Intelligent Design ‘flunked’: Crowther and “Judgment Day”

| 27 Comments

The date is nearing when the PBS/NOVA program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on trial” will air and not surprisingly the Discovery Institute is not pleased. On EvolutionNews, Robert Crowther, director of media and public relations, complains that:

Robert Crowther Wrote:

The trailer for the program shows that PBS has turned to the usual suspects to advance their agenda.

Yes, such people as “Father of Intelligent Design” Philip Johnson or Steve Fuller did participate and what is even more ironic is that many more Discovery Institute people were asked to participate but they declined.

Yes, they declined!!!

Q: Of the three expert witnesses who testified on behalf of Dover—Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and Steve Fuller—only Steve Fuller appears in the program. Why did you not interview the other two, who are among the country’s leading proponents of ID?

Apsell: Michael Behe and Scott Minich, as well as other proponents of ID, were invited to participate in the program. We were committed to presenting the views of the major participants in the trial as fairly as possible. And our preference would have been to have their views presented directly, through firsthand interviews.

However, Michael Behe, Scott Minich, and other ID proponents affiliated with the Discovery Institute declined to be interviewed under the normal journalistic conditions that NOVA uses for all programs. In the midst of our discussions, we even offered to provide them with complete footage of the interviews, so that they could be reassured that nothing would be taken out of context. But they declined nonetheless.

In some sense, though, we do hear from both Behe and Minich in the program through our recreated trial scenes; the words that our actors speak are taken verbatim from the trial transcripts. And of course we hear directly in the program from lawyers for the defense—Richard Thompson, Patrick Gillen, and Robert Muise—as well as from Phillip Johnson, who is often credited as “the father of intelligent design.”

Crowther, not deterred by these facts, continues

Kids in Dover are still wishing they could get a full and complete education, without scientific ideas such as intelligent design censored as too dangerous for them to hear about.

But Intelligent Design is not really ready to be taught in science classes, just ask Philip Johnson

Philip Johnson Wrote:

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable.

or George Gilder

George Gilder Wrote:

“I’m not pushing to have [ID] taught as an ‘alternative’ to Darwin, and neither are they,” he says in response to one question about Discovery’s agenda. “What’s being pushed is to have Darwinism critiqued, to teach there’s a controversy. Intelligent design itself does not have any content.”)

So is or is not the Discovery Institute pushing ID as an alternative to evolutionary/Darwinian theory? The Discovery Institute really needs to get its talking points straightened out.

Finally, Crowther makes much of a leaked PBS Nova Memo, need he not be more worried about the leaked “Wedge Memo”? Just read the leaked memo and compare it to the Wedge Memo

Goals:

Wedge: To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

PBS: • Raise awareness of and visibility for Evolution
• Present Evolution in ways that make the topic accessible and relevant
• Use Evolution to create an understanding of the importance of evolution
• Create opportunities for audiences to participate in Evolution and be part of a national dialogue

Once again, ID has no relevant content especially when compared to the PBS Nova production.

27 Comments

The top of this post appears to have an error of “Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 23, byte 696 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187” - this is showing up also on http://pandasthumb.org/ .

So why is Crowther so worried about Dover? His boss, Bruce Chapman explains

Bruce Chapman: “Dover is a disaster in a sense, as a public-relations matter…. It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists to say a judge has settled this.”

David Postman Seattle’s Discovery Institute scrambling to rebound after intelligent-design ruling, Seattle Times - 5/26/06

I can’t wait for Expelled to hit the theaters, restoring God into our class rooms :-) I wonder if the DI will manage to get Stein and other conservatives to stop talking about this ‘wedge goal’ so publicly and frankly

Joshua Zelinsky:

The top of this post appears to have an error of “Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 23, byte 696 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187” - this is showing up also on http://pandasthumb.org/ .

Already fixed.

Okay, so there is no real theory of ID, and hardly any ID proponent wants to talk about it on a national, highly-respected science show. But let’s teach it to kids anyway– after all, what do they know?

