Bush Science: more lead for children and the healing power of Jesus.
October 11, 2002 1:09 AM   Subscribe

Bush Science: more lead for children and the healing power of Jesus. How many obvious right-wing ideologues with strong industry ties purporting to be objective scientists will Americans tolerate?
posted by skallas (41 comments total)
 
I don't know, I guess when a Democrat is in office, one could ask the question:

"How many obvious left-wing ideologues with strong union ties purporting to be objective scientists will Americans tolerate?"

Administrations change, so do the people they appoint. And the appointees tend to reflect the views of the administration. And the administration of the people who elected it....

(Don't even start with the 'Gore won' crap, I am speaking in general terms)
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:20 AM on October 11, 2002


This post: Lead is still dangerous, but sneering at Christianity and Jesus is oh-so progressive and ultimately meaningful. How many obvious left-wing idealogues with strong democrat and leftist ties purporting to be making objective criticism will Americans tolerate?

[ Hint: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Edward M. Kennedy]
posted by hama7 at 1:23 AM on October 11, 2002


I don't know, I guess when a Democrat is in office, one could ask the question: "How many obvious left-wing ideologues with strong union ties purporting to be objective scientists will Americans tolerate?"

The Democratic Party in America is left-wing? Hoo-hoo - that, as the vibrator salesman said to the waterbuffalo, is a good one.

It's becoming clear that Americans will tolerate pretty much anything, if it's amusing. I don't know why that is.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:34 AM on October 11, 2002


Also I love how "diversity of viewpoints" is politico-speak for Senator Kennedy to say "Not Conservative"
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:37 AM on October 11, 2002


Stavro, just because the Dems are not left enough for you, does not put them at the center of the political spectrum.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:41 AM on October 11, 2002


Steve, how have you established that Dr. Michael Weitzman, as an example from this article, is a leftist and has strong union ties? Or are you just providing the "other viewpoint" without facts?
posted by skallas at 1:54 AM on October 11, 2002


Administrations change, yes. But solid science is still solid science, it does not bend to political whims. If my child is going to be exposed to higher levels of lead in the environment, I won't be counting on Jesus to make it better. I'll be counting on that Administration to get smart people to build better policy on solid science. If this article is true, then it's a disservice to the citizens who voted it in.
posted by MJoachim at 2:00 AM on October 11, 2002


It's becoming clear that Americans will tolerate pretty much anything,

Stavros, as a Canadian living in South Korea, I'm surprised you feel so qualified to make that generalization. I'm also curious how you became privy to the thoughts of each and every Americans citizen and what they will tolerate these days. It's one thing if you want to swallow every thing the media tells you about our government, but it's another when from abroad you are making smug generalizations about the citizens.
posted by Karl at 2:25 AM on October 11, 2002


I'm also curious how you became privy to the thoughts of each and every Americans citizen

Well, hell, I was gonna try and tie it in with WWF Wrestling, the Illuminati, and the recent deaths of members of the Ramones, but I can see I'm intellectually outclassed here, and will bow out, in hopes that some actual discussion of skallas's link will ensue.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:36 AM on October 11, 2002


Sorry, I suddenly realized that I meant to add "...you big goofy American dumb-dumbs!" at the end of that last comment.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:16 AM on October 11, 2002


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meanwhile, is considering a toxicologist who has advised the lead industry for a panel weighing the contentious issue of whether the federal government should lower its acceptable limits of lead in the blood.

Why are this mans approval ratings still in the sixties?
posted by tranceformer at 3:28 AM on October 11, 2002


in hopes that some actual discussion of skallas's link will ensue.

There's not much chance of that, given the questionable newsy Op/Ed source and the presumptuousness in the partisan wording of the post.

But who's counting?

[small print: Speaking of South Korea, we can all thank those big dumb-dumb American imperialist louts for protecting South Korea from the fun bunch up North, and helping to provide a somewhat free capitalist society in which we lucky ones can work. Imperialist American swine!]
posted by hama7 at 3:33 AM on October 11, 2002


Why are this mans approval ratings still in the sixties?

Because we're all fuckwits?
posted by Ryvar at 3:44 AM on October 11, 2002


First off, after reading this article, I can say that it is a poorly written piece.... The article is nothing more than a regurgitation of what three Democrats, Clinton, Kennedy, and Markey, have been throwing a hissy-fit about... Was no one from HHS or the Bush administration available for comment? (and if this was the case, why is it not noted) This whole thing is a very one sided.

As for Dr. Hager, who is quickly dismissed by the Times for having "popular books asserting the healing power of faith in Jesus." was also named as one of the "Best Doctors in America" in both 1994 and 1996. As well as being President of Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology from 1996-1998. [From his bio page at UofK]

I personally don't know Dr. Hager, but I can tell you this: I need a little bit more proof than the fact that he wrote a couple Christian books to determine that he is unfit for government service....

As for Dr. Michael Weitzman, I have as much proof from the article that he is left-winger as I do that Hager is a right-wing nut job. None.

My point is not that all appointees are polarized by party lines, but some are... and that is the way a two party system works.... You may not like who gets appointed, so make sure the party controlling the appointments get voted out next go-round...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:10 AM on October 11, 2002


How many more shrill, demogogic, anti-religion posts from skallas will Metafilter tolerate?
posted by MrBaliHai at 4:39 AM on October 11, 2002


How many more shrill, demogogic, anti-religion posts from skallas will Metafilter tolerate?

I second that as the pertinent inquiry of the moment.
posted by hama7 at 4:42 AM on October 11, 2002


After a long period of intensive scientific research in my laboratory, sometimes incvolving supercolliders and sometimes including monkeys, Our research group has come to these conclusions:

1. Good science stands independent of party lines, and, S_a_L and hama7, your comments are just as shrill as you accuse the article of being. The only cogent argument you have made is S_a_L's #363879, and it's quite weak, in a logical sense. The Best Doctors link goes to a group with that name but is in fact only a consumer group for finding good doctors. I searched for Mr. Hagen, but he's not even on the site! Yes, he was president of the IDSOG, but a) it's not that prestigious of a group and b) lots of people have been its president; he's not that special. Many other doctors would have been as good or better choices for strictly medical and scientific reasons. So it seems like the main reason that he was picked was that he's a good ole' boy with that ole' time religion. And what, no defense for Captain Lead Poisoning? Come on guys!

2. Science based on religion is inherently not science, because it precludes the scientific method. See also creationism. Go practice your faith healing elsewhere, phony scientists.

3. Infinite. MeFi will tolerate infinitely more shrill, demogogic, anti-religion posts from skallas.

Expect our findings imminently in a true scientific journal. Thank you.
posted by The Michael The at 5:05 AM on October 11, 2002


Correction: I searched for David Hager, not Hagen, on the best doctors site. No mention of him there at all.
posted by The Michael The at 5:07 AM on October 11, 2002


I third it.

I may be a Christian. I may even (horrors!) natively be from Texas. That doesn't mean I don't think we elected a monkey into the office, it doesn't mean I am for war or that I think we should spoonfeed unsubstantiated "science" to the nation. In fact, most would categorize me as a nutty leftist. It is enormously offensive to me when I hear the suggestion that faith commitments conflict with intellectualism (or, for that matter, that they determine political ideology).
posted by jennanemone at 5:18 AM on October 11, 2002


Stoip talking politics , don't be morons.

Who CARES if that doctor is christian, muslim, jew, black
white, red or with zebra stripes. Skin color or religion or political point of views are NONSENSE. Who cares about them ! We need rational people that understand there are much more important problems :

We need cure for
a) AIDS and a bunch of Sexual Transmitted Diseases
b) dozens of different kinds of cancers
c) countless other disease.

Want to believe in the healing power of Jesus ? Want to believe that being a Dem or a Rep makes ANY difference when running a science office ? Please do but don't let anybody with a political or religious agenda rule what's
good or not for you. All they want is your trust or your vote, because they need it to rule so they'll do anything to please you NOW. They know you don't know shit about science and how to evaluate facts, so learn how to if you can.
posted by elpapacito at 5:27 AM on October 11, 2002


Umm, fella... (raises hand) I do know a good deal about science, the scientific method, logic, how to evaluate facts, etc, and I'm sure that a larger proportion of MeFites than the rest of the nation do as well. Thanks. Have a good day now.

jennanemone: you're right that they don't conflict in you, but they do cause conflicts in other people. For instance, abstinance-only sex education in public schools is a policy based primarily on religion. It's been a colossal failure, and religious politics are standing in the way of comprehensive sex ed that would actually be a lot more useful and helpful to the young people of our modern world. Don't be offended, just understand that you're a single case and that there are others unlike you.
posted by The Michael The at 5:38 AM on October 11, 2002


The Michael The: prove it if you care and can. I wish you have a nice day too.
posted by elpapacito at 5:44 AM on October 11, 2002


I, for one, welcome our new jesus-fascist-medico overlords.
posted by yesster at 5:56 AM on October 11, 2002


Yes, Michael, Hager is not on the site. He was on the list in '94 & '96, not currently. But you would have known that if you had read what I wrote.

only a consumer group
Yes, much as one might look in the "Best Lawyers in America" for a good attorney, or "Consumer Reports" if one is looking for a good washing machine...

it's not that prestigious of a group
Are you an OB-GYN? How do you know this?
lots of people have been its president
Your Point? A lot of people have been Speaker of the House. Does that make it any less of a prestigious job?

he's not that special
I never said he was. As much as you howl about my "shrill" post, I never said he the best doctor for the job. What I did say is that the article being discussed lacked evidence to show Dr. Hager to be the "Right-Wing Jerry Farwell of Gynecology" that the Times article implied him to be. All it said was that some Democrats didn't like him for no specific given reasons, and that at one time he wrote a book about Jesus.

If this guy is so God awful prove it. There has to be information out there. I am not defending this guy. I don't know him. Just don't come to me and tell me "Big bad Bush is trying to do bad things again" with out being able to show me proof.....

It is sloppy bias journalism to write a "hard news" piece with no evidence and quotes from only one side of the story....

Dr. Banner has consulted with the lead industry in a Rhode Island lawsuit against lead paint manufacturers, and questions whether low lead levels are truly harmful.

Well, two things.
1. A lot of Doctors are used as consulting or advisors in industry... who else would you go to if you were a company and you needed information on lead poisoning, I duno, maybe the head of a poison control center?

2. questions whether low lead levels are truly harmful. I read this, that he is doing some research in to the effects of low lead levels on humans. Way the Times wants you to read it: Banner doesn't care if you kids get lead poisoning.

Once again, the article hints at things, but stops short of saying what it is implying...

The only thing weak, in a logical sense around here, is your attempt to rebuke me. But hey, have fun with you monkeys...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:59 AM on October 11, 2002


More links on Dr. David Hager :

Univ Homepage

A short review on one of his writings

One of his articles found on web

One of his statements about RU-486 drug

Maybe you guys can find more ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:18 AM on October 11, 2002


Maureen Dowd's take on the doctor.
posted by vito90 at 6:38 AM on October 11, 2002


RU-486 or RU-4Jesus?

Boy oh boy.... I sure love Dowd....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:40 AM on October 11, 2002


Whether or not one agrees with this article, it is true that this follows a pattern established by this administration and even the Republican-led Congress since 1994. Take Chaney's energy commission for instance. Take Gingrich invite polluting industries to write the environmental laws for instance. Take Bush's pro-logger forest plans. Take Todd-Whitman's pro-pollutor EPA. etc, etc, ad nauseam (literally)

It is scary to many of us, because this pattern shows that this Administration, and elected Republicans in general, prefer to make money for themselves and their friends than to protect the citizens of this country from dirty water, dirty air, etc.

To put it simply, the Republicans are all about putting the foxes in charge of the hen houses.
posted by terrapin at 8:49 AM on October 11, 2002


Also I love how "diversity of viewpoints" is politico-speak for Senator Kennedy to say "Not Conservative"

Kennedy isn't the one who said "diversity of viewpoints." That'd be Dr. McClellan.

so, where did the politico-speak rubbish come from? I don't think it's a matter of The Times implying anything, so much as you reading into the article what you want or expect to see.

the controversy over Dr. Hager isn't his belief that Jesus heals. it's that the FDA "has asked [Dr. Hager,] an obstetrician-gynecologist who strongly opposes abortions to serve on the panel that reviews reproductive health drugs."

the mention of Hager's books is in the same line as "teaches at the University of Kentucky." It's giving background on who is he. The Times is not dismissing him. Again, it's a case of seeing what you want or expect to see.
posted by tolkhan at 8:50 AM on October 11, 2002


begin tangent- For instance, abstinence-only sex education in public schools is a policy based primarily on religion. It's been a colossal failure, and religious politics are standing in the way of comprehensive sex ed that would actually be a lot more useful and helpful to the young people of our modern world.

Having grown up partially in the US in the late 70s and 80s, the sex education I received in school was quite graphic and abstinence was a "chuckle and ignore" idea. I have little knowledge on the success or failure of the abstinence programs but I was shocked by the vitriolic rhetoric I found decrying the evils of this type of education.

Conversely, I found sites screaming about the glowing success of these programs and the majority of youth clamoring for this kind of sex-education.

Finding good, scientific evidence for either side is mighty difficult. I think most here fully understand how easy it is to have a survey support your views.

Still, the following from a group that clamors about its ability to do unbiased research is interesting. -end tangent
posted by Plunge at 8:50 AM on October 11, 2002


I do not want, under any circumstances, some one who thinks that christ, or any other religious figure has any place, action, or responsibility for my health.

The position is not anti-religious. It is pro-my health.

Why the hell does any one purport that my rejection of their religion, or any religion, is anti-religious - specifically when that person's religious belief has demonstrably affected their decisions that will affect MY HEALTH.

You can believe what ever you want. Really. You just can't make rules that force me to comply or otherwise restrict my options so that I am functionally complying with, your religion.

Frankly, it's actions like this (choosing these religious fanatics for non-secular roles) that makes many people so vocal against religion.
posted by Red58 at 10:34 AM on October 11, 2002


Plunge:I received in school was quite graphic and abstinence was a "chuckle and ignore" idea. I have little knowledge on the success or failure of the abstinence programs but I was shocked by the vitriolic rhetoric I found decrying the evils of this type of education.

I feel pretty qualified to comment on abstinence-only sex-ed - I went through 12 years of Catholic school in the late 70s -early 80's. I had abstinence sex-ed from the age of 12 all the way through graduating from high school. It doesn't work at all. An informal survey done by my religion teacher in senior year found that at leasy 50% of our class were no longer virgins. Two girls walked down the aisle at graduation pregnant. I knew of several girls who had abortions. I don't believe that it is an any way effective at keeping kids from having sex.

If there was one highlight of Catholic school sex ed, it would have to be having an 80 year old nun descibe an orgasm as " a warm, pleasant feeling in the groin area"
posted by echolalia67 at 11:17 AM on October 11, 2002


Thanks for the post skallas!

You defenders of the Boy King's realm can unleash your partisan screeds all you want and skallas can post the way he views the subject matter. I know from metatalk that hama7 would have it otherwise, he would prefer to squelch dissenting views. He has started threads and expounded upon the idea for countless lines. Tough luck guys, freedom of speech still applies here (thanks Matt.)

As for the content of the post, I prefer that fundamentalists of any political bent NOT participate in decisions of SCIENCE. That's fair enough to deserve criticism from politicians AND the NYT.
Don't like criticism? As I said before, there are more appropriate web journals for you that are guaranteed to censor viewpoints that you find offensive (freerepublic for starters) and perhaps you would be happier there but I'm sure many, as myself, find your bitterness, venom and attack dog style shrill and unwelcome (from the mirror.) If you want to debate, do it with a little more panache and style, OK? And a little humor wouldn't hurt to balance out all the serious hammering you do on those who oppose your views.
posted by nofundy at 12:36 PM on October 11, 2002


Steve_at_Linnwood: Yes, much as one might look in the "Best Lawyers in America" for a good attorney, or "Consumer Reports" if one is looking for a good washing machine...

I would look into maybe the AMA or another reputable medical group for a good doctor; an independent organization without commercial interest and some sort of stringent standard for being "best doctor." Maybe an endorsement from Harvard Med. Not a .com website. Speaking of which, do you have any evidence of him being a "best doctor" other than his personal page? Any connection to the website that you linked to?

And Amen, echolalia and nofundy. Said with most sarcasm.
posted by The Michael The at 12:58 PM on October 11, 2002


keep posting skallas.

This is totally a move by W to purge dissent from the government. Science isn't all facts, there is a lot of theory involved. Rather than having to respond to reports he politically disagrees with (the whole EPA report that Bush "read") the admin is replacing anyone who might question the line. I've yet to see a ounce of sincerity coming from the White House. He ran on a platform that said "Look I'm dumb - just like you!" Americans bought it and swallowed it. unfortunately it turns out he's dumber than anyone would have thought and alot meaner to boot. Now what? 2 more years? The Dems haven't got anybody worth voting for, do they? Get ready for another 6 years.
*Shudders*
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:57 PM on October 11, 2002


Dr. Hager is an editor of the book "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies, and the Family." and one of the pieces in the book is entitled "Using the Birth Control Pill is Ethically Unacceptable" according to the Dowd article. He said he disagrees with the article but he does not like to prescribe birth control to single female patients but will if they insist and reject his advise to abstain.

What kind of lectures to you think women should have to endure to receive legal prescriptions for birth control? He also refuses to insert an IUD. I hope all you republican men who think this guy is okay don't mind using rubbers for the rest of your life.
posted by bas67 at 2:17 PM on October 11, 2002


Was no one from HHS or the Bush administration available for comment? (and if this was the case, why is it not noted) This whole thing is a very one sided.

From the article: "' The issue also came up on Monday at the Senate confirmation hearing of Dr. Mark B. McClellan, President Bush's nominee for commissioner of food and drugs. 'Expertise and objectivity are important criteria for selection,' Dr. McClellan told the committee, in response to a question from Senator Kennedy. But, he added, so is 'diversity of viewpoints.'"

From the article: "Mr. Thompson and his aides have defended their selections. In a letter this week to Senator Clinton and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, Mr. Thompson denied that the administration uses a litmus test and said, 'We will continue to recruit the best scientific minds to serve.'"

From the article: "In an interview, Dr. Banner said giving advice to industry should not disqualify him. 'I have spent over 20 years doing pediatrics, with my total committment to advocating for the health and safety of children," he said. "I personally don't care what industry thinks is best. We need to do what's best.'

From the article: "Administration officials discounted reports that Dr. Hager had been asked to be the panel's chairman, saying no such decision had been made. Dr. Hager could not be reached today. His secretary said he was out of the office, and he did not reply to an e-mail message."

Hell, now that really IS one sided. Really, why didn't the Times just get Bush's HHS to write the damned article? I'm sure you and they think they could have done a much better job.

/laughter

...also named as one of the "Best Doctors in America" in both 1994 and 1996...

~laugh~

Well, check me on this Sparky, but then he apparently hasn't been named one of the "Best Doctors in America" pre-1994, and in 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 or 2002 (yet, if ever). Too busy writing fascinating "Jesus heals" double blind, peer reviewed journal articles? Live by the sword, die by the sword, my friend. And Michael is absolutely right about the commercial nature of this "Best Doctors" nonsense.

1. A lot of Doctors are used as consulting or advisors in industry... who else would you go to if you were a company and you needed information on lead poisoning, I duno, maybe the head of a poison control center?

I dunno...maybe the head of one of hundreds of "poison control center" -- or one of thousands of toxicologists --or one of thousands of pediatricians -- or one of tens of thousands of scientists and physicians -- who don't have financial ties to the lead industry?

MrBaliHai:How many more shrill, demogogic, anti-religion posts from skallas will Metafilter tolerate?
hama7:I second that as the pertinent inquiry of the moment.
jennaanemone:I third it.

Absolutely comtemptible. More shrill demogogic calls for an end to dissent and questioning. "Inquiry" is certainly the operative word, now isn't it?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:21 PM on October 11, 2002


nofundy: I know from metatalk that hama7 would have it otherwise, he would prefer to squelch dissenting views. He has started threads and expounded upon the idea for countless lines.

Aside from being a pointless, off-topic, and frankly weird accusatory personal attack, it is all the more ridiculous because of its lack of foundation in reality. In fact, slander comes to mind, you bald-faced liar.

f&m: Absolutely comtemptible. More shrill demogogic calls for an end to dissent and questioning. "Inquiry" is certainly the operative word, now isn't it?

Please. That's not a call for an end to dissent, although it is melodramatic, and does call to mind lockstepping thought-police Nazis and George Orwell, doesn't it?

I would just as strongly criticize a religious evangelist who used MetaFilter as a soapbox from which to broadcast his religious beliefs and views. This is MetaFilter, not a church.

So why should I tolerate anti-religious screeds which serve exactly the same purpose, except they denounce religion? This is MetaFilter, not an anti-church.

Yes I know it's very progressive and sophisticated to despise religion and religious people, but despise it on your own time, it's tiresome here on the blue.
posted by hama7 at 11:26 PM on October 11, 2002


Aside from being a pointless, off-topic, and frankly weird accusatory personal attack, it is all the more ridiculous because of its lack of foundation in reality. In fact, slander comes to mind, you bald-faced liar.

How can one be a "bald faced liar" about your online identity as both of you are anonymous computer denizens somewhere in the world, typing away, and posting to MeFi? The only lies are your strident postures on matters of which I doubt, for the time being, you'll be having to lay your life down on the line for.

I would just as strongly criticize a religious evangelist who used MetaFilter as a soapbox from which to broadcast his religious beliefs and views. This is MetaFilter, not a church. Where were you then?"

So why should I tolerate anti-religious screeds which serve exactly the same purpose, except they denounce religion? This is MetaFilter, not an anti-church.

Because, well, the internet thus far, is the church of humanity. We're all here. We excercise our particular strengths and our weaknesses. The internet invites us all to play. Not in your congregation. Free thinking is not welcome there. This is the market-motherfucking-place of ideas. Like it not. You're going to be called to task for anything and everything you decide to write. On the blue.

Get with it Hama7, the world ain't even close to being your particular sect of monotheistic belief. It's multifarious and unpredictable. Your religion is just one of many. It will be critisized. The internet being a medium of communication and all. . .
posted by crasspastor at 3:09 AM on October 12, 2002


I'd like to invite you to "get with it" crasspastor, and with your handle, why is not surprising that you'd chime in to defend a shrill, anti-Christian (and not very good) post?

How can one be a "bald faced liar" ...et cetera.

When one lies blatantly about comments I've made, like nofundy did above, one becomes a bald-faced liar, as he/she is.

the world ain't even close to being your particular sect of monotheistic belief.

Your are being presumptious here, but if you are talking about Christianity, you will find yourself squarely in the minority among Americans, if you'd care to check.

I don't think I have mentioned, nor is it even at issue, nor could you have the foggiest inkling of what my "monotheistic" beliefs are, yet you unsurprisingly take yet another opportunity to make stereotypical and stereotyping jab. You may prefer to mock, ridicule and sneer at the religious beliefs of others even down to your very handle, I don't.

It is obviously a great source of amusement to snicker about what rip-roaring retards religious believers of every denomination are, but there are some fascinatingly admirable and immeasurably intelligent religious mystics, monks and ascetics who have dedicated their lives and minds to the pursuit of spirituality and human enlightenment, and they have, in many ways shaped the world as we know it today, and will continue to do so. Ghandi, Lao-tzu, Buddha, Jesus, and hundreds of thousands more.

Not in your congregation. Free thinking is not welcome there. This is the market-motherfucking-place of ideas.

Free thinking involves responsibility, respect and actual thinking. In "my congregation" (to return to the thread) a scientist who holds religious beliefs does not automatically discredit him, nor does it make him a "right-wing Christian wacko". That's just lazy, irresponsible and left-wing knee-jerk nonsense.
posted by hama7 at 4:21 AM on October 12, 2002


I'll give you Ghandi and Buddha, and raise you a Dalai Lama, but there's little proof that Jesus even existed. Even if he did, he was a pretty cool guy, but the way that Christianity has evolved from him has taken some pretty bad turns. Incessant persecution and proselytizing to non-Christians are bad things. Ghandi never proselytized, nor did the Buddha or DL. Live and let live is their motto. Plus, any religion that supports creationism is constituted of rip-roaring retards to me.
posted by The Michael The at 6:04 AM on October 12, 2002


« Older   |   As war looms, a Peace Prize is awarded. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments