Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies
National Center for Science Education ^ | 26 June 2006 | Staff

Posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

When the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 23, 2006, Assembly Bill 8036 died in committee. If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

The bill was never expected to succeed; its sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel L. Hooker (R-District 127), was reported as explaining that his intention was more to spark discussion than to pass the bill, and as acknowledging that the bill was "religion-based." Moreover, Hooker is not planning on seeking a third term in the Assembly due to his military commitments: he is expected to be on active duty with the Marine Corps until at least early 2007.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: New York
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; bewareofluddites; commonsenseprevails; crevolist; goddooditamen; idiocydefeated; idjunkscience; notagain; pavlovian; zeusdoodit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-274 next last
Dan Hooker, obviously a patriot, was honest enough to declare the faith-based nature of his proposed legislation. I think it's a first.

Everyone be nice.

1 posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:57 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

2 posted on 06/27/2006 3:43:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Creationism mutation known as Intelligent Design is quite weak. The Science anti-virus is defeating it on a massive scale.
3 posted on 06/27/2006 3:48:59 AM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Is tractus pro pensio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I have a problem with legislation that would mandate:
instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."
It's wrong to say that there's any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution"; it's important for the public schools to go with the scientific concensus on things like a sun-centered solar system and the fossil/DNA records of evolution.

However, I'm not against legislation allowing a discussion of the critics of evolution, even in science class. Too many people misunderstand what evolution is, how it works, and what evolutionary science is, and how that works (they say things like "it can't be falsified, therefore it's not real science").

It's important, in my opinion, in order to promote the understanding of evolution, to allow the debate about evolution (no matter how un-scientific on the other side) to proceed in public schools, even in science class. As long as the motives for allowing the debate are plainly stated: we're showing you these unscientific critiques, kiddies, so that you can contrast them with how science actually works.

4 posted on 06/27/2006 3:54:14 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

And you're right. Dan Hooker is obviously a patriot. I'd rather have Dan Hooker in the legislature than some leftist who happens to agree with me about evolution (and probably doesn't understand it any better than a creationist does, just knows it's a position he's got to take).


5 posted on 06/27/2006 3:57:16 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I couldn't imagine it getting a foothold in NY unless you took out the NYC equation. Then again the Buffalo, Binghamton, Ithaca (city of evil....of course), Syracuse, Albany, Rochester, etc equation would still be in play and I still think even without NYC it would be a non issue. (if I left out your liberal bastion, forgive me...you are lumped in with the etc. contingent)

I truly hate agreeing with liberals on anything. I personally dont consider it a liberal/conservative issue. I consider it a science issue.

Unfortunately folks on both sides of the fence DON'T.


6 posted on 06/27/2006 4:18:06 AM PDT by Vaquero ("An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein(the moon is a harsh mistress))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

"any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution";"

But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.


7 posted on 06/27/2006 4:27:14 AM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon; PatrickHenry
Another heretical movement burned at the stake of dogmatic, proselytizing, secularism.
8 posted on 06/27/2006 4:28:49 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SaveUS

What is ZAP?

I agree with you, the challenge is not reasonable, but I think refuting it in science class will go a long way to helping the kiddies understand why evolution is science, and what science is.


9 posted on 06/27/2006 4:31:21 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man."

Kindergarten? He wanted kindergarteners to "receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." LOL.

10 posted on 06/27/2006 4:42:09 AM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Yes but. Yes, but given the demotic acceptance of such as alternative medicine, introduction of controversy before understanding of the heterodoxy is what got us to where we are. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat the lessons of the past applies to science as well as everything else.


11 posted on 06/27/2006 4:51:13 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
As long as the motives for allowing the debate are plainly stated: we're showing you these unscientific critiques, kiddies, so that you can contrast them with how science actually works.

I applaud the spirit of your post, but in reality it doesn't work. Can you imagine alchemy in chemistry class as an alternative to show how real chemistry works? Prayer in physics class as a contrast?

You get the idea. And on top of that you would have to introduce ALL creation myths -- not just the Judeo Christian one.

I think that religion should stay in theology and philosophy class. Science should be taught in science class.

12 posted on 06/27/2006 4:56:25 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Science wins one.
13 posted on 06/27/2006 4:58:56 AM PDT by Blackirish (Merry Fitzmas !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

crevolist ping.


14 posted on 06/27/2006 4:59:35 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"Another heretical movement burned at the stake of dogmatic, proselytizing, secularism."

I'll say one thing for ID'ers/creationists: they sure know how to do the Drama Queen thing without effort or, apparently, thought.
15 posted on 06/27/2006 5:00:58 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I'll say one thing for ID'ers/creationists: they sure know how to do the Drama Queen thing without effort or, apparently, thought.

Thanks, but I've really got nothing on you.

16 posted on 06/27/2006 5:14:52 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I'm not the one with the wildly hysterical whining about being burned at the stake.

ID'ers (creationists) *Drama Queen* like other people breath.
17 posted on 06/27/2006 5:25:29 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Good for him...

And good the bill died...


18 posted on 06/27/2006 5:29:53 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
It's important, in my opinion, in order to promote the understanding of evolution, to allow the debate about evolution

I do not agree. Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class? No difference IMHO..

19 posted on 06/27/2006 5:46:46 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
"any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution";"

I agree with this point stated by another freeper:

But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.

This is a very important point as science is not absolute.

If you want to challenge the various scientific theories and hypotheses in evolution, you need to do it scientifically. And scientists do look at different observations and testing all the time to either prove or disprove the scientific theories. However, the various scientific theories involved in evolution have been tested over and over and continue to prove they are correct.

In science, you cannot use religion such as ID or creation to disprove a scientific theory since there cannot be an absolute conclusion (eg. there is a God) before you run your test.

20 posted on 06/27/2006 5:52:12 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Keep religious fairy tales out of public schools!


21 posted on 06/27/2006 5:56:55 AM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (Man Law: You Poke It, You Own It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

I could go along with this if there were any. Still looking for that creation/ID "good penny."

22 posted on 06/27/2006 5:59:53 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Faster than a speeding building; able to leap tall bullets at a single bound!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Stifle debate, suffocate science, all in the name of the liberal state religion.

When will you and the ACLU learn that all such heavy-handed tactics are destined to fail? Legislated "truth" is a brittle and hollow thing. The more you seek to protect it from scrutiny, the more brittle and hollow it becomes.

And your fervor for it makes you all look like petty Stalinists drawing plans for a gulag to warehouse and segregate the enemies of the state where they won't challenge or annoy the "true science" party apparatchiks.

23 posted on 06/27/2006 6:03:51 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

It was a pretty big mutation, because ID has some very fundamental differences with creationism.

It is my contention that ID actually lends credence to creationists, however. It shows that scientists who are not approaching the field from a Christian perspective still observe problems too great to be met by naturalistic answers in the theory of evolution. However, they don't want to turn and say that God created. (Whether it is because they fear their pro-evolution peers, or just fear to name God at all, I don't know.)

Therefore, they invent a mushy middle; some unknown creator (X) fills in the gaps of Darwinism, and that's all there is to it.

Not a very sound conclusion (although they back up the science pretty well) but it shows that people without a Christian framework still recognize fatal flaws in evolution.


24 posted on 06/27/2006 6:07:05 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

Well it seems to me that the people that want to stiffle debate are the one peddling intelligent design... As it isn't a scientific theory...


25 posted on 06/27/2006 6:10:13 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I'm not the one with the wildly hysterical whining about being burned at the stake.

My original post, to which you posted, was in reply to what struck me as wildly hysterical glee at burning heretics at the stake (figuratively of course). My point as usual is to point out the subjective passion among Darwinists, which I think greatly reduces their credibility.

26 posted on 06/27/2006 6:10:35 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Tell me honestly. Do you really oppose a critical examination of the evolutionary model (and its inadequacies) in the classroom?

Granted, it seems a bit much to do so legislatively, but critical thinking is important, and it would seem few teachers actually address how weak some parts of the theory of evolution are.

I've said before that I don't support forced teaching of intelligent design or creationism in the classroom. And again, it seems a bit extreme to force teachers to examine evolution critically (and since such legislation has often failed, it would seem many agree with me), but if they won't do it, then I'm not opposed to legislative bodies making them.


27 posted on 06/27/2006 6:14:10 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I don't know any scientist, real one, who believes in intelligent design...

As Pasteur (a devout catholic) once said: "I always leave my religion in the cupboard of my lab..." This is how science evolves...

Sound Christian principles (or Hindu, or Mulsim, or Buddhist) are to be left outside of the lab!


28 posted on 06/27/2006 6:16:09 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"My original post, to which you posted, was in reply to what struck me as wildly hysterical glee at burning heretics at the stake (figuratively of course)."

Nobody else mentioned burning at the stake but you. You made that part up.

"My point as usual is to point out the subjective passion among Darwinists, which I think greatly reduces their credibility."

And you did so by adopting a Martyr complex and Victimhood status that is no different than what the left does.
29 posted on 06/27/2006 6:19:29 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Back in the Dark Ages (50's) we got phlogiston in my basic chemistry class.

They did a good job of explaining how it had been a scientific approach and how it was shown to be incorrect.

In bio we got told about creationism but there it was clearly pointed out that that was a religious stance that had nothing to do with science or evidence.


30 posted on 06/27/2006 6:29:33 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class?

No. In economics class. Moody's just downgraded molecular bonds to triple-B over B-minus.

31 posted on 06/27/2006 6:41:54 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alama
I don't know any scientist, real one, who believes in intelligent design...
And liberals didn't know anyone that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
As Pasteur (a devout catholic) once said: "I always leave my religion in the cupboard of my lab..." This is how science evolves...
But really, it is impossible to leave one's preconceptions behind. Just as I could not expect myself or any other to abandon one's political beliefs or somehow compartmentalize them and ignore them.
Sound Christian principles (or Hindu, or Mulsim, or Buddhist) are to be left outside of the lab!
What about sound principles of naturalism? Why are they so free in the lab?
32 posted on 06/27/2006 6:54:51 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Science isn't an election... Which means that the majority may believes in something and it is still wrong...

The only thing you should use is the scientific method... And religion isn't part of it!


33 posted on 06/27/2006 6:57:15 AM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Reread my last. I know that you are aware of what "figuratively" means.

I could have just said, "I detect zealotry.", but I'm blessed with a flair for the colorful.

As for being an ID martyr that would be a bit difficult given that I'm not part of the cause. But I do find ID'ers to be far more pleasant people on these posts.

This is usually where I get accused of being a closet ID'er (not fooling anyone) in conflict with the one and only true belief. If you'd like to pillory my ideas instead, I've summed them up fairly well on a different thread.
#31 if you care to look. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1656301/posts

I think religion should be taught in religious classes and that science should be clear when it is projecting theories beyond what is actually known (but I'm fine with them being taught). From archaeologists that create entire civilizations from shards of pottery, to Darwinists that insist all change can only be the result of survival of the fittest, (and yes religious people too) I think too much certainty about the uncertain is arrogant and begets conflict.

My apologies for once again forgetting that figurative, and colorful comments are a bad idea on these threads. In retrospect it was very unwise, and worse it is a repeat sin for me. I should force a 10 minute delay on myself for all ID/Darwin threads, or better skip them altogether.
34 posted on 06/27/2006 6:59:01 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
Legislated "truth" is a brittle and hollow thing.

It seems you failed to notice that the "legislation" at issue here was to mandate the introduction and promotion of creationism, not evolution.

35 posted on 06/27/2006 6:59:16 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
What about sound principles of naturalism? Why are they so free in the lab?

Maybe because no has yet figured out how to study supernaturalism in the lab?

36 posted on 06/27/2006 7:01:53 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."
[emphasis added]

A vacuously satisfied condition....

37 posted on 06/27/2006 7:03:55 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"Reread my last. I know that you are aware of what "figuratively" means."

I know you didn't mean that ID'ers were literally being burned at the stake, nor did I say you said that. I was pointing out the overwrought way that ID'ers/creationists like to play the victim and be the drama queen. Boo hoo, your theology isn't being taught in science classrooms. Get over yourselves.
38 posted on 06/27/2006 7:07:11 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Boo hoo, your theology isn't being taught in science classrooms. Get over yourselves.

? Finish reading my previous post please, as your above makes no sense in relation to it.

39 posted on 06/27/2006 7:10:13 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
"? Finish reading my previous post please, as your above makes no sense in relation to it."

I already read it. I don't believe you are not an ID'er.

And your histrionic example burning heretics at the stake marks you as a drama queen.
40 posted on 06/27/2006 7:22:55 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere are saddened.


41 posted on 06/27/2006 7:38:10 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I don't believe you are not an ID'er.

Of course not. That would require a strict adherence to the facts, instead of projecting what you want to believe. That pretty much says it all, and sums up my point nicely.

Out of curiosity, do my negative views on Palestinian actions make me a defacto Jew?

Vice insisting that I'm an ID'er, you could just use a turn of phrase on a time honored slur, "ID lover!".

You know it is only a matter of time until these ID deviants begin an underground resistance of forbidden teaching in the public sector. Have you given much thought to punishment? These people need to be put in their place. (Like 'burning at the stake', this is known as hyperbole, it is often useful for pointing out the ludicrous to people who cannot see themselves as others do.)

42 posted on 06/27/2006 7:47:32 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This is silly. The early grades (and especially kindergarten) are not an appropriate time for the abstract concepts involved in evolution and ID. The kids will have no idea what the teacher is talking about.

At this age a lot of children don't understand that if you change the shape of something, it still has the same mass and volume. Yet this assemblyman wants to introduce abstract concepts to them like descent with modification and "irreducible compexity" (whatever that might be).

Dumb.


43 posted on 06/27/2006 8:09:27 AM PDT by freespirited (A liberal is a person haunted by fear that someone, somewhere does not require government assistance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


44 posted on 06/27/2006 8:12:11 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

"Of course not. That would require a strict adherence to the facts, instead of projecting what you want to believe. That pretty much says it all, and sums up my point nicely."

No, it would be because I DO adhere to the evidence, and your posting history does not support you claim.

"You know it is only a matter of time until these ID deviants begin an underground resistance of forbidden teaching in the public sector."

Cry me a river.


45 posted on 06/27/2006 8:22:35 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Do you really oppose a critical examination of the evolutionary model (and its inadequacies) in the classroom?

I am curious. Why is evolution only singled out for "critical examination"? Why is not similar examination suggested for other scientific theories and principles taught at the high school -- or, as in the case of this legislation, kindergarten -- level?
46 posted on 06/27/2006 8:28:03 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Since this thread is about evolution being taught in the classroom, I asked about evolution. Start a thread about another iffy realm of science and I'll ask for free inquiry and discussion on that.

Except that, I don't think there are any other aspects of theoretical science up for question like evolution, and I don't think evolutionists have to squelch debate on anything else except evolution.


47 posted on 06/27/2006 8:35:17 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (If you're proud to hold the American Flag, then the Flag is proud to be held by you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Except that, I don't think there are any other aspects of theoretical science up for question like evolution,

Which pretty much sums up the motivations behind this garbage 'controversy':

String Theory: no legislation required
Global Warming: no legislation required
Evolution: Gotta pass some laws challenging this unproven theory! Call you congressman! It's for the children, after all...

48 posted on 06/27/2006 8:43:23 AM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

"Pixie theory of aerodynamics" placemark.
49 posted on 06/27/2006 8:51:46 AM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Except that, I don't think there are any other aspects of theoretical science up for question like evolution

Why, then, is evolution "up for question", and not any other aspect of science?
50 posted on 06/27/2006 8:56:11 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-274 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson