The War On Science
In an earlier post I emphasized our need to protect the modern approach to science, stating that the U.S. may be headed toward a crisis if we don’t reverse current trends. One of my readers wanted to know in what sense I see the country falling behind in the science arena. It wasn’t hard to find information regarding this subject. Indeed, articles seemed to come flooding my way, including one about political influence at NASA in my local paper the very next morning.
Among numerous areas, I am mostly concerned about a (1) watering-down of science in lower level education (the infiltration of Intelligent Design being a symptom), (2) drops in the number of students in higher education science majors, (3) the current political climate which is stifling scientific input, and (4) increased competition from Asian countries who are advancing at a time when we are declining.
There are numerous reasons for our downward trend. Some of it has to do with political priorities run amok. Some of it is a disdain for science and the Religious Right’s new influential voice in the United States. Much of it has to do with the media’s tendency to create enormous hype based on one study. Their headlines announce definitive results when the data is actually preliminary.
To exacerbate the problems, Americans who don’t know the Scientific Method fall for the misleading news headlines. Later on, conflicting results from another study discourages them. They come to the conclusion that scientific results are inconsistent and untrustworthy. This has all contributed to an overall disinterest in the field that is necessary for our continued existence.
Let me start with a most scandalous scenario that highlights political corruption of science.
Last month, NASA public affairs officer, George Deutsch, resigned because of accusations that he was filtering information from NASA. He blocked reporters’ efforts to interview NASA’s top climate scientist whose findings contradict the policies of the Bush Administration. If you are wondering if Deutsch is a presidential appointee, you are correct. He is an appointee confirmed to have lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M.
We’ve heard numerous stories of this religious administration ignoring scientists whose findings don’t support conservative policy. This shouldn’t be a complete surprise.
In another effort to influence science, Deutsch was filtering scientific information by requiring NASA’s Web Designer to add the word, “theory,” to all mentions of the Big Bang. While it is, indeed, a theory, it is so in the sense that scientists use the word, not in the sense that non-scientists use it. Deutsch’s insistence on adding this word to the work of scientist is only an effort to cast doubt on scientific findings.
Here is an interesting excerpt from an article in the Florida Sun Sentinel regarding a hearing before Congress. I am sorry it is no longer available on the website:
The debate began three weeks ago after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused a political appointee in the office of public affairs of muzzling his views on global warming because they conflicted with those of the Bush administration.
Career public-affairs officers in the agency have since stated that interviews were denied to news organizations deemed too “liberal” and pressure was applied to hold down the number of news releases on earth science.
“It is entirely appropriate for the administration to announce or espouse whatever political views they have,” Griffin said. “It is not appropriate for scientists at an executing federal executive agency to be required to adjust, skew, alter or frame the tone of their scientific work to fit any particular political agenda.”
U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., expressed concern about the issue during his opening remarks Thursday.
“It [the Hansen situation] has become apparent that it isn’t isolated,” Gordon said. “I’m afraid this censorship permeates this entire administration, NASA being no exception.”
He is correct. The disgraces reaches past NASA according the the censured Hansen:
Hansen did however sympathize with the plight of scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
“My colleagues at NOAA have told me their problems are worse,” he said. “They have to have a listener on the phone every time they talk to the press to examine what they are saying. This seems more like something Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia would do.”
The question is, is it a crisis when the ruling political party of non-scientists censure the work of real scientists because it may sway the public opinion of their policy? Absolutely.
Let’s move on to Education. Here are some statistics and a summary from an article in Reader’s Digest called Losing the Global Edge:
* Several of our key agencies for scientific research and development will face a retirement crisis within the next ten years.
* Less than 6% of our high school seniors plan to pursue engineering degrees, down 36% from a decade ago.
* In 2000, 56% of China’s undergraduate degrees were in the hard sciences; in the United States, the figure was 17%.
* China will likely produce six times the number of engineers next year than we will graduate, according to Mike Gibbons of the American Society for Engineering Education. Japan, with half our population, has minted twice as many in recent years.
There are many more unnerving developments, and they add up to this: As other countries create the learning centers and jobs to hang on to their best and brightest, the United States is losing a dependable pipeline of talent. Moreover, we are doing remarkably little to educate and train a next generation of scientists and engineers.
An article called Our Looming Science Crisis, from The American Enterprise Online, explains the crisis from a business standpoint:
As Craig Barrett, Intel’s CEO, put it, “We still do a very, very poor job of educating our kids” in science and math. In a comparison of high school graduates in the world’s top 25 countries, “an American kid is, on average, near the bottom 10 percent.”
The trouble begins in high school, or earlier, but it is showing up dramatically now in America’s high-tech universities and businesses. According to a 2004 National Science Foundation study, fewer U.S. undergraduates were enrolled in math and engineering courses in 2000-02 than in the mid 1980s. In 1975, South Korea and Taiwan had just two science and engineering degree earners per 100 college-age citizens; in 2000, that number was 11. In the U.S., the ratio has languished–just 6 percent in 2000.
Without foreign enrollment, the U.S. figures would be far worse. The majority of recipients of doctoral degrees in mathematics, computer science, and engineering at American universities today are not U.S. citizens.
In the past, the U.S. has benefited from these foreign graduates, since many have chosen to stay here, joining American companies or starting their own. But now, as prosperity increases back home, many are returning. It’s hardly surprising that American high-tech firms are looking abroad for research and development.
If a lack of interest in the vital field of science weren’t enough, educator and scientist, Lynn Margulis, describes a serious problem with the actual textbooks available to schools. In American Scientist Online, Lynn describes how the profit-based business of creating textbooks hijacks the books’ actual educational value:
Science for schools is written, controlled and produced by publishers whose goal is to sell materials in huge quantities to avoid sales taxes. Qualified scientists and teachers are not paid for comprehensibility, accuracy or logic, but rather bribed to rapidly approve “content” that no one understands. Such beleaguered experts rush to meet publishers’ deadlines for “up-to-date” consumer products that quickly earn money. To maximize profit, books, digital media, supplies, even equipment are planned to be obsolete within the academic year.
Ron sent me a link to a fabulous article on Panda’s Thumb. Professor Herbert Kroemer, who won the 2000 Nobel Prize for Physics, has activated himself in what I call the War On Science. He warns that Intelligent Design’s attacks on Evolution are actually “attacks on science itself — all of science.”
Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind. Indeed, many of the attackers of biological evolution attack those scientific disciplines as well. But these disciplines do not exist in isolation; they are areas where the recognized laws of physics are rigorously applied to the specific problems of the field. To attack them is an attack on physics itself, and with it an attack on the Galilean idea that the laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on scriptural traditions: We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.
Professor Kroemer got his inspiration from physicist Marshall Berman who had an essay published by the American Physical Society:
Our nation is paying a heavy price for having failed to teach students critical thinking skills, reasoning, and good science for several generations. The consequences are an appalling science illiteracy among most Americans. In a recent survey (NSF, 2000), about half the respondents did not know:
* The earliest humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs.
* It takes Earth one year to go around the Sun.
* Electrons are smaller than atoms.
* Antibiotics do not kill viruses.Dr. Jon Miller, Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, studies American views on and knowledge of science. His data reveal some major gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are. Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth (Dean, C., 2005).
Going back to the words of warning from Kroemer, I’d like to end my post with his admonition, and my own plea with AgnosticMom readers to get engaged:
Attacks on science are of concern not just to scientists; they threaten the continued prosperity and security of our entire nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States. If we wish to continue to prosper in this environment we need, first and foremost, a work force that is highly educated in science, and capable of mastering advancing technologies based on continuing advances in science. The United States public education system below the university level has never put a sufficiently high value on science to permit filling this need with US-born individuals alone, but we were always able to fill the shortfall with immigrants. Attacks on science, if not rejected by the American public, will further reduce the already-too-low percentage of US citizens who opt for a science-oriented education, and at the same time they will reduce the attractiveness to foreign citizens of coming to the United States for an education or a career in science and in technologies based on continuing advances in science.
So, what role will you play in the War On Science? What will you do to fight it?
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
March 12th, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Hi,
I just happened to stumble across your blog while surfing. I’m enjoying it! (I’m another agnostic/pantheist/really UU mom raising my family in a world that is indeed wonderful but not very friendly sometimes).
I am a government scientist and have been very concerned (understatement) at the way this administration is misusing/misinterpreting science. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a website where they’ve been compiling examples of this for several years. It’s frightening.
What more do you expect from an administration where the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (James Inhofe) is encouraging the public to read Michael Crighton’s novel “State of Fear” if they are interested in learning about climate science…rather than, of course, any of the many documents that are extensively peer reviewed and written for the general public for this very reason by the Internation Panel on Climate Change.
Take care,
Jen
March 13th, 2006 @ 12:56 am
As you may remember, both of my kids are involved in the arts - one a singer, the other a poet (and singer.) As I was a theatre major myself, and my wife a playwright and English teacher, we have, of course, enthusiastically supported both of them in their chosen endeavors.
However, when both were in grade school, they displayed interest and talent in science and math. Both did well with their grades and were active in various science related activities. Both were enthusiastic about the yearly science projects required of them as early as the 3rd grade.
Unfortunately, when they reached high school - a catholic institution, they found the math and science courses uninspired and uninspiring. The chemistry/physics teacher had been teaching for nearly 30 years and continued to do so much the same way as he had done when he started. He repeatedly performed what my kids felt were silly, and even sometimes dangerous demonstrations in class. He often read directly from the text but subsequently tested the students on material which had been inadequately presented or not presented at all.
The best that my kids can say about any of the math teachers they had while there was that most were just “bitchy.” I’m not quite sure what that means, but the net result was that both of my kids gravated away from the sciences and math and toward the arts.
I love the arts, and I believe that they are vital to a healthy society. But, I am also aware of the importance of encouraging our children to consider the sciences as a field of study and subsequently, a profession. The US is in danger of becoming a backwater nation, a land of poorly educated, superstitious Neanderthals.
I have long been aware of people who are suspicious of education. How a number of people wear their ignorance like a badge of honor. That “aw shucks” mentality of people who disdain the “intelligensia.” Who disparage “book lernin.”
It is just this attitude that in effect denies our very nature, our uniqueness as sentient, rational beings. It is the stuff of creationists, of IDers. It is at the heart of the radical fundamentalist’s literal interpretation of the christian bible. It is they who disparage of the biting of the apple, who rue the opening of Pandora’s box.
Science is the stuff of wonder. As a field of study, it can be very difficult. The standards of performance are high. It can no doubt be intimidating. It is up to us as parents, grandparents, teachers and simply members of society to demand more of our schools and our government, and to encourage our children to venture forth into the wondrous and sometimes scary world of scientific research.
TLS
March 13th, 2006 @ 6:41 am
Terry S.–I relate to your story. My parents seem to be leary of science and education. While I found biology to be enjoyable, science was my weakest area in school. I never took Physics or Chemistry as it made no sense to me. When I took the ACT my senior year I couldn’t find a single question in the science section that I remotely understood. I closed the book and filled in random circles!
Believe it or not, it wasn’t until I went to a Mormon University, BYU, that I began to understand science. It was also there that I was taught adequately about Evolution. The instructor taught us that Evolution does not contradict religion, even Mormon religion. So there is a disparity between many BYU students who accepted this, and the rest of the members who believe evolution is evil.
I always participated in the arts, myself. I am a dancer and singer. I also acted, but I’m horrible at acting. I love music and would like to take up painting some day. My husband bought me everything I need to try painting, and I tried for a short while, but there are too many other things more important to me that occupy my time. I consider my scrapbooking to be paper-art. I hope to return to painting someday.
It really wasn’t until religion began to make no sense to me that I looked to science for answers. Biology is still my strongest point, as I don’t really comprehend the other areas of science.
I DO understand its importance, though, which is why I talk about it so much. My son has an appreciation for art, but a stronger mind for science. My daughter is an artist through and through. We expose them to both. But Trinity takes dane and music classes, while Blake participates in science workshops.
On the other hand, our talk of science and the scientific educational toys which my kids love seems to bother my parents! My mom asked me why we have them.
March 13th, 2006 @ 10:08 am
Noell, who was your biology prof at BYU?
Your post is spot on, by the way. We’ve been looking (as a nation) at how we stack up in science education for more than 30 years, and it stacks up this way: In 4th grade, our kids are at the head of the pack of industrialized nations. By 8th grade, they are in the middle of the pack. And by 12th grade, several other industrialized nations have better achievement. We’re doing something wrong between 4th and 12th grade — maybe even all the way through.
You reference a war on science, but did you mention Chris Mooney’s book? (Here’s a link to Mooney’s blog, which features a plug for his book: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/)
March 13th, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Ed Darrell–Darn, I thought I was being cute. I clicked on the link and saw the title to Chris Mooney’s book. No, I had not heard of him nor his book. I should have known my little title would not be an original.
I do not remember the name of my Bio. Prof. That was about 13 years ago when I had that class?
Jenn-I have a comment to make on the Michael Crighton bit. That’s pretty funny. I’ll be responding in a new post in the next couple of days.
March 13th, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Actually, I had started to read Mooney’s book a few weeks ago, but got side tracked. I had gotten it from the library, and it came due with others requesting it, so I had to return it. It seemed like an excellent read. I’ll get it again.
It is kind of funny, but with the proliferation of forensics shows on network TV - CSI this and that, NCIS, Crossing Jordan among others, there has been an increase in kids majoring in forensic sciences in the last couple of years. Maybe some will spill over into other scientific disciplines. Now, if we can just find a way to jazz up quantam physics, chaos theory, genetic engineering or nanotechnology to be palatable for prime time TV watchers, look out! We might get some kick-ass nanites.
TLS
March 13th, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
It is a heavy and steel spiked gauntlet you have tossed out to anchor your latest post regarding actions supportive of science. In an attempt to rise to the challenge, I would suggest a two tiered approach. First make sure your own house is in order and second, try to spread as much influence as you can. Both are tasks the motivated individual can perform.
Getting one’s house in order requires that there is an internal agreement that science is important and should be vigorously supported. I personally don’t see how someone can be religious and take this position but if a religious person chooses to support science, so be it. I can only speak from the secular perspective, but it was important, for me at least, to have my philosophical concepts clear to understand WHY I feel it is important to support science.
Once one has a clear understanding of the role science does and should play in the grand scheme of things, the second step is to get informed about science. Knowledge of the history and the current activities is very desirable. Some of the biographical stories of discovery read like modern drama stories. There are exciting tales of courage against religious persecution, courage in the face of serious personal risks from disease in some cases and radiation in the case of the Curies and courage of conviction through horrible living conditions.
Go to the library or subscribe to some of the publications relating to modern science. These range from the simplest like “Popular Science” to some of the more sophisticated like “Scientific American”, “New Scientist” published in England or “American Scientist” the publication of the Sigma Xi honor society. They all give a very broad coverage of almost all the sciences. One can also read some of the publications on the net and there are hundreds of them. As my professors use to say, “The motivated student will seek them out!” Of course there was no Internet then and they were referring to books.
Read about what the government is doing. It is all over the net. The couple of sites that Noell linked to are good starting places. Watch for what you think are problems then find out what elected officials are involved and do whatever you can to get rid of them. Write your congressmen. You do have their contacts in you computer don’t you? Here in California it is easy to contact the office and find out what issues relating to science are active.
Go to school board meetings and ask embarrassing questions about the plans to improve the science teaching. Vote for school bonds if you have any thought that they will benefit science education. Go to the local schools and talk with the science teachers and see if there is anything you can do to help, even if it is just volunteering to drive on field trips. They’ll check you out first but that’s as it should be.
If you have young children, explore their interest in science. I’m not a big fan of pushing them into it. There needs to be a certain type of personality and at least a spark of interest.
I could go on and I’m sure you probably have as many more ideas that could be added with little effort. The point is, there is a LOT that can be done to help support science. We are the beneficiaries.
I have been down every road I mentioned above.
Having worked in the world of high technology as an engineer, manager and teacher for 32 years I think I have a perspective that goes beyond the usual percentages of students in scientific studies and US vs. foreign student ratios. The problem of lowering enrollment in science is complex, pervasive and systemic.
The IMHO the primary motivation for a student to enter into science studies is personal interest. The chances of convincing an uninterested student to enter the field are slim at best. However, if a person is not exposed to something, they have little chance of forming a positive or negative opinion. The place for that exposure is at an early age. Elementary school age is ideal. If a child expresses an interest in anything scientific, that spark needs to be nurtured. This may be a simple interest in prehistoric animals or insects or pets. But it may also be indicated in personality traits such as attention to detail, curiosity about how things work, a leaning toward seeing things in black and white or a tendency to think of alternate ways or changes that ought to be made.
Clearly these are signs that need to be recognized by a parent or school teacher. But the unmotivated parent and the teacher with 30 children in a class has little chance of recognizing, let alone nurturing such a child’s interest. Very few parents would be interested in pushing toward science because they want to have the child get exposed to as many options as possible. Unfortunately, this tends to be the modus operendi all the way through to graduation. Too late!!
If there is a student that is interested in science, how much and what is the quality of their exposure to science in high school? The design of the modern high school curriculum is almost like a junior college and with few exceptions, the classes are mostly electives. If adequate enrollment in a class is not achieved, the class is not offered. The teachers and school administration do not have adequate visibility to plan a stable set of class offerings.
When I was in high school, I had to make a decision in 8th grade about my high school program. I chose “College Preparatory, Scientific”. My classes for grades 9 – 12 were fixed from then on. My only option was which foreign language I would take. But the school knew how many students would be taking every class years in advance and could make plans.
Noell has pointed out the horror show in text books and it is rampant. I have looked at the books for our local high schools and they are simply a basket case. Many science students must take AP courses offered in the local colleges to get quality material.
Now the interested student heads for either a 4 year school at $20,000 a year and up or a junior college that, at least in my area, is flooded with foreign students who are all competing for the same classes taught in many cases by a foreign-born instructor that is very difficult to understand. My son, an engineering grad, teamed up with other students more than once to petition administration to change professors because they could not be understood. So the student, now identified as Number 506785, struggles through lecture halls with 600 students at a time and “blue book” exams with another 300 students. Typically, fewer that 1/3 of the students ever graduate at the Bachelor Degree level.
Assuming our interested student graduates, the job market may be at high or low ebb. In the late 1960’s, the corporation I worked for went from 33,000 employees to 9,000 employees in two years. The chances of a top engineering college grad getting a job were zero! Many engineers became real estate agents and tire salesmen or opened ice cream shops vowing that none of their children would ever go into technology.
Once in a corporation, the norm is more than 40 hour work weeks if they want to keep their job, say nothing to getting ahead. Then after they have been on the job for 10 years and their education has been depreciated away due to the rapid changes in technology, they become candidates for layoff so that new fresh talent can be brought in at a lower salary. Of course, our motivated engineer can continuously go to night school and get advance degrees if they have an understanding spouse.
Finally, if lucky enough and talented enough to have done a good job of career management the engineer finds they are nearing retirement and now have the “Golden Handcuffs”. They are too old to change companies because their retirement program is not portable and the company can lower their salary with no complaints because the engineer has no choice. In fact, the engineer finds that the company can invoke the “at will” agreements and change the retirement program as they see fit. Fortunately most did not but times are changing. Major corporations are changing from defined benefit to defined contribution programs. Many corporations are under no legal obligation to do such things as keep paying health benefits to retirees no matter what the promises were when the employees retired.
I personally was very fortunate. I knew I wanted to be an engineer from the 6th grade. I had parents that encouraged me every step of the way from tolerating glue and fuel from model airplanes and who knows how many ruined clocks and radios to support almost beyond their means in college. I worked for a great company for 32 years and an understanding spouse tolerated years of night school for advance degrees. I enjoyed my career and now am retired. But that is a VERY rare scenario today. In the world of aerospace engineering, the engineers coined the term “aerobraceros” for a reason. They simply had to go with the company that had the contracts for some aerospace project. Lockheed, Grumman, General Dynamics, North American, Boeing, TRW were like revolving doors on opposite ends of the country. It is a tough profession and as I indicated in the beginning, it takes an interested, highly motivated and smart enough person to be successful and there are many competing careers.
March 13th, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
Wow!
March 13th, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
I can provide some small confirmation of one of the points you posted:
When I was in grad school in Mathematics (Rutgers) about half of the grad students were foreign. I don’t know what proportion of the foreign students went back to their countries of origin, but I know of at least one who not only went back to his home country (France), but took one of the American Math Ph.D.s with him (me)
March 13th, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
p.s. I learned about evolution at BYU from Prof. Rushforth.
I really liked his class. I don’t remember him saying anything about it not contradicting Mormon teachings, but I wasn’t really listening for that…
March 14th, 2006 @ 7:10 am
We had an entire lecture on how Evolution doesn’t contradict Mormon doctrine! We got a handout with an list of quotes from various General Authorities stating how they can co-exist.
I remember being in Relief Society (the woman’s organization–we were in the regular Sunday meeting having a lesson) and my friend was teacing. She read a quote from one of the older prophets saying that “we were created in the image of God. We did NOT descend from apes.”
Ok, techinally the guy was right. But that’s not the point. My friend said, “I don’t care what they told my husband at BYU. It says right here that Evolution is wrong and I showed this to him. I’m right and he’s wrong.”
It’s interesting, because that quote came from a recent manual. The Church said they handpicked statements from the Mormon prophets, the most relevant ones, and made the newer manuals out of them. This means that even though they allow Evolution to be acknowledged at BYU, but they purposely included a quote in the standard lesson manual that will lead members to think it is wrong.
March 14th, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Greg100, science is important to establish justice. For that reason alone, any truly religious person should support it, I believe.
March 14th, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Noell,
I know of one incident at BYU in which a religion prof had accused a biology prof of teaching evolution. In the tussle that followed, it was determined there is no church doctrine against evolution, and that teaching that there is, is false doctrine. The religion prof was sent packing.
I’ve lived outside of Utah for nearly 30 years now. I sometimes wonder if the Mormons aren’t making a turn towards standard fundamentalism — but then, even fundamentalism didn’t include creationism as part of its doctrine, originally.
March 14th, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
I know that this is an overused illustration on my part but I feel I should stress it time and time again to remain consistant. If we take a religious philosophy and place it in our courthouse we open up our justice system to all sorts of scrutiny , because every religious or spiritual entity should be given equal time . Now think about this. If all of this were to come about wouldnt we create a circus atmosphere thus negating the real purpose of the justice system .
March 15th, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
[...] In response to my post, The War On Science, a new reader, Jenn, made this humorous (unless you think it is sad) comment: What more do you expect from an administration where the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (James Inhofe) is encouraging the public to read Michael Crighton’s novel “State of Fear” if they are interested in learning about climate science…rather than, of course, any of the many documents that are extensively peer reviewed and written for the general public for this very reason by the Internation Panel on Climate Change. [...]
March 17th, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
This is an excellent post. Well done!
I sleep a little more uneasily at night knowing that education standards are dropping in the USA. I’m just afraid that, decades in the future, the USA might become a poorly educated country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. A potential recipe for disaster?
Kevin
April 28th, 2006 @ 11:06 am
Just stumbled across this blog while surfing. Ed Darrell, I haven’t seen you for over 30 years - if you’re the Ed Darrell who attended the U of U in approximately 1973??
April 28th, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Good heavens, Patty! It couldn’t be 30 years ago, you being something less than 35 yourself . . .
Noell alerted me to your post. Yeah, it is I.
How are you?