Nature Endorses Obama

| 340 Comments

Updated: Disclaimer appears below. Link to journal endorsement is here.

This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama.

Politics impacts science. From which research emphases get funded to which school board member to vote for, science and politics often cross paths. PT’s supporters come from all walks of life and bring to the pro-evolution discussion opinions on other matters that span everything from conservative to liberal. To the extent possible, PT tries to avoid overtly being political, partly because we don’t want to needlessly alienate those supporters, but mainly because it’s beyond the charter of this website and that there are many other blogs that serve that purpose better than ours. Occasionally, though, this blog encounters a crossroads between science and politics, entailing posts that necessarily make political statements. This is one.

During this election, there is a difference between the candidates running for president. Palin is a creationist of the first water. Her disbelief that money spent in support of autism research was going to labs in France that used fruit fly models, reported at Pharyngula, speaks volumes.

At least from the standpoint of science advocacy and at least to this PT contributor, the decision during this election appears straightforward. Nature’s endorsement is timely and appropriate.

BCH

PS - And novel! According to this post from DailyKos.com, it would appear that this is first time Nature has endorsed a candidate.

340 Comments

Myers goes off halfcocked, as usual. Better reference: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55137/

She was most likely referring to agricultural research on a fruit fly import from France to California that’s destroying crops. Some of the money ultimately went to France, some went to California. It seems clear that Palin didn’t know what she was referring to, just parroting something she was given. Deep inside is a real issue: whether senators should be replacing, or supplementing, peer reviewed research funding. I doubt Palin understands this though. The agricultural problem is important, but should a senator be deciding who gets the money? In this case the funds were given to an institution that apparently had some committee doling out the funds. Hopefully it was an expert committee, but this is entirely up to some politician’s discretion. Polticians clearly should not be allocating research funds to individual proposals.

The above post does not link to the Nature endorsement which can be found at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journa[…]551149a.html

Now for more substantive remarks: This endorsement concerns me greatly. As Nature is a scientific journal, it should stay above general politics like this. If Nature wants to write something supporting a specific policy based on scientific grounds that is one thing. But this risks making science dangerously politicized. With certain elements already attempting to politicize science and treat it as nothing more than another special-interest group this sort of thing simply gives them more ammunition and possibly furthers the problem. I’d prefer if Nature stayed out of this sort of thing.

Nature does a decent job of addressing these sorts of concerns. For example they say “On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain. This is not a panacea. Some of the policies Obama supports — continued subsidies for corn ethanol, for example — seem misguided.” But overall, they don’t handle the basic issue that even if they are correct using this venue in this matter is a disturbing politicization of science.

Joshua Zelinsky said: …But this risks making science dangerously politicized…

The anti-science crowd has no such scruples. Why should only one side be allowed to use political pressure to influence political decisions?

The anti-science crowd has no such scruples. Why should only one side be allowed to use political pressure to influence political decisions?

Because science has the most pull and the most push if there isn’t a perception that science is part of some political agenda. And the fact is that science isn’t. Science can inform political decisions and sometimes science can be used to understand why one policy or another is better. But if we take part in the further politicization of science then science becomes less influential. This is a problem all the more because there isn’t a single anti-science crowd but a large variety of groups who have tried to politicize or distort science for their own ends.

Mike said:

Myers goes off halfcocked, as usual. Better reference: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55137/

She was most likely referring to agricultural research on a fruit fly import from France to California that’s destroying crops. Some of the money ultimately went to France, some went to California. It seems clear that Palin didn’t know what she was referring to, just parroting something she was given. Deep inside is a real issue: whether senators should be replacing, or supplementing, peer reviewed research funding. I doubt Palin understands this though. The agricultural problem is important, but should a senator be deciding who gets the money? In this case the funds were given to an institution that apparently had some committee doling out the funds. Hopefully it was an expert committee, but this is entirely up to some politician’s discretion. Polticians clearly should not be allocating research funds to individual proposals.

