Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for January 18th, 2009

Salmonella in peanut butter

leave a comment »

Have you noticed how often the food in our stores is not safe to eat? Marion Nestle:

I’ve been out of the country for the past week (Panamá, warm and lovely) but have been kept up on the peanut butter outbreak, courtesy of Eric Burkett of Examiner.com.  His posts thoroughly cover events in this latest outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium.  The outbreak is so widespread that the FDA has a site on it with a useful Q and A. And now the FDA is warning consumers not to eat any foods made with peanut butter.  If you want to see the epidemiology, the CDC has the maps online.  The lawyers are also getting into the act: Marler Clark is always a source of information about actionable foodborne illnesses, and O’Steen & Harrison also seems to be keeping close track. At issue is where the contamination occurred, where the contaminated peanut butter was distributed, and what other food companies are using this peanut butter.  That this information is not readily available is further evidence of the need for better food safety requirements, oversight, and traceability.  Let’s hope the new administration takes this on, and soon. And until it does, best to grind your own peanuts!

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 11:31 am

Asking why

leave a comment »

From the NY Times:

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish is a Gazan and a doctor who has devoted his life to medicine and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.

But on Saturday, the day after three of his daughters and a niece were killed by Israeli fire in Gaza, Dr. Abuelaish, 53, struggled to hold on to the humane philosophy that has guided his life and work.

As he sat in a waiting room of the Israeli hospital where he works part time, he asked over and over, “Why did they do this?”

Elsewhere in the hospital another daughter and a niece were being treated for their wounds.

“I dedicated my life really for peace, for medicine,” said Dr. Abuelaish, who does joint research projects with Israeli physicians and for years has worked as something of a one-man force to bring injured and ailing Gazans for treatment in Israel.

“This is the path I believed in and what I raised and educated my children to believe,” he said.

Dr. Abuelaish said he wanted the Israeli Army to tell him why his home, which he said harbored no militants, had been fired upon. He said if a mistake had been made and an errant tank shell had hit his home, he expected an apology, not excuses.

The doctor, a recent widower, had not left Gaza since the Israeli assault began last month and was at home in the Jabaliya refugee camp with his eight children and other family members during the attack on Friday.

An army spokesman said that a preliminary investigation had shown that soldiers were returning fire toward the direction of areas from which they had been fired upon.

“The Israeli Defense Forces does not target innocents or civilians, and during the operation the army has been fighting an enemy that does not hesitate to fire from within civilian targets,” said the spokesman, speaking anonymously on behalf of the army…

Continue reading.  To that last statement, one wants to ask why, if the army does not target innocents or civilians, it fires back when civilians are in the target area? If those civilians had been Israelis instead of Palestinians, would the army have been so cavalier about firing back and causing civilian casualties? Maybe Israeli needs to take another approach to this problem, given the number of civilians and children killed and wounded. What Israel is doing is not working, if they truly want to minimize civilian casualties and stop killing little children. But in fact Israel doesn’t care: those killed are “merely” Palestinians, so they don’t count—at least not in the eyes of Israel.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 11:26 am

Posted in Mideast Conflict

Tracking Obama’s promises

with 4 comments

I don’t believe that in the US we can simply trust our politicians and elected officials to do what is right. We must verify. And this site will be useful.

PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

To date:

obamas-promises

The links in the table are live at the site. For example, clicking “Stalled” takes you to “No. 505: Create a New American Jobs Tax Credit for companies that add jobs” with more information on why it’s stalled.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 11:05 am

Israeli FM confronted at National Press Club

leave a comment »

Israeli Foreign Minister on the spot.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Israeli FM confronted at National Pre…", posted with vodpod

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 10:47 am

Posted in Daily life

The trouble with Friedman

leave a comment »

Generally speaking, Tom Friedman is a pompous idiot, which is why I was so amazed a while back to find him voicing a good thought. Matt Taibbi excoriates Friedman quite well. He begins:

When some time ago a friend of mine told me that Thomas Friedman’s new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, was going to be a kind of environmentalist clarion call against American consumerism, I almost died laughing.

Beautiful, I thought. Just when you begin to lose faith in America’s ability to fall for absolutely anything—just when you begin to think we Americans as a race might finally outgrow the lovable credulousness that leads us to fork over our credit card numbers to every half-baked TV pitchman hawking a magic dick-enlarging pill, or a way to make millions on the Internet while sitting at home and pounding doughnuts— along comes Thomas Friedman, porn-stached resident of a positively obscene 11,400 square foot suburban Maryland mega-monstro-mansion and husband to the heir of one of the largest shopping-mall chains in the world, reinventing himself as an oracle of anti-consumerist conservationism.

Where does a man who needs his own offshore drilling platform just to keep the east wing of his house heated get the balls to write a book chiding America for driving energy inefficient automobiles? Where does a guy whose family bulldozed 2.1 million square feet of pristine Hawaiian wilderness to put a Gap, an Old Navy, a Sears, an Abercrombie and even a motherfucking Foot Locker in paradise get off preaching to the rest of us about the need for a “Green Revolution”? Well, he’ll explain it all to you in 438 crisply written pages for just $27.95, $30.95 if you have the misfortune to be Canadian.

I’ve been unhealthily obsessed with Thomas Friedman for more than a decade now. For most of that time, I just thought he was funny. And admittedly, what I thought was funniest about him was the kind of stuff that only another writer would really care about—in particular his tortured use of the English language. Like George W. Bush with his Bushisms, Friedman came up with lines so hilarious you couldn’t make them up even if you were trying—and when you tried to actually picture the “illustrative” figures of speech he offered to explain himself, what you often ended up with was pure physical comedy of the Buster Keaton/Three Stooges school, with whole nations and peoples slipping and falling on the misplaced banana peels of his literary endeavors.

Remember Friedman’s take on Bush’s Iraq policy? “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel,” he wrote, “as long as you remember you’re driving without one.” Picture that for a minute. Or how about Friedman’s analysis of America’s foreign policy outlook last May:

The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging.When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.

First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once? Secondly, what the fuck is he talking about? If you’re supposed to stop digging when you’re in one hole, why should you dig more in three? How does that even begin to make sense? It’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if the editors over at the New York Times editorial page spend their afternoons dropping acid or drinking rubbing alcohol. Sending a line like that into print is the journalism equivalent of a security guard at a nuke plant waving a pair of mullahs in explosive vests through the front gate. It should never, ever happen.

Even better was this gem from one of Friedman’s latest columns: …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:52 am

Posted in Daily life, Media, NY Times

Giving Obama a chance

leave a comment »

Chris Bowers has a good post, with this conclusion (though the entire post is worth reading):

Really, this is all very simple. I bring this up because sometimes when I read “just give Obama a chance” articles in the blogosphere, I worry that they imply “don’t press Obama even when he does stuff you don’t like , and / or when he does not appear to be acting on the promises he made that you did like.” It is entirely possible that these diaries might not be saying any such thing, and that I am simply paranoid after months of accusations that I am not sufficiently supportive of Obama.

Whether I am being paranoid or accurately reading the implications of these diaries, I want to point out that the work we are doing on Open Left in regards to the Wall Street bailout currently fails into the third category listed above, with one slight modification. Obama, in conjunction with most Senate Democrats (Senate Democrats are the problem here, not their counterparts in the House), have promised improved oversight and transparency in the TARP program, and also a change of direction in how the second $350 billion will be spent. However, they have taken no action to codify these promised changes into law. In fact, they seem to be intentionally not codifying these promises into law, which is particularly worrying. If you are serious about these promised changes, then codifying these promises into law shouldn’t even be an issue.

If “giving Obama a chance” means taking a pass when neither he nor his colleagues in the Senate appear eager to codify their promised changes to TARP into law, then count me out. If, on the other hand, “giving Obama a chance” means something more like the first scenario I described above, then count me in.

I concur.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:44 am

Words and deeds

leave a comment »

Hilzoy has an interesting post that compares sections of George Bush’s first inaugural address with what George Bush did, and speculates on the reasons. Well worth reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:38 am

Israel doesn’t understand 4GW

leave a comment »

William Lind has a very interesting post at Defense and the National Welfare. It begins:

So far, Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip has produced no surprises. On the physical level of war, the IDF is triumphing. The Palestinians are suffering about one hundred people dead for every dead Israeli. To a 2GW military, which is what Israel’s formerly Third Generation army has become, that is the main measure of victory.

On the moral level, the picture is reversed. Hamas is almost assured of victory. As Martin van Creveld has observed, all it has to do to claim victory is survive, which it will. That claim will not just be propaganda: for Hamas to survive everything a modern state military can throw at it is a legitimate victory. In fact, it will not only survive but be strengthened by a world-wide flood of sympathy, which will translate in part into new recruits and more money.

In the end, if Israel wants to stop Hamas’s rockets, it will only be able to do so by making a deal with Hamas. Since that was equally true before the war, the question of why it was fought will soon present itself. The real reason is a tad sordid: the current Israeli government is trying to split the “get tough” vote to prevent Likud from winning the next election. The same motivation lay behind last weekend’s “discovery” that Mr. Olmert asked the U.S. for permission to attack Iran. The parties in the current Israeli coalition government are in effect saying to Israeli voters, “Why vote for an oaf like Bibi Netanyahu when you can get the same thing from us without the endless embarrassments?”

What all Israeli parties and the IDF seem to share is that they don’t get 4GW. They have repeatedly been defeated by Fourth Generation forces but they do not learn.

The problem goes beyond John Boyd’s framework of moral-mental-physical, with the moral the most powerful level of war and the physical the weakest. What Israel cannot grasp is that in the face of 4GW, all states should be seen as allies…

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:30 am

Posted in Government

Selective enforcement of laws

leave a comment »

The rule of law implicitly assumes that the law will NOT be selectively enforced. This does not mean that anyone who’s known to break the law will go to jail or be fined—it does mean that anyone who’s known to break the law will be prosecuted in a fair trial. The arguments of the defense may lead to a finding of “not guilty” by the jury, which is free to make its own collective decision, or to the mitigation of the sentence—anything from “time served” to a brief probation with no jail time. But the prosecution is mandatory.

One problem with selective enforcement is that one quickly sees that the selection is based on money and power, not on the merits of the case. A trial makes the merits (on both sides) public.

Obama is making a BIG mistake when he says that he will not prosecute crimes that “occurred in the past.” I don’t see Bernard Madoff being released—but then he hurt badly many people who (formerly) had money and who have power. His mistake. But I suggest his lawyer try the argument that Madoff should not be prosecuted because those problems are in the past and we should look to the future.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:26 am

US legally obligated to prosecute torturers

with one comment

Glenn Greenwald has yet another good column in which he lays out the requirement that certain officials in the Bush administration be prosecuted for their actions:

It seems fairly easy — even for those overtly hostile to the basic rules of logic and law — to see what conclusions are compelled by these clear premises:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:19 am

Drive-through religion

leave a comment »

Heather MacDonald has an interesting post:

“Christian publishers and retailers realize that today’s busy consumers are looking for . . . spiritual food that can be consumed in a convenient way,” said Bill Anderson, the [Christian Booksellers Association] president.

(“A closer, faster walk with thee.”)

Today’s religion advocates sometimes evince an almost child-like ahistoricism, it seems to me. “Religion,” they say, is an essential component of a civilized  society. Which religion, whose religion, and what era’s religion would that be? The differences that separate an American believer and non-believer today are barely perceptible compared to the gulf that yawns between today’s cheerful Religion-lite, which has been defanged, homogenized, and told to mind its manners, and the monopolistic, crusading Christianity of centuries past.  How many of our conservative religious promoters would trade life in secular America for existence when Christianity was at the zenith of its power and made no apologies about trying to control as much of the temporal realm as possible?

Let’s not dwell on those outmoded religious activities that one is not supposed to remind religious advocates about, such as the burning of heretics and books; pitchforking the wrong type of Christian; and opposition to liberal political reform. I do wonder, however, whether Michael Gerson, say, would be happy living under an admirably devout Catholic principality, or George Weigel under a Lutheran one, during the Thirty Years’ War.

But even less politically incorrect religious practices from the past seem equally remote. Who’s still for hair shirts and flagellation? Does the dispute over when baptismal regeneration takes place seem compelling enough that one can imagine Britain’s Privy Council addressing it, as it did in 1850? How about spending virtually all day in church on Sunday, being instructed about the fires of hell? I’ve never heard a theocon argue for reinstatement of Sunday blue laws, which would torpedo our retail sector, or even voluntary compliance with the Sabbath; could it be that the good of the economy trumps the clear commandments of God?

The religious superstructure of centuries past has been dismantled. Rising in its place is a remake of religion “in the image of mass-consumer capitalism,” according to a sociologist of American religion at the University of Notre Dame. That remake offers up easily digestible bits like the “5 Minute Theologian”  and “7 Minutes With God.” Only a quarter of Americans attend church weekly. Yet moral chaos has not broken out; society has grown more prosperous as secularism expands. Empathy with others, an awareness of the necessity of the Golden Rule, survive the radical transformation of religious belief, it turns out. Perhaps because a moral sense is the foundation, not the result, of religious ethics.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:14 am

Posted in Daily life, Religion

Deficit games in California and Minnesota

leave a comment »

Phoenix Woman is right on target. The California example hits home, of course.

Republicans and their friends in the GOP/Media Complex depend on Americans to have zero historical memory or cognitive skills. (That’s likely a key reason why they want to destroy public schools.) If we have no memory and no way to put it to good use, we can’t see the irony of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tim Pawlenty, two governors who claim to be fiscally responsible, being in fact unbelievably bad with our money.

Let’s start with Arnold, shall we? He’s currently facing a $40 billion budget shortfall in California, the state he allegedly governs. The whole reason he’s governor is because the Republicans had Gray Davis recalled over a $38 billion budget shortfall — and guess what? As both Davis and Paul Krugman pointed out at the time (h/t to The Daily Howler), that budget shortfall had already been whittled down to $8 billion for the coming fiscal year, and would likely have been eliminated the year after that, had his policies been left untouched by Schwarzenegger.

But of course, the problem is that they weren’t. Among the first things Arnold did was to repeal the state tax on cars. As Schwarzenegger himself stated earlier this year, that “gave $20 billion back” to Californians — or rather, took away $20 billion in revenues over the years (at least $4 billion to start, plus another $4 billion for each year afterward), or half the amount of the current deficit, from the state. (He would later impose a regressive car tax, in the form of new drivers’ fees, when it became apparent that the state couldn’t be run on hot air and deficit spending.)

In Pawlenty’s case, …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:11 am

Posted in Daily life, GOP, Government

Obama’s first sell-out

leave a comment »

David Sirota has the details:

The veto is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear warhead — a rarely used instrument of devastating force that singularly vaporizes the votes of 535 elected representatives. So when a president-elect issues a veto threat before being sworn into office, it sets off a particularly big explosion because it is a deliberate agenda-setting edict about priorities for the next four years.

That’s why every American who isn’t a financial industry executive should be nervous.

After President Bush this week asked Congress to release the bank bailout fund’s remaining $350 billion, Obama pledged to veto any bill rejecting the request, meaning he is beginning his presidency not by “turn[ing] the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street,” as he once pledged. Instead, he is promising a mushroom cloud unless lawmakers let taxpayer cash continue flowing to the biggest of Big Money interests.

Amid paeans to “new politics,” we’re watching old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other — a president-to-be whose inauguration festivities are being underwritten by the very bankers who are benefiting from the bailout largesse. Safely distanced from electoral pressure, Obama has appointed conservative economists to top White House positions; floated a tax cut for banks; and is now trying to preserve corporate welfare that almost exclusively benefits the political donor class.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 9:00 am

Crime and ethics in modern warfare

leave a comment »

A long and interesting article in the NY Times begins:

Your unit, on the edges of the northern Gaza town of Jabaliya, has taken mortar fire from the crowded refugee camp nearby. You prepare to return fire, and perhaps you notice — or perhaps you don’t, even though it’s on your map — that there is a United Nations school just there, full of displaced Gazans. You know that international law allows you to protect your soldiers and return fire, but also demands that you ensure that there is no excessive harm to civilians. Do you remember all that in the chaos?

You pick GPS-guided mortars, which are supposed to be accurate and of a specific explosive force, and fire back. In the end, you kill some Hamas fighters but also, the United Nations says, more than 40 civilians, some of them children.

Have you committed a war crime?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:51 am

Homeric heroes in the modern age

leave a comment »

Brad DeLong has an interesting post on how we today view the Homeric heroes, men such as Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, and Odysseus. Worth reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:46 am

Posted in Books, Daily life

The government and our private communications

leave a comment »

Emptywheel has a very good post, which begins:

I’m going to try to do a series of posts on the FISA Appeals Court ruling before football starts tomorrow. In this post, I just want to point to a passage that deserves more scrutiny:

The government assures us that it does not maintain a database of incidentally collected information from non-targeted United States persons, and there is no evidence to the contrary. On these facts, incidentally collected communications of non-targeted United States persons do not violate the Fourth Amendment.(26)

To translate, if the government collects information from a US citizen (here or abroad), a legal permanent US resident, a predominantly US organization, or a US corporation in the course of collecting information on someone it is specifically targeting, it it claims it does not keep that in a database (I’ll come back and parse this in a second). In other words, if the government has a tap on your local falafel joint because suspected terrorists live off their falafels, and you happen to call in a take out order, it does not that have in a database.

There are reasons to doubt this claim. First of all, because we know of huge new data storage facilities, and they’ve got to be filling those facilities with something. Of course, they might just store US personal communications on servers, but not in a formal database, and thereby be able to claim they’ve not got your falafel order in a database proper.

But we also know that when Russ Feingold proposed several measures to protect this kind of incidental data during last year’s FISA debate, Mike McConnell and Michael Mukasey started issuing veto threats. For example, when Feingold proposed adding this amendment to the new FISA changes,

At such time as the Government can reasonably determine that a communication acquired under this title (including a communication acquired under subsection (a)(2)) is to or from a person reasonably believed to be located in the United States, such communication shall be segregated or specifically designated and no person shall access such a communication, except in accordance with title I or this section.

Mukasey and McConnell threw out a bunch of vague alarmist objections: …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:40 am

Our changing access to news

leave a comment »

A very good point:

Before we had asymmetrical warfare, we had asymmetrical access to the press.

When I was researching the seeming impossibility of understanding the lack of progress toward a peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine, I was surprised to find some scholarly work that focused on exactly this issue. For our purposes here, it’s enough to say his book investigated the parallels between the Irish/English, Palestinian/Israeli and the South African/Anti-Apartheid situations.

Much of the difficulty IMHO, and the author makes this clear in this analysis also, is that the power of the occupier is such that they control the way the world sees the issues framed, and of course it is in their interest to make sure that from the perspective of someone ‘outside‘ the conflict, everything appears to based in ‘mindless hatred’ and ‘centuries old tribal warfare’ or ‘deep religious divisions’.

The occupied are not only fighting the occupiers, but also the collective mis-understanding of the whole world, that insists it ‘knows‘ that the ‘problem‘ cannot be fixed because the ‘bad guys’, (read IRA, PLO, or ANC) are irrational players who refuse to ‘get with the program‘be reasonable’ or ‘civilized‘ or what ever false reason is being foisted on the consumers of the co-opted press who after all have no real stake in the conflict itself but none the less feel very strongly that they ‘know what is going on’.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:36 am

Posted in Mideast Conflict

What Obama must do

with one comment

Paul Krugman writes a long open letter to Barack Obama on the critical steps he must make to resolve the economic problems. It begins:

Dear Mr. President:

Like FDR three-quarters of a century ago, you’re taking charge at a moment when all the old certainties have vanished, all the conventional wisdom been proved wrong. We’re not living in a world you or anyone else expected to see. Many presidents have to deal with crises, but very few have been forced to deal from Day One with a crisis on the scale America now faces.

So, what should you do?

In this letter I won’t try to offer advice about everything. For the most part I’ll stick to economics, or matters that bear on economics. I’ll also focus on things I think you can or should achieve in your first year in office. The extent to which your administration succeeds or fails will depend, to a large extent, on what happens in the first year — and above all, on whether you manage to get a grip on the current economic crisis.

The Economic Crisis

How bad is the economic outlook? Worse than almost anyone imagined.

The economic growth of the Bush years, such as it was, was fueled by …

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:16 am

Morning note

with 3 comments

The 2-second pause is back in Firefox, so I downloaded and installed Safari to give that a go. Unfortunately, it crashes when I try to post something on my blog. So back to Opera, which of the three (Opera, Chrome, and Safari) seems to work best. A new version of Chrome is due out soon, though.

If you Google “firefox intermittent pause” or “firefox cpu spike”, you’ll see that the problem is common and widespread. It’s very strange that Mozilla seems to be uninclined to fix the problem. If you watch Task Manager’s Firefox entry, you can see it happening it real time.

Last night I watched American Gangster, which I thought was both good and interesting.

I think collards will be the greens for today, with some black beans.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:12 am

Posted in Daily life

Expertise: knowledge, not IQ

leave a comment »

Tad Worthington notes:

When scientists began to study expertise, they first assumed that experts must be smarter or more talented than novices, but they quickly learned that the key difference between experts and novices is not mental power, but knowledge. Cognitive psychologists Michelene Chi, Marshall Farr, and Robert Glaser have defined an expert as somebody who has a great deal of highly organized domain-specific knowledge, where a domain is a network of knowledge, such as chess, mathematics, or music. For experts, knowledge has morphed from many pieces into a unified whole. An expert can start with any piece of knowledge and explain how it fits with every other piece. I always picture the way Sherlock Holmes could start with a soil stain and, through a chain of reasoning, solve the case.

Understanding other people’s expertise can help you develop your own. Surprisingly, experts make mistakes, but experts catch and correct their mistakes faster than do novices. Experts take a long time to make sure they understand a problem. If you give an expert and a novice the same problem, the novice will immediately begin to try to solve it. The expert will reflect on the nature of the problem. From the outside, it will appear as if the expert is doing nothing and the novice is making progress. Once the expert understands the problem, she can solve it better and faster than can the novice.

Understanding expertise also helps you see where intuition comes in: it comes last. Experts do use intuition to solve problems, but it is a cultivated intuition resulting from at least 20,000 hours of on-task study. Intuition works as a guide only after experts have satu¬rated themselves with their field’s knowledge. Herbert Simon described expertise as follows:

“Counts have been made of the number of “friends” that chess masters have: the numbers of different configurations of pieces on a chessboard that are old familiar acquaintances to them. The estimates come out, as an order of magnitude, around fifty thousand, roughly comparable to vocabulary estimates for native speakers. Intuition is the ability to recognize a friend and to retrieve from memory all the things you’ve learned about the friend in the years you’ve known him. And of course if you know a lot about the friend, you’ll be able to make good judgments about him. Should you lend him money or not? Will you get it back if you do? If you know the friend well, you can say “yes” or “no” intuitively.”

Nobel laureate Louis Alvarez provides an example of how to learn the language of a domain. Louis and his son, Walter, were the first scientists to suggest that …

Continue reading.

Written by Leisureguy

18 January 2009 at 8:06 am

Posted in Daily life, Science

%d bloggers like this: