by Bjorn Watland
On a crisp November evening at the University of Minnesota, a surprisingly large crowd gathered in a basement auditorium to hear from Sunsara Taylor, an unapologetic Revolutionary Communist and militant atheist. Hearing the views of a communist isn't as shocking as it may be in other arenas of the public; however, it isn't often that a communist will admit that they are also an atheist. Sunsara Taylor is not ashamed of either her Revolutionary Communism, or her atheism, as she presented Bob Avakian's book, "Away With All Gods, Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World."
Sunsara Taylor's presentation began with a description of the horrors that wait to greet the curious reader of the Bible. "I wouldn't give this book to young children to read," Taylor mentions, also calling the Bible, "The most blood-thirsty book." The specifics from the Bible she mentions are the practice described of stoning women who were not virgins on their wedding night, God commanding soldiers to kill children, men, and women who have known a man, but leave the virgins for yourselves, and the series of plagues sent by God.
Citing these examples from the Old Testament of the Bible, Sunsara Taylor makes the statement that you cannot separate the New and Old Testaments, as some more progressive Christians might like to do. Jesus is often separated from the horrors of the Old Testament, however, by what basis would you consider Jesus to the divine without fulfillment of the prophecies found within the Old Testament? "Jesus is not someone you would want to follow or should follow,” Taylor exclaims. "He didn't end slavery; instead he taught how slaves should be obedient to their masters. He didn't stop patriarchy. He continued to preach that disease and illness are caused by sin."
Taylor explores the concept of sin. Sin is caused by the "Fall" of humanity. Christians believe that Eve was deceived by the Devil to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and then deceived Adam. What this means for women who inherit this original sin, is a special punishment or curse, which is painful childbirth and obedience to their husbands. The problem with this treatment of the nature of humanity, is that it creates a society which is patriarchal and these ancient myths should not be carried on today in the modern era.
Next, Taylor ties in ancient Biblical myths with practice in society today. She cites Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as one man and one woman. Proponents of a heterosexual definition of marriage use the Bible to argue against gay marriage. However, the Bible doesn't even treat marriage as between one man and one woman. King Solomon, in the Bible, has hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines. "Sex existed long before people made up religions, and marriage is defined by societies, not by a god," Taylor reasons.
The next section Taylor dives into is all about the difference between science, religious faith, and to a lesser extent, art. "Science is not cold and bereft of meaning," says Taylor. The difference between art and religion is that art does not mandate that you accept it as a representation of reality. "Humanity cannot live without art, but must live without religion," Taylor quotes from the book.
Taylor has peppered her presentation with fleeting mention of being a communist, and mentioned some of the experiences that have formed her opinion of religion, such as attempting to defend an abortion clinic from violent protesters and actually reading the Bible only to learn about the horrible treatment of women, and other violence found throughout the book. At the end of her presentation, she attempts to tie in the rationality and reason of science and atheism and communism.
Taylor, like the books she is presenting, is not meant to be nice to religion, and not meant to take ideas lightly. She asserts that the idea of the "Golden Rule," only works on an individual level, and not in societies. Scarcity is no longer a problem in the world. We have the means to provide shelter, food, and safety to every person on the planet. We can feed the whole world, but people in food producing countries are starving because food is produced, and exported to "imperialist countries, like this one," asserts Taylor. We need to get rid of the means of production relations that are based on exploitation and rid ourselves of class distinction.
What are the options for the individual, according to Taylor? "Faced with the horrors of the world, you have three options," Taylor follows. You can grab all of the goodies and possessions through a global network of exploitation, close your eyes to the exploitation or you can open your eyes and confront the oppression and change the world you live in.
Taylor does not hold back in her presentation. During the evening she called Sarah Palin a Nazi for the practice of charging rape victims for rape kits because they contained emergency contraception. We should not feel good about being American, no matter who is President, because we are a nation which dropped two atomic bombs on cities in Japan, have killed a million people in Iraq, and carry out secret CIA operations, such as hidden prisons. She asserts that abstinence only sex education has genocidal implications and the Bible fuels it. She believes that humans have no inherent nature to be good or bad, and that the problems we see today were caused by the emergence of classes, private property and the state. In order to change the world, you must act in opposition to the oppressor in order to benefit the oppressed.
From the audience, a number of people raised concerns about the viability of a communist society, citing examples of failed attempts in the USSR and China. Taylor lauded the successes of Maoist China in raising the life expectancy from 33 years to 65 years in a short time as the country transitioned from feudalism. Among those who raised concern, one was an anthropologist, another an economist and another merely had concerns that humans, as animals, had a capitalist nature that is difficult to overcome. She handled criticism of communism, which made up the majority of the discussion afterwards, very well. As a speaker, she is confident, assertive, and concerned about understanding the point of view of the questioner.
Bob Avakian’s book, "Away With All Gods," as presented by Sunsara Taylor, is different from other atheist books, like those from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, in that it proposes a radical political agenda as an opposition to religious fundamentalism.
Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (CASH) presented Sunsara Taylor. CASH is known as, "The Best Damned Group on Campus, " are an affiliate of the Secular Student Alliance and have been serving atheists, skeptics, and humanists since 1991. For more information about CASH, visit www.cashumn.org.
Bjorn Watland is a board member of Minnesota Atheists and Camp Quest of Minnesota. He also serves as an editor for the SSA eMpirical.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Atheist Women on the Radio
A change is in the air. Minnesota Atheists, the largest and most active atheist organization in the state, as been led by at least one founding member of the board since its creation in 1991. This year, that will not be the case. Jeannette will be serving as associate president, and I will be serving as president.
What does this mean for an organization of nearly 400 supporters? Well, the same activities and programs will continue, but a greater focus on community building, including activities for families and charitable works will inspire a greater number of people to participate.
To highlight these changes, Jeannette was featured on the radio with new board member Crystal. You can download the podcast here.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Dan Barker v. Dinesh D'Souza "Can We Be Good Without God?" Debate
On January 29th, with temperatures many degrees below freezing, an estimated 1,300 students and guests filled a lecture hall to hear a debate between Dan Barker, author, former minister, and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Dinesh D'Souza, author, public policy maker, and Christian. The topic: "Can we be good without God?" Campus Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists joined together with Campus Crusade for Christ at the U of MN and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship to host the event.
Mr. Barker, arguing the affirmative, began by thanking a number of people who did not profess a belief in God, yet performed great humanitarian acts, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Edward Gordon and Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross whose organization helps those in need regardless of their belief or lack of belief. Clearly, this shows that one can be good, even extraordinarily good, without a belief in a god.
Mr. Barker then quotes from the bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." "The bible is wrong," exclaimed Mr. Barker. He continues to quote Thomas Jefferson, "If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." Mr. Barker explains, "Thomas Jefferson thought that the urge to do good was an instinct, which is not far from where biology is now taking us by revealing the genetic purpose of altruism." When we hear of a horrible act, such as someone killing their family, we will refer to it as, "an inhumane thing to do." To do good, must therefor, be a part of what it is to be human.
How does Mr. Barker define goodness? "When a person acts with the intentions of minimizing harm in the world."
The best action to take is decided upon by analysis of the situation and requires thought, not blind obedience. If you are only acting in a certain manner because you wish to have a reward in the afterlife, you are acting for selfish reasons. Mr. Barker ends his opening statement by exclaiming that everyone in the audience was "smarter person than the God of the bible, and better people than Jesus ever was."
Mr. D'Souza takes a slightly different approach, first undermining the credibility of Mr. Barker by criticizing his self applied label as an "evangelical atheist." "Why is Dan an evangelical atheist? I don't go around writing books about how I don't believe in unicorns." Mr. D'Souza explains why he feels that Mr. Barker is an evangelical atheist later in his presentation.
He then admits that Christians and atheists can be honest, that Christians don't hold a monopoly on virtue. However, he seeks to examine where these virtues come from, because we take these virtues for granted.
How are we, as Americans taking virtues for granted? Mr. D'Souza follows us through the development of Western Civilization, explaining how the uniquely Christian virtues of compassion, preservation of life, and the abolition of slavery changed the world we live in today.
Mr. D'souza claims that if we are to look to the other parts of the world for our virtues, such as the abolition of slavery, compassion, the equality of women, science as an autonomous enterprise, they are not to be found until the introduction of Christianity. Compassion to Aristotle was "a vice" according to Mr. D'Souza. Christianity was the force behind the abolition of slavery in Europe in the 4th and 10th centuries, and Quakers and Evangelical Christians were responsible for ending slavery in the United States. The concept of Universal Brotherhood is unique to Christianity and serves as the foundation of the rule that, "no man has a right to rule another without consent," and is also the foundation of democracy. No historian will argue that Western Civilization was built upon two pillars, Rome and Jerusalem.
Mr. D'Souza goes on to make an argument that science is based on faith. He states three things science is based on. Those are, "We live in a rational universe. We live in a lawful universe. The rationality of the universe mirrors the rationality in our mind." He then exclaims that, "There is no reason. Science is based on faith. God is rational, so the world is rational. You have to take the fact that the world is rational on faith."
He ends is opening statement by stating that if we are to look at the products of a secular morality, we should not look to countries like Sweden and France, but rather look at the regimes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. "Atheism is responsible for the mass murders of history." Mr. D'Souza explains that though Christianity may have been responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which only resulted in 2,000 deaths, and the witch trials, with resulted in only a few hundred deaths, atheism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people just in the 20th century.
Religion transmits morality, not philosophy, Mr. D'Souza explains. "We can be good without God, but we won't know why," he ends his opening.
Through cross examination and rebuttals, Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza focused on the claims made in each opening.
Mr. Barker focused on his opponents claim that the virtues which are unique to Western Civilization can be found in the bible, such as Universal Brotherhood, the sanctity of life, and equality for women. He also was critical of Mr. D'Souza's treatment of the term "law" as it refers to physical laws of nature. He explained the difference between prescriptive laws, which would be the kind a society would create and descriptive laws which are explanations of the results of experimentation.
Mr. D'Souza responded to the opening of Mr. Barker with, "Humans occupy two domains, the way things are, and the way things ought to be. Darwinian logic is selfish, the power to do good rejects the inner voice. An internal voice, “the whisper of God,” is not natural, and speaks against the Darwinian voice." He also was uncertain of the explanation provided by Mr. Barker on the concept of "laws." He asserted that we are still taking science on faith when we assume that the speed of light is the same here as it is on a planet 5 million light years away.
Closing statements by Mr. D'Souza included the assertion that radical Christianity's treatment of the bible is the same way atheists treat the bible. To take the bible literally is wrong. It was written by many people over many years. "What is the motive for unbelief? The main motive for rejecting God is, 'If God is not, everything is permitted.' With God, we can have a more moral life."
Mr. Barker ends his argument by reminding the audience that he has lived his life as a minister and as an atheist. "My life has an atheist has been more fulfilling by far." If Christianity is the standard for morality, then why are there no universal agreements on moral issues? "We need to divorce ourselves from the childish morality of the bible."
Both debaters are skilled and have debated each other before. Mr. Barker appeared to have been arguing from the position that we can be good without a belief in a god. Both Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza agreed that one can be good without a belief in a god. However, Mr. D'Souza had two focuses of his argument. One is to prove that there is an external agent required for morality, which makes us different from animals. The other is that Christianity has proved to be a force for the greatest good for humanity. From these two points, Mr. D'Souza could be interpreting that without the existence of a god, there would be no morality, so ones belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. The other interpretation handled by his second point is that you can be good without a belief in a god, but you can be even more moral with a belief in a god.
Mr. Barker, arguing the affirmative, began by thanking a number of people who did not profess a belief in God, yet performed great humanitarian acts, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Edward Gordon and Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross whose organization helps those in need regardless of their belief or lack of belief. Clearly, this shows that one can be good, even extraordinarily good, without a belief in a god.
Mr. Barker then quotes from the bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." "The bible is wrong," exclaimed Mr. Barker. He continues to quote Thomas Jefferson, "If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God." Mr. Barker explains, "Thomas Jefferson thought that the urge to do good was an instinct, which is not far from where biology is now taking us by revealing the genetic purpose of altruism." When we hear of a horrible act, such as someone killing their family, we will refer to it as, "an inhumane thing to do." To do good, must therefor, be a part of what it is to be human.
How does Mr. Barker define goodness? "When a person acts with the intentions of minimizing harm in the world."
The best action to take is decided upon by analysis of the situation and requires thought, not blind obedience. If you are only acting in a certain manner because you wish to have a reward in the afterlife, you are acting for selfish reasons. Mr. Barker ends his opening statement by exclaiming that everyone in the audience was "smarter person than the God of the bible, and better people than Jesus ever was."
Mr. D'Souza takes a slightly different approach, first undermining the credibility of Mr. Barker by criticizing his self applied label as an "evangelical atheist." "Why is Dan an evangelical atheist? I don't go around writing books about how I don't believe in unicorns." Mr. D'Souza explains why he feels that Mr. Barker is an evangelical atheist later in his presentation.
He then admits that Christians and atheists can be honest, that Christians don't hold a monopoly on virtue. However, he seeks to examine where these virtues come from, because we take these virtues for granted.
How are we, as Americans taking virtues for granted? Mr. D'Souza follows us through the development of Western Civilization, explaining how the uniquely Christian virtues of compassion, preservation of life, and the abolition of slavery changed the world we live in today.
Mr. D'souza claims that if we are to look to the other parts of the world for our virtues, such as the abolition of slavery, compassion, the equality of women, science as an autonomous enterprise, they are not to be found until the introduction of Christianity. Compassion to Aristotle was "a vice" according to Mr. D'Souza. Christianity was the force behind the abolition of slavery in Europe in the 4th and 10th centuries, and Quakers and Evangelical Christians were responsible for ending slavery in the United States. The concept of Universal Brotherhood is unique to Christianity and serves as the foundation of the rule that, "no man has a right to rule another without consent," and is also the foundation of democracy. No historian will argue that Western Civilization was built upon two pillars, Rome and Jerusalem.
Mr. D'Souza goes on to make an argument that science is based on faith. He states three things science is based on. Those are, "We live in a rational universe. We live in a lawful universe. The rationality of the universe mirrors the rationality in our mind." He then exclaims that, "There is no reason. Science is based on faith. God is rational, so the world is rational. You have to take the fact that the world is rational on faith."
He ends is opening statement by stating that if we are to look at the products of a secular morality, we should not look to countries like Sweden and France, but rather look at the regimes of Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. "Atheism is responsible for the mass murders of history." Mr. D'Souza explains that though Christianity may have been responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which only resulted in 2,000 deaths, and the witch trials, with resulted in only a few hundred deaths, atheism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people just in the 20th century.
Religion transmits morality, not philosophy, Mr. D'Souza explains. "We can be good without God, but we won't know why," he ends his opening.
Through cross examination and rebuttals, Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza focused on the claims made in each opening.
Mr. Barker focused on his opponents claim that the virtues which are unique to Western Civilization can be found in the bible, such as Universal Brotherhood, the sanctity of life, and equality for women. He also was critical of Mr. D'Souza's treatment of the term "law" as it refers to physical laws of nature. He explained the difference between prescriptive laws, which would be the kind a society would create and descriptive laws which are explanations of the results of experimentation.
Mr. D'Souza responded to the opening of Mr. Barker with, "Humans occupy two domains, the way things are, and the way things ought to be. Darwinian logic is selfish, the power to do good rejects the inner voice. An internal voice, “the whisper of God,” is not natural, and speaks against the Darwinian voice." He also was uncertain of the explanation provided by Mr. Barker on the concept of "laws." He asserted that we are still taking science on faith when we assume that the speed of light is the same here as it is on a planet 5 million light years away.
Closing statements by Mr. D'Souza included the assertion that radical Christianity's treatment of the bible is the same way atheists treat the bible. To take the bible literally is wrong. It was written by many people over many years. "What is the motive for unbelief? The main motive for rejecting God is, 'If God is not, everything is permitted.' With God, we can have a more moral life."
Mr. Barker ends his argument by reminding the audience that he has lived his life as a minister and as an atheist. "My life has an atheist has been more fulfilling by far." If Christianity is the standard for morality, then why are there no universal agreements on moral issues? "We need to divorce ourselves from the childish morality of the bible."
Both debaters are skilled and have debated each other before. Mr. Barker appeared to have been arguing from the position that we can be good without a belief in a god. Both Mr. Barker and Mr. D'Souza agreed that one can be good without a belief in a god. However, Mr. D'Souza had two focuses of his argument. One is to prove that there is an external agent required for morality, which makes us different from animals. The other is that Christianity has proved to be a force for the greatest good for humanity. From these two points, Mr. D'Souza could be interpreting that without the existence of a god, there would be no morality, so ones belief or lack of belief is irrelevant. The other interpretation handled by his second point is that you can be good without a belief in a god, but you can be even more moral with a belief in a god.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
My Review of Ultimate Quotes Big Lebowski t-shirt
Originally submitted at 80sTees.com
This Big Lebowski shirt features a number of quotes from the classic cult favorite.
Great way to find fans.
By Not the Dude from St. Paul, MN on 12/11/2008
Fit: Feels true to size
Pros: Stylish, Comfortable
Best Uses: Casual Wear
Describe Yourself: Career
This shirt is a great way to meet other Big Lebowski fans.
(legalese)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Fanaticism is not confined to religion.
Unquestioned faith that something is true, despite contrary evidence. Doing whatever it takes to prove that you are right, including violence. These sound like the traits of a religious fanatic. However, it also describes many parents who believe that mercury has caused their child's autism. Despite reduplicated studies and piles of evidence, these parents will to whatever it takes to make others believe as they do, including threatening those who speak against them.
It is however, hard to blame these parents. A diagnosis of autism can be scary. Although it's not life threatening, it is definitely life changing. Science has not found an cause for autism yet. Parents often feel scared, alone, and frustrated with their inability to change the situation. I'd like to think a parent would do anything for their child. Finding a cause for the condition afflicting their child and fighting it gives a sense that they are doing something. Anything is better than just lying back and taking it.
This leads to the notion that parents should always be listened to. It is hard to argue with a parent about what is right for their child. It is hard to counter a mother's personal anecdotes about how and when their child developed autism. You can't fight it with evidence, just like you can't fight the existence of god.
It is not a surprise then that religion is involved in this thimerosal controversy. Lisa Sykes, a parent and Methodist minister delivers sermons on thimerosal, converting more parents to her opinions. When Wakefield came to America after his practice was ruined in the UK, joined the Good News Doctors Foundation, a religious group aimed at protecting kids from vaccines. Generation Rescue, the group Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey belong to, is an advocate for chelation, and refers to it as a cleansing ritual. "We are helping a child's body do what god intended it to do". British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane said "Beware of him in whole reason has become the greatest and most terrible passions". These parents are convinced their belief that thimerosal plays a role in their child's autism is completely reasonable. Because of their strong belief in this truth they will submit their children to dangerous treatments, otherwise deemed unthinkable. The extremes people go to for their convictions can be dangerous.
I love that Paul Offit refers to some of the greatest freethinkers of all time in his book "Autism's False Prophets". One of those is Bertrand Russell, whose teapot argument relates to the topic at hand. The teapot argument is that one can say there is a teapot in elliptical orbit, but it is to small to be seen, even by powerful telescopes. Because it can't be seen, it can't be disproved. The same can be said about scientists. There are things that scientists cannot know, and there are rare unexplainable events. Russell's argument is referring to god, but anti-vaccines activists are using it in their favor creating an industry of dangerous therapies and multi-million dollar lawsuits. Fortunately, the courts don't favor this argument much.
My favorite quote in the book comes from Robert Park, author of "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". I think it sums everything up nicely. "Many people are uneasy standing on such loose soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot offer. For those people the unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolute assurance of zealots, have a more powerful appeal". The beauty of this quote is that it can be used for both a belief in god, or the belief that mercury causes autism. The unknowable is scary. Putting belief into something is comforting.
I would like to end by channelling the great Carl Sagan. I hope his advice will be heeded. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Unfortunately, in the case of mercury vs autism, the extraordinary proof just isn't there.
It is however, hard to blame these parents. A diagnosis of autism can be scary. Although it's not life threatening, it is definitely life changing. Science has not found an cause for autism yet. Parents often feel scared, alone, and frustrated with their inability to change the situation. I'd like to think a parent would do anything for their child. Finding a cause for the condition afflicting their child and fighting it gives a sense that they are doing something. Anything is better than just lying back and taking it.
This leads to the notion that parents should always be listened to. It is hard to argue with a parent about what is right for their child. It is hard to counter a mother's personal anecdotes about how and when their child developed autism. You can't fight it with evidence, just like you can't fight the existence of god.
It is not a surprise then that religion is involved in this thimerosal controversy. Lisa Sykes, a parent and Methodist minister delivers sermons on thimerosal, converting more parents to her opinions. When Wakefield came to America after his practice was ruined in the UK, joined the Good News Doctors Foundation, a religious group aimed at protecting kids from vaccines. Generation Rescue, the group Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carey belong to, is an advocate for chelation, and refers to it as a cleansing ritual. "We are helping a child's body do what god intended it to do". British geneticist and evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane said "Beware of him in whole reason has become the greatest and most terrible passions". These parents are convinced their belief that thimerosal plays a role in their child's autism is completely reasonable. Because of their strong belief in this truth they will submit their children to dangerous treatments, otherwise deemed unthinkable. The extremes people go to for their convictions can be dangerous.
I love that Paul Offit refers to some of the greatest freethinkers of all time in his book "Autism's False Prophets". One of those is Bertrand Russell, whose teapot argument relates to the topic at hand. The teapot argument is that one can say there is a teapot in elliptical orbit, but it is to small to be seen, even by powerful telescopes. Because it can't be seen, it can't be disproved. The same can be said about scientists. There are things that scientists cannot know, and there are rare unexplainable events. Russell's argument is referring to god, but anti-vaccines activists are using it in their favor creating an industry of dangerous therapies and multi-million dollar lawsuits. Fortunately, the courts don't favor this argument much.
My favorite quote in the book comes from Robert Park, author of "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud". I think it sums everything up nicely. "Many people are uneasy standing on such loose soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot offer. For those people the unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolute assurance of zealots, have a more powerful appeal". The beauty of this quote is that it can be used for both a belief in god, or the belief that mercury causes autism. The unknowable is scary. Putting belief into something is comforting.
I would like to end by channelling the great Carl Sagan. I hope his advice will be heeded. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Unfortunately, in the case of mercury vs autism, the extraordinary proof just isn't there.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Obama Team to Scrap Orion and Ares 1?
Science News is reporting that President-Elect Obama's Transition Team is seeking possible changes to the Ares and Orion projects. The information requested by the Obama Team include how much money would be saved by canceling the Ares 1 and Orion projects, but no real alterations in other NASA projects. The Ares 1 and 5 rockets have been plagued with problems, and Orion has come under fire for poor design. Should Orion be redesigned to be used on current rocket technology? Is the Mars Science Labratory worth scaling back? Should we go to the Moon again?
One positive note in the article, Obama's Team is looking into green lighting several Earth science projects which have been ignored over the last few years.
One positive note in the article, Obama's Team is looking into green lighting several Earth science projects which have been ignored over the last few years.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Are You Smarter Than An Elected Official?
How's your Civics knowledge? You can take a simple test from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute to gauge some of your know-how. The results of the test may be surprising. Americans had an average of 49 percent, while elected officials scored five points lower, at 44 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)