Myers goes off half-cocked, as usual? Burt Humburg wrote this article. The irony is delicious.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

Because science has the most pull and the most push if there isn’t a perception that science is part of some political agenda…

The other side has already produced a general perception that science itself has a political agenda. In fact, that is how the anti crowd has gotten much of it’s political power. All real science will get from sitting on the political sidelines is run over.

Look at the history of the Dover school board for evidence contrary to your assertion.

I want to reiterate that Burt is speaking as an individual and his post is not a statement from PT as a whole, which still maintains neutrality regarding candidates for US office.

Joshua,

Where is the logical or evidenciary connection between a science organization recognizing that one political party is decidedly anti-science, and politicizing science? You seem to just assert it is so.

To make my point, imagine if the only political parties in the US were the Democrats and the Natural Law party. Would it be a politicization of science for Nature to recognize the completely unscientific nature of the NL party? How?

The Republican party has been taken over by anti-science, anti-intellectual zealots, and the Stepford Candidate Palin is their leader. It’s time we recognized this and stopped pretending this is politics as usual.

Science Avenger, the situation isn’t analogous. I agree that the current party leadership does have some strong anti-science elements. And the base is full of anti-science junk. But a) not all Republicans fall into that category. For example, see for example y George Will or John Derbyshire. b) there are many anti-science Democrats as well. One needs only spend a few days at the Huffington Post to see all of the vaccine-autism woo there and both Obama and Clinton have made comments that strongly endorse such a connection. Meanwhile, the environmentalist end of the Democratic party has been terrible about paying attention to science except when it suits their interests (cf nuclear power for example). So the argument that there such a large disparity in that context isn’t a good thing.

And it isn’t like McCain’s actual voting record on science is bad. In fact, his voting record on science issues has generally been very good.

Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn’t part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate?

I’d probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that’s not the sort of situation we are dealing with. We’re not even in a situation where the national party has any explicit anti-science parts of its platform. If the party was explicitly YEC or explicitly skeptical of global warming that might also be a different situation. But we’re not in any such situation. Yet. And we shouldn’t take actions that will push us into being in such a situation.

Also, a quick note which I forgot to put in my previous post: Of the three scientists in Congress currently one of them, Vern Ehlers, is a Republican.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

… Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn’t part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate? …

By that logic I should help the cause of science by voting for Jim Inhofe for the Senate on Tuesday.

Chuck, that isn’t an accurate comparison. Obviously we should vote for the pro-science candidates. But let’s be honest; Obama is almost certainly going to win at this point and most people who might be persuaded by what Nature said is going to vote for Obama anyways. So all this does is add ammunition to the claim that the scientists are biased. It isn’t even really likely to help win the election at all.

Come on Josh, you are comparing molehills to mountains. What is the proportion of anti-evolution, anti-global warming Republicans to anti-vaccer Democrats? 1,000 to 1? The GOP is de facto anti-science regardless of what their official position is, and pretending there is any validity to that position, or that there is any comparison between the parties, is not going to help anything. There are a few scatterred pro-black racists among the Democrats too. Are we therefore to ignore the overwhelming number of racists and racist arguments among Republicans and pretend the Democrats have the same problem with racism?

The best way to fix the Republican party is to call it what it has become and as a result have them get hammerred in election after election due to losing support from independents. Our chances of changing the GOP bases mind about science is exactly zero. They will attribute any resistence to their faith-based ideas as a biased liberal conspiracy against them regardless of how it is presented. If we’re on double secret probabtion anyway…

For full disclosure, I have voted Republican and libertarian for 20 years, and am voting Democratic this year precisely because of this idiocy. I have also spent many frustrating hours in discussion with family and friends who are loyal GOPers, and have experienced their faith-based, speculation-over-facts mentality. The ID epistemology has become the GOP epistemology, which makes this discussion here all the more relevant. What was the Palin lie-blitz but one long Gish Gallop?

Defeat is all they will understand, and they might not even understand that. It is very possible that the only way this gets fixed is to wait for the old GOPers to die off.

Unfortunately, this endorsement probably does very little. First, because endorsements generally do very little to influence voting and second, most folks of the critical thinking persuasion weren’t likely to vote for McCain in the first place. At least I hope that’s the case.

Pursuant to Reed’s comments above, I’ve altered the language of my post to reflect that I was writing as an individual. (And I’ve actually included the link to which I refer. Sorry for the oversight.) I am so loath to politicize or religiize (to hamhandedly coin a word) PT that I try to avoid posting on the topics of politics or religion, even to the extent that posts obviously relevant and appropriate for PT are delayed or extensively considered. (With every religious post I write here, I run it past PZ for his take, who smiles, reminds me once again that he “doesn’t do religion,” pats me on the head, and sends me on my way.)

This one seemed a no-brainer to me and Joshua’s comments above strike me as somewhat unexpected. The decision is clear in this election and, at least to the pro-evolution charter of this website, why on early wouldn’t we go with the candidate who is pro-evolution? How could we alienate PT fans by doing so?

It was in ignorance of opinions like those of Josh that I wrote what I did, assuming (incorrectly) that there was not going to be a problem with assuming an endorsement of an endorsement from Nature was appropriate for PT. I apologize to those who expected more from PT and to those who did, in fact, prefer for PT posts to not make any political comments. And I apologize to PT contributors for the implication that they were involved in this decision. It was a post written by me and edited all within the span of an hour; no debate in our ranks took place over it at all because I didn’t give them enough time to respond. This one was mine alone and I thank Reed for pointing that out in the comments until I returned home in time to check email and make the needed corrections.

BCH

NATURE may regret this. Besides, why would Obama be the best candidate for science. Does the mag think McCain supports creationism?

The best man is the one best qualified. I’ve never heard McCain support “creationism” or the teaching of “ID” in the public schools.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/12[…]creationism/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/[…]vp-want.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/johnmcc[…]cularism.htm

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/437661.aspx

Well, even though these come from not altogether “reliable” sources, there is enough here to warrant a concern. After all, electing McCain would be a 72-year-old heartbeat away from electing an avowed creationist, just like at least two of the most recent three GOP presidents.

McCain chose an anti-science nut as a running mate, which is bad enough, but he has also done nothing but belittle science in his campaign, and consistently appeal to the lowest common intellectual denominator in his ads and speeches. It is the most consistently low-brow campaign I have ever seen.

As for what would make Obama better for science, there is plenty of evidence in the way he expresses himself and thinks about problems, as compared to the winky winky no blinky bullshit we get from the GOP. Hell just compare vocabularies. This is my favorite bit of evidence. Whatever he may think privately, he understands that public conflicts must be resolved using public information. That’s science.

Perhaps McCain is once again dragged down by Palin’s ‘position’ on science.

Barbare Rainey said:

NATURE may regret this. Besides, why would Obama be the best candidate for science. Does the mag think McCain supports creationism?

The best man is the one best qualified. I’ve never heard McCain support “creationism” or the teaching of “ID” in the public schools.

my problem with this sort of discussion is the way republicans are being represented as a monolithic position. at this point, it looks like the natural pressure for the GOP is to separate in two directions, one of which is wildly anti-science, the other only occasionally anti-science when it suits them to support an industry like oil or tobacco. However, this split cannot happen because the voting system crucifies third parties. My sympathies are with the democrats, but my sympathies are more strongly with any system that allows politics to evolve. I’ve never understood why more people in the US don’t complain about the voting system

“I’d probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that’s not the sort of situation we are dealing with.”

Huckabee and Palin. McCain and Palin.

Not identical. But close.

Linguist said:

“I’d probably feel closer to how you felt if the Republican ticket were say Huckabee and Palin, but that’s not the sort of situation we are dealing with.”

Huckabee and Palin. McCain and Palin.

Not identical. But close.

I have to give McCain a little credit here. During one of the primary debates, he was asked point-blank, “Do you believe in evolution?” Setting aside that this is a poorly phrased question, I watched for that split second in which I imagine McCain was contemplating the reactions of the Falwell/Robertson crowd, and then he said, firmly and simply, “Yes.” It was the rest of the crowd on stage that was asked to raise their hand if they didn’t believe in evolution. Huckabee was not only one of the three (the others being Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, although Duncan Hunter later said he should have raised his hand in hindsight, Ron Paul later made antievolution statements, and even Mitt Romney has been evasive on the subject), but also the only one who went on to elaborate on his position:

“If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.”

Wow. To paraphrase Ken Miller, who thought Huckabee was a very entertaining and personable candidate, “Governor, you are a primate!”

snaxalotl said:

However, this split cannot happen because the voting system crucifies third parties. My sympathies are with the democrats, but my sympathies are more strongly with any system that allows politics to evolve. I’ve never understood why more people in the US don’t complain about the voting system

Amen brother. Our system seems almost designed for suboptimal results. Perhaps that’s why we get them so often.

Politics does not belong in hard science any more than religion does. Due to the passions inherent in church and polis both produce regular anathemas to truth and reason.

I have my own doubts about McCain’s support for scientific research because when questioning earmarks and government spending he and Palin nearly always bring up funding for science and science education: bear DNA, planetariums, fruit fly research, etc. Out of all the earmarks made, McCain seems to believe that scientific ones are the best exemplar’s of government waste. That worries me.

True, McCain could be just an unsupportative of science as Bush. But then again, he might just be trying to pick stuff that Joe the plummer wouldn’t understand and hold it up for ridicule. Of course, if Joe the plummer is really smart enough to see through this facade, that strategy just might backfire.

I think that the time is ripe in this country for someone to stand up in support of good science. I just hope that at least one of the candidates will actually turn out to value science, rather than misrepresenting, avoiding or ignoring the issue.

Funny, but somehow “drill baby drill” doesn’t seem to be a very sound policy from a science point of view.

Joshua Zelinsky said:

Also, a quick note which I forgot to put in my previous post: Of the three scientists in Congress currently one of them, Vern Ehlers, is a Republican.

I guess it depends on how the word scientists is defined. I haven’t toted up the number but I think it is somewhat greater then 3, although, IMHO, much too low. For instance, Rethuglican Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Md. has a degree in organic chemistry and worked for the USDA before retiring and running for office.

Barbare Rainey said: I’ve never heard McCain support “creationism” or the teaching of “ID” in the public schools.

Well, he’s not as strong a supporter as Huckabee, but he’s certainly on board with the religious right on “teach the controversy”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdva[…]ture=related

Dear Joshua,

Thanks for your eloquent remarks, which emphasize that “…McCain’s actual voting record.… on science issues has generally been very good.”. Indeed he was the first important Republican leader who recognized the detrimental impact of global warming. In his answers to the “Call for a Science Debate” questions he has demonstrated a better understanding and comprehension of issues ranging from energy policy to global warming and space exploration than Obama, whose answers have tended to be too superficial.

As a registered Republican who is also a dedicated opponent of all forms of “scientific” creationism, I greatly appreciate these remarks:

“Furthermore, if one believes that the Republican party has been hijacked by an anti-science agenda which do you think is going to be more effective at getting it unhijacked? Getting the base to understand that science isn’t part of that evil, liberal North-East establishment, or reinforcing their perception that the scientists are those partisans who use every institution they have to pull for the Democratic candidate?”

I would have chimed in earlier except that I have been busy editing photographs I had taken for my 30th high school reunion which was held last Saturday (Among those in attendance included a Scientific American editor and an EPA section chief who was my classmate from 6th grade through our high school senior year; I’ll sheepishly admit that I had had a “romantic interest” in her back in junior high school.).

Regards,

John

Supposing you were tasked to present to the leaders of the United States and her nation-friends the challenge for committing resources to another large scientific project. For instance putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, creating a fusion engine, or to commit resources to build something as complex as the Large Hadron Collider. Imagine conducting a presentation to either Obama and Senator Biden and their crew, or to Senator McCain and Governor Palin and their crew the idea that the West must begin committing resources to understand and then create computer systems mimicking biological cognition. Your job is to sell this idea to one of the administrations. Setting the West on this course for several decades may bear no fruit in the long run. Though simply setting public awareness that the West is committed to such an endeavor is sure to raise our national honor, and raise eyebrows from those people who presently hold the West in disdain.

I believe the Obama-Biden crew would hold back on monies for this project, that crowd wanting instead to spend money on God-awful social welfare projects. McCain and Governor Palin would want to get the computer cognition project in first gear as soon as possible, realizing that if a Russian or heaven forbid an Islamist were to write the first research paper spelling out the details of neuro-cortical biological cognition before someone in the West does so, than the West will be humiliated, trumped at its own game. We’ll never recover from the humiliation. Time is of the essence, and the cat is already out of the bag.

There are still a few things the West needs to discover and invent before all humanity can cozy up and into, relaxing with universal socialism in every nation around the world. I also predict a McCain-Palin win by a fourteen point landslide.

Dear neo-anti-luddite,

Am glad you are having such a grand time. I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

John Kwok said:

Dear neo-anti-luddite,

Am glad you are having such a grand time. I wish you well in assuming room temperature soon.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

…and that’s how you manipulate someone, folks.

To be honest, I expected him to hold out for more than a couple of hours, but I guess I overestimated him.

Dear John:

You keep misunderstanding - or more likely misstating - the issue.

The issue is that you’ve advanced several claims that were demonstrably false, people gave you links and evidence enough to prove they were false, and you kept making the same claims.

This means you are a liar, regardless of whether you “change your mind about Obama” or not.

Keep squirming, John. Did President-Elect Obama say, in his victory speech, that “ours did not become a great nation until his election”? Yes or no?

Seems that to Kwok, radical socialist is anyone who associates with people who may be radicals.

1. Guilt by association 2. Guilt by association 3. Guilt by association

and despite all this Kwok has come to realize that Obama is not that radical after all. Funny to hear about all these contradictions, but of course when we call someone a radical socialist one presumes that we have some real evidence. Seems that as usual, Kwok’s ‘evidence’ is based on guilt by association examples. Such fear mongering has no place in the post-W world.

John Kwok said:

Dear PvM:

Let’s look at the record, shall we:

1) In “Dreams of My Father”, Obama notes that his primary influence as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii was someone who has been identified as an important leader of the Hawaiian branch of the Communist Party USA.

2) Also in “Dreams of My Father”, Obama admits to associating himself with fellow radicals as a Columbia University undergraduate.

3) One of Obama’s first jobs in Chicago was to train ACORN’s staff (ACORN is a radical Socialist-leaning community organization).

That’s just the tip of the iceberg which has led me and many others here in the USA to conclude that Obama is a Socialist. However, I will note that while he has Socialist leanings, he has learned to become quite pragmatic with regards to picking his cabinet and listening to those who disagree with him. Not only has he done a better job than Clinton did in assembling his first cabinet, I strongly doubt whether McCain could have - if he had been elected - picked as strong a cabinet as Obama has been assembling.

You, Aureola and Wheels are wasting your time - as well as mine - trying to “dissect” what I have said. I am ready to move on and to suspend my criticisms of “the Messiah”. Are you ready to move on and to suspend your criticisms of me, especially when there are more important issues in the so-called “creation vs. evolution” debate to contend with, as the latest PT discussion threads are indicating?

Respecfully yours,

John Kwok

In addition to Kwok using guilt by association, he also seems to have expanded the issue to beyond ‘dreams’ such as the Acorn training.

The only ‘radical’ thing about Acorn is its focus on poor people and community action.

ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.

as to 1.

In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as “Frank” as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American.…”

Wow, that surely sounds radical socialist to me…

And the extent of Obama’s relationship with ‘Frank’?

There was one exception, a poet named Frank who lived in a dilapidated house in a run-down section of Waikiki. He had enjoyed some modest notoriety once, was a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago-Gramps once showed me some of his work anthologized in a book of black poetry. But by the time I met Frank he must have been pushing eighty, with a big, dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conversation would turn to laments about women.

Scandalous…

What a little actual reading can do to one’s ‘argument…

As to 2., could you please elaborate where in ‘Dreams’ Obama refers to his radical friends?

Seems Kwok may be a bit too quick to believe in the many myths about Obama.

Fascinating…

John Kwok said:

Dear PvM:

Let’s look at the record, shall we:

1) In “Dreams of My Father”, Obama notes that his primary influence as an adolescent growing up in Hawaii was someone who has been identified as an important leader of the Hawaiian branch of the Communist Party USA.

2) Also in “Dreams of My Father”, Obama admits to associating himself with fellow radicals as a Columbia University undergraduate.

3) One of Obama’s first jobs in Chicago was to train ACORN’s staff (ACORN is a radical Socialist-leaning community organization).

This is truly fascinating. I watched this happen with a friend, coincidentally enough named Jon (no “h”), who made the mistake of spouting a bunch of GOP propoganda similar to what the Kwokster is spouting amongst a group of actuaries and scientists. His tactics were very similar as well: constantly trying to change the subject, end the discussion, and of course all the baseless half-arguments and guilt-by-association desperation reaches we came to know and love over the course of the election.

Most revealing to me was the brick wall I ran into when I insisted, in an email exchange, that he restrict the discussion to one point: his assertion, so common amongst the GOP propoganda machine, that Obama had done nothing other than run for office and write books.

When I showed him the somewhat impressive list of Obama’s legislative achievements and agendas, his tactic, just like Mr. Kwok, was to keep repeating his innuendos and GOP talking points and to refuse to address the issue at all. The notion that his trusted sources might be completely full of shit was never entertained.

I told him, like I’ll tell John Kwok, and any other person out there who reads partisan GOP websites and watches Fox: you are being systematically lied to, in the hopes that you will be too lazy to research the issues yourself. How else could the lie that Obama hadn’t done anything persist for so long when 5 minutes with Google refuted it in spades?

No doubt this will fall on deaf ears too. I might as well tell a Biblical fundamentalist that the Bible is just a book, and his minister just a man.

Tomatoes are deadly. The juice of a single tomato is enough to kill a man ten times over. This is common knowledge (I’m sure I saw it on YouTube once; Google it). The FDA refuses to document that tomatoes are not deadly. If the act of eating a tomato is not fatal, why wouldn’t the FDA simply offer documented proof? Tomatoes have been found growing in gardens alongside noxious weeds and toadstools - if that isn’t proof of my contention, I don’t know what is.

Hmmm.…after observing a famous fellow alumnus of my high school eat a salad containing slices of tomato with (so far) no ill effect, I’ve decided to consider thinking better of tomatoes. Though I reserve the right to stand by my previous well-supported assertion, and expect all to respect it, isn’t that enough? After all, it was nothing as stupid as creationism - no, this was well-documented fact.

BTW, “assume room temperature” is obviously parlance for death; it is, in fact used exclusively by Rush Limbaugh to refer to death, which is a rather telling fact in itself. What troubles me most about this whole thread is that if one should happen to spot a fallacy with John’s logic or point out that he is sadly misinformed, if not wholly ignorant, he wishes death upon that person. I get around on the net, and, in my expereince, it is a very rare thing to see this wish bandied about in even a jocular fashion. It’s downright creepy to see it here.

Tomatoes are deadly. The juice of a single tomato is enough to kill a man ten times over.

My mother’s been eating those yucky things all her life, and she’s still here. ;)

I know this is old, but since the link was posted at the Intersection…Wow.

I knew Kwok was off his Kwackers, but, seriously? Even after the ayers/et al bit was debunked pages ago, he decided to go back to it like a broken record. I also am amazed how such a humble person either knows or is related to so many famous people. I wonder if we can find emails and ask them about that?

Al Bundy is alive and well and posting at the Intersection (at Discoverblogs), be sure to tip your waitresses!

Great post I must say.. Simple but yet entertaining and engaging.. Keep up the good work!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Burt Humburg published on October 31, 2008 8:43 AM.

Zombies in Texas! was the previous entry in this blog.

Freshwater Hearing Day 5: Only from Freshwater’s students 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