|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2009 : 13:12:13
|
After watching Betsy McCaughey's full interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show (you can watch the extended 15 minutes version yourself at dailyshow.com) I searched McCaughey's name in Google news and came across this interesting article:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/marty_kaplan/article/kumbaya_not_kevorkian_will_kill_granny_20090824/
This passage in particular appealed to my mind as a skeptic: | The answer, I suspect, is liberalism – not the muscular democratic liberalism of civil rights and social justice, but the flabby postmodern liberalism of on the one hand and on the other hand. The right is righteous; it claims to know what God wants. But the secular response to fundamentalism isn't science, it's kumbaya, a campfire that requires reason and ignorance to pay mutual respect, a moral cowardice that values pluralism more than it values values. |
I think this is a fairly serious intellectual issue. Certainly it is unskeptical and potentially dangerous to automatically treat things with such a "kumbaya" attitude and response. On the other hand, political science is hardly a real science (even much of soft one), so how is a person of average intelligence supposed to comprehend differing political ideas and analysis of the same issue, or in this case, one of the proposed health care bills?
McCaughey's argument is basically that this bill severely threatens the current high standards of health care for seniors in the U.S.A. and she knows this because her experience and education have allowed her to read between the lines of such types of legislation. Jon Stewart comes back at her with two counterpoints - first that what she is claiming is not stated literally anywhere in the bill's language, and second that her reading between the lines isn't a sufficient argument on its own because such conservative, fearful attitudes about government health care programs (he uses the example of Reagan being against the very Medicare program she so champions and wants to "protect") have been wrong in the past.
Whether or not you think McCaughey was genuine or even if you agree with her fearful inferences about the bill, I could see the average person feeling confused and distracted by things such as charisma, facial expressions, tone, etc. - all of which were used effectively by both Stewart and McCaughey during the interview. At no point did she act as if she'd been pinned into a corner. She smiled and nodded and had quick responses to all his points and counterpoints. So to someone who starts to get confused by the content of the discussion, it won't matter if she's in fact evading answering questions or changing the subject. Which is exactly why it should be the responsibility of journalist who report on the interview to explain who "won" the debate and, in simple terms, how and why.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 15:01:26 [Permalink]
|
Skepticism is more properly applied to specific claims than whole philosophies. I guess some well established philosophical systems (YEC, for example) can now be considered as a whole, due to the depth of examination each of it's many claims has recieved.
As for your "people of average intelligence", I will not engage you with my disaproval of that term.
People who are capable of basic langauge skills should be able to sort bullshit from reality. They should be able to see that the woman on Stewart's show is just making shit up. That so many can't is not a comment on their intellgence, but more likely a comment on their social and cultural associations, where they derive their "trusted" information from.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 15:02:10 [Permalink]
|
Marf:
Which is exactly why it should be the responsibility of journalist who report on the interview to explain who "won" the debate and, in simple terms, how and why. |
So far, what I have seen from the media is exactly that. They have given Stewart the nod. Some even point out that those same provisions are in most private insurance policies already. Of course, I don't watch Fox news. I'm sure they had a different take on it, if they mentioned it at all.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 17:50:44 [Permalink]
|
I watched the online, extended version of that interview. (Here and here.) I don't think for a moment that Betsy McCaughey believed her own lies. Her tactic was simply to essentially say that X equals non-X, and keep repeating it using varying words, and with a straight face. It's amazing how effective flat-out lying can be when the liar shows no sense of being found out when proved wrong.
During the interview, I was most surprised with how well Jon Steward knows the subject matter. Few "real" journalists approach that level of understanding. His knowledge allowed him to counter McCaughey's tactics to a large degree.
Note that the approach of the anti-health-reform people is strategically unified. They first try to find (or, more often, invent) faults in the legislation, then, when it looks as though the pro-health-reform people might fold, they tout that not as an improvement of the legislation, but as a sign that reform itself is riddled with problems. Then they shift to highlighting the next alleged problem. There is literally no pleasing them. That tactic makes any attempts to compromise completely counter-productive.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 08/24/2009 19:57:58 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 21:15:36 [Permalink]
|
Here's a pretty much spot-on, hilarious, analogy for McCaughey's style of argumentation.
Marf, can you give some examples of people reacting as you suggest to McCaughey's arguments? In a quick search, I didn't find any mention of her since the Jon Stewart interview on any conservative blog, and no site which praised her performance (though one anonymous person on one site I've never heard of before thought it was "a draw").
I did run across this discussion on Greta wire forum (part of Greta van sustern's (sp?) section of the foxnews.com website, but the discussion doesn't seem to involve her). I have no clue who posts there, whether they're "average Americans" or not, etc. But some of the comments there include:
| Wow. I just watched Jon Stewart interview Betsy McCaughey. She was very brave to appear on his show, as he really debunked the myths and liberal interpretations she presented about "death panels". |
I don't know what her motivations were during this interview but there were several awkward moments where she was turning and smiling at the audience. Perhaps if she turned around and spoke she may have been more able to make a compelling argument.
It did prove to be a calamitous interview. She was fired from her position the next day. |
| I agree folks on the fringe (on either side) who twist the truth or even spread fabrications are doing none of us a service. But what we also should respect is that large numbers of Americans who do get the truth are still deeply concerned. Thinking, analytical folks. So dismissing those of us who have true concerns as being among the lazy thinking lunatic fringe is offensively patronizing and, to us, just as exaggerative as the deliberate fearmongers you rightfully dismiss. |
| I only watched the first part. Although I'm no math whiz, I don't need to be to know that a $500 billion cut in the elderly's Medicare, then spread out over 307 million people, will result in reduced health care services for senior citizens. If health care services WEREN'T going to be cut for the elderly, why would there NEED to be a $500 billion cut? |
Ok, so this last guy could stand to do a bit of fact-checking. He might learn something like this:
| Actually, the House leadership's version of the health care bill would trim a net total of only $219 billion from the projected growth of Medicare spending over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. |
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 10:11:35 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | As for your "people of average intelligence", I will not engage you with my disaproval of that term. |
Huh? You just did.
| People who are capable of basic langauge skills should be able to sort bullshit from reality. |
Not in my experience. I've heard plenty of people who seem to speak English pretty well make some pretty glarringly illogical statements, and I've seen plenty of followers of gurus and preachers who do this respond to such statements with impassioned nods and facial expressions which communicate the message "Why, of course!"
| They should be able to see that the woman on Stewart's show is just making shit up. That so many can't is not a comment on their intellgence, but more likely a comment on their social and cultural associations, where they derive their "trusted" information from. |
Would I be correct in saying that your disagreement with points I've made in this thread are that you blame their cultural biases 100% while I think that some people can be duped by tactics of debate which have nothing to do with the soundness of the speaker's plain logic and facts? If not, I'm misunderstanding you.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 10:22:20 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: | So far, what I have seen from the media is exactly that. They have given Stewart the nod. Some even point out that those same provisions are in most private insurance policies already. Of course, I don't watch Fox news. I'm sure they had a different take on it, if they mentioned it at all. |
I've been pretty unimpressed with the dialogue about health care as presented by both the politicians and the media. I think most people are just confused, and unfortunately an increasing number of people are scared, mostly for unfounded reasons.
But I don't think it is entirely the fault of politicians and journalists since, after all, the health care system in the USA is extremely complicated. There are people who are eligible for Medicaid who don't know it. One of the guys in my writing circle told me that he was about to pay several thousands of dollars for a hearing aid that his insurance wouldn't pay for, and then by chance a buddy told him that since he was a Veteran, the VA would pay for the whole thing. This turned out to be true and he got his free hearing aid, but if that buddy hadn't said something, he wouldn't have even realized. I just had a conversation with a Pharmacist, and he was against the reform bill 'cause he says everyone is already covered. I told him about inner city students I've had who have lost teeth before they turned 18, and two friends of mine who are ineligible for Medicaid 'cause they are employed, but can't get private insurance because of pre-existing conditions, so they are living with very treatable illness which are getting worse. The pharmacist's response was total confusion, and I can see why - he'd recently had a girlfriend with two kids who used Medicaid to get top notch care for her and her kids. So in his mind, everybody is clearly already covered and the bill is just a way to push unnecessary socialism.
Clearly the people who come to town hall mtgs with pictures of Obama as Hitler are nutters, but they aren't the majority of people at those meetings. We have so many different ways of dealing with health care in this country that everybody's problems and joys with our current system are going to be all over the place and we end up with what we have: a bunch of people talking at each other or past each other and a bill which would, honestly, only exacerbate the problem of overcomplexity while still not providing universal health care. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 10:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Mooner wrote: | I watched the online, extended version of that interview. (Here and here.) I don't think for a moment that Betsy McCaughey believed her own lies. Her tactic was simply to essentially say that X equals non-X, and keep repeating it using varying words, and with a straight face. It's amazing how effective flat-out lying can be when the liar shows no sense of being found out when proved wrong. |
Since we obviously can't read peoples' minds, I tend to always assume people are blind to their own biases instead of malicious. But I'll admit that I had a moment when I did think she was practicing deceit when I saw the look on her face when Stewart brought up Reagan's arguments against Medicare.
It is very weird to watch some of these conservatives sing the praises the Medicare while bashing the crap out of proposes for expansion and new, similar programs.
| During the interview, I was most surprised with how well Jon Steward knows the subject matter. Few "real" journalists approach that level of understanding. His knowledge allowed him to counter McCaughey's tactics to a large degree. |
Given how much health care is an issue right now, it is the job of journalists who might be doing such interviews to educate themselves. That sad thing is that Jon Stewart's job isn't journalist, it is court jester. It is a pretty sad state of things when the jester knows more than the average journalist about a topic. Although I've been pretty impressed with some of the interviewers I've heard on NPR.
| Note that the approach of the anti-health-reform people is strategically unified. They first try to find (or, more often, invent) faults in the legislation, then, when it looks as though the pro-health-reform people might fold, they tout that not as an improvement of the legislation, but as a sign that reform itself is riddled with problems. Then they shift to highlighting the next alleged problem. There is literally no pleasing them. That tactic makes any attempts to compromise completely counter-productive. |
Yeah, well, the pro-health-reform people need to get some better tactics of their own. One of my points in this thread is that tactics which in no way involve reason and facts often work very well with large segments of the public. So the liberals and Democrats need to friggin' step up their game.
I've heard Penn from Penn and Teller say that the truth doesn't need hype - in other words that truth will always ultimately win when and where it needs to on its own merits, and doesn't need to be promoted to the general public with fancy tactics. I think this might be true in the long run, but in the short run, the truth can be suppressed pretty effectively for several lifetimes. I think the truth does need some hype.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 11:02:10 [Permalink]
|
Zebra wrote: | Marf, can you give some examples of people reacting as you suggest to McCaughey's arguments? In a quick search, I didn't find any mention of her since the Jon Stewart interview on any conservative blog, and no site which praised her performance (though one anonymous person on one site I've never heard of before thought it was "a draw"). |
No, but I only meant this thread to address and discus the various topics, not to get into a debate. When I watched the interview, I had to really concentrate on everything which was being said. I occasionally caught Jon Stewart saying dumb things, such as when he responded to the explanation that the lifespan in America only being shortened because of higher rates of car crashes and violent crime. Stewart responded by sardonically saying that we should have a plan to send victims of such accidents and crime to countries which are better at treating those kind of injuries. But obviously those deaths aren't being caused by the US health care system's inability to properly treat car crash victims and victims of violence - it is because in our society we drive way more and have way more gun violence.
Here's an example of Jon Stewart totally bombing an interview because he just wasn't as prepared as his opponent: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-18-2009/mike-huckabee-extended-interview-pt--1 In no way do I agree with the basic premise of Huckabee's argument, and I can think of all kinds of counters to the specifics he used in the debate, but regardless, I think it is pretty clear that he "won" and Steward "lost" the debate.
Winning a debate doesn't depend on strength of argument. It depends on effective tactics. I learned this in college when my freethought group hosted a debate between Dr. Dino and Frank Zindler from American Atheists. Dr. Dino, being a celebrity in the world of creationists attracted an audience which outnumbered our people by several times. Dr. Dino was funny, had slick visuals, a confident demeanor, and was quick to provide a response in just the right tone of voice to everything our guy said. Our guy was frumpy, grumpy, and had pretty much no charisma what-so-ever. I can assure you that while everyone in my freethought group remained a strong proponent of evolution, we also walked away from that debate pretty damn depressed, realizing that at best we'd organized a silly spectacle which influenced nobody's opinions on the subject, and at worst, we'd helped Creationists out by giving them a forum at a reputable university where they could make themselves look legit.
Unfortunately, it is way more fun and intellectually easier to watch debates than to carefully research and consider arguments on multiple sides of any issue, so I do think many people in our society have opinions more based on persuasion than reason. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/25/2009 11:04:55 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 11:57:27 [Permalink]
|
Marf said:
Dude wrote:
As for your "people of average intelligence", I will not engage you with my disapproval of that term.
Huh? You just did. |
No, I didn't. I merely stated disapproval of the phrase. I think the concept would require it's own thread (maybe it's own book...) and it would distract from your main point to engage in some argumentative discussion about it in this thread.
| Would I be correct in saying that your disagreement with points I've made in this thread are that you blame their cultural biases 100% while I think that some people can be duped by tactics of debate which have nothing to do with the soundness of the speaker's plain logic and facts? If not, I'm misunderstanding you. |
You are misunderstanding me, probably.
I'm saying that belief does not have any relationship to intelligence. Maybe to education, training, and the like, but not to basic intelligence.
People believe what authority figures tell them, if they trust that authority figure. People can be misled because of this trust. When false information is passed on as true, and belief in this information is reinforced by other people in the community (fellow churchgoers, for example), people can be made to believe some absolutely insane things. Things that can be clearly demonstrated false. They can be made to disbelieve things that are extremely well evidenced also. In general people will believe/disbelieve things that support their own biases (personal, cultural, etc).
But this says nothing about their intelligence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 22:36:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Zebra wrote: | Marf, can you give some examples of people reacting as you suggest to McCaughey's arguments? In a quick search, I didn't find any mention of her since the Jon Stewart interview on any conservative blog, and no site which praised her performance (though one anonymous person on one site I've never heard of before thought it was "a draw"). |
No, but I only meant this thread to address and discus the various topics, not to get into a debate. When I watched the interview, I had to really concentrate on everything which was being said. I occasionally caught Jon Stewart saying dumb things, such as when he responded to the explanation that the lifespan in America only being shortened because of higher rates of car crashes and violent crime. Stewart responded by sardonically saying that we should have a plan to send victims of such accidents and crime to countries which are better at treating those kind of injuries. But obviously those deaths aren't being caused by the US health care system's inability to properly treat car crash victims and victims of violence - it is because in our society we drive way more and have way more gun violence. ...
|
Must keep skeptic hat on. McCaughey's perky statement about the "lifespan" (presumably, "life expectancy") of Americans being shorter than in other countries due to accidents and crime went unchallenged by Stewart; his joke may have filled in for a dearth of information on this point.
Life expectancy is powerfully affected by infant mortality; the U.S. ranks 33rd in the world. This is probably the single factor which explains most of the difference between the U.S. and other countries. (Oh, but that might have a connection w/ health care - McCaughey wouldn't want to bring that up, would she?)
The U.S. does have a higher rate of motor vehicle-related deaths and gun-related deaths than other developed countries, and young males die more often from these causes than other groups (thus affecting the life expectancy more, at least for men), but heart disease and cancer take far more lives and the U.S. has very respectable ranking in these categories compared with other developed countries.
Originally posted by marfknox
...
Winning a debate doesn't depend on strength of argument. It depends on effective tactics. I learned this in college when my freethought group hosted a debate between Dr. Dino and Frank Zindler from American Atheists. Dr. Dino, being a celebrity in the world of creationists attracted an audience which outnumbered our people by several times. Dr. Dino was funny, had slick visuals, a confident demeanor, and was quick to provide a response in just the right tone of voice to everything our guy said. Our guy was frumpy, grumpy, and had pretty much no charisma what-so-ever. I can assure you that while everyone in my freethought group remained a strong proponent of evolution, we also walked away from that debate pretty damn depressed, realizing that at best we'd organized a silly spectacle which influenced nobody's opinions on the subject, and at worst, we'd helped Creationists out by giving them a forum at a reputable university where they could make themselves look legit.
Unfortunately, it is way more fun and intellectually easier to watch debates than to carefully research and consider arguments on multiple sides of any issue, so I do think many people in our society have opinions more based on persuasion than reason.
|
Kind of like a presidential election, most years. 
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 00:13:23 [Permalink]
|
Relevant article on why people believe things (politically) despite the facts, by Sharon Begley at Newsweek, from 8/25/2009
|
I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone* -Dick Cheney
*some restrictions may apply |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 13:03:59 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: I'm saying that belief does not have any relationship to intelligence. Maybe to education, training, and the like, but not to basic intelligence.
People believe what authority figures tell them, if they trust that authority figure. People can be misled because of this trust. When false information is passed on as true, and belief in this information is reinforced by other people in the community (fellow churchgoers, for example), people can be made to believe some absolutely insane things. Things that can be clearly demonstrated false. They can be made to disbelieve things that are extremely well evidenced also. In general people will believe/disbelieve things that support their own biases (personal, cultural, etc).
But this says nothing about their intelligence. |
Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. My thoughts are that what does relate to an individual's intelligence is their ability to know when and what authorities to trust, and when to look into something further themselves if access to the information is possible. There is a real value to trusting the word of authorities, particularly on matters which are incredibly complex and would require months or years of experience and training to fully grasp. And I think it takes a certain type of intelligence to avoid being distracted by effective debate tactics which have nothing to do with rational argument. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/26/2009 13:05:13 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 13:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Zebra wrote: Must keep skeptic hat on. McCaughey's perky statement about the "lifespan" (presumably, "life expectancy") of Americans being shorter than in other countries due to accidents and crime went unchallenged by Stewart; his joke may have filled in for a dearth of information on this point.
Life expectancy is powerfully affected by infant mortality; the U.S. ranks 33rd in the world. This is probably the single factor which explains most of the difference between the U.S. and other countries. (Oh, but that might have a connection w/ health care - McCaughey wouldn't want to bring that up, would she?) |
Thanks for making that point. When I was watching the interview I was wishing that Stewart would bring back his point about infant mortality - which is most definitely related to our unfair health care system and many women not getting proper prenatal care. The thing is, the Daily Show is a comedy show, and Jon Stewart is employed as an entertainer, not a journalist. Many times I've watched Stewart come to a fork in the road between making a funny remark and making a strong, reasoned point, and choose the former over the latter. (And Lord knows that dead babies are NOT funny.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/26/2009 13:12:01 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 18:37:08 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| Okay, I think I see what you are getting at. My thoughts are that what does relate to an individual's intelligence is their ability to know when and what authorities to trust, and when to look into something further themselves if access to the information is possible. There is a real value to trusting the word of authorities, particularly on matters which are incredibly complex and would require months or years of experience and training to fully grasp. And I think it takes a certain type of intelligence to avoid being distracted by effective debate tactics which have nothing to do with rational argument. |
I think that if you live inside a certain community you will tend to adopt the beliefs of that community regardless of your intelligence.
I'll give you an example. Isaac Newton. One of the most influential minds in the history of the physical sciences. His contributions were, literally, world changing. By any definition I know for intelligence Newton has to be in the top .01%.
But he was also hyper-religious. He thought he was personally selected by his god to understand scripture, he wrote treatises on how to "properly" interpret it, he predicted the end of the world was 2060. A bit of a nutjob.
But are you seriously saying he wasn't intelligent enough spot the obvious flaws in religious claims?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 19:03:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
But are you seriously saying he wasn't intelligent enough spot the obvious flaws in religious claims? |
Some might say that there are different sorts of "intelligences," the radical examples being math or music savants who can't understand how to tie their shoes. On a more "normal" level, I know that marf (for example) understands things about art that I just don't grok, and there's no telling whether I would eventually get it even if I threw myself into her world 24/7 for the next ten years (the oft-repeated amount of time it takes for a person to become "expert" at something).
Your Newtonian example may be in a different class, though. With his foundation in math, it's unlikely that he would be unable to grasp the logic and empiricism behind criticisms of religious claims (even from his day), so there was obviously something other than intelligence at play, there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Skepticism applied to postmodern liberalism