I think we should teach the controversy and have school kids watch the Ben Stein propaganda piece and then the PBS show. Let them decide which is science and which is creationism dog shit.

Mr. C, that is a terrific idea for a social studies class.

The Discovery Institute responded to a post of mine, and in the process made a very significant slip: the author of the post claimed that the designer could be anyone, but then went on to call the designer’s identity a theological problem. Quite an admission!

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.[…]esponds.html

Please help document they said this before they change it! :)

The DI is merely repeating what Dembski said long ago, that ID ends with detection of design, and any inquiry into the identity of the designer is a theological problem. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to dig up the reference.

Interestingly enough, Dembski has at times alleged that the designer need not be “real”:

“Even if a theory of intelligent design should ultimately prove successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a regulative principle – a conceptually useful device for making sense out of certain facts of biology – without assigning the designer any weight in reality.” (From Access Research Network, William Dembski files, dated 1/24/01; http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_[…]testable.htm)

But why did the ID people, save a few, stay away in droves? Could it be they are afraid to face the facts and are … oops. I forgot. It is the evolutionists who are castigated with that charge, when they do not get involved with the IDers’ so-called debates.

Anything that comes from a website titled “Evolution News and Views” but pushes only slanted ID propaganda can safely be called a pack of lies. Read this and laugh:

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007/0[…]lution-site/

Ah, yes… PBS and their well-known agenda.

picking nits:

Judgment Day?

” It has given a rhetorical weapon to the Darwinists to say a judge has settled this.”

Since ID is all about rhetoric, this must be very scary indeed.

Well.…unlike the producers at “Expelled”, PBS/NOVA did not conduct interviews under false pretenses!

Oh, the horror! Evil old PBS thought its program (the 2001 Evolution series) might have political influence, says the post at http://webmail.registeredsite.com/a[…]in?mobmain=1:

“Clearly, one purpose of “Evolution” is to influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools,” says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. “In fact, “Evolution’s” marketing plan seems to have the trappings of a political campaign.”

On the other hand, the Discovery Institute-associated movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, according to someone who attended the screening at the DI in August, has explicitly political goals. On Denyse O’Leary’s blog, http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/[…]lligent.html, a poster (“Sleepless in Seattle”, the first poster at the URL above) wrote:

“Denyse,

I was thrilled to meet you at this Seattle event. I was extremely impressed with the film trailer, and I beleive (sic) it will effectively blow the top off of the Darwinian stranglehold on public education. I was dismayed, however, to hear that it will be politicized for our ‘08 elections. I strongly believe that the truth in this controversy should be bipartisan. There is too much at stake for it to be co-opted by either party for political gain.”

Unless Sleepless made it up, there was a discussion at the Expelled screening about using the movie and its subject matter to influence the upcoming election: note that February is not just the month of Darwin’s birthday, but the height of the primary season. Perhaps trying to find a new subject matter of interest to the religious right?

There certainly is a world of difference between how PBS went about getting interviews for Judgment Day and how Expelled got its interviews. And we know that there are staged scenes in Expelled; when NOVA stages a scene, they tell you about it. So which one is the “real” documentary?

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams:

picking nits:

Judgment Day?

Yes, I corrected it to read judgment day

PvM Wrote:

Yes, I corrected it to read judgment day

Don’t worry about spelling– in Ben Stein’s classroom of the future, all spellings are equally valid. (Move over, English teachers.)

Olorin:

The DI is merely repeating what Dembski said long ago, that ID ends with detection of design, and any inquiry into the identity of the designer is a theological problem. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to dig up the reference.

Interestingly enough, Dembski has at times alleged that the designer need not be “real”:

“Even if a theory of intelligent design should ultimately prove successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a regulative principle – a conceptually useful device for making sense out of certain facts of biology – without assigning the designer any weight in reality.” (From Access Research Network, William Dembski files, dated 1/24/01; http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_[…]testable.htm)

It’s a bit late in the day and Im tired, so i might be missing something here - but I’m reading Dembski’s quote there and it’s just absolutely meaningless. Every major point the guy makes just seems to be full of tautologies and/or devoid of any actual meaning or logic. How has he convinced so many people (at least some of whom are semi intelligent) to buy into this crap?

“Clearly, one purpose of “Evolution” is to influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools,” says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. “In fact, “Evolution’s” marketing plan seems to have the trappings of a political campaign.”

Not surprising that they see everything in terms of “political campaigns”. This has always been their whole shtick; it has nothing to do with science, as the Wedge Document clearly states. Looks like a theocracy is still their objective.

“Clearly, one purpose of “Evolution” is to influence Congress and school boards and to promote political action regarding how evolution is taught in public schools,” says Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. “In fact, “Evolution’s” marketing plan seems to have the trappings of a political campaign.”

Are there any marketing plans out there that don’t have the “trappings of a political campaign?”

Considering ID’s many forays into state and local politics, this statement of Chapman’s is laughable.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Are there any marketing plans out there that don’t have the “trappings of a political campaign?”

Considering ID’s many forays into state and local politics, this statement of Chapman’s is laughable.

You honestly think that Intelligent Design Proponents intend to do science for once? What a silly idea.

Considering ID’s many forays into state and local politics, this statement of Chapman’s is laughable.

Oh he just talks a lot of crap all the time. Don’t mind him too much. He’ll say just about anyhting. :D Cuckoo!

That PBS Nova memo looks good to me. (Besides some arguable definitions of evolution, and the omission of evolution as factually observed.) Dunno why Crowther would crow about it.

it’s just absolutely meaningless.

I read it as an anti-science (“anti-realist”) statement - it is enough for Dembski to destroy or at least deny teaching the evolution that bother his religion so.

The meaninglessness comes in with the playground idea that it is enough to yell “I’m right” to become “right”. And it is naive to think that it would work when science has a method to judge facts and theories.

It is obvious that Dembski does not understand how to do science - not even with the help of recently researching Marks can he produce anything that looks worthwhile. But he understands that putting his ideas to the test is going to fail miserably. Therefore the obfuscation, and possibly the naive delusion.

[If he doesn’t connect the dots between his failures and the general recognition of absence of science content. Seeing how his strategies works against making factual connections, I doubt it. Dembski may be adrift in a world he can’t make sense out of except by repeated chants of “goddidit”.]

I corrected it to read judgment day

Making it ex-spelled in typical evilutionist fashion.

Btw, I think a more suitable title for the movie would be “Impelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, as the IDC is still flailing wildly about driven by its flagellar butt-propeller.

Rob: “It’s a bit late in the day and Im tired, so i might be missing something here - but I’m reading Dembski’s quote there and it’s just absolutely meaningless. Every major point the guy makes just seems to be full of tautologies and/or devoid of any actual meaning or logic. How has he convinced so many people (at least some of whom are semi intelligent) to buy into this crap?”

He hasn’t; they already believe evolution is false as a matter of faith. They aren’t looking at what he writes critically. They don’t understand what Dembski writes at all, beyond the fact that he is a “scientist” who is critical of evolution. If they had their druthers, all the biology textbooks would be burned, and biology would be taught directly from the Bible.

many more Discovery Institute people were asked to participate but they declined.

Well, the producers could have taken a lesson from the Creationists and lied to those people about what the show was all about.

OT, but there’s not much happening here now, and it’s somewhat related to the broad themes of ID/anti-ID films and censorship. Apparently they’re tiring of allowing intelligence through, hence they censored my remarks. Here’s what they expelled, plus some comments I made at Dawkins’ forum:

Since they decided that javascript (who may be one of Expelled’s dishonest writers) can dishonestly quotemine what I wrote at Expelled’s blog, without me being able to reply, I’m putting my response here:

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm

[Glen]Not a new one, but I don’t know why the following comment hasn’t been posted. I don’t mean to continue to treat with people whose only motivation is to attack those they hate with religious bigotry, however I should be allowed to respond to the dishonest quotemines and vapid unsupported accusations of those without any conscience or competence to discuss science. So here’s the re-post:

Glen Davidson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

November 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am

[Glen]Javascript quotemines, in the way that only pseudoscientists and rabid fools do:

Garrison Seeber Says: November 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pm “only further emphasizes the Neanderthal mentality of your suppressive beliefs” Validate that claim… ……………… [Java]Well, let’s see… this might be difficult but I’ll give it a shot.

[Glen]Unfortunately, you’re too dumb to know what validation means. It does not mean quotemining. I use harsh words, but I also back them up, while you only tell lies and attack.

[Java]Below are validating quotes from our buddy Glen, the self proclaiming intellectual, that clearly exhibit his use of Neanderthal tactics in his attempts to bully others on the blog seeking only to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

[Glen]Sorry, unintelligent one, I was not the one who came in here with nothing but hatred and lies. I made arguments, I backed up, or “validated” (too bad you don’t know what words mean, buffoon), what I wrote. Not so much to those who had nothing related to substance, liek the dishonest Javascript, but that’s because yours were free-form lies.

[Java]Follow with me if you will: …………… GLEN QUOTES: - As pathetic as your knowledge of science is…

[From here until near the very end, the lines starting with a hyphen are javascript’s quotemines, and the ones not starting with a quotemine are what I wrote and they refused to post, with a few exceptions that I will attempt to point out. Most of the quotemined comments were made in response to Ben Stein’s blog, a few toward the end were in response to javascript’s ad hominem attack. So, the next sentence is my response to the above quotemine]

As we’ve shown previously, and as I demonstrated there as well. Try to learn to read above third-grade level.

- you lack intellectual integrity…

Another quotemine. I’d shown where he had not dealt with matters in an intellectually honest fashion. Rather than arguing pointedly with what I’ve written, you just whine and lie, again.

- your knowledge of science is abysmal

As is obvious to anyone who knows science, and has been amply demonstrated in these comments. Just because you ignore every bit of substance that I’ve written to back up my claims does not alleviate you of your responsibility to deal with them with intellectual honesty. Neither does your lack of intellectual honesty alleviate your responsibilities.

- you simply act as if science is as mindless as your sponsors are

And I’m sure that if you had anything intelligent to say, you’d be arguing against what I wrote, instead of quote-mining my supporting evidence out of it, with your typical dishonest tactics.

- this is part of your sleazy tactics.

Another sleazy quotemine from one who doesn’t even know what intellectual integrity means. Indeed, it was a part of his sleazy tactics, as I demonstrated, and which argumentation you ignore as you have from the beginning.

- A rather simplistic analysis…

OK, it was an extremely simplistic analysis. Sorry that I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

- Ben’s pathetic fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

Which fallacy you compound, as you quotemine and attack without paying any attention to the facts and arguments.

- That’s the best you can do, Ben?

Still better than the dishonesty of your attacks, javascript.

- you’re digging your own grave there, Ben.

I know that it’s nothing new, but yes, another dishonest quotemine, as javascript pointedly ignores what I actually wrote, how this fit into my arguments and conclusions.

- So what’s your point?

Here’s how an honest person would have quoted:

[Glen earlier]So what’s your point? Are we supposed to throw out English science, since it was based in a non-politically correct economic system? Here’s Ben saying that Western culture must (selectively) go, due to its many sins. Ben the PC man. Very good, Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots who fault civilization’s advances just because much of the past evil was retained for so long (and into the present, one might (or might not) argue).

[Glen later]Since my response was to his faulting of “Darwinism” based on the inadequate grounds that it comes from a time of imperialism, I dare say that the honest quote demonstrate my point. Which is why you dishonestly left that out.

- Ben, you’re now part of the ranks of the nihilists and bigots

See the foregoing quote for the context that javascript is not honest enough to include.

- Your understanding of evolution is as deficient as your understanding of history, Stein.

And apparently so is yours, javascript, or you’d deal with the facts and arguments I brought up instead of quote-mining.

- One does not write of “Darwinist means,” unless one is a science illiterate, as Ben is.

That’s right. He’s [Ben] shown himself to be illiterate in science right there, and by continuing to write of “Darwinism” as if it depended upon the writings of one man.

- It isn’t a lacuna, ignorant one…

Were he [Ben] not ignorant, the issue of abiogenesis would not have come up. And if you weren’t ignorant, you’d recognize that I made an important point. I am not as nice as I was previously, by the way, mostly because Ben has ignored where he has been corrected in the past.

- someone so bereft of intellectual honesty as Ben is would even attempt to supply evidence for his scurrilous charges.

Yes, and why don’t you try to supply evidence for your scurrilous charges, intellectually dishonest javascript?

- IDists simply hate the Enlightenment…

Yes, they attack it at its very foundation, at its requirement for demonstrable evidence. Another issue you can’t deal with, though apparently there are none you can address, java.

- bigoted theists…

A particularly disgusting quotemine from java. I very carefully pointed out that many theists are nothing like the bigoted and dishonest IDists, but he quotemines it as he wishes to misrepresent it.

- More tendentious nonsense.

And of course I justified that remark. You’ve justified none of your attacks.

- Ben has no truthful criticisms to make…

Here’s the context that this extremely dishonest person wishes to be ignored:

[Glen earlier]More tendentious nonsense. Darwinism and its successors have never ever sought to explain everything. Darwin sought to integrate biology with Newtonian-type science, and largely succeeded. But I guess Ben has no truthful criticisms to make of MET, so he resorts to what IDists always end up using, untrue assertions.

[Glen later]Since I was addressing the fact that “Darwinism” has never once claimed to explain everything, yes, it was tendentious, and I have yet to see Ben provide a truthful criticism of MET. Note how dishonestly javascript edited out the qualifiers I included.

I have to wonder if you’re one of the writers of Expelled, javascript. You’re really so dishonest and bigoted that it’s hard not to believe you could be.

- I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that

This is where that came from:

[Ben]But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do.

[Glen earlier]I’d like to know where you got such a disingenuous idea as that “Darwinism” presumes to explain everything.

[Glen later]I’d still like to know where such a disingenuous idea came from. From you, javascript?

- evil liars, most likely the sorts of anti-science anti-intellectual persons

More quote-mining, of course, and yes, I demonstrate that you who lie constantly are of that kind.

- Not all of us are as pitiful as you anti-science ranters.

Ben was claiming that we’re “pitiful” and (in essence) that therefore we need to be open to unproven nonsense like ID. But indeed, we who know science know a good deal more about the issues than people like Stein and javascript.

- the usual arrogance of the ignorant

Indeed, it was the usual arrogance of the ignorant, which you continue.

- if you weren’t a slimy little worm, and actually knew something, I’m sure you could have written something intelligent.

And instead of making up for your dishonest attack, you pile on more quoteming dishonesty.

- your anti-intellectual rant ad nauseam

Since you have done nothing but stupidly rant, I rather suspect that this has been well-validated.

……………..

[Java]Now maybe it’s just me but that sounds more like a Neanderthal then it does a civilized Intellectual that I think Glen would have us believe that he is.

[Glen]Why yes it does, and since it is your dishonest quotemining and vicious unsupported attack that compiled it in such a tendentious fashion, it looks like you have shown that you were just projecting.

Glen D

There is no reason to either block or smother the above post. Just because it may very well be one of the writers, producers, or main characters whose dishonest claims have been refuted is no excuse to either smother or expel this post.

Am I supposed to stand by while Ruloff, Miller, or Stein (I increasingly suspect one of them or others associated with the movie, since what seems to really bring out the hatred is that I refuted the blog at the top of the comment list) dishonestly quotemines and accuses without evidence or justification? Sure, I’m well past the point where I’m going to be nice when lies are constantly being told about us in a bid to enforce religion on our society, but unlike javascript, I actually make arguments, do not dishonestly quotemine, and I stay away from fallacious attacks on the person.

It will certainly be a sorry day if you protect “one of your own” from a response to his unwarranted and unsupported attack on the person, without the slightest hint of being capable of answering what I actually wrote (hence the quotemining).

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

This is where I had attempted to respond to javascript’s malicious attack:

expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/31/darwinism-the-imperialism-of-biology

I’m not really surprised that in the end they have to censor not only remarks, but responses to dishonest attacks upon the messenger.

Glen Davidson

I’m pretty sure that most of the IDiot scam artists at the Discovery Institute knew that ID had flunked before Ohio in 2002.

It isn’t just Berlinski and Johnson that have admitted that ID flunked.

Meyer was involved in preparing the replacement scam for ID in 1999 You obviously do not need a replacement scam if your primary scam is really going places: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi[…]ew&id=58

Everyone knows that when Meyer had the choice between giving the Ohio rubes something to teach about ID and the replacement scam he ran the bait and switch and gave them the replacement. What does that tell any thinking human being about whether he really believed that there was something worth teaching about ID. You just have to look at the replacement scam and observe that it doesn’t even mention that ID ever existed to get an idea of how much Meyer counted on the “scientific” merit of ID when he helped cook up the replacement scam.

http://www.ohioscience.org/L10-H23_[…]is_March.pdf

Dembski came out with his quip about IDiots (he didn’t call them IDiots, but he probably wanted to) shouldn’t over state their case after Wells and Meyer lied to the Ohio State board of education when they both of them told the board that ID was science.

I believe even West started coming out with hints that ID wasn’t ready for prime time after the Discovery Institute ran the bait and switch scam on the Ohio board. I believe I saw such a quote from him when the Discovery Institute scam artists were trying to keep a low profile in Texas right after Ohio. The Texas fiasco where one person affiliated with the Discovery Institute lied to the Texas board when asked if he was associated with the Discovery Institute and Dembski left off mentioning his affiliation with the Discovery Institute on the printed material that he submitted to the Texas board. Meyer was keeping a low profile after his performance in Ohio and West had to take the lead for a while.

After Dover even Meyer admitted that teaching ID was “premature” during some ID/creationist church sponsored dog and pony show (last year?).

We can’t forget Nelson. He was the first IDiot to admit that there never had been a scientific theory of intelligent design, right after they had to run the bait and switch scam in Ohio.

You just have to look at the record. Not a single creationist rube or legislator that has wanted to teach the science of ID ever got anything to teach from the ID perps. They all had the bait and switch run on them since Ohio in 2002. The only ones that didn’t take the switch or drop the issue was Dover, and we all know what happened to ID there. By the ID perps own actions, we know that ID never made the grade. Organizations like ID network and the Discovery Institute are hawking teach the controversy or critical analysis. The only ID left is in their names and past dishonest propaganda.

These guys knew that they didn’t have squat to teach for, at least several years before Ohio in 2002. So what kind of dishonest teach ID scam have they been running all these years? They didn’t just flunk and they shouldn’t just be expelled. You have to wonder why their own supporters don’t take them out and tar and feather them. The sad thing is that most of their supporters probably were not fooled and went along for the ride anyway.

These are just my recollections. Some Panda’s archivist can assemble the relevant quotes. I saw most of them here, but some over at talk.origins. It doesn’t paint a very nice and bright picture of the clowns at the Discovery Institute or ID supporters in general.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on November 1, 2007 11:44 AM.

Egnor Fisked: Le Vrai - Fundamentalism in Science Education? was the previous entry in this blog.

Visualizing the Similarity of Human and Chimp DNA is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter