I am thankful to Rep. Grijalva’s Republican opponent Ron Drake, as he is fully behind me in this affair.
• I plan to attend tonight’s gubernatorial debate at the Student Union ballroom, and I’ve submitted a question similar to the one about the Second Amendment that I asked nearly all of the candidates from October 6th.  Conservative groups are asking conservatives to wear red, but I’m actually leaning more in favor of Barry Hess right now, so I think I’ll wear white.  That could change, though.

Here they are. The interviews other than the interview and subsequent incident with Raúl Grijalva. It is also my longest podcast ever by far.

Special thanks to ASUA for putting on the event, and to my guests:

• Linda Lopez, Democratic candidate for State House, District 29 (incumbent)
• Bob Walkup, Mayor of the City of Tucson (not up for reelection)
• Randy Graf, Republican candidate for U.S. House, Arizona District 8
• Lena Saradnik, Democratic candidate for State House, LD 26
• Gene Chewning, Republican candidate for State House, LD 27
• Ron Drake, Republican candidate for U.S. House, Arizona District 7

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes or other podcatcher

The theme song is "Fresh Snow in the Valley" by Derek K. Miller of Penmachine.

Note: I misspelled Ms. Saradnik’s name when I was looking up the URL. Her website was probably up the entire time, and I will be contacting her and the other guests with the URL for this podcast.

Update (October 9th): Expect a podcast report with my interviews of other candidates either tonight or tomorrow. You will find that the responses of the other candidates, even when we disagreed on many fundamental things, were very respectful and always ended with a genuine handshake. I unfortunately cannot say the same of Congressman Grijalva. Members of the press who seek direct comment may contact me at my email address: gpohara-at-gmail.com.

Update II (October 9th): I had never figured out why Grijalva and his staffer were so sensitive to having the conversation recorded, but perhaps it’s because they’re in a dispute over which debates they actually agreed upon. With this recent incident, Rep. Grijalva might be more likely than ever to avoid the University of Arizona as a debate site.

Update III (October 9th): The other interviews

THIS IS NOT A SATIRE.

I’m not going to delve into legal details here; I’m just going to say what happened and give myself some time to decide a course of action. Interviews of other candidates as well as further personal analysis of what happened will be posted at a later time when I can muster a more professional voice.

In short, I became involved in what I will term an "incident" with Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ-7) and one of his staffers during the October 6, 2006 Voter Block Party held at Main Gate Square by the Associated Students of the University of Arizona. The recording explains the rest.

While I wait upon my senses to allow me to choose a course of action, I urge my fellow District 7 voters to take this into account when marking the ballot on November 7th.

Garrett P. O’Hara
University of Arizona political science senior

P.S.: If you subscribe to the podcast, you might notice that the server I used for the other files is down. I’ll let you know when it’s back up.

How to listen:

Play episode (128 Kbps MP3) | Play episode (64 Kbps MP3) | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes or other podcatcher

Addition: This audio work falls under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Content on the rest of this blog falls under the license seen at the bottom of the right hand column of the page unless otherwise noted in a post. Added October 9th: As stated in the license, this in no way affects your fair use rights.