And then this happened. If this is satire, it ought to be on the Onion, it's that brilliant. If not, well, wow that's just ... I honestly know of no way to end this sentence.
(I just put "Cars" and "creationism" tags onto the same post. Is this even possible? I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night. Maybe I've drifted off to sleep at my workstation and merely dreamed all this.)
I'll check back tomorrow.
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creationism. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2011
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Creationism Defined
This question popped up over at Skepchick, and I thought it might be useful to know what my operating definitions were whenever I use these terms.
Here they are:
What is creationism?
Creationism is a related set of ideas concerning the origins of the universe, and humanity's place in it, and humanity's relationship with its creator. Creationism has two very distinct usages stemming from this definition: the political (using the capacity of the state to coerce curricula) and the theological (emphasizing the relationship humanity has with a creator). The theological is the less common in usage, especially in debate with regards to science and the incursions science has made in resolving (literally interpreted) mythical matters on the origins of the universe.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a creationist pseudoscientific political movement which seeks to displace actual science from western culture (per the Wedge Strategy). It has no other coherent definition.
What is theistic evolution?
A type of creationism that is largely apolitical; recognizing that theology is an inadequate tool for exploring the universe, it instead focuses on theologic aspects of humanity, religion, and the relationship humanity has with its creator. Though there are many variations within this category, the basis remains the same: teleological explanations are only acceptable where they do not conflict with science itself (and some would say, therefore, with creation itself).
It is perhaps not surprising that many scientists who are religious subscribe to this variant. It is also probable that it is, in fact, the most common variant (at least in the US.)
Here they are:
What is creationism?
Creationism is a related set of ideas concerning the origins of the universe, and humanity's place in it, and humanity's relationship with its creator. Creationism has two very distinct usages stemming from this definition: the political (using the capacity of the state to coerce curricula) and the theological (emphasizing the relationship humanity has with a creator). The theological is the less common in usage, especially in debate with regards to science and the incursions science has made in resolving (literally interpreted) mythical matters on the origins of the universe.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a creationist pseudoscientific political movement which seeks to displace actual science from western culture (per the Wedge Strategy). It has no other coherent definition.
What is theistic evolution?
A type of creationism that is largely apolitical; recognizing that theology is an inadequate tool for exploring the universe, it instead focuses on theologic aspects of humanity, religion, and the relationship humanity has with its creator. Though there are many variations within this category, the basis remains the same: teleological explanations are only acceptable where they do not conflict with science itself (and some would say, therefore, with creation itself).
It is perhaps not surprising that many scientists who are religious subscribe to this variant. It is also probable that it is, in fact, the most common variant (at least in the US.)
Monday, April 21, 2008
Draft of a Letter to the ADN
You know, I've read the book Carl Kincaid refers to in his letter (16 April 2008), but I have also read more than the book ("Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells).
Does he really have any idea what scientists would say if they found deformities in the fossil record? He says some really weird things, like evolution must provide millions of transitional forms out of necessity (if we had millions of transitional forms, instead of the many hundreds of thousands, would he insist evolution then had to provide billions of transitional forms?), and that it would be said to be "475 million years old," which leads me to suspect he doesn't have any real grasp of what scientists would actually say. He also accuses scientists of faking data--which is awkward since any faked data, interestingly, is easily sussed out by scientists looking to duplicate results. What fakery have creationists like Jonathan Wells ever revealed? Every time I ask questions like that, all I get are crickets. Oh, I could go on, but Kincaid's letter is just bizarre.
But back to the book, which I recommend reading (along with a thorough rebuttal: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html ), for no other reason than it makes it obvious why nobody gets their science from creationists.
(Comments welcomed.)
Does he really have any idea what scientists would say if they found deformities in the fossil record? He says some really weird things, like evolution must provide millions of transitional forms out of necessity (if we had millions of transitional forms, instead of the many hundreds of thousands, would he insist evolution then had to provide billions of transitional forms?), and that it would be said to be "475 million years old," which leads me to suspect he doesn't have any real grasp of what scientists would actually say. He also accuses scientists of faking data--which is awkward since any faked data, interestingly, is easily sussed out by scientists looking to duplicate results. What fakery have creationists like Jonathan Wells ever revealed? Every time I ask questions like that, all I get are crickets. Oh, I could go on, but Kincaid's letter is just bizarre.
But back to the book, which I recommend reading (along with a thorough rebuttal: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html ), for no other reason than it makes it obvious why nobody gets their science from creationists.
(Comments welcomed.)
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Where Are the Missing Links?
I've just reposted an old entry from the old journal, and it reminded me of a point I wanted to make in that post so long ago.
Every so often, the creationist canard "there are no missing links" will reappear like a gunshot-tattered zombie. Creationists and anti-intellectuals alike appear to take weird delight in stitching together this smelly, rotten argument, as though they really expect it to pass (this time for sure!) though the chainsaws of scientists and laypersons who know better.
The problem is (to extend my metaphor to perhaps not-unreasonable extents), science has progressed beyond the chainsaw when it comes to dealing with these oozy and invalid arguments. With every new major fossil taxa uncovered (like Tiktaalik, Indohyus and Yanoconodon and so on and so on) as well as yet another molecular study of extant organisms revealing even more evidence in support of what is already one of the best supported scientific theories, science now has chainsaws and grenades and sharp sticks and particle beams and... well, you get the point.
But I want to beat up on the zombie, too. So I typed this, which perhaps might make a few creationists think twice before reaching for their sewing needles and scissors before they wind up with gross gobbets of gray flesh splattered all over their smocks.
The literature doesn't really talk about missing links for the simple reason that they don't really exist--I mean, there're just not missing ("missing," in the sense of creationist use, implies "not there").
Now there really are unknown ancestor taxa that would link known taxa, but since you can't really have a lineage without ancestors, the fact that the ancestor is unknowable is irrelevant. (Arguing that is it is somehow relevant is like suggesting that knowing exactly who the mother is of a bunch of kids is somehow necessary in order to identify the kids as being human.)
If it lived, it had an ancestor. What animal the ancestor is is actually unimportant. If the ancestor were known (by accident, because, again, ancestors are unknowable), it would simply be very closely related to its descendants, and therefore close enough at hand anyway.)
But the gist is this: cladistically, closely related organisms cluster closely together.
Distantly related organisms will have a range of intermediates (transitional forms). That is, many many links "separate" them.
So setting aside the uselessness of the "no missing link" argument, my rejoinder is: what's missing about the links? Since we find so many of them, it's really not possible to regard them as "missing."
Every so often, the creationist canard "there are no missing links" will reappear like a gunshot-tattered zombie. Creationists and anti-intellectuals alike appear to take weird delight in stitching together this smelly, rotten argument, as though they really expect it to pass (this time for sure!) though the chainsaws of scientists and laypersons who know better.
The problem is (to extend my metaphor to perhaps not-unreasonable extents), science has progressed beyond the chainsaw when it comes to dealing with these oozy and invalid arguments. With every new major fossil taxa uncovered (like Tiktaalik, Indohyus and Yanoconodon and so on and so on) as well as yet another molecular study of extant organisms revealing even more evidence in support of what is already one of the best supported scientific theories, science now has chainsaws and grenades and sharp sticks and particle beams and... well, you get the point.
But I want to beat up on the zombie, too. So I typed this, which perhaps might make a few creationists think twice before reaching for their sewing needles and scissors before they wind up with gross gobbets of gray flesh splattered all over their smocks.
The literature doesn't really talk about missing links for the simple reason that they don't really exist--I mean, there're just not missing ("missing," in the sense of creationist use, implies "not there").
Now there really are unknown ancestor taxa that would link known taxa, but since you can't really have a lineage without ancestors, the fact that the ancestor is unknowable is irrelevant. (Arguing that is it is somehow relevant is like suggesting that knowing exactly who the mother is of a bunch of kids is somehow necessary in order to identify the kids as being human.)
If it lived, it had an ancestor. What animal the ancestor is is actually unimportant. If the ancestor were known (by accident, because, again, ancestors are unknowable), it would simply be very closely related to its descendants, and therefore close enough at hand anyway.)
But the gist is this: cladistically, closely related organisms cluster closely together.
Distantly related organisms will have a range of intermediates (transitional forms). That is, many many links "separate" them.
So setting aside the uselessness of the "no missing link" argument, my rejoinder is: what's missing about the links? Since we find so many of them, it's really not possible to regard them as "missing."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Son of Letters to the Editor (a sequel)
Not every evolution-denier is necessarily religious (see, for example, my letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News 30 June 2007 in response to an agnostic).
I'm by no means prolific (little and less time of late), but this bit caught my eye (written by Jeremiah Brunnhoelzl, published in the June issue of Make a Scene magazine, a tabloid printed in Wasilla):
The Futile Search For Missing Links
Charles Darwin was a nineteenth century thinker that changed the way we interpret biology. His keen observance of nature led him to subscribe to the theory of "dialectical materialism"-the viewpoint that matter is the sole subject of change and all change is the product of conflict arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all things. While this theory was an attractive one in Darwin's day, his theories are starting to show signs of decay and are forcing members of the scientific community to scrutinize the very foundation of their education. The fundamentals of Darwin's theory are very simple. Life on Earth has evolved through a series of biological changes as a consequence of random genetic mutations working in conjunction with natural selection. One species will eventually over time turn into another, and those species that adapt to ever-changing environmental conditions are best suited to survive and thrive, while the weaker die out. This produces the most well known principle of Darwinism - survival of the fittest.
While this theory is easy enough to explain to school children with cute pictures, and diagrams of monkeys turning into humans, it is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has not been proven by the rigorous standards of science. For example, Darwin's 'abominable mystery' remains the evolution of flowering plants. Scientists have searched for one hundred years in the fossil records for evidence linking primitive non-flowering plants to flowering without any luck. The "missing link" has never been found, much like the link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Darwin was well aware of the weaknesses contained in his theory. He anticipated trouble with the absence of transitional fossils, stating that, "It is the most serious objection that can be urged against my theory." The problem with the sudden appearance of flowering plants is that there is a very high degree of organization among the plants. Most flowers are specifically designed to accommodate bees and other pollinators. So, how did the primitive non-flowering plant, which for eons relied solely on asexual reproduction, suddenly grow all the structures necessary for sexual reproduction? As there is no current evidence of a transitional species of flower, the subject remains at debate. While its easy nowadays to make a career of disproving and nay-saying seemingly basic knowledge, the fact remains that it's our job as the general public to take in every side of every argument and make assumptions of our own based on those arguments. If we let ourselves be swayed to one side or another without taking the time to detach ourselves from the situation, we will only be left with ignorance to guide us to our conclusions.
So I sent the following response (it hasn't appeared yet; MAS is a monthly, so it may not for a while):
Was Darwin wrong? I quote my November 2004 National Geographic:
Jeremiah Brunnhoelzl's commentary in the June 2007 Musician Soapbox is thoroughly misinformed.
Jeremiah is completely wrong when he states that scientists are questioning their educations with regard to Darwin. I am familiar with the technical literature covering evolutionary biology, yet I can find no reference to the so very huge paradigm shift that would indicate an abandonment of the theory of evolution by natural selection. On the contrary, I find it is becoming useful to fields outside of biology, such as medicine and computer science (see, for example, genetic algorithms). I find no indication that Darwin is being "abandoned." I find the opposite.
Scientists are also creating resources on the internet in order to refute the notion that workers in the biological sciences are abandoning Darwin's work. See, for example, the website The Panda's Thumb, which features in blog form the ongoing debate regarding the origin of species, or Pharyngula, the blog of PZ Meyers, who teaches biology at a midwestern university in the US. I find it incredible that he would suggest he we keep an open mind on all sides of the matter, when for anyone familiar with the science, this is simply not a matter worth debating.
Strangely, he is dismissive of the ease with which evolution can be taught based upon diagrams which are not used in actual science periodicals. Actually, biologists develop cladograms of organisms, so phylogenies (expressed as sister-groups) are revealed based on the shared derived traits of organisms. In fact, were Jeremiah actually to read the work of science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould (cf. Wonderful Life), he would see a repudiation of the very diagram he mentions.
Finally, his usage of the term "missing link" is annoying, since no such term is employed in the modern literature (since it no longer has any functional use whatsoever). Every fossil is a transitional form, but he also appears to think that because there are gaps in a particular lineage (e.g. flowering plants, in this case), it demolishes the many other lines of evidence which support the modern synthesis.
No, Jeremiah, it does not. It merely means that that particular transitional form has yet to be found. But it can with certainty be predicted to exist. Paleontologists once suggested the existence of a four-winged stage in flying amniotes, and then later discovered a four-winged non-avian dinosaur from China (Microraptor gui). Archaeopteryx, the earliest bird, has been shown to have flight feathers down its hindlimbs to the metatarsals.
Examples of transitional fossils are overwhelmingly legion. But he ignores them all, from Tiktaalik to Archaeopteryx and Yanoconodon and so on and on and on and on, to focus on an evolutionary sequence of flowering plants we don't happen to know everything about. But does this point of ignorance displace actual knowledge of things that are known? Of course not. If animals and non flowering plants and fungi and bacteria and protistans all had transitional forms (and they most certainly do), then we can predict that the same holds true for flowering plants. Jeremiah admonishes us to accept that "nay-saying and disproving of seemingly basic knowledge" is important but it is obvious that he lacks even the most basic knowledge in order to present a competent critique. Shouldn't a deeper familiarity with the basics of modern biology also be important?
I have no more qualifications in this matter than he. I am not a scientist. I am not even in possession of a degree of any kind. I am an autodidact, artist, and an animator with a day job in the graphic arts field. Everything I know can be had for the price of a library card and an internet connection, a little time, and a lot of honesty.
Jeremiah is welcome to do the same. Speaking personally, I find it so much more interesting on our side, what with the universe being more complicated and intricate and vast and flat-out amazing than anyone ever thought.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Really, no further comment should be necessary, except to note that it precipitated an interesting discussion with the magazine's editor on the nature of science (about which he knew nothing) and how it compared to various systems of thought (I may post more on this later, since much of what transpired needs comment).
It also came out that Jeremiah was very young, as though his youth could be used as an excuse for submitting sloppy work. I don't ever recall being cut all that much slack at his age. If I sumbitted poor work, I received a failing grade for it. The real world outside of school, is routinely far less forgiving. That doesn't mean he shouldn't try again (and, this time, actually invest a modicum of effort into it).
(This entry has been reposted from the old blog on 19 January 2008.)
I'm by no means prolific (little and less time of late), but this bit caught my eye (written by Jeremiah Brunnhoelzl, published in the June issue of Make a Scene magazine, a tabloid printed in Wasilla):
The Futile Search For Missing Links
Charles Darwin was a nineteenth century thinker that changed the way we interpret biology. His keen observance of nature led him to subscribe to the theory of "dialectical materialism"-the viewpoint that matter is the sole subject of change and all change is the product of conflict arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all things. While this theory was an attractive one in Darwin's day, his theories are starting to show signs of decay and are forcing members of the scientific community to scrutinize the very foundation of their education. The fundamentals of Darwin's theory are very simple. Life on Earth has evolved through a series of biological changes as a consequence of random genetic mutations working in conjunction with natural selection. One species will eventually over time turn into another, and those species that adapt to ever-changing environmental conditions are best suited to survive and thrive, while the weaker die out. This produces the most well known principle of Darwinism - survival of the fittest.
While this theory is easy enough to explain to school children with cute pictures, and diagrams of monkeys turning into humans, it is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has not been proven by the rigorous standards of science. For example, Darwin's 'abominable mystery' remains the evolution of flowering plants. Scientists have searched for one hundred years in the fossil records for evidence linking primitive non-flowering plants to flowering without any luck. The "missing link" has never been found, much like the link between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. Darwin was well aware of the weaknesses contained in his theory. He anticipated trouble with the absence of transitional fossils, stating that, "It is the most serious objection that can be urged against my theory." The problem with the sudden appearance of flowering plants is that there is a very high degree of organization among the plants. Most flowers are specifically designed to accommodate bees and other pollinators. So, how did the primitive non-flowering plant, which for eons relied solely on asexual reproduction, suddenly grow all the structures necessary for sexual reproduction? As there is no current evidence of a transitional species of flower, the subject remains at debate. While its easy nowadays to make a career of disproving and nay-saying seemingly basic knowledge, the fact remains that it's our job as the general public to take in every side of every argument and make assumptions of our own based on those arguments. If we let ourselves be swayed to one side or another without taking the time to detach ourselves from the situation, we will only be left with ignorance to guide us to our conclusions.
So I sent the following response (it hasn't appeared yet; MAS is a monthly, so it may not for a while):
Was Darwin wrong? I quote my November 2004 National Geographic:
Jeremiah Brunnhoelzl's commentary in the June 2007 Musician Soapbox is thoroughly misinformed.
Jeremiah is completely wrong when he states that scientists are questioning their educations with regard to Darwin. I am familiar with the technical literature covering evolutionary biology, yet I can find no reference to the so very huge paradigm shift that would indicate an abandonment of the theory of evolution by natural selection. On the contrary, I find it is becoming useful to fields outside of biology, such as medicine and computer science (see, for example, genetic algorithms). I find no indication that Darwin is being "abandoned." I find the opposite.
Scientists are also creating resources on the internet in order to refute the notion that workers in the biological sciences are abandoning Darwin's work. See, for example, the website The Panda's Thumb, which features in blog form the ongoing debate regarding the origin of species, or Pharyngula, the blog of PZ Meyers, who teaches biology at a midwestern university in the US. I find it incredible that he would suggest he we keep an open mind on all sides of the matter, when for anyone familiar with the science, this is simply not a matter worth debating.
Strangely, he is dismissive of the ease with which evolution can be taught based upon diagrams which are not used in actual science periodicals. Actually, biologists develop cladograms of organisms, so phylogenies (expressed as sister-groups) are revealed based on the shared derived traits of organisms. In fact, were Jeremiah actually to read the work of science popularizers like Stephen Jay Gould (cf. Wonderful Life), he would see a repudiation of the very diagram he mentions.
Finally, his usage of the term "missing link" is annoying, since no such term is employed in the modern literature (since it no longer has any functional use whatsoever). Every fossil is a transitional form, but he also appears to think that because there are gaps in a particular lineage (e.g. flowering plants, in this case), it demolishes the many other lines of evidence which support the modern synthesis.
No, Jeremiah, it does not. It merely means that that particular transitional form has yet to be found. But it can with certainty be predicted to exist. Paleontologists once suggested the existence of a four-winged stage in flying amniotes, and then later discovered a four-winged non-avian dinosaur from China (Microraptor gui). Archaeopteryx, the earliest bird, has been shown to have flight feathers down its hindlimbs to the metatarsals.
Examples of transitional fossils are overwhelmingly legion. But he ignores them all, from Tiktaalik to Archaeopteryx and Yanoconodon and so on and on and on and on, to focus on an evolutionary sequence of flowering plants we don't happen to know everything about. But does this point of ignorance displace actual knowledge of things that are known? Of course not. If animals and non flowering plants and fungi and bacteria and protistans all had transitional forms (and they most certainly do), then we can predict that the same holds true for flowering plants. Jeremiah admonishes us to accept that "nay-saying and disproving of seemingly basic knowledge" is important but it is obvious that he lacks even the most basic knowledge in order to present a competent critique. Shouldn't a deeper familiarity with the basics of modern biology also be important?
I have no more qualifications in this matter than he. I am not a scientist. I am not even in possession of a degree of any kind. I am an autodidact, artist, and an animator with a day job in the graphic arts field. Everything I know can be had for the price of a library card and an internet connection, a little time, and a lot of honesty.
Jeremiah is welcome to do the same. Speaking personally, I find it so much more interesting on our side, what with the universe being more complicated and intricate and vast and flat-out amazing than anyone ever thought.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--Charles Darwin
Really, no further comment should be necessary, except to note that it precipitated an interesting discussion with the magazine's editor on the nature of science (about which he knew nothing) and how it compared to various systems of thought (I may post more on this later, since much of what transpired needs comment).
It also came out that Jeremiah was very young, as though his youth could be used as an excuse for submitting sloppy work. I don't ever recall being cut all that much slack at his age. If I sumbitted poor work, I received a failing grade for it. The real world outside of school, is routinely far less forgiving. That doesn't mean he shouldn't try again (and, this time, actually invest a modicum of effort into it).
(This entry has been reposted from the old blog on 19 January 2008.)
Thursday, July 5, 2001
Moderation and Comment Policy
Moderation is a tiresome, boring chore with no reward and even less satisfaction. Hopefully, these petty-seeming little rules will forestall my need to ever get involved. (People who moderate listservs, fora &c. have my respect. No way I'd want that job. Nevertheless, here I am.)
- Please, nothing toxic to the conversation. No name-callin'. Keep it untortable. Behave like you're not in your own living room, out in public where someone rather conservative whose respect you're trying to earn is watching you closely with a pen and a clipboard (and it's me).
If you want to discuss and/or criticize ideas, that's what we're all here for. But. If your ideas are the ones receiving criticism (and this applies to me as well), be prepared to accept that it's nothing personal. Cool off with a beverage, then come back. I like root beer floats. (I'm not saying you should, I just like them.)
That said, I feel no responsibility to show any respect for bad ideas.
- There is a bright difference between calling people stupid (which will rarely be tolerated) and calling their ideas stupid (ok if reasonable). Suggesting incompetence is allowable (within reason). Intelligent people are allowed to occasionally have dumb ideas, and I've often changed mine when shown to be in the wrong (examples provided on request). Most of the people I respect do the same in the face of evidence.
- Spam: I hope I don't actually have to say what will happen to a comment I perceive as being spam.
- Opinionated people often feel entitled to hold opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
- Be prepared to source your arguments. (Creationists, cf. below for special rules.)
- Type legibly.
- Should you really be eating that?
- If you are a fundamentalist Christian, and wish to participate in the discussion, you are welcome to do so. But. Creationist/Global warming denial comments which are so broadly ignorant (especially of science) that they reveal you have failed to do even a minimum of work, research, or reading may be cheerfully and resentfully moderated into oblivion. If you ask why, I might remind you of your duty to seek the truth, and I might not do so in a manner that will make you feel good about the views you hold. (I am not Job, and this is not his blog. Those who insist on testing my patience may find it to be made of nougaty confrontational judgementy spikiness.)
- If I suggest read this/look this up, I'm not being dismissive. I am showing you something which addresses an issue you've raised. Being handed a reference is like a free opportunity to go and learn something you may never have heard about before. I do it all the time, because I want to learn things. I don't expect to be ignored, nor the item in question to necessarily end a coversation.
Ignorance is ok, so long as it's directly addressed and isn't pursued as though it were a virtue; that said, aggressive ignorance, no matter how well-intentioned, is unacceptable, and may be cheerfully and resentfully moderated into oblivion.
- Subitem regarding references: because of the egregious nature of some creationist material, a number of sites or books are guaranteed to be deemed unacceptable as support for arguments. You can always ask, but if you do it a lot/insist in spite of this hint, I may cheerfully and resentfully moderate it into oblivion--my site is not an aggregator for denialist material of any kind, and I have no obligation to tolerate or support the spread of any disinformation. Better, in general, to make an argument in your own words anyway.
- Final note for Christians (or any religious believers): any toxic rhetoric of the kind I'm all too familiar with will be nuked from orbit. If your desire to rebel and lash out at scientific authority includes demonization of those who understand and appreciate science and/or those who practice it, I will treat you like a parasite (in the sense of Proverbs 17:11).
- Politics: not really a political blog, but comments are ok if on topic, but no birtherism, ever (really, any comment which suggests Obama is not American will be beaten with a sock full of dimes and hurled into the Sun. And then be cheerfully and resentfully moderated into oblivion).
If you insist that you have a right to say whatever you want here, then I have some news for you: your standards of legal or academic freedom, whatever they are, are not relevant; I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
This is not an open or free community. It is mine.
I'm not trying to be arbitrary. I just want this to be a nice place; the bottom line is that I do care about this bit of space I've set aside for myself and anyone else who wants to talk about the issues this little blog covers. If this all sounds good and reasonable, it's time for a root beer float ice cream soda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)