<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dont Know Much About Science Books</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books</link>
	<description>Building a conservatism that can win again</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: N K Whiton</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-118190</link>
		<dc:creator>N K Whiton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-118190</guid>
		<description>I enjoyed reading your column.  You are doing what I&#039;ve always wanted REP to do.  Tell the truth and let the chips fall...  When the R&#039;s get it right praise them and when they&#039;re wrong tell them and don&#039;t hesitate to admit when the D&#039;s get it right.  That&#039;s the only way to cut through the seemingly endless &quot;spin&quot; that hurts us all.  REP should be the reliable source of accurate information no matter what the daily republican party &quot;talking points&quot; are.  Who decides that stuff, anyway?  Is it limbaugh? hannity? boehner? rove? God? 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
&quot;Theory&quot;
 
You wrote: &quot; ...theories do not represent solidly established fact.&quot;  Saying that puts you solidly in the camp of those who believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation for species diversity because &quot;Evolution is only a theory.&quot;
 
To correct your misperceptions I have gathered some information for you.
 
From The Oxford English Dictionary, a definition for you: 
 
&quot;Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.&quot;
 
A Theory, in Science, is different from an unconfirmed hypothesis, a guess, a conjecture or a speculation.  Theories, in the Scientific sense, are not facts as laypeople think of facts.  Instead, Theories are based on facts, explain facts and synthesize facts.  Thus, Theories occupy a higher level of Scientific thought than facts.  A ball thrown into the air falls to earth - that is a fact.  The Theory of Gravity explains why it falls.  Evolution - change over time - is a fact.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains that fact and explains that fact so well that the Theory of Evolution has been accepted for more than a century.  Scientists have heated debates over specific mechanisms, but there is no doubt about the Theory itself.
 
These statements are not an attack on anyone&#039;s religious beliefs.  They are facts based on evidence.  
 
If someone&#039;s religious beliefs are in conflict with Scientific fact and/or Theory, that&#039;s their problem.  They have to deal with it.  The natural world will not change to fit someone&#039;s doctrine and doesn&#039;t care if someone is offended by it&#039;s reality.  
 
I respect everyone&#039;s right to freedom of conscience and belief, but I will fight them with all my strength if they try to bring their religious beliefs into public schools and/or into government policy.  I will not sit silent when someone trashes Science from their religious perspective.  Unfortunately for us, there exists a vocal minority who think that if Science conflicts with their beliefs, whether it&#039;s Evolution or Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, Science is wrong and Science must change.  They also try to rewrite the definition of Science to fit their religious doctrine.  If they succeed, America will lose it&#039;s Scientific and technological supremacy and the people of the world and the planet itself will suffer.   
 
The Big Bang Theory doesn&#039;t make sense to you?  I&#039;m sure you know that your lack of understanding has nothing to do with it&#039;s validity and acceptance by world-wide Scientific consensus.  I don&#039;t understand how music comes out of thin 4 1/2 &quot; diameter discs either but I love the sounds.  Get a copy of Stephen Hawking&#039;s &quot;A Brief History of Time.&quot;  By the time you get done reading it, you will understand The Big bang Theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I enjoyed reading your column.  You are doing what I&#8217;ve always wanted REP to do.  Tell the truth and let the chips fall&#8230;  When the R&#8217;s get it right praise them and when they&#8217;re wrong tell them and don&#8217;t hesitate to admit when the D&#8217;s get it right.  That&#8217;s the only way to cut through the seemingly endless &#8220;spin&#8221; that hurts us all.  REP should be the reliable source of accurate information no matter what the daily republican party &#8220;talking points&#8221; are.  Who decides that stuff, anyway?  Is it limbaugh? hannity? boehner? rove? God? </p>
<p>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p>
<p>&#8220;Theory&#8221;</p>
<p>You wrote: &#8221; &#8230;theories do not represent solidly established fact.&#8221;  Saying that puts you solidly in the camp of those who believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in public schools as an alternative explanation for species diversity because &#8220;Evolution is only a theory.&#8221;</p>
<p>To correct your misperceptions I have gathered some information for you.</p>
<p>From The Oxford English Dictionary, a definition for you: </p>
<p>&#8220;Theory: A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.&#8221;</p>
<p>A Theory, in Science, is different from an unconfirmed hypothesis, a guess, a conjecture or a speculation.  Theories, in the Scientific sense, are not facts as laypeople think of facts.  Instead, Theories are based on facts, explain facts and synthesize facts.  Thus, Theories occupy a higher level of Scientific thought than facts.  A ball thrown into the air falls to earth &#8211; that is a fact.  The Theory of Gravity explains why it falls.  Evolution &#8211; change over time &#8211; is a fact.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains that fact and explains that fact so well that the Theory of Evolution has been accepted for more than a century.  Scientists have heated debates over specific mechanisms, but there is no doubt about the Theory itself.</p>
<p>These statements are not an attack on anyone&#8217;s religious beliefs.  They are facts based on evidence.  </p>
<p>If someone&#8217;s religious beliefs are in conflict with Scientific fact and/or Theory, that&#8217;s their problem.  They have to deal with it.  The natural world will not change to fit someone&#8217;s doctrine and doesn&#8217;t care if someone is offended by it&#8217;s reality.  </p>
<p>I respect everyone&#8217;s right to freedom of conscience and belief, but I will fight them with all my strength if they try to bring their religious beliefs into public schools and/or into government policy.  I will not sit silent when someone trashes Science from their religious perspective.  Unfortunately for us, there exists a vocal minority who think that if Science conflicts with their beliefs, whether it&#8217;s Evolution or Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, Science is wrong and Science must change.  They also try to rewrite the definition of Science to fit their religious doctrine.  If they succeed, America will lose it&#8217;s Scientific and technological supremacy and the people of the world and the planet itself will suffer.   </p>
<p>The Big Bang Theory doesn&#8217;t make sense to you?  I&#8217;m sure you know that your lack of understanding has nothing to do with it&#8217;s validity and acceptance by world-wide Scientific consensus.  I don&#8217;t understand how music comes out of thin 4 1/2 &#8221; diameter discs either but I love the sounds.  Get a copy of Stephen Hawking&#8217;s &#8220;A Brief History of Time.&#8221;  By the time you get done reading it, you will understand The Big bang Theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mheer</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-38739</link>
		<dc:creator>Mheer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 00:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-38739</guid>
		<description>First, windmills do slow down the wind. That is a scientific fact. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. If you generate electricity, then you must take the energy out of the wind. The wind therefor slows down. Probably not enough to make this a cogent argument, but it is not untrue. I think this guy has no concept of scale. Which is partly what the AGW crowd fails to understand.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This is rich, the ignorant on the left making fun of the ignorant on the right. At least the guy on the right does understand physics a little.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, windmills do slow down the wind. That is a scientific fact. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. If you generate electricity, then you must take the energy out of the wind. The wind therefor slows down. Probably not enough to make this a cogent argument, but it is not untrue. I think this guy has no concept of scale. Which is partly what the AGW crowd fails to understand.This is rich, the ignorant on the left making fun of the ignorant on the right. At least the guy on the right does understand physics a little.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: barker13</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-43508</link>
		<dc:creator>barker13</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 15:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-43508</guid>
		<description>Re: Sinz54; 6:27 AM --&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Hmm... ESTABLISHMENT.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Nothing about &quot;endorsing.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;True.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Re: Sinz54; 6:54 AM --&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Again... the word you&#039;re looking for, Sinz, is &quot;ESTABLISH.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Yes, yes... we could spend weeks dueling case law, but stipulating that various Supreme Court decisions have to an extent linked &quot;establish&quot; to &quot;endorse&quot; and &quot;advocate,&quot; the truth is that by your logic we shouldn&#039;t be able to have &quot;In God We Trust&quot; on our money because... (the question of whether atheism should be treated as the &quot;religion&quot; of non-religion aside)... that favors a Unitary God over multiple gods or Satan or any other spiritual concept of a higher authority that isn&#039;t necessarily one single Higher Being.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Btw, Sinz... you ARE aware I assume that even after the Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land (inclusive of the Bill of Right) there were several states which had ESTABLISHED religions.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Indeed, Connecticut continued retain a &quot;state Church&quot; until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;BILL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Sinz54; 6:27 AM &#8211;&#8221;Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.&#8221;Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Hmm&#8230; ESTABLISHMENT.Nothing about &#8220;endorsing.&#8221;"We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe.&#8221;True.Re: Sinz54; 6:54 AM &#8211;&#8221;The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.&#8221;Again&#8230; the word you&#8217;re looking for, Sinz, is &#8220;ESTABLISH.&#8221;Yes, yes&#8230; we could spend weeks dueling case law, but stipulating that various Supreme Court decisions have to an extent linked &#8220;establish&#8221; to &#8220;endorse&#8221; and &#8220;advocate,&#8221; the truth is that by your logic we shouldn&#8217;t be able to have &#8220;In God We Trust&#8221; on our money because&#8230; (the question of whether atheism should be treated as the &#8220;religion&#8221; of non-religion aside)&#8230; that favors a Unitary God over multiple gods or Satan or any other spiritual concept of a higher authority that isn&#8217;t necessarily one single Higher Being.Btw, Sinz&#8230; you ARE aware I assume that even after the Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land (inclusive of the Bill of Right) there were several states which had ESTABLISHED religions.Indeed, Connecticut continued retain a &#8220;state Church&#8221; until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment.BILL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-49211</link>
		<dc:creator>djenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 11:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-49211</guid>
		<description>sinz54: What part of &quot;I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools&quot; do you not understand?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If your intent was to only address the issue of creationism being taught in schools, then be specific. You seemed to be attacking conservatives (like Huckabee) for their Christian beliefs. That is what I took issue with. Please do not read more into my comment than that.&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sinz54: What part of &#8220;I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools&#8221; do you not understand?If your intent was to only address the issue of creationism being taught in schools, then be specific. You seemed to be attacking conservatives (like Huckabee) for their Christian beliefs. That is what I took issue with. Please do not read more into my comment than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sinz54</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-54506</link>
		<dc:creator>sinz54</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-54506</guid>
		<description>danbmil99:  Actually, the First Amendment does not ban Government officials from advocating socialism (and Senator Bernie Sanders does).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I wonder how &quot;djenkins&quot; would feel if public school teachers, say in a heavily African-American area, began teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God and that Islam is the only true religion, to a classroom full of Christian students.&lt;br&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>danbmil99:  Actually, the First Amendment does not ban Government officials from advocating socialism (and Senator Bernie Sanders does).The First Amendment does NOT allow government officials to advocate any religion.I wonder how &#8220;djenkins&#8221; would feel if public school teachers, say in a heavily African-American area, began teaching that Jesus was not the Son of God and that Islam is the only true religion, to a classroom full of Christian students.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sinz54</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-47620</link>
		<dc:creator>sinz54</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-47620</guid>
		<description>djenkins:  The teaching of the Biblical model of creation, as if it&#039;s a legitimate scientific theory, does NOT belong in public schools or in any other government-run institution.  Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe.  But not everything we believe is scientific.  Science has discovered things about the origins of the Universe, the origins of the Earth, the origins of life on Earth, and the origins of Homo Sapiens.  Those are proper subjects for teaching in public schools.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The Biblical model of creation does not belong in public school or in any other goverment-run institution.  It can be taught anywhere else by anyone who does not have official government imprimatur.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;How would you feel if a public school somewhere in the United States taught the Hindu model of creation to students, as if it were the scientific truth?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>djenkins:  The teaching of the Biblical model of creation, as if it&#8217;s a legitimate scientific theory, does NOT belong in public schools or in any other government-run institution.  Thank God that we live in a nation where the First Amendment prevents the Government from endorsing any religion.We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want about the Universe.  But not everything we believe is scientific.  Science has discovered things about the origins of the Universe, the origins of the Earth, the origins of life on Earth, and the origins of Homo Sapiens.  Those are proper subjects for teaching in public schools.The Biblical model of creation does not belong in public school or in any other goverment-run institution.  It can be taught anywhere else by anyone who does not have official government imprimatur.How would you feel if a public school somewhere in the United States taught the Hindu model of creation to students, as if it were the scientific truth?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-43232</link>
		<dc:creator>djenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:22:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-43232</guid>
		<description>danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: djenkins</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-53956</link>
		<dc:creator>djenkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 10:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-53956</guid>
		<description>danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>danbmil99: You read more into my comment than was intended. I expressed no opinion one way or the other on the Oklahoma platform, or teaching creation in schools.sinz54 seemed to be broadly attacking any Christian conservative that believes that God created the heavens and earth, not just the the issue of what should be taught in our schools.A disdainful attitude towards religous belief by the more secular scientific-minded among us is one reason we have so many Christian conservatives reluctant to believe the warnings about climate change.While I am not willing to give a pass to those who selectively interpret the bible to justify personal or political biases, neither am I willing to give a pass to those who attack basic Christian beliefs.We need to reduce the polarization between science and religion if we are to win broad public support for addressing the current and future problems that scientific research identifies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danbmil99</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-39705</link>
		<dc:creator>danbmil99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 03:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-39705</guid>
		<description>replace socialism with communism.  It&#039;s really that incendiary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>replace socialism with communism.  It&#8217;s really that incendiary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: danbmil99</title>
		<link>http://www.frumforum.com/dont-know-much-about-science-books/comment-page-1#comment-41633</link>
		<dc:creator>danbmil99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 03:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-41633</guid>
		<description>djenkins: on creation &quot;science&quot;, the problem is that you are politicizing something that simply cannot be politicized, if you want to live in a free society.  This is the kind of nonsense that the USSR did and China probably still does.  Knowledge cannot be beholden to politics, nor can it be held hostage to the sensibilities of particular religious groups.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just as we cannot accept Muslim Americans practicing Sharia Law, we cannot, in a secular society, allow one denomination to bulldoze public policy on an issue as mission critical as educating our next generation.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You can teach whatever you want in Sunday School, but you really have to leave this one out of political discourse.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You really should read the Oklahoma platform.  It&#039;s an absolute disgrace.  It&#039;s as if the Vermont Dem platform promoted teaching socialism in school as the only way to free the proletariat.  That is exactly how this sort of thing makes rational, middle-of-the-road people like me feel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>djenkins: on creation &#8220;science&#8221;, the problem is that you are politicizing something that simply cannot be politicized, if you want to live in a free society.  This is the kind of nonsense that the USSR did and China probably still does.  Knowledge cannot be beholden to politics, nor can it be held hostage to the sensibilities of particular religious groups.Just as we cannot accept Muslim Americans practicing Sharia Law, we cannot, in a secular society, allow one denomination to bulldoze public policy on an issue as mission critical as educating our next generation.You can teach whatever you want in Sunday School, but you really have to leave this one out of political discourse.You really should read the Oklahoma platform.  It&#8217;s an absolute disgrace.  It&#8217;s as if the Vermont Dem platform promoted teaching socialism in school as the only way to free the proletariat.  That is exactly how this sort of thing makes rational, middle-of-the-road people like me feel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

