Monthly Archive for September, 2009

Modern Education Based on Poor System

Written by Atanamis. Published on September 30, 2009 ago in Essays and General. 17 Comments

On our forums recently, the following was posted (to the “weekly links” thread):

Written by: Jew

This is just great. Not content with trying to tackle the biggest, most complex problems in the world (peace in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and oh, health care in America), the President has decided to meddle with schools. President Obama proses longer schools days and shorter summer vacation.

No thanks, Mr. President. I’ve been to school before. School days at the public school are too long, not too short. Students spend too much time in class, not too little. Summer vacations should be longer.

I was home schooled. My school days were about 3 hours long, I could complete a full school year’s worth of work in 4 months, and I graduated ahead of most honors/AP students in terms of academic courses and college credit. Each day I would read my lessons, ask any questions I had of my teachers (my parents), and begin working on homework. Any questions my teachers could not answer they found someone who could. Any problems I got wrong we reviewed together to determine why I had gotten it wrong, and then I did more problems that focused on making sure I got it right in the future.

I will admit that I started out a privileged middle class kid with well educated parents and a decent IQ (sub genius though), but in my experience most time spent is classrooms in a massive waste of everyone’s time. I have had ONE class that made effective use of everyone’s time. The professor would walk into class every day, ask if anyone had questions from yesterdays reading, and after answering all questions would hand out a quiz. After the quiz, he would present the next reading assignment, expand on any subject he felt was inadequately covered by the textbook, and dismiss class. The tests were a concatenation of the quizzes. If you didn’t read the material and ask good questions, you failed.

ANY class where students don’t read ahead before class is a waste of time. Why should I have someone with 20 years of education wasting time teaching me what I can read out of a book? Why do we all have to be present in the same room for a lecture, when he could just record it at his leisure and email me a link? Only interactive sessions between a prepared class and a knowledgeable teacher makes any sense. The problem with our school system isn’t time spent in class, it is a fundamentally broken educational model combined with lack of expectations by teachers and parents. Until parents become more involved in their children’s education, our test scores will continue to drop.

The current system requires teachers to have extensive training in things like crowd management and presentation skills that simply shouldn’t be required to teach at the elementary or high school levels. In fact, the ONLY time such skills are needed is when presenting new information that has never been published! This level of learning only takes place at post-graduate levels, meaning that even bachelor’s level teachers don’t need it. At all lower levels, students should be expected to work individually on their subject and request help on an “as needed” basis. Students that require a lot of individual attention wouldn’t have learned from a lecture regardless, and those who don’t can race ahead of their peers

The “lecture” format simply holds back advanced students while failing to help those with greater need. With greater parental involvement, it becomes possible to have a rotating group of “tutors” for every 2-3 students who can escalate any questions they don’t know the answers to. No special knowledge is needed to do this! In colleges, many schools will allow any student who has taken a class to “TA” the class, and many students will attest that they learned more from their TA than from the professor. This is because the TA is doing REAL education by answering specific questions that a prepared student has come to after first struggling the concepts to be learned, while the professor is doing traditional “education” by lecturing to a group of unprepared people who cannot reasonably be expected to retain much of what they are hearing. Why is is that we insist on doing the one that doesn’t work, instead of making a greater effort to do the one that does work?

Links: The ‘Religious Right’ and Their Left Counterparts (‘Religious Left’?)

Written by Colin. Published on September 28, 2009 ago in Current Events. 12 Comments

A research study on religious political activists shows many key differences between the ‘religious right’ and their left counterparts (‘religious left’?): link.

Top Ten Ways to Convince the Muslims We’re On a Crusade

Politics
First They Came for the Marlboros

Senators are voting on what?

The Partisan Industrial Complex

Misc.
OpenOffice accepts Graphite software for version 3.2

Cursive writing may be fading skill, but so what?

New “Christian Edition” of Darwin’s Origin of Species Well Motivated, But Problematic

Written by Colin. Published on September 25, 2009 ago in Apologetics, Book Reviews and Religion. 14 Comments

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who should be heralded for the wonderful approach to evangelism with Way of the Master, have been consistently underwhelming with their apologetics work. Their Nightline debate with Atheists was a disaster – however, they presented the gospel (which was their main aim – although a little dubious if they claimed they were going to debate evolution).

Their latest effort is a “Christian” edition of the Origin of Species, which they will be handing out on college campuses. Here’s Kirk explaining:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN9zpf5cT0M&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Cameron gets a few things wrong in this video. Children are allowed to open up bibles and pray in public – that is a complete fabrication. And yes, there is a lot of controversy over displaying the ten commandments, but Kirk himself (unintentionally) explains why this is irrelevant:

There’s only one way to change the heart of a nation, and that is to change the sinful heart of the individual. And that’s through the power of the gospel.

If there is any statement that I firmly agree with – it is that statement. But this truth is why battles over the ten commandments, public schools and even the theory of evolution itself should be generally left alone by Christians. It is our job to share the gospel – not to argue over monuments, public schools or debate the origin of man.

The reality is that these things will be changed only when men are converted to Christ. And regardless of whether they are changed or not – those things are all going to burn. People are all that we can take with us to heaven.

The new Origin of Species will have the gospel message in it – and this is great. But most of the book is the same kind of pseudo-science and sketchy logic which has defined the Christian effort to combat evolution in the past few decades. This confuses the gospel message for those who are outside of Christ. It is a detriment to the gospel.

The question of combating evolution is best left to post-conversion conversation – it’s not anything that can save a person. No one is going to be saved by our (unconvincing) arguments against evolution. They are going to be saved by faith in Christ.

If there is anything I have learned in PhD study, it is that I know almost nothing substantial about anything. I have spent a lot of time learning about one narrow area of knowledge and yet I still feel like I am no expert on the subject. How much less do I know then about complicated things like biology, evolution and anthropology? Am I really so arrogant to think that I have a right (by wisdom or knowledge) to argue about these subjects on equal footing with people who have dedicated their lives to them?

But instead, I must trust in what I do know – that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. That God has saved me and made me righteous through the death of Jesus. It is this knowledge that enables me to deal with evolution and the issues of modern science – knowing unchangeable, unassailable truth about God. It doesn’t really matter to me what Darwin or other scientists have had to say about evolution because the knowledge of who God is and what he has done on my behalf is too overwhelming.

If Carmeron and Comfort want to make the biggest impact for Christ, then they will re-devote their energies to what is of first importance to the kingdom of God – boldly sharing the gospel.

Paying Extra To Sit on A Plane: Why “No Frills” Is the Way to Fly

Written by Colin. Published on September 24, 2009 ago in General. 7 Comments

A lot of people in the UK are up in arms about a new suggestion from low-budget airline Ryanair which will “make passengers stand” on flights. Assuming they get approval, the airline is planning on going forward with the idea as soon as possible.

A Ryanair spokesman told the newspaper: “If they approve it, we’ll be doing it.”

Mr O’Leary is reported to have got the idea from the Chinese airline Spring, which has put forward similar plans. It estimates space could be made for up to 50 per cent more passengers and costs could be cut by 20 per cent.

It is not the first time Ryanair has come up with a controversial proposal for cutting costs. Earlier this year Mr O’Leary suggested passengers could be charged £1 to use the on-board lavatories.

People have been grumbling a lot about the “reduction” in “free” airline services: meals, blankets, pillows, snacks, and even bathrooms (Ryanair charges for those too).

However, this is the wrong way to think about it. The reality is that people no longer are being required to pay for these things.

Take food, for example. It’s not as if there is no food available – in fact, now there are a lot more food choices on most flights – you just don’t have to pay. It used to be “chicken or fish?” – now one can get pizza hut, taco bell, salads and all kinds of food on planes at decent prices.

Before, when all food was “free,” you had to pay for food – whether it was good or bad. In fact, even if you didn’t eat any food, you still had to pay for it because it was built into the price of your ticket. And this was not just your own food, but you were also subsidising anyone who ordered special (and therefore, more expensive) meals as well.

The same is true of standing on planes – you have been paying for seating every time you fly – regardless of whether or not you like your seat. Every time you stand up, you are losing money and people who are sitting down are ripping you off

Or bathrooms – don’t go to a bathroom often on the plane? You are probably subsidizing people who frequently use bathrooms on planes. Your ticket includes the price of the bathroom in it. Only charging customers who use the bathrooms, saves other customers money.

Being asked to pay out of pocket provides customers with the freedom to chose what kind of services they actually want to use. And for those that pay, they have a stronger contract with the company to ensure quality in the extra services provided.

But They Will Just “Take” The Savings As Profit And Charge the Same Price
No doubt airlines would love to be able to do this, but they can’t. A competitive marketplace doesn’t allow it. Any airline which does not lower prices after reducing services will be out-competed by those companies which will.

Lowing fares is the motivation for Ryanair and others which are allowing customers more freedom to chose to pay for only what they use - because it can lower their fare prices and thus attract more customers. More customers (even when paying slightly per transaction) equals more revenue and more profit. Any airline which does not also reduce fares will lose customers to companies whose prices are lower.

For those who want an “all inclusive” airline experience, it’s about time YOU paid for it rather than charging all of us to subsidise your “full of frills” flight. As for me, I am happy to go from point A to point B, as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Links: Obama Implosion, Student Debt and Stossel to Fox

Written by Colin. Published on September 18, 2009 ago in General. 8 Comments

Why the Obama Administration Will Implode In Weeks. Cliff’s Notes version: health care reform fails, Obama is a serial exaggerator, unemployment, and a middle class tax hike.

As US Student Debt Grows: Many End Unable to Live the Life They Expected

From Fox News: Pledge of Confusion? Students in American public schools don’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance. But should they be informed of their right to not participate?

Global Warming “Takes a Break”

John Stossel, after 28 years, has left ABC for Fox News.

From StuffChristiansLike.com: How do you stack up on the “I want everyone online to know I’m married” scorecard?

Orson Scott Card’s latest column for MormonTimes talks about how the secular expectation for women to work is now a part of Mormon culture. Women are expected to work outside the home.

Science and The Bible: The Philosophy of Interpretation

Written by Colin. Published on September 15, 2009 ago in Philosophy, Religion and Theology. 27 Comments

I hear a lot of different ways in which bible-believing Christians (which I will define as Christians who at least believe the bible is divinely inspired) chose to reconcile both scientific methodology and propositions with the bible.

Some flat out don’t care about science or want to deal with anything that may challenge (or support) their faith.
Some acknowledge the usefulness and general truth of science but maintain it is in a separate domain as faith. Christianity and science are viewed as generally incompatible, but possibly true simultaneously.
Some Christians claim that they are indeed “scientific” about their Christianity – they cite archaeological data and Creation-science. They claim that “the facts” demonstrate that the bible is true – as if the bible is making scientific hypotheses in it’s claims which are verified or falsified by the empirical record.

It is with this final view that I find some problems, although these are not with results or the motives, but with the implicit legitimacy that it provides to the scientific method, which I believe is not generally applicable to the bible.

Just The Facts Ma’am
My first problem is with this idea that “the facts” of the bible can “prove” the claims of the bible without any kind of deductive logic about God or his nature. This is absurd. In any situation, there is no such thing as “the facts interpreting themselves.” Without some kind of deductive reasoning, external logic or theoretical framework, the facts are merely random, unrelated and independent events in history which say nothing about anything other than their most immediate causes and effects.

The natural sciences use empirical methodology to make propositions. A hypothesis is proposed and then summarily proven or falsified by some kind of testing or experimentation. This is perfectly legitimate in many instances – but in some places it is meaningless. The facts, for example, cannot tell us anything apodictically true about God. They cannot tell us conclusively, in an absolute sense, whether, for example, he loves us.

This is an inherent problem in empirical methodology – at best, we can have something which is hypothetically true. The love of God might be clear in one situation, but a never-ending supply of variables exist which requires further testing and preserves the agnosticism and “unknowableness”about the nature of God.

The cross, for example, tells us that at least as far as the facts of the cross are concerned, that God loves us. But then how can we quantify love again, when God orders mass executions or issues punishment? The “hypothesis” on God’s love derived from the cross does not translate in the same way to God’s actions in these situations. This leads to a lot of frustrated Christians and non-Christians, at a complete loss to explain and reconcile the seemingly inconsistent actions of God.

The Law of Logic
The solution to this is simple, but is completely a-scientific – that is, insofar as the natural sciences are concerned. It requires deductive, logical propositions to first be made about God, and then assembling the facts into this framework.

A lot of uneducated, simplistic and (dare I say) ignorant statements about this have been made (including by myself in the past) that, for example, a theory should be derived from the facts, not the other way around. This kind of thinking ignores literally millennia of philosophy, theology and applied logic in preference of a statement which is logically contradictory – after all, is that statement derived from the facts, or is it, itself, a claim on how to assemble facts into the way a pre-existing proposition declares?

Even the verse that “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalm 19:1) is only understood in light of a deductive theory on God. The heaven’s don’t show the cross. The heavens don’t show the virgin birth – despite what a lot of junk-quasi-Christian-feel-good-science would claim. But, if we assemble a logic-based doctrine of the cross, then a the events of history do fit into place and can illustrate or “declare the glory of God.”But without understanding “the glory of God” we have no way of measuring what, if anything, the heavens declare.

The Nature of Faith
This is why faith is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. “Faith” is not the willingness to ignorantly believe in faulty hypotheses. “Faith” is also not attempting to “prove” the bible by means which are not relevant to biblical propositions. Faith is trusting, holding and hoping in the deductive truths about God and his gospel – it is adopting a deductively “Christian” frame of reference and worldview. It is deliberately biasing, prejudicing and otherwise colouring one’s view in brazen defiance of many “scientific” hypotheses – in favour of the gospel.

Faith is deductive in nature. Biblical truth is also deductive in nature. Assuming that the bible is going to tell us more than random stories, facts and genealogies without bringing something to it is going to result in failure. This is not to say that there isn’t a role for hypothesising and empiricism in Christianity, but simply that such methodology cannot by definition teach us anything about the fundamental truths of our faith.

Why Yes Democrats, The Fire Department Should be Privatised

Written by Colin. Published on September 11, 2009 ago in General. 4 Comments

I have seen two recent videos by proponents of the Obama healthcare plan. One is done by a person who is obviously completely ignorant of economics and what things like “profit”, “risk” and “shareholders” mean outside of the rhetoric of the statist-left. The other is actually quite funny, but still kind of stupid.

Both of these videos make the argument that people should support public healthcare because we already have a “socialised” fire department. They think this argument helps their case?

I would just like to say that I would love to see a privatised fire department. Many fire departments currently do a great job – but this doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do better if they had those free-market elements that improve other services: competition, profit, consumer funding and so on.

The fire department is socialised, and of course things still work. Heck, I’d take England’s NHS over a lot of other healthcare systems – but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a lot better.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPq6_7AFsp4[/youtube]

Links: Late Links Better Than No Links?

Written by Colin. Published on September 8, 2009 ago in Current Events. 29 Comments

Healthcare Debate
People are far more likely to go hungry in an NHS hospital than in a prison, researchers have said.

Nobody’s listening when it comes to discussing healthcare in the town hall meetings.

An article arguing that the NHS in England’s greatest failure is it trying to be both a public service and a provider in a competitive market. To a large extent, it makes sense that the NHS in England is doing poorly because its funds are being used to assist its competition, something experienced to a much lesser degree in Wales and Scotland which still tote the ‘socialist’ line.

God and Government
A New Hampshire court has ruled that a ten-year-old girl must attend public school, because “the girl was found to ‘lack some youthful characteristics,’ in part because she ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on question of faith.’” Her mother had been homeschooling the girl when her father sued “because he believes home-schooling deprives her of socialization skills.” The mother is appealing with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund. The court ruling is here: KurowskiOrder.pdf

A video of Ben from Ben & Jerry’s about the federal budget and military spending in terms of Oreo cookies (along with ad advert for people to join the political group).

Michael Moore takes a shot at free market capitalism in his latest movie. Ironically however, this film probably won’t change much as it does not escape the capitalism it critiques.

Wacky-Jacky
‘Bumpaholics’ crave the belly-rubbing high: An article from Women’s Health magazine says that women have big families (that is, more than two children) “for many of the same reasons that substance abusers turn to booze or drugs.”

A company called StraighterLine is offering all-you-can-eat online college courses for $99 a month. The courses are for credit too, through affiliation with accredited partner universities, so they can be transfered pretty much anywhere just like any other class.

This extremely graphic clip from a larger video about the dangers of texting while driving has been getting some airplay on both sides of the pond. It was originally put on YouTube to show a few friends of the person producing/directing, but it was picked up by some random people and spread from there.

CNN: Oh the Humanity! Organs are Being SOLD!

Written by Colin. Published on September 1, 2009 ago in General. 6 Comments

CNN has demonstrated yet again that journalists tend to be completely ignorant of the basic economic laws governing the world, putting up this ridiculous article lamenting the fact that 1,500 and 2,000 people in the US alone, who would otherwise be dead, were able to secure much needed organ transplants. The heinous and evil crime? They paid for them.

CNN is of course crusade-like moralistic language to describe their “worldwide CNN investigation into what appears to be a widespread black market in human organs currently under scrutiny by authorities in the United States and Israel.”

Hey DailyKos, I’m A Real Libertarian

Written by Kenneth Martens. Published on September 1, 2009 ago in Politics. 5 Comments

From DailyKos comes the Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian. DailyKos lists of a bunch of reasons why most self-proclaimed libertarians are just Republicans who have ditched the label as Bush’s poll numbers dropped. As a certified* Christian libertarian, I’d like to respond.

10. If you think Ron Paul isn’t conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.
Well, not all libertarians think Ron Paul is hot stuff, although I personally am a big fan. His support for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, his reluctance to support gay marriage, and his pro-life views make many libertarians uneasy. I suppose you could make the case that all those positions make Ron Paul too conservative rather than not conservative enough, so let’s give DailyKos the benefit of the doubt here.

As for Fox News, I have to agree with DailyKos on this one, too. I rarely watch Fox News anymore. I do sometimes go to FoxNews.com, and it’s a filthy pool of smut. There are weekly columns by a “Sexpert” who apparently gives tips on sex. Then there are the frequent links to slideshows of celebrities in bikinis, celebrities with their new boyfriends, celebrities giving interviews to Maxim, “articles” about celebrity sex tapes, or whatever. I always browse with images turned off because Foxnews.com is just that bad.

9. If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there’s a chance you’re dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you’re a Libertarian.
It doesn’t take long for DailyKos to start lying. Nobody attended a Presidential townhall lecture with an assault rifle. The man with the assault rifle–identified only as Chris–attended a rally nearby a convention center in Arizona where Obama was giving a speech–not a townhall meeting. DailyKos is conflating that incident with another incident in New Hampshire where a protester legally carried a handgun outside (again, not attending) an Obama townhall lecture. Both men carried their weapons legally, and neither man “brandished” their weapon. Further, the Arizona incident was a staged publicity stunt, a fact which DailyKos knows unless they are completely incompetent.

Finally, let’s pick apart the comment about “arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt.”

They were not at a Presidential townhall meeting, they were in St. Paul, MN for the Republican National Convention
They were protesters, not participants
They were not inside, they were singing and dancing in the street
They were not arrested for wearing pink shirts. They were arrested for disorderly conduct. Police moved them onto the sidewalk (instead of the street), and they responded by crawling under a fence to escape the police cordon

8. If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you’re really a Libertarian.
This is nothing but a mean-spirited attack on Republicans. DailyKos links to a poll which asked respondents “Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?” That’s not a sensible question, of course, because Medicare is a government program. Someone who was asked that question might interpret it to mean “Do you think that, in the midst of this debate on healthcare, we should keep politics and partisanship out of Medicare?” Of course Republicans would answer Yes more often than Democrats–because Republicans are wary of any changes that threaten to expand government control over the health care industry.

But without knowing how respondents actually interpreted the faulty question, we can draw no meaningful conclusions from the data. The poll is a joke, and DailyKos is intellectually dishonest for referencing it.

7. If you rank [Antonin] Scalia and Roy Moore among the greatest Justices of all time, you may be [profanity] [profanity] crazy, but you’re probably not a Libertarian.
Rating justices is complex, because although a good justice should uphold the Constitution, the Constitution is not always libertarian. It’s simply not possible to correctly interpret the Constitution and always arrive at a good, libertarian answer. Nevertheless, some justices are better than ever, and Scalia is one of them. Scott Turow wrote a New York Times article in 2006 that suggests Scalia is becoming a strong civil libertarian. Not all libertarians agree, of course, but respect for Justice Scalia does not automatically make one a Republican.

6. You might not be a Libertarian if you think recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling should be illegal because that’s what Jesus wants.
Now DailyKos has decided to insult Christians as well as Republicans. Thanks. But DailyKos does have a point: libertarians oppose laws that criminalize drugs, sex, and gambling. Christian libertarians take a nuanced position that recognizes drug abuse, prostitution, and gambling as sin, but also understands that the government has no authority to criminalize them.

5. If you think the separation between church and state applies equally to all faiths except socially conservative Christian fundamentalism, you’re probably not a Libertarian.
On the other hand, if you acknowledge the historical (and present!) role of Christianity in America, you can still be a libertarian. Christianity is an important part of America and played–still plays–a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s values.

4. You’re probably not a Libertarian if you believe the federal government should remove safety standards and clinical barriers for prescription and OTC medications while banning all embryonic stem cell research, somatic nuclear transfer, RU 486, HPV and cervical cancer vaccination, work on human/non human DNA combos, or Plan B emergency contraception.
DailyKos is just plain wrong here, because they don’t consider the position of Christian libertarians. A Christian libertarian (of the minarchist variety) objects to government regulations into the pharmaceutical industry except in cases involving human life. That means a libertarian Christian can consistently hold to his libertarian principles while opposing:

embryonic stem cell research (it involves murdering human beings)
somatic nuclear transfer (a technique used in stem cell research which involves murdering human beings)
RU 486 (the abortion pill, which murders unborn human beings)

I think you get the point.

3. If you think state execution of mentally retarded convicts is good policy but prosecuting Scott Roeder or disconnecting Terri Schiavo was an unforgivable sin, odds are you’re not really a Libertarian.
Even libertarians understand the difference between a) punishment for a crime, and b) deliberately letting a helpless invalid die. Many libertarians will object to capital punishment, and many have no problem with disconnecting Terri Schiavo, but it’s quite possible to hold the other view and still be a good libertarian.

Scott Roeder is the man accused of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller. For libertarians who believe that life begins before birth, abortion is murder. Roeder’s actions could be construed as justifiable, if he acted to prevent the murder of the unborn. I still have to say that the killing of Tiller is murder, regardless of his chosen profession, and I hope his killer is found and convicted. However, I can understand how a libertarian–or anyone who believes that the unborn are human beings–might disagree.

2. If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann.
A libertarian would probably argue that public schools should be abolished. But failing that, at the very least, public schools should be allowed to operate as their communities want–not the way some federal or state politician or bureaucrat decide. If the community wants to teach their children about the Old Testament, they should have that right. Libertarians will not–as DailyKos seems to think–side with the federal or state government when it cracks down on what can be taught in schools.

1. And the number one sign: if you think government should stay the hell out of people’s private business — except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman’s uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.
I alluded to the abortion issue earlier. A libertarian who believes life begins before birth can consistently and logically be pro-life. But yeah, on the other issues, a libertarian would have a hard time defending warrantless wiretaps or secret prisons.

* That’s not true. I don’t have a certificate. But I do have an NRA membership card, and I have voted for Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, and Bob Barr.