Here We Go Again, New Mexico Edition

| 162 Comments

leg2011.jpg

Another antievolution bill has just been introduced in the New Mexico House:

AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC EDUCATION; PROVIDING FOR PROTECTION OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS REGARDING THE TEACHING OF CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC TOPICS.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: SECTION 1. A new section of the Public School Code is enacted to read: “[NEW MATERIAL] TEACHING OF CONTROVERSIAL SCIENTIFIC TOPICS.–
A. The department, school district governing authorities and school administrators shall not prohibit any teacher, when a controversial scientific topic is being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, from informing students about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses pertaining to that topic. A teacher who chooses to provide such information shall be protected from reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
B. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine or religious belief.
C. Public school teachers may hold students accountable for knowing and understanding material taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, but public school teachers shall not penalize a student in any way because that student subscribes to a particular position on the controversial scientific topic being taught.
D. For purposes of this section:
(1) “controversial scientific topic” includes biological origins, biological evolution, causes of climate change, human cloning and other scientific topics that are often viewed by society as controversial; and
(2) “scientific information” means information derived from observation, experimentation and analyses regarding various aspects of the natural world conducted to determine the nature of or principles behind the aspects being studied. “Scientific information” may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines.”

Analysis below the fold.

The proposed legislation is not needed by New Mexico’s students or teachers. New Mexico’s existing standards already protect students from religious indoctrination or harassment by their teachers. Furthermore, the bill is unconstitutional as written, and its passage and enactment will almost certainly result in expensive litigation.

The bill is not original with New Mexicans, but instead, clearly inspired by the “Intelligent Design” movement; for example, the pro-ID think tank, Seattle’s Discovery Institute, promotes a “model” bill that says

Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution. … Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

(Source: http://www.academicfreedompetition.[…]/freedom.php, by Casey Luskin, [Enable javascript to see this email address.], program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute.)

Compare this to Sections 1.B and 1.C of the proposed New Mexico bill, HB0302:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and specifically does not protect the promotion of any religion, religious doctrine or religious belief. Public school teachers may hold students accountable for knowing and understanding material taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula, but public school teachers shall not penalize a student in any way because that student subscribes to a particular position on the controversial scientific topic being taught.

This bill suffers from the same problems as its predecessor, SB433, which was scuttled in the 2009 session. One serious problem is that teachers would be forced to pass students who described evolution on a biology test simply as “too complicated to happen naturally, proving God did it.”

A second problem was critical in New Mexico’s Public Education Department (PED) warnings about the failed 2009 legislation:

“Although the bill’s definition of ‘scientific information’ excludes information derived from religious or philosophical writings, beliefs or doctrines, SB 433 goes on to say that scientific information may have religious or philosophical implications and remain scientific in nature. The PED analysis states that this point would allow the teaching of theories of biological origins such as intelligent design or creationism.”

The new bill, HB0302, no longer mentions “religious or philosophical implications,” but now reads “‘Scientific information’ may include information that coincides or harmonizes with religious tenets, but does not include information derived from religious writings, beliefs or doctrines.” Clearly, this would not alleviate the state’s concerns about the bill allowing the teaching of intelligent design or creationism.

The major difference between the new bill and previous legislation is its addition of climate change and human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution. These topics are not “controversial” as regards scientific accuracy – whether these things are actually happening – but instead, simply in regard to their association with particular religious and/or partisan viewpoints.

HB0302 is a train wreck waiting to happen. I hope it doesn’t get out of committee.

Please, no massive letter campaigns yet. Let’s see if and when it’s going to committee.

162 Comments

NCSE has picked up the story!

Read up on the last time this came around to NM, here.

Dave

The major difference between the new bill and previous legislation is its addition of climate change and human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution.

So, they actually made the new bill worse. Claiming there is some scientific controversy over evolution or climate change is stupid, but claiming there is some scientific controversy over cloning just catapults the bill into stratospheric idiocy.

On the bright side, the previous year’s version got canned after less than a month and (AFAIK) no floor debate. So there’s a good chance Dave Thomas may have spent more time writing this post than the NM legislature will spend considering it.

Dave,

While I like your tone and approach (very concise, non-emotional, and straight to the point), I can’t help but get a kick out of the way the Serious Curmudgeon takes the gloves off. :)

I am a resident of New Mexico and taught high school biology here for about 10 years before leaving the field. I don’t think the bill will make it out of committee, and I suspect that there will be little debate about it. New Mexico is facing some serious economic issues that will take most of the attention of the voters and legislators alike.

I taught in a conservative school district for a number of years, and I had no trouble teaching evolution according to the state standards then in place. I told the kids that it was my responsibility to teach them the organizing theory for biology and they would be graded on their understanding of the theory, and not on their personal beliefs about it. I had NO complaints from either students or parents. Similar standards now apply in New Mexico, and still require that the theory of evolution be taught in biology. The bill is indeed unnecessary and is unenforcible to boot. It is fluff in a legislative session that is chock full of real issues.

As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change. This is a fairly new claim that has not been substantiated, and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field. It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless. I suppose some discussion of the idea might be appropriate in a historical geology class, but since such courses are not taught at the K-12 level, and since science gets short shrift K-6 due to increasing teaching to the tests brought on by NCLB, I don’t think it is even an issue in most teacher’s minds. Just finding time for elementary teachers to teach science is a much bigger issue.

As for human cloning, this is the height of fluff. It might have been mentioned in passing by some biology teacher somewhere, but it is not really a subject necessary to the teaching of the biological sciences.

Robin said:

Dave,

While I like your tone and approach (very concise, non-emotional, and straight to the point), I can’t help but get a kick out of the way the Serious Curmudgeon takes the gloves off. :)

Yeah, that Curmudgeon is a great guy.

I often come here read and don’t comment, but this issue struck me and forces this comment. I teach undergraduate courses in epidemiology and health promotion where I stress the scientific method. What bothers me about the proposed bill is scientific “controversy” is linked to what society considers controversial. It struck me because I think the standard should be what researchers in that particular field considers controversial. Epidemiology and health promotion take place in a societal context, but must follow scientific methods to be effective. It takes great effort (for me anyway) to follow the arguments in my field. Following the arguments would be impossible if yardstick was the judgment of society in general. Many of the arguments we encounter here (Arizona) are passion stuffed in strawmen.

Don’t items B and D(2) specifically negate the intent of the whole bill? The opponents are religion based and they have no scientific evidence whatsoever.

It would be interesting to know how often such bills are introduced countrywide and how often they make it to the floor of the legislature. One time in five? One time in ten? NCSE tracks this sort of tomfoolery and probably would know.

Let’s not conflate massive AGW as a theory with evolution. It is entirely consistent to be skeptical about AGW based on scientific evidence (while granting the great majority view does not agree). This is quite different than the long history of evolutionary theory based on data AND the ability to PREDICT based on the data. I don’t care to get into a climate change debate here…but I do object to the cavalier dismissal of AGW as “non-controversial” by Mr. Thomas.

I’m still retaining a modest skepticism over AGW …

… however, this viewpoint becomes ever more difficult to maintain over time, since the mindset and tactics of most of the climate denialist community are so uncomfortably similar to those of the creationist community.

I was just over on PHYSORG pointing out to a denialist that he was citing a study out of context; he ignored the feedback except to shift the goalposts. “Why am I not surprised?”

Certainly, while it isn’t a good bet that a climate denialist is necessarily a creationist, it’s a pretty fair bet that a creationist is a climate denialist. “Then scientists don’t know nuttin’!”

mrg said:

It would be interesting to know how often such bills are introduced countrywide and how often they make it to the floor of the legislature. One time in five? One time in ten? NCSE tracks this sort of tomfoolery and probably would know.

In my local area it seems to be whenever creationists perceive the political winds are in their favor. We had a lot of activity in 2008 and 2009 with letters to the editor of the local newspaper.

The House of Representatives in the current US Congress is introducing stealth Culture War legislation even as they claim they are focusing on the budget and jobs.

Given the general tone of political discourse on the Right in the last few years, I have been expecting a major onslaught from the ID/creationists. Around here the blitzes usually occur sometime after political elections. Ken Ham has been in the area within recent months, and those politically active churches he visited have a history of attempting to get creationism into the public schools and badgering biology teachers about evolution. It is quite likely that there is something smoldering beneath the surface in those churches right now.

This kind of activity on the part of ID/creationists reveals the complete lie in our poor persecuted trolls whines about PT and the NCSE shining the spotlight on ID/creationist shenanigans.

Upon seeing this story pop up in my news feeds and here on Panda’s Thumb, I had a thought: Unlike milk, stupid has no expiration date.

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.”

There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. ~ Frank Zappa

Elisheva Levin said:

As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change. This is a fairly new claim that has not been substantiated, and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field. It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless. I suppose some discussion of the idea might be appropriate in a historical geology class, but since such courses are not taught at the K-12 level, and since science gets short shrift K-6 due to increasing teaching to the tests brought on by NCLB, I don’t think it is even an issue in most teacher’s minds. Just finding time for elementary teachers to teach science is a much bigger issue.

It is easy to say that the man-made climate change hypothesis (MMCCH) is not substantiated, but can you define what would be suffcient empirical support for you to accept it?

Because if you can’t, then you have no scientific basis for denying it and you could only use ideological reasons, which would justify your moving the goalposts whenever more and more evidence for the NNCCH is found.

It is fluff in a legislative session that is chock full of real issues.

They do that a lot in fundie states. Introduce bills against evolution as if we can legislate reality.

Most of the time they never go anywhere. It’s usually just a ritual where primitive tribespeople perform a ceremony to build ingroup outgroup affiliations.

You can drag the human out of the stone age, but you can’t always drag the stone age out of the humans.

In my opinion, a good teacher shouldn’t have a problem with this bill. It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

That’s kinda lame, and it opens up teachers to lawsuits - but if I were a teacher, that would be my defense: The student lacked a demonstrable understanding of evolutionary theory. “I didn’t care what his beliefs were, as they were not pertinent to the class.”

…an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

…the problem, of course, is that a teacher can “legitimately” pass a student who fails to understand evolutionary theory.

Should be pretty easy to shoot this whole thing down in flames. IDcreationism (YEC or OEC) has no scientific basis (just ask Judge Jones), therefore cannot be taught or accepted in class or tests according to the above Bill.

There is no scientific controversy surrounding the TOE by natural selection. None of the proposed alternatives have any scientific basis, so can’t be taught. There’s no scientific controversy surrounding human cloning either. There may be ethical controversies, but those are for another class.

As others have pointed out, the Bill is full of internal inconsistencies, which strongly suggests it was put forward by an ideologist, not a scientist.

Defining a “controversial scientific topic” as those “that are often viewed by society as controversial” is a dangerous precedent. This is probably the scariest part of the Bill.

Elishiva Levin -

If you choose to answer, please include an answer to this question -

What evidence would persuade you that human activity can contribute to climate change?

As for the issues of climate change, I presume the controversy comes in regarding the claim that human activity is causing the current climate change.

Actually, of course, the claim is that human activity is contributing to climate change in a way that is significant.

Although your misrepresentation is subtly worded, it is actually the use of a straw man argument.

The fact that other factors contribute to climate change does not rebut the fact that human activity can significantly impact on climate.

However, of course, if the straw man argument that human activity “causes” (implied - “is the sole cause of”) climate change is set up, then of course, the fact that the climate will vary with or without human activity can be used as a rebuttal. But no-one is making that flimsy straw man argument.

It is not controversial that human activity is contributing to climate change. What would be controversial and surprising would be the discovery or claim that we could oxidize vast amounts of sequestered carbon without impacting on the climate.

This is a fairly new claim

“New” is a relative term.

that has not been substantiated,

See my question above.

and is not the organizing theory of any scientific field.

The fact that cigarette smoking predisposes to various types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung disease is not the “organizing theory of any scientific field” either, yet all the denial in the world cannot make the facts go away.

It is not at all in the same category as evolution by natural selection and for the people who put the bill together to put the two side-by-side makes them appear even more clueless.

Putting aside the fact that “evolution by natural selection” is an incomplete and anachrhonistic term, what is makes them look like is typical members of the contemporary right wing ideology in the US.

What fraction of US “conservatives” will simply accept that the scientific evidence supports all three of these things - biological evolution, human activity may contribute to climate change, HIV infection as the cause of AIDS?

The proportion of self-described conservatives who deny all three is large, and the proportion who don’t deny any appears to be very small.

We saw a preview of this type of behavior with the cigarette/disease denial of the sixties and seventies, but that denialism was limited almost exclusively to cigarette manufacturers and their paid agents.

Now, denialism with no direct self-interest is widely adopted as a badge of loyalty to a “movement”, and perhaps, as a dog whistle expression of beliefs that are less easily stated openly.

The major difference between the new bill and previous legislation is its addition of climate change and human cloning to “controversial scientific topics” like biological evolution.

They forgot to add vaccines.

Bryan Elliott said: In my opinion, a good teacher shouldn’t have a problem with this bill.

Sure. But its the creationist teachers we are worried about, not the good ones.

A legislature could probably pass utterly apalling educational standards and a good teacher would still find a way to educate their kids.

It appears to be worded such that, intentionally or not, an instructor can still fail a student for failing to understand evolutionary theory, independent of their expressed belief in its falsehood.

But it also provides very strong protections to teachers who bring bogus supplementary claptrap into their classroom under the trojan horse of “evidence against.” Again, this is not about the good teachers. Those folks will not add baloney to the curriculum even if they suddenly get legal permission to do so. Its the Freshwaters we worry about - the teachers who just can’t wait to download handouts from AiG to share with their students (and who would have the political cover to do so if this passed).

***

As for AGW skeptics who have reared their head here: personally, I think the CONTINENT-SIZED HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER THAT WE’VE BEEN AWARE OF FOR DECADES is sufficient proof for me that humans do and are influencing climate on a global scale. The question is really “how much.”

eric -

As for AGW skeptics

I strongly prefer the term “denialist”.

A skeptic asks for objective evidence and evaluates it fairly.

A denialist can never be convinced by any amount of evidence.

You know, a savvy law firm could just about make a career out of prosecuting suits against state BOEs and school districts that pass such regulation. Were I an evil lawyer, I could be tempted to be the serpent whispering in the fundamentalists ears, ‘Here’s a surefire way to get children taught the way you want.’ And then trounce them once the regulations passed. BWA-HA-HA!

harold said: What fraction of US “conservatives” will simply accept that the scientific evidence supports all three of these things - biological evolution, human activity may contribute to climate change, HIV infection as the cause of AIDS?

I would think it a stretch to call the HIV denialist community inherently conservative. As with antivaxers, you get a hefty element of the “natural health” crowd involved in that activity, and that’s a mindset well more associated with Marin County than rednecks in pickup trucks.

HIV denialists are the worst: “Stop taking the ARVs. They’re what’s really making you sick.” I’m surprised nobody’s taken them to court because of the death of a loved one who believed them.

To continue to pile on Elisheva Levin and truther:

Here are some links that I developed for my classes and for a public speech I gave a couple of years ago on climate change, as well as a letter to the editor that appeared last year. Hopefully these will help you understand that the facts behind AGW and global climate change are in fact very well known and accepted by the scientific community. This doesn’t mean that we know everything about these topics, but we do know enough to act on them.

(Note: I’ve removed the “http://” from each link.)

people.sfcollege.edu/greg.mead/globalclimate/GlobalClimateTeachin.htm

people.sfcollege.edu/greg.mead/globalclimate/OrganizationsGlobalWarmingStatements.htm

www.gainesville.com/article/20100217/NEWS/100219498?p=all&tc=pgall

harold said:

A skeptic asks for objective evidence and evaluates it fairly.

A denialist can never be convinced by any amount of evidence.

That’s a pretty darned useful definition, Harold. Thanks.

You know, a savvy law firm could just about make a career out of prosecuting suits against state BOEs and school districts that pass such regulation.

Except in Texas and Louisiana, where such law firms apparently know better.

As for the NM bill, I think it’s clear that, with NM being a stronghold of evolutionism, the new bill simply won’t get anywhere.

But at least it’s worded correctly, and is a good sign for the future.

FL

FL said:

But at least it’s worded correctly, and is a good sign for the future.

That’s a piss poor description, FL. Being full of internal inconsistencies and contradictions does not mean it is worded correctly. Unless you’re fond of biblical approaches to these things.

IIRC, there is substantial evidence that historical climate change has resulted in mass extinctions. So it is not out of the realm of possibilities and off the table. If you choose to just fiddle through our current climate dynamics without any thoughts of solutions, you just must be resigned to that same fate. Many others have a highly tuned self preservation instinct that will generate a bursts of creativity.

Terenzio the Troll said:

Robert Byers said: By the way i know there is active creationism in Italy.

Sadly, that is all too painfully true. We have a share of Geova Witnesses, for instance. Luckily, italian creationism strenght is nowere near the strenght of its US counterpart. We never ever had an organized political group lobbying for “equal times” or “teaching the controversy” in 66 years of republican history (nor in 150 years of united Italy, if I am not mistaken).

Much to our shame, we recently had a vice-president of the National Council of Research which was a vocal creationist. At least, he was not a scientist of any kind and the position is not an elective office (he was appointed by the current administration).

The real troubles, at least here in Italy, are on touchy subjects like abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia and assisted conception.

Surely the teaching of at least a God will make its way into the Italian schools in time. Just less legal hurdles.

Sorry, Robert: you must have missed some relevant parts of my previous comment.

I don’t think Robert onsiderrs Catholics to be “Christians”

While, in theory, I laud your tolerance of insane shites like Mr. Byers and nothing-but-shits like fl, I’ve reached some point where even scrolling past these pointless trolls’ posts is excessively annoying.

It’s your site, so your policy is law, but I cannot enjoy the many very interesting posts and exchanges here (like the informed discussion of standardized testing that is here) while shites are allowed to disrupt it with the same, same, same, same bullshit.

I’ll check back in, weekly, but be leaving immediately on seeing either of these banned-everywhere-else trolls in the comments.

Thanks for your work, of course, but I hope you decide to simply ban these asshats.

tupelo said:

While, in theory, I laud your tolerance of insane shites like Mr. Byers and nothing-but-shits like fl, I’ve reached some point where even scrolling past these pointless trolls’ posts is excessively annoying.

It’s your site, so your policy is law, but I cannot enjoy the many very interesting posts and exchanges here (like the informed discussion of standardized testing that is here) while shites are allowed to disrupt it with the same, same, same, same bullshit.

I’ll check back in, weekly, but be leaving immediately on seeing either of these banned-everywhere-else trolls in the comments.

Thanks for your work, of course, but I hope you decide to simply ban these asshats.

This place would be a lot less exciting without the occational Creationist troll to show exactly what we are fighting against and why it is so stupid. Idiots like FL and Robert Byers are their own lesson to us about how worthless they are.

Come now. Byers provides amusement for those who enjoy mocking him, and he hardly generates an endless stream of postings. One gets the impression that what he does post represents the limit of his capability.

BILL SPONSOR SPEAKS

from today’s Santa fe New Mexican:

Public-school science teachers who want to teach ‘intelligent design” alongside evolution and want to challenge the accepted scientific views about global warming would be protected under a bill introduced in the House.

Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Albuquerque, said Tuesday that his House Bill 302 is not intended to promote intelligent design or creationism. When a reporter said he wanted to talk about Anderson’s “evolution bill,” the lawmaker replied, “I don’t have an ‘evolution bill.’ “

Anderson said, “I’m just trying to protect teachers. … I’m trying to prevent another Galileo,” a reference to the father of modern physics, who was tried during the Inquisition as a heretic.

But the bill has been attacked by scientific organizations both state and national.

BILL SPONSOR SPEAKS

I’m trying to prevent another Galileo,”

The difference being, of course, that Galileo produced actual evidence when asked for it.

Also, as far as I know Galileo wasn’t trying to teach his material to kids, nor was he trying to bypass the opinions those more qualified to evaluate what he was saying.

That would be popular with the students: the less homework, the better it works.

How right, my last day ever in school (7th year) my teacher declared to the class: Mr. Aalberg knows everything, except his homework.

Henry J said:

Also, as far as I know Galileo wasn’t trying to teach his material to kids, nor was he trying to bypass the opinions those more qualified to evaluate what he was saying.

Unfortunately those who wielded the power in his day had the mental levels of children and couldn’t see beyond their noses. Everything was revealed truth to them, they required no evidence as is true of creationists/id’ers today.

Sylvilagus said:

But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

I got a higher math SAT score than my wife. Eventually she became an actuary, and I write books and articles about religion, the Celts, and linguistics. Drives her friggin’ nuts. I’m not better at math than her, of course, I’m better at taking standardized tests. With a little training it’s possible too eliminate all but two of most math answers. Do the equation and take the closest answer. The worst you can do is a 50/50 chance which isn’t, of course, how the tests are normalized.

So the problem was that she thought the test was there to determine mathematical knowledge and ability. Silly girl.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Sylvilagus said:

But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

I got a higher math SAT score than my wife. Eventually she became an actuary, and I write books and articles about religion, the Celts, and linguistics. Drives her friggin’ nuts. I’m not better at math than her, of course, I’m better at taking standardized tests. With a little training it’s possible too eliminate all but two of most math answers. Do the equation and take the closest answer. The worst you can do is a 50/50 chance which isn’t, of course, how the tests are normalized.

So the problem was that she thought the test was there to determine mathematical knowledge and ability. Silly girl.

For what its worth, those are “harold’s” words, not mine. As a former test prep instructor, I’m all too familiar with the strategies you speak of.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Sylvilagus said:

But the high score does tell you, if it was earned honestly, that at least this person had the reading comprehension, intermediate term memory, problem solving ability, and test taking ability to do well on the thing.)

I got a higher math SAT score than my wife. Eventually she became an actuary, and I write books and articles about religion, the Celts, and linguistics. Drives her friggin’ nuts. I’m not better at math than her, of course, I’m better at taking standardized tests. With a little training it’s possible too eliminate all but two of most math answers. Do the equation and take the closest answer. The worst you can do is a 50/50 chance which isn’t, of course, how the tests are normalized.

So the problem was that she thought the test was there to determine mathematical knowledge and ability. Silly girl.

What’s wrong with problems, at least in math? You state a problem and don’t give any answer: if the student can understand the question, work out the solution and write it in a comprehensible form along with the proceeding, then he/she has actually mastered the kind of ability the problem required.

Of course it is time consuming for the teacher to correct it, and of course it is a nightmare to standardize. But there’s no “cheating”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on February 2, 2011 2:37 PM.

Libellula lydia was the previous entry in this blog.

Science fairs in decline 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 4.361

Site Meter