Expelled gone missing…

| 140 Comments

According to the charts at Box Office Mojo the data for expelled for the weekend have gone missing. Although we know that in the 5th week, the theatre count drop almost 50 % from 402 to 210.

In other news, the United Methodist Church passed several relevant resolutions, one apologizing repenting for eugenics, and the other one expressing their displeasure with intelligent design and public schools

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.

No updates on the lawsuit by Yoko Ono against Premise Media.

And despite the efforts by the Discovery Institute and Premise Media it was reported that

Despite the fanfare over Expelled in Missouri, the antievolution House Bill 2554 has died

The score so far: “academic freedom” antievolution bills have died in Florida, Alabama, and Missouri, and South Carolina’s looks poised to die as well.

The study was published in the Journal Science. It’s a good week for science and faith.

As the commentary in the St Louis Post Dispatch observes

House Bill 2554, sponsored by Rep. Robert Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton, claims to support academic freedom for teachers, and to help students “develop critical thinking skills.” Those are the latest fig leaves used by creationists in their long war against science and evolution.

In other news, relevant to some ID creationists who are wondering about the bird dinosaurs link the article mentions that

A remarkable new genetic study published last week has demonstrated that the closest living relative of the giant T. rex are birds — specifically, chickens and ostriches — rather than reptiles like alligators and lizards.

The most amazing thing about last week’s report isn’t that relationship, which had been fairly well established based on the similarity of dinosaur and bird bones. Rather, it’s that scientists were able to find and remove genetic material from an animal that has been dead for at least 68 millennia. No one believed that soft tissue could be naturally preserved for so long a time.

68 millennia…more like 68 million years

“These results match predictions made from skeletal anatomy, providing the first molecular evidence for the evolutionary relationships of a non-avian dinosaur,” says co-author Chris Organ, a postdoctoral researcher in organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University. “Even though we only had six peptides – just 89 amino acids – from T. rex, we were able to establish these relationships with a relatively high degree of support. With more data, we’d likely see the T. rex branch on the phylogenetic tree between alligators and chickens and ostriches, though we can’t resolve this position with currently available data.”

140 Comments

Wow! 62.8% gave “Expelled” an A.

Err… the data seems to be right there. It’s #30 and barely made $100k. Think it’ll have to struggle to reach $8m total for its run.

The funny thing is that 68 millennia is still ten times the age of the Earth.

I had checked the daily numbers for the weekend, did not think to look at the weekend data via the movie tab.

Rank 30 Gross $102,690 hange -68.8%Avg$489 Total $7,499,617

Expelled seems to have a half-life of about a week.

Thomas Wrote:

The funny thing is that 68 millennia is still ten times the age of the Earth.

You’re way off. Today is Tuesday, so that would make it about 5 million times the age of the Earth. (=68000*365/5) ;-)

Greg Esres said:

Wow! 62.8% gave “Expelled” an A.

Well, the commentors here gave it an “A”. They then gave it an “S” and went on to spell out a rude word that fits in perfectly with the title “Expelled” and also succinctly summarises the commentors’ general opinion of the film’s makers.

I had an email exchange with Mike Fair ( about the South Carolina anti-science bill ) and I’ve included the text below. I hope I didn’t make a bad showing, but I attempted to put forth my thoughts clearly.

——————————————- My first email: [quote] “A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-29-240 SO AS TO ALLOW TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW THE *HISTORICAL* STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF *THE HOLOCAUST* AND *HOLOCAUST DENIAL* IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER.”

This is the idiocy you encourage in any context. Science is the actual method for which we analyze, critique, and review a field of scientific research/theory/hypothesis/finding etc. There is no more need to ‘allow’ teachers to teach scientific methodology, then there is need to ‘allow’ teachers to teach history. As of yet, intelligent design both as a claimed field of scientific inquiry and the proponents of, have never produced any scientific research/findings/information/hypothesis/theories. They have never published any peer review publications, they have never provided a defined hypothesis for which to be tested within the scope of the scientific method, they have never produced any viable theory from a hypothesis, they have never produced any research, and they have never produced any new information in any regard in any scientific field of inquiry. The plea for ‘critical thinking’ is made without the understanding of the lack of merit of what intelligent design actually is, an anti-scientific religion.

The only thing they have done is lied to the general public about science and education. They have emotionally attacked anyone they percieve as in conflict with their claims with what is essentially hate speech. They also have attempted to push a specific christian religious interpretation/agenda upon non-christians and other christians alike by attempting to slip their anti-scientific information into public schools.

Chad ————————————–

Here is the first response from Mr. Fair

Not intended to offend. Dr. Rchard Sternmberg would disagree with soome of your thoughts. Earned PHD in Biological Evolution, Harvard I think, fired from the Smithsonian because he challenged the flaws Darwin’s theory. He is one of many. This , he ,is related to South Carolina. I am not a scientist as you know. But I can read. I can think (I know you believe I am limited in that regard) I can criticize as well and can be criticized. Why not allow and protect sceince profs, who are your intellectual and edcucationally prepared peers to do the same? Mike ———————————— Here is my response to the above: Dear Sir,

Richard Sternberg was never fired from any position he held. You have been lied too, Sternberg resigned from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 6 months prior. While at that publication he failed to comply with normal peer review standards when attempting to publish a paper. Namely, the paper itself had nothing to do with the actual topic of the publication but it also contained no new information/research. It was simply a plagiarized paper from a fellow creationist that Sternberg helped ‘slip in’. Sternberg also was not ‘fired’ from the Smithsonian, infact his status was extended in 2006 to 3 more years. He never lost his access to the specimens he requires for his research and he never was ‘unemployed’ from a position that was unpaid in the first place ( that he still holds anyway ). His title changed, but it was neither a demotion nor a promotion. In the greatest leap of dishonesty yet, he turned what was trivial office rearrangements into ‘persecution’. Needless to say, any cursory search would have revealed the lie for what it is.

Again, what exactly happened to Sternberg again if he wasn’t fired and nothing bad happened to him?

Your question:

Why not allow and protect sceince profs, who are your intellectual and edcucationally prepared peers to do the same?

I find it hard to translate your question, if you mean that professors need to be protected - I’m going to ask protected from what? What you are doing is creating a red herring to avoid addressing the real issue here. Namely, what exactly is science and objective research. Also, you cannot cite an honest case were someone was ‘persecuted’ as a professor or educator. The third issue, is to what extent we allow a non-subject to be repeated in a class that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

A. Science is literally an objective methodological system of analysis. It is composed of several steps meant to draw out any objective bias for the purpose of determining the best answer with the best information. In the lack of information, it is all to possible to say,”I don’t know” or concentrate on hypothesis to explain the unexplained. Another important part is the falsifiability of the claim being made and whether or not it can be tested. A hypothesis is essentially a theory that isn’t a theory, as it hasn’t yet gone through the rigors of repeatability, experimentation, prediction, and etc. Once it has done so it becomes a ‘scientific theory’ On a side note, no creationist ( ID is same thing ) have ever produced any research/hypothesis/theories. Not a single one.

B. No actual cases of persecution really exist, all the ones cited in “Expelled” omit important facts or ( like in the case of Sternberg ) are blatantly dishonest. Creationist and ID’ers are often made fun of, but if thats the best you can actually come up with then thats not actually ‘persecution’.

C. Creationist are made fun of because they are ignoring science, scientific methodology, and bringing mythology into the science lab. Just like a Holocaust denier ignores historical standards of research, constructs logical fallacies, and simply lies. The same can be said for individuals that claim ‘flat earth’,’UFO’,’Ghost’, etc. I must also point out that if a teacher is hired to teach ‘geology’, then why shouldn’t they be fired for teaching ‘flat earth’. “Flat Earth” isn’t in the subject, and it is NOT scientifically supported. The analogy is EXACTLY the same as creationist/ID to the biological sciences.

A bill like the one suggested is simply an ambiguous attempt to get their anti-science specific religious nonsense into the classroom. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in the science classroom. The bill also allows other nonsense material into the classroom, that relies upon the same ambiguous misinformation.

Chad ———————————-

Here is mike’s response to that: Chad, Your motivations are.…., I do not know what motivates you. But you speak with certainty about what I really am trying to do. Your obvious intolerance is interesting.Why cna’t I have an opinion that is not tied to theology. You are certain that I and other ‘narrow minded relgious fanatics’ must have it our way are we will do what?? I don’t get it. Being critical of Darwinism, a theory, is the end game. Where the science leads is up to you and other scientist. Why be afraid? You are the one being being lied to if you actually beleive what you wrote to me. BTW is Ben Stein a liar and a religoius fanatic as well? I have not spoken about religious freedoms and anti-Christian bias in academia. That may come but it is not connected to this unless atheistic Darwinists see academic freedom as a risk to their theology. They then would be the ones trying to make a connection not me. Thanks for the dialogue. I am continuing to learn. Mike

——————————-

My response to the above: Dear sir,

Honesty and intellectual integrity motivates me. It is the same thing that motivates Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. Did I also mention he’s a christian? A roman catholic to be specific, but some christians are so intolerant of anything besides their own specific religious denomination that might not consider him to be one. Kenneth Miller is an avid and an outspoken scientist in his field, he often also addresses ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’. He of course is not a ‘supporter’ of ID or creationism, as ID nor creationism are actually science in any regard. The importance of mentioning Professor Miller has two intentions.

1. Namely, evolutionary science has nothing to say on the existence or non-existence of a god. There is no logical means for which to apply the theory of natural selection as an argument against a supernatural agent of a specific religious belief.

2. I also would like to point out the obvious strawman that both you and the ‘expelled’ movie creators wish to create. A strawman, is a tactic used in an argument where a fraudulent misrepresentation is used in order to ‘strike it down’. The misrepresentation doesn’t accurately reflect whatever is being argued against. The strawman is that ‘evolution’ is ‘atheism’. There is also some more misinformation in that ‘Darwinism’ is used loosely without definition or explanation, then associated to ‘atheism’ ( without explanation ) and more so the ‘biological sciences’ with evolution being specific. It is as if the past 150 years of scientific research had never occured. Expelled attempts to do this by selectively interviewing biology scientist that happen to be atheist. They carefully omit interviewing any scientist that is also a religious believer who is not an anti-scientific creationist.

I must also draw out the excellent work of Francis S Collins, an evangelical christian, who worked on the genome project. He of course, as a scientist, fully accepts the biological sciences including what you term,”atheistic-darwinism”. He has an excellent book titled,”The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” I have read it and although I disagree with his conclusions, I did think it was an excellent if emotive read. He infact began as an atheist from a graduate student and talks about his journey to christian belief. Another example would be Van Til, who used to be a christian presuppositionalist ( which accepts evolution but thats besides the point ) and has since become a ‘moderate’ christian. He is a fascinating and excellent writer with a fine grasp on logic. ( Did I mention he was a scientist? ) To be honest, Sir, we could go on all day with this. Tens of thousands of biology scientist are infact theist, evolution or ‘atheistic darwinism’ ( whatever that is ) plays no role and simply does not exist to them.

To illustrate the strawman being constructed:

Mark Mathis, a movie producer and media associate, is also an associate producer for the movie ‘Expelled’. When asked why expelled omitted interviewing people like Miller, Collins, Til, or thousands of scientist ( that happen to be theist ) he stated the following:

Mathis: But I would tell you from a, my personal standpoint as somebody who’s worked on this project, that Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller. I think that you, I think that when you look at this issue and this debate, that really there’s, there’s one side of the line or the other, and you, it’s, it’s hard to stay, I don’t think you can intellectually, honestly, honestly intellectually stand on a line that I don’t think exists

You have to ask yourself,”Why would miller confuse the film unnecessarily?” The answer sir, is that it would unnecessarily confuse the strawman being constructed. That is, that ‘darwinism leads to atheism’ ( which goes undefined in the film and by most creationist ). The interview took place between associates of,”Scientific American” and Mathis himself. The audio and transcripts can be found here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id[…]-mark-mathis

I must also speak to you as an atheist and a former christian. There is something I still hold as relevant to reality both from when I would have called myself a christian and now that I call myself an atheist. That is,”Thou Shalt Not Bare False Witness.” As a christian, it was believed only be the fear or rebuke of a supernatural agent that could torment me for an eternity. It was also assumed that magically I would suffer simply by lying to my fellow man. As an atheist, a lie is not simply a lie against someone else but a lie against myself. It inevitably damages the relationships I build around me, which in turn damage me. It is also a principle that by its act alone, denies reality which in turn in my mind brings us back to ‘faith’. Thats not a very nice thing to say about religious belief, but the point is to make an appeal to you on the integrity of information being claimed. In your first reply to me, you cited the Sternberg case - yet not a single thing actually happened to Sternberg. The peer review publication he was with has his resignation letter and he still does what he does at the Smithsonian. Both can be verified as easy as checking yourself:

[Enable javascript to see this email address.] This is Sternberg’s email at the smithsonian.

http://www.biolsocwash.org/ This is the publication that Sternberg resigned from in October 2003, which 6 months later he dishonestly bypassed normal peer review standards in order to publish a paper that had nothing to do with the topic of the journal nor contained any actual research. There is a contact list where you can verify this information with them if you like. He resigned 6 months prior, keep that in note. As far as the smithsonian is concerned, he was never fired and never held a paid position. His area and unpaid placement is as of yet, unchanged and has never changed beyond simple administration duties. He was made fun of for his involvement with the peer review scandal, but that was the extent of it. He was never fired and you have infact been suckered ( lied too ).

Moving on: You cited my ‘obvious intolerance’, but I’m not sure what you mean by that. Would it be intolerant to keep non-algebra out of an algebra class? How about keeping someone claiming the earth is flat from trying to tell his geology students the same in a public school? Thats definately critical of geology, physics, chemistry, and possibly dozens upon dozens of theories I cannot name by memory alone. Is this the type of ‘critical’ analysis you want to bring into the public school? Do you realize that in the same ambiguous tones that you defend ‘criticism of darwinism’ you could equally apply it to any quack-based ideology? How about ‘criticism of relativity’? Are we going to start teaching the ‘Ether’ in the classroom? ( Luminiferous Aether ) as an opposing theory to relativity?

You keep avoiding what I’ve already pointed out for you, that is what exactly constitutes ‘science’ and valid ‘criticism’ of science. In that, you entirely ignore that we already have the establishment that takes a scientific hypothesis and applies the critical analysis to it BEFORE it becomes a theory. Even at that point, the criticism doesn’t stop because in science information never stops. We are always learning and with the input of new information we can learn new things. Infact, biology as a field of science, has lots of contention between all kinds of scientist/researchers at virtually all times. They submit publications for peer review, they address the mistakes of experimentation made by others, they research to find new answers for the unexplained/explained, and they constantly apply the scientific method to everything they do. Thats what science is, and without it - its not science.

Unfortunately, we have a problem.

Creationist do not do the ‘above’, they do not publish peer review publications, they do not do new research, they do not form hypothesis, and they do not take an active role in the scientific community in order to actually bring that ‘criticism’ to fruition. Thats why I keep pointing this out over and over, because they are not actually doing the one thing that makes science science. That is, objective methodological analysis. So when you ask,”Why be afraid?” I have to point out that within scientific academia, I’m not afraid at all. Creationist never bring anything to the table in that regard. Unfortunately, what I am afraid of is in the public sphere. Where creationist ( who only represent evangelical christians and thats it ) attempt to force their anti-science religious agenda ( and mythology ) into public schools upon non-christians and other christians alike.

We can however point out exactly what they do:

They lie: Richard Sternberg They misinform: Expelled the movie/Discovery Institute/AiG etc. etc. They dismiss anyone that disagrees with their unscientific and religious views: Mathis

I’m getting the feeling that by the numerous red herrings and strawman you use against me, that you’re not really paying attention to anything I say or do. It is likely, that you percieve me as some ‘enemy’ of your religion that must be attacked/opposed. My appeal to you is probably falling upon deaf ears. I provided you with the statement that I am infact an atheist, so that you could continue any personal tirade you have against people you can dehumanize and dismiss. Feel free to just take that next step against me or anyone who just happens to not be an evangelical christian creationist in your state.

Thank You, Chad

This was the last exchange.

Chad, you did great. My hat’s off to you. If you were local I’d buy you a beer.

Chad said:

I had an email exchange with Mike Fair ( about the South Carolina anti-science bill ) and I’ve included the text below. I hope I didn’t make a bad showing, but I attempted to put forth my thoughts clearly.

This was the last exchange.

Chad, first thanks for taking the time and effort to contact such persons like Mike Fair. I have not taken any such steps and so I don’t really feel qualified to give you advice. Please take the following as humble suggestions:

1. Keep the responses short. They are not likely to read lengthy responses.

2. Underplay your side and don’t make it easy for him to label you as a fanatic and brush you off.

3. Make him realize that he has been lied to. Even if he does not admit it openly, next time when the Dishonesty Institute’s hawkers come around they will get a more critical reception.

4. As PvM posts often here, show how he is making ALL Christians look dumb by taking such anti-science stand.

Thanks once again for taking the time and effort to contact such politicians.

Any further news on XVIVO’s threatened action or Expelled’s counter action?

As of this last weekend expelled was still hanging on in three theaters (one theater chain) in the Seattle area. I’ll bet the DI is paying them on the side to keep it running.

Expelled seems well on its way to DVD and late night Xian Trinity Broadcasting TV. Where it will join its inspiration, From Darwin to Hitler in endless reruns.

If anything could boomerang on the creos, it would be Expelled. The scientists killed the Jews lie is just too lame to be anything other than ridiculous on a good day, and trivializes and exploits an atrocity on a bad one.

Bad strategy for so called Xians. “We lie a lot and blood libel the foundation of our civilization (science), so god exists.” More likely “we just lie a lot for murky political reasons and no one buys it but a few uneducated fanatics.”

Hi All,

What a relief! “Expelled” is well on its way towards cinematic oblivion. Approximately three weeks ago it stopped screening here in New York City, and now, finally, the rest of the country seems to have grown tired of this pathetic example of cinematic mendacious intellectual pornography.

Regards,

John

P. S. Speaking of mendacious intellectual pornography, I just posted this rebuttal (slightly edited here) to favorite Panda’s Thumb IDiot William Wallace, who has been posting too at the new location of Abbie Smith’s ERV blog (www.scienceblogs.com/erv):

Dear William Wallace:

Why don’t you crawl back from whence you came (Uncommon Dissent) and hang out with your fellow intellectually-challenged IDiots posting there? If you are a descendant of the great William Wallace, then I must say that yours is a family that has literally sunk to the nadir of human intellectual capacity, judging from your frequently bizarre, always inane, posts at Uncommon Dissent and Panda’s Thumb.

You have the chutzpah to call me a liar? Why don’t you take a real, hard look at yourself in the mirror?

As for someone who is indeed a genuine liar, thief and con artist extraordinaire, I must nominate my “pal” Bill Dembski; an assessment which many would agree with, including not only Abbie Smith, but also my friend Ken Miller, noted Brown University cell biologist and Jerry Coyne, eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist (whom I had the pleasure of meeting here in New York City at the Rockefeller University evolution symposium on May 1st.). Why?

Here’s why:

1) Bill committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for “services rendered” as a potential defense witness, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

2) Bill had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones’ historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.

3)Bill contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a “potential bioterrorist”.

4) Bill orchestrated a “death threat” campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.

5) Almost exactly one year ago, Bill, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online “roasting” of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin, simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe’s “research”.

6) Bill made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent last year (Jerry thought that Bill’s act was truly a very “low blow”.)

7) Bill followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, “rhetorically” asking whether Padian was the “Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology”.

8) Bill has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (This has been noted by others, including Abbie Smith, and David Bolinsky, XVIVO’s president, elsewhere online.).

9) Last December, Bill tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill’s latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as “The Design of Life” (which I did read, but won’t admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me, which IDiot William Wallace has noted in his latest post here.

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about “rich Darwinists” like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for “making money” off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a “middle class” idea, whereas evolution is an “upper class” idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more “upper class” than either mine or Ken Miller’s.

William Wallace contends that I have no right to “brag” about my high school alma mater, Stuyvesant High School, but I most certainly do for the following reasons:

1) Stuyvesant is regarded by many as the premier American high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology.

2) Stuyvesant has had many distinguished alumni, not only its four Nobel Prize-winning laureates in the sciences, medicine and economics, but also distinguished scientists like physicists Brian Greene and Lisa Randall, molecular biologist Eric Lander (who lead one of the teams that sequenced successfully the human genome a few years ago), noted historians and economists like Lewis Mumford, Samuel Huntington and Thomas Sowell, political pundit Dick Morris, and famous actors such as James Cagney, Ron Silver, Tim Robbins and Lucy Liu (Best-selling memoirist Frank McCourt isn’t a fellow alumnus, but instead, a former, still popular, member of Stuyvesant’s faculty.).

3) Stuyvesant’s current principal has pledged that Intelligent Design will never be taught there as long as he continues to serve as principal (I made this observation to Bill Dembski in private e-mail correspondence, and his reply was that he knew many Texas high school principals who wanted ID only, not evolution, to be taught in their science classes. Bill couldn’t answer at all, when I observed that Stuyvesant’s principal also teaches an advanced introductory physics course to one class of entering freshmen, and then, I asked whether any of these principals teach a similar course too.).

Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, and I are frankly fed up with Bill Dembski’s “frat boy antics”. If he wishes to be taken seriously, then he’d better start submitting his “research” to peer-reviewed journals, AND act like a responsible adult online.

So, in conclusion, my dear delusional William Wallace, if anyone should be regarded as a liar and hypocrite, it isn’t me, but instead, my “pal” Bill Dembski.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

John Kwok Wrote:

What a relief! “Expelled” is well on its way towards cinematic oblivion.

I read that all that means is that it will soon be out on DVDs, which will be peddled wherever they’ll sell.

But I just had another chilling thought. If fans make bootleg copies, would anyone bother to prosecute?

here in sunny Minneapolis, “Expelled” was down from an initial 15 screens to 5 screens last weekend. Only one of these was an urban theater; the others were outlying exurbs.

Frank J said:

If fans make bootleg copies, would anyone bother to prosecute?

Seeing as the worst sentence is to make them watch the film.…

Note that the Missouri “academic freedom” bill was introduced on April Fools’ Day.

Well, what did you expect?

Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers:

Apr 18–20: 23, $2,824 per theatre

Apr 25–27: 53, $1,340 per theatre

May 2–4: 58, $1,034 per theatre

May 9–11: 84, $818 per theatre

May 16–18: 101, $423 per theatre

Kim said:

Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers:

Are we playing into their hand somehow? I get this nagging feeling that we are making it a no-lose proposition for the creo-cons. If the film makes tons of money they win money. If it fails, we are providing them with “see how much these evil atheist Darwinists are gloating” fodder for the grist mill. They win some PR points.

It is not a scientific battle, it is PR battle, political battle. Wish we could drive a wedge between the rubes who swallow the lies of DI and the con artists who benefit by peddling the lies.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

Wish we could drive a wedge between the rubes who swallow the lies of DI and the con artists who benefit by peddling the lies.

our own Wedge Strategy? neat!

*hugs irony*

Perhaps we need our own “Argument from authority”, opening their eyes to walk the path of knowledge.

Can we use the Pope’s infallibility superpower to influence the Catholics? What about the UMC and Francis collins for the Protestants? Another debate with Dawkins would be nice, it would show the viewers that there is no controversy in evolution.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

Are we playing into their hand somehow? I get this nagging feeling that we are making it a no-lose proposition for the creo-cons. If the film makes tons of money they win money. If it fails, we are providing them with “see how much these evil atheist Darwinists are gloating” fodder for the grist mill. They win some PR points.

It is not a scientific battle, it is PR battle, political battle. Wish we could drive a wedge between the rubes who swallow the lies of DI and the con artists who benefit by peddling the lies.

Nah, they had a score, financial wise only you mind, but I do not see a large ripple effect yet about the content, other than that they get blasted everywhere except when the preach to their own crowd.

Are anti-evolution bills always introduced just before a session of the legislature ends? It seems like an awful convenient way to wave the flag of ignorance for the home crowd, safe in the knowledge that it will never have time to pass.

I agree that a per-theater analysis is better than total grosses or rank orderings in a given week. Some on the ID side tried to compare Expelled to An Inconvenient Truth without adjusting for number of theaters, which drops Expelled to about 84th in the all time opening week rankings for documentaries.

The death of the anti-evolution bill in the Alabama legislature had less to do with its idiocy and more to do with an utterly dysfunctional governing body. I am certain they will be back, because this state has so many intractable problems that the fundamentalists have given up trying to solve them and just play around with creationism instead.

I am glad to hear about the UMC resolution. Although I rarely go to church, when asked I will claim Methodism. They’re still not where they should be on homosexuality, but this gives me some hope.

ellazimm said:

Expelled seems to have a half-life of about a week.

LoL! I just hope Yoko Ono is able to prevent it from showing up on HBO.

As for someone who is indeed a genuine liar, thief and con artist extraordinaire, I must nominate my “pal” Bill Dembski; an assessment which many would agree with, including not only Abbie Smith, but also my friend Ken Miller, noted Brown University cell biologist and Jerry Coyne, eminent University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist (whom I had the pleasure of meeting here in New York City at the Rockefeller University evolution symposium on May 1st.). Why?

Here’s why:

1) Bill committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for “services rendered” as a potential defense witness, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.

2) Bill had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones’ historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.

3)Bill contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a “potential bioterrorist”.

4) Bill orchestrated a “death threat” campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.

5) Almost exactly one year ago, Bill, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online “roasting” of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin, simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe’s “research”.

6) Bill made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent last year (Jerry thought that Bill’s act was truly a very “low blow”.)

7) Bill followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, “rhetorically” asking whether Padian was the “Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology”.

8) Bill has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (This has been noted by others, including Abbie Smith, and David Bolinsky, XVIVO’s president, elsewhere online.).

9) Last December, Bill tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill’s latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as “The Design of Life” (which I did read, but won’t admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me, which IDiot William Wallace has noted in his latest post at Abbie Smith’s blog (www.scienceblogs.com/erv).

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about “rich Darwinists” like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for “making money” off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a “middle class” idea, whereas evolution is an “upper class” idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more “upper class” than either mine or Ken Miller’s.

So much for honest, decent, “Christian” behavior from devout “Christian” Bill Dembski, right? These aren’t the acts of someone who truly abides by Christ’s teachings, but rather, Lucifer’s.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok Wrote:

10) Almost two weeks ago, at Uncommon Dissent, Bill had the gall to whine and to moan about “rich Darwinists” like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for “making money” off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a “middle class” idea, whereas evolution is an “upper class” idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more “upper class” than either mine or Ken Miller’s.

Speaking of hugging irony (skyotter’s term, above), Paul Gross, John Derbyshire, Larry Arnhart and I are doing that as the “ultra liberal” Dembski plays the class warfare card.

Good riddance to “Expelled”, at least until they get past any legal issues (Lennon lyrics, lamely copied animation, etc). Then they’ll flood the DVD market. Yay. The evo/creo discussion forums were infested with fundies when “Expelled” firt came out; when the DVD hits the market it’ll get even worse… lol

Kim said:

Okay, a small overview. What I find most interesting is the amount PER theatre: Here are the numbers:

Apr 18–20: 23, $2,824 per theatre

Apr 25–27: 53, $1,340 per theatre

May 2–4: 58, $1,034 per theatre

May 9–11: 84, $818 per theatre

May 16–18: 101, $423 per theatre

More interesting, I think, is comparing the pattern to other actually successful documentaries like all the Roger Moore ones the IDists are crowing about doing as well as. Nearly every other other successful documentary opened in a rather small number of theaters to build some buzz and built to a modest number of theaters over a few weeks. Only a few reach or exceed the number of theaters the Expelled saw at its open. Obviously staying power and a powerful message is more important that release size and artificial buzz. It probably helps to have someone more interesting than Ben Stein running the show as well.

Most amusing of all, however, is that based off the huge number of opening theaters, there were basically two possible paths for Expelled to follow. Fahrenheit 9/11 super mega fame and success, or the spectacularly meteoric fall of Tupac:Resurrection. So really, I’m pretty sure we should all have seen this coming. On the plus side, if it can manage to stay in theaters about 3-4 more weeks, it might just squeak by Tupac on all time documentary list and claim the title of highest grossing failed documentary.

Plus, if they ask real nice, the preliminary injunction might be lifted and give them a chance to sell a few DVDs before everyone forgets the movie even existed.

bigbang said:

Imagine no possessions;

I wonder if you can;

No need for greed or hunger;

A brotherhood of man;

Imagine all the people;

Sharing all the world.

.

Imagine Yoko suing Ben Stein;

I’m certain that you can;

Unfair use of her possessions;

She doesn’t care to share;

The irony escapes her;

Yoko doesn’t like to share.

I am wondering if Stein after being denied permission purposefully continued to use the song. This is going to be a great showdown on free speech and the values of atheism. This song is one of the most hypocritical works around. The video for it is astounding: it is in a white luxurious palace room, while Lennon preaches vows of poverty. Yoko was one of the most vicious business people around. And she did destroy Lennon. And maybe the Beatles. She also will benefit financially from this dispute.

The buzz about the expelled movie will far out last the movie itself. Stein really played this right.

He is bringing the culture wars to a central battleground. And having your opposition represented by Yoko is just a best case scenario.

Paul W. said:

OK, I’ll grant the point about satire per se. However, this is clearly criticism—the satire is making a critical point closely related to and supportive of the theme of the movie.

I am not a lawyer, and am not up on the detailed precedents, etc., and I’m not predicting which way the decision will actually go.

Only a delusional IDiot like yourself would think that Ono will lose.

Hyeesh. I’m a scientist and a hardcore atheist who has made pro-science and antireligious videos. My main interest in this is in what I can get away with in criticizing religion and antiscience crap like ID. Being able to use clips of their stuff against them without getting sued within an inch of my life would be very helpful. It would also be very helpful if an atheist organization that I helped found many years ago could financially support such things without incurring a lot of legal liability. We can spend thousands of dollars to produce some videos, but not millions to defend ourselves in court.

That’s why I’d prefer that fair use provisions be broad and clear—so that we know when we’re within our legal rights, and can expect a judge to throw out a suit against us without our having to pay a fortune in legal fees.

If you assume I’m an IDiot because I disagree with you on subtleties of a point of fair use law, you’re just a regular all-lower-case idiot. I might be wrong, but I’m not religious, not an IDer, and I’m not dumb—at least not so dumb as to make an assumption like that.

Yes this above is actually proving Stein’s point. See even when make a point favorable to the ID side based on your unbiased interpretation of law you are called an IDiot. If you are not complete in lockstep you are an ‘IDiot’. This is what is scary about the anti-ID movement. I think this is why Stein brings up the Nazi’s: this constant use of the word IDiot is so reminiscent of some sort of SS goon.

Boy-the trolls sure do come out “all fired up” after a good sermon on Sunday morning, don’t they?

RotundOne replyed to my : “they must prove that they commented on or criticized the music itself.”

with

“I do not think that is true. Is there a source where the law says this?. They are using the song as an example of an popular atheist world view.”

The latter first: My contention is that they are not using THE SONG as an example, they are using THE LYRICS OF THE SONG as some sort of example. They have provided no good evidence that the use of the MUSIC is a Fair Use under law.

So, as to the former: It’s a fair question. Here’s the Fair Use law

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

“… the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

The defending lawyers have already said that they are claiming this is fair use for the purposes of criticism and comment (quite rightly, because the other reasons clearly cannot apply).

What they “used” was a recording of the song “Imagine”, which contained both the words and the music. Anytime a song is copyrighted, there is always a copyright for the writer of the lyrics and one for the composer, the person who wrote the music. In this case, John Lennon happens to have written both.

If the producers of Expelled had used “My Favorite Things” from “The Sound of Music”, they’d have the film company suing them for copyright infringement for use the the exact recording they used without permission, Oscar Hammerstein III’s heirs suing for copyright infringement for the use of the lyrics without permission, and the heirs of Richard Rodgers suing for copyright infringement for use of the music without permission.

See how that works?

So, if the lawyers are saying that the use of the song is fair but are only saying it’s fair because of the use of the lyrics, in my hypothetical case above, Richard Rodger’s rights have been well and royally screwed. So if the use of the MUSIC is to be considered fair use on the basis of comment and criticism, then, yes, I am correct – they need to prove they commented on and/or criticized the music.

And of course, as confused as people are already about what is and what is not Fair Use, we don’t need judges making rulings one way if the songwriter wrote both words and music but a different way if the lyrics were by one person and the music by a another person.

See even when make a point favorable to the ID side based on your unbiased interpretation of law you are called an IDiot. If you are not complete in lockstep you are an ‘IDiot’. This is what is scary about the anti-ID movement. I think this is why Stein brings up the Nazi’s: this constant use of the word IDiot is so reminiscent of some sort of SS goon.

Jesus. You really are an idiot.

Somebody calls you an insulting name on an internet forum where you’re free to say whatever stupid shit you believe, and that’s Nazism?

You know, there’s about 100 million people in this country who literally believe that a few million people like me will be tortured forever—each and every one of us suffering more than all the Jews in the Holocaust put together.

And they think it’s right, and worship their fearless Leader who will enforce such justice.

And those evil lunatics dare to call the minority they endorse the torture ofNazis because their dumbass ideas don’t survive scientific scrutiny?

Compare the comment moderation and banning policies at places like PT and Pharyngula to those at places like Uncommon Descent. See who gets systematically expelled for politely voicing a comment that goes against the local consensus.

If you voice your opinion on the internet, expect to get disagreed with, sometimes unfairly. If you can, smack the person down for their unfairness.

But stop this utter bullshit of calling the kettle black when you’re zero percent reflective.

Cleanup cycle initiated.

Expelled lost more than half its remaining theaters going into this weekend, down to 83, but is still losing per-screen revenues and it’s estimated to do about $30K for the whole weekend, across the country.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies[…]expelled.htm

Cumulative gross is still under $7.6 M. If it the gross keeps dropping by two thirds or more… well, somebody else can do the math if they want, but it’s not going to get to $7.7M and is pretty well dead in the water.

He is bringing the culture wars to a central battleground. And having your opposition represented by Yoko is just a best case scenario.

Why? A best case scenario that can get to sue you for up to three times the revenues seems a bit self destructive.

RotundOne said:

The buzz about the expelled movie will far out last the movie itself.

Wow, so the buzz will last 10 weeks, maybe 15. How pitiful the ID movement has become that this would be considered a success.

Expelled is a flop of monumental proportions, beyond even my wildest dreams. It will be gone and forgotten before the next president is sworn in.

“Expelled is a flop of monumental proportions, beyond even my wildest dreams. It will be gone and forgotten before the next president is sworn in.”

We can only hope, Avenger. While I personally do not like the message of the film, and I do not find their tactics honest, I still do believe they have the right to air, show, give away for free, whatever, their movie. But the version without “Imagine” in it.

What I really detest though was one line of reasoning the defending attorney Falzone was using to try to convince the judge that to issue a full injunction on the film until the offending use was removed would be unfair: One claim he made was that an injunction would cause his client to miss their planned October 2008 DVD release which they needed to do in order to correspond with the Presidential election cycle. Yes, they actually all but came out and said “Hey judge, you HAVE TO call this Fair Use or my clients lose their rights to influence American elections”. Pretty astounding.

Oh heck, I can’t find the link to the web site where I read this. I’m not at my regular computer. I shall post link when I find it.

Happy Memorial Day everyone!

Stacy S. said:

@ Paul W. - At what point do they do this? …

They are criticizing Lennon’s song

I have to agree with you Stacy. I think Premise Media is criticizing Lennon and his particular thinking, not the song itself. That’s the real issue here. The fact is, you can parody an artist’s work and use the work to comment on the work, but if the work reflects the artist’s beliefs AND a general set of beliefs, I really don’t think you can use the work as commentary on those general beliefs under Fair Use.

Keep in mind, the song Imagine IS NOT about a just imagining a world with no religion. It’s a song about peace. It’s actually a parallel with Martin Luthur King Jr’s I Have a Dream speech. So to take a snip from it and commenting on a belief in a world with no religion is really not a Fair Use issue.

Hey y’all,

You might get a kick out of this one:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNe[…]1551-ap.html

I don’t think that’s going to help Premise Media with the trademark case…

Paul W. said:

Expelled lost more than half its remaining theaters going into this weekend, down to 83, but is still losing per-screen revenues and it’s estimated to do about $30K for the whole weekend, across the country.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies[…]expelled.htm

Cumulative gross is still under $7.6 M. If it the gross keeps dropping by two thirds or more… well, somebody else can do the math if they want, but it’s not going to get to $7.7M and is pretty well dead in the water.

I’ve got to chortle at how far off the producers’ hopes missed reality. If they thought they’d get $12-$15M on the first weekend, I wonder what they thought it would be by now? I figure at least $20M.

The only downside is that their studio will doubtless go “bankrupt” and “disappear” after the they lose the suits and XVIVO and Ono won’t get any monitary compensation. Personally, I’ll settle for them getting the control of the film itself and Expelled never seeing the light of day again.

dpr

Paul W. said:

I think the key thing is how one defines exactly what it is that the relevant segment of the film is critiquing. […] I cannot go and see it […] If it is clear that the critique is of Lennon’s thoughts pertaining specifically to Imagine, then it could be fair use. However, my understanding is that the critique is sufficiently general that it cannot genuinely be claimed to be a critique of Imagine. Since (if this is correct) the film does not specifically critique the song, then it is not fair use.

I think it’s pretty clear in context.

But if they rely on the context to imply a critique of Lennon’s ideas while they play his song, then it isn’t really a critique of the song, is it?

They interview PZ and say that he’s not very original, he’s just “taking a page from John Lennon’s songbook” or something like that. Then they play the clip of Imagine juxtaposed with video of Communist stuff.

They’re saying pretty clearly that

No. They are not saying anything clearly, other than they believe that PZ is copying John Lennon in some fashion.

They are implying a whole host of other things, but implications, by their nature, are not always clear.

1. John Lennon is wrong, and PZ is wrong, and they are wrong in the same way.

Not so. This is what you are inferring, based on quite a bit of extraneous knowledge of the circumstances under which Expelled was made. All they say is that PZ is copying Lennon in some fashion.

2. The stuff in Lennon’s song and the interview with PZ about how life would be better without much religion is wrong.

3. The music in Lennon’s song is “wrong”—it has the wrong “feel”; showing scary commie stuff while playing it shows the “real” consequences of PZ’s and Lennon’s ideas.

Same as above. These are all conclusions that you have inferred (and possibly it was the intent of the film-makers that the audience should infer this), but it is not what they actually say.

I’d say that’s clearly social & artistic criticism with that specific song and Lennon among the targets.

And I say it ain’t clear at all. They are certainly criticising a set of ideas. What is not clear is how their critique of ideas that may or may not have inspired Imagine constitutes a critique of Imagine as a piece of art or social commentary.

To use a parallel to your reasoning here, I could assemble a generic critique of sports personalities’ biographies and this would allow me to reproduce chunks of (say) Michael Schumacher’s biography without my ever needing to make a specific reference to or criticism of Schumacher’s biography. In your reasoning, the juxtaposition is sufficient to constitute fair use.

I say it ain’t. If the makers of Expelled want to claim “fair use” under the banner of criticising Imagine, they they should have made at least one specific criticism of Imagine, not merely juxtaposed it with a criticism of atheism in general.

Of course, it’s shameless dishonest propaganda for the side that’s wrong, but that doesn’t make it not fair use. (In fact, that makes it even clearer that it is fair use; this is very clearly not just ripping off a song and using it for free.)

I agree that the fact that Expelled is shamelessly dishonest propaganda does not make their use of Imagine unjustified. Instead, the fact that they make no specific criticism of Imagine makes their use of Lennon’s song unjustified.

Bear in mind also that the producers sought and obtained permission to use all of the other music that is in the film - how is Imagine treated differently?

AFAIK, they were just using the other songs, not criticizing them.

They should pay for those songs for the usual reasons.

They also had reason to think that Yoko wouldn’t license Imagine, because the movie was attacking that song. (Or that if they duped her into licensing it, she’d sue about being duped.) Better to just use it and defend it as fair use.

By the way, I do think Yoko has a legitimate complaint that some viewers would think she approved the use of the song.

It would be reasonable to require the movie to show a notice saying “Imagine by John Lennon used without permission under fair use” or something like that. But that’s it.

But I think that Yoko Ono does have a genuine complaint. I do not believe that relying on the juxtaposition of the song to a generic criticism of some of the ideas it contains constitutes a criticism of the song. And therefore it is not fair use. And, therefore, they have violated copyright.

dpr wrote: “The only downside is that their studio will doubtless go “bankrupt” and “disappear” after the they lose the suits and XVIVO and Ono won’t get any monitary compensation. Personally, I’ll settle for them getting the control of the film itself and Expelled never seeing the light of day again.”

I’m not sure where the XVIVO suit went - anyone know? But I know and am grateful that Yoko Ono has enough money not to worry about not getting the exact $ damages she seeks. I have no doubt she sued on principal, not for money (but, you have to hit ‘em in the pocketbook or they - and others - will pull the same tricks again).

I’m pretty sure Expelled will see the light of day again, but that’s OK - that will prove the point that, while admittedly some people do not like the message, the filmmakers do have the right to spread that message - they just need to use legal means to do so.

Tangent Alert!

Just as a “moral dilemna” aside; WWJD if He ordered a DVD of Expelled after an injunction had been ordered and He received a copy that still had “Imagine” in it. Not supposed to distribute that copy? Hmmmm …

That’s why it’s better the Plaintiffs get their hands on all the current copies that aren’t supposed to be sold. It would be a shame if some innocent church pastor accidently showed a copy of something the production company was not supposed to sell in the first place.

I do not believe that relying on the juxtaposition of the song to a generic criticism of some of the ideas it contains constitutes a criticism of the song. And therefore it is not fair use.

I think it’s obviously a criticism of the song. They explicitly compare it to P.Z.’s comments, which are the obvious focus of criticism, and they contrast the “positive” feel of the song with the “negative” feel of the images they display. (A pleasant song saying “imagine no religion” and “imagine no possessions,” vs. unpleasant Communist imagery.)

I find it hard to believe that anybody here can actually miss that. And of course the music matters—the music is what helps make the song emotionally positive about the ideas, and that’s what makes the contrast with negative images especially effective.

BTW, it appears that the judge is leaning toward agreeing with me, and likely disagreeing with the folks here who say it’s obviously not fair use.

http://lessig.org/blog/2008/06/a_ni[…]sent_or.html

I told you so.

(Even if Ono ultimately wins, it’s pretty obvious that the judge doesn’t think it’s a clear-cut case of copyright infringement, or likely a big deal.)

It appears that the judge went beyond denying an injunction and issued a finding of fact that the use of Imagine is fair use. She might appeal, but Yoko lost.

Here’s the judge’s decision, which says the same kinds of things I said above, citing precedents etc. See especially the discussion of “transformative use” starting around page 15.

http://acandidworld.files.wordpress[…]08-02066.pdf

Paul W. said:

It appears that the judge went beyond denying an injunction and issued a finding of fact that the use of Imagine is fair use. She might appeal, but Yoko lost.

Here’s the judge’s decision, which says the same kinds of things I said above, citing precedents etc. See especially the discussion of “transformative use” starting around page 15.

http://acandidworld.files.wordpress[…]08-02066.pdf

Unfortunate, but then Expelled has now hit the Dollar cinema theaters hereabouts (and likely overpriced at that). IDC’s “Great White Hope” is dying out with a whimper and will be no factor in the general election.

dpr

Just a quick comment about some biologists “making money off evolution”.

Francisco Ayala certainly does not need that. He was married to Sheraton heiress Mitzi Henderson for years (she went on to re-marry chicken magnate Frank Perdue). How anyone can think that selling books on evolution can buy acres and acres of vinyards is beyond me…

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 19, 2008 10:57 PM.

Alliance for Science Announces Winners of National High School Essay Contest was the previous entry in this blog.

NCSE: Proving ID = Creationism 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