While Waxman may have accused Republicans of presiding over the “most anti-science” Congress in history, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tells Mother Jones that his colleague’s characterization doesn’t even go far enough: “This is the most anti-science body since the Catholic Church ostracized Galileo for determining that the earth revolves around the sun.”
Mother Jones, emphasis added
I wish it were possible to collect information about all the wrongdoing of the GOP into one diary, but even a series of books would probably find such an endeavor impossible. Even fully covering a specific topic is, realistically, far beyond the scope of any single diary. In trying to provide an aggregate summary of any currently relevant topic, the best I can give is a brief overview of the most recent and egregious Republican transgressions.
Today we address in brief (kind of) the GOP’s war on science.
This diary is painfully long… but still woefully incomplete. Parts of it will read very much as if I am addressing the Republicans’ war on the environment. And so I suppose I am – our environment is science, so attacks on either are very much relevant to the topic at hand. And part of the GOP’s war on science is their refusal to change their environmental policies in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. But we’ll get to that shortly…
The continued resistance to the theory of evolution remains startlingly stubborn, disturbingly hysterical, and becomes increasingly desperate as the mountain of evidence in support of the theory grows. I suspect you all remember the Gallup poll from 2007 showing that a majority of Republicans don’t believe in evolution. The truth of it is, Americans in general came out looking pretty silly on that one, regardless of party affiliation:
More recently (but broken down by education rather than party) :
Still sad, in my opinion.
However, the fact remains that those who are most vocal and obnoxious about evolution are Republicans. For some of them, it’s about personal religious beliefs:
But most of the Republican politicians who either outright deny evolution or say we shouldn’t teach it in the classroom are highly educated men and women (excluding perhaps Palin, who had a pretty rough time with college). Most of them have graduate degrees, and based on the poll above, should be more likely believe in evolution. So why the resistance? As far as I’m concerned, the answer to that question, too, is in the poll. Less education breeds ignorance, and Republicans feed on that. Keeping the electorate uneducated is one of their priorities because it keeps them voting on wedge issues like evolution, abortion, and immigration. The vast majority of the time, as far as I can tell, there are two types of people who consistently vote Republican: The ignorant and the wealthy (who may or may not be ignorant, but who are certainly interested in keeping taxes on the rich as low as possible). So here are the two obvious benefits of Republicans opposing the teaching of evolution in the classroom: To cater to their already ignorant constituents, and to make more of them.
Just one recent example, since there are far too many to go into here:
House Bill 302, as it’s called, states that public school teachers who want to teach “scientific weaknesses” about “controversial scientific topics” including evolution, climate change, human cloning and – ambiguously – “other scientific topics” may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson.
Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.
They’ll send our students – and the country – back to the dark ages if we don’t keep on top of them.
This is a big one. Republicans don’t like what science actually actually says, so they try to create their own. The strange thing about this, to me, is that on the one hand they spend a lot of time trying to tell people that science is “wrong” or unimportant. Then they turn around and make a lot of false claims based on bad “scientific” evidence. Sorry, but the twisting of science is absolute blasphemy. There is no excuse for it, no matter who does it. It’s just that the Republicans seem to do it a whole helluva lot more.
No, really, WTF?
Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific “theory” (read: creationist belief pretending to be founded on science), which says that some aspects of the universe and everything in it are “best explained” by an intelligent, supernaturally directed force. In essence, “Wahhh, the universe is complicated and I don’t understand evolution and there’s no way all these marvelous things could have happened by accident!” Great. I am not a religious person myself, but I respect other people’s religious beliefs. Here’s the thing about faith though: The word “faith” implies a lack of proof. Trying to inject science into faith is fruitless because it negates much of the purpose of faith.
Recently in Texas,
“Disingenuous efforts by creationists to portray themselves as persecuted
in mainstream academia for their anti-evolution beliefs are getting a boost from a Texas lawmaker,” reported the Texas Freedom Network in a March 9, 2011, post on its blog. House Bill 2454, introduced in the Texas House of Representatives on March 8, 2011, would, if enacted, provide, “An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.” The sole sponsor of HB 2454 is Bill Zedler (R-District 96).
This kind of nonsense serves at least three purposes. First, it appeases the religious nuts who make up much of the Republican base. Pandering to the fundamentalists keeps them turning out at the polls. Whether Republican lawmakers believe in intelligent design or not, it behooves them to pretend that they think it’s an important theory worthy of classroom consideration. Second, intelligent design is an attempt to lend validity to flagrantly fallacious claims – and for the people who are dense enough to buy into it, it works. It makes them feel justified in their beliefs because they have the power of “science” behind them. This is dangerous because it only entrenches people in their deeply skewed mindsets, and gives them even more fodder with which to taint their children’s and grandchildren’s minds. Third, creating this kind of false science is a method of “magnifying uncertainty” (which we’ll get to in more depth shortly) – casting doubt on evolution by suggesting that there just might be another explanation. Introducing this kind of “theory” to impressionable young minds is just an underhanded, insidious way of fostering doubt: Even if the kids don’t come to believe in intelligent design, having it taught to them alongside evolution (as if they are equally valid theories) could be enough to inspire some creeping doubts about scientific realities. It’s sneaky, it’s sleazy, and it’s wrong.
This is even nastier than the fabrication of intelligent design. It’s been going on for a while now, and it amazes me that this bull hasn’t been fully squelched. Anti-choice nutbars have tried their damnedest to link having an abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer. Ridiculous. The science flatly does not bear it out. This is yet another example of Republicans who hate science trying to use or create science for nefarious purposes. For shame.
And it continues. For example, in Indiana:
Hundreds of protesters rallied at the Indiana statehouse on Tuesday in opposition to restrictive abortion measures that would, among other things, require doctors to tell pregnant women about a controversial theory that says having an abortion could lead to an increased risk of breast cancer.
House Bill 1210, introduced by Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner (R), would make abortions illegal after 20 weeks. The Senate has already passed a similar bill, but it is awaiting action in the House.
The bill would also require physicians to inform a pregnant woman seeking an abortion that the fetus could feel pain and require patients to view an ultrasound. A patient could get out of doing so only if she stated her refusal in writing.
Turner was not available for comment on Wednesday, but he recently said, “The vast majority of both the Senate and House are pro-life legislators, and I think we truly represent Hoosier constituents.”
So where’s the harm? Everywhere. Spreading the lie that having an abortion can to lead to cancer is exactly the kind of misinformation that seeps into people’s heads and causes them to act against their own self-interests. If a woman is considering an abortion because of a health problem, but becomes convinced that getting the medical procedure she needs is just going to lead to further health problems (i.e., a life-threatening disease), she may decide to take her chances carrying a child (which may be dangerous for her to bear) to term. And bills like the one discussed above are particularly loathsome. Patients as a rule rely on doctors to know more than they do about science and medicine. Some people take their doctors’ words as gospel. The harm here is obvious, and a bill like this requires a doctor to break his/her Hippocratic oath to do no harm. It literally legislates harm into the practice of medicine.
Climate change is a frightening reality, but the key word there is… reality. It’s something we have to face. It already contributes to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people each year, and negatively affects many more; meanwhile, many Republicans stand in staunch denial of the problem.
Thirty-one Republicans on the House Energy And Commerce Committee — the entire Republican contingent on the panel — declined on Tuesday to vote in support of the very idea that climate change exists.
Democrats on the panel had suggested three amendments that said climate change is a real thing, is caused by humans and has potentially dire consequences for the future. The amendments came on a Republican bill to block the EPA from offering regulations to mitigate the results of global climate shifts. The global scientific community is in near unanimous agreement that climate change is real, and that humans contribute to it.
None of the 31 Republicans on the committee would vote yes on any of the amendments (Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN] declined to vote on one.) The committee’s 21 Democrats voted yes on all three.
Though the result may seem shocking to supporters of climate legislation, activists say this is pretty much what they expect from the GOP these days. There was a time when members of the mainstream GOP were ready to offer their own solutions to climate change. But in the tea party age, those Republicans are few and far between at best, observers say.
If you aren’t outraged, you need to be.
Republicans have denied denied denied on climate change for years and years. Here’s the main issue: they’re trying to convince people to doubt the reality of climate change in the face of overwhelming evidence for its existence… and it’s working. Scary results from a recent Gallup poll on global warming:
Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects
are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
Worrisome, but it gets scarier still:
The problem (or one of them) here is, people who don’t think climate change is an imminent threat will not see it as relevant to their lives. Intensive activism aside, there are plenty of little things that anyone can do to help out the environment. But why bother to take any steps to help the environment if there’s no real threat? Again, misinformation may prove deadly, and it’s a vicious cycle: People who come to believe that climate change is a sham elect candidates who likewise say that climate change is a sham, which in turn both A) leads to legislation that is damaging to the environment and B) further anchors people in the blatant lie that climate change is a squirrely concept manufactured by paranoid or ill-intended scientists and liberals. By opposing legislation that attempts to acknowledge or deal with climate change, Republicans are taking a swipe at each of us personally, the scientific community as a whole, and yes, even the earth itself.
Of course there should be some restrictions on research. We don’t want “mad scientists” doing experiments of a malicious (or even dubious) nature on people. We want research to be fruitful, ethical, and as safe as humanly possible. That’s not what I’m talking about here. What disturbs me is the (at least partially) feigned outrage over the ethics of research which is clearly not harmful, and which has already proven beneficial. Jeez, what century are we living in again?
Yeah, we’ve beaten complaining about this into the ground.
Or have we?
There are all sorts of wonderful uses – and potentially wonderful uses – for stem cells, and scientific research makes that possible (click HERE to read an interesting article I just ran across about using stem cells for bone grafts). The battle isn’t over just because Obama lifted Dubya’s ban on embryonic stem cell research. Republicans will fight this battle state by state if they have to.
1. Arizona: SB 1307 and HB 265 (2010) “A person shall not… engage in….nontherapeutic research that….results in injury, death,or destruction of an in vitro human embryo.”
2. Alabama: Personhood Bill 2010: 1) Alabama (SB335) – Person, definition of for Code construction includes human being from moment of fertilization (Sponsor: Senator Hank Erwin)
3. California: Human Life Amendment 2010: did not gather enough signatures to get on the ballot — but it did receive backing from the California Republican Assembly.
4. Colorado: Personhood law offered again in 2010.This was a copy of the original personhood bill, with slightly varying language, “beginning of biological development” instead of “fertilization”. Fortunately, the more people studied it, the more they shook their heads in disbelief; the initiative was crushingly defeated: 70.5% to 29.5%.
5. Florida: Personhood Amendment 2009. Additionally, an attempt was made to ban state funding for embryonic stem cell research was inserted into the budget–happily, it was blocked (with a line-item-veto) by then-Republican Governor Charlie Crist.
6. Georgia: HB 1–the ultimate anti-woman anti-science bill, would “subject women who have miscarriages there to criminal investigation” on possible “prenatal murder”. This is an example of a Personhood-influenced bill. Colorado Independent, John Tomasic 2.25.2011 A previous and very similar bill was the “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act” 2009–“GA May Restrict Stem Cell Research”, AP march 9, 2009
ALSO: Feb 15,2011– Georgia’s Senate just filed a new state constitutional amendment. (HR 5) the Paramount right to life; – Georgia Personhood Constitutional Amendment.
7. Iowa: 2011 “(New Governor)Terry Branstad said he wants Iowa to reinstate a 2002 state law that limited the use of embryonic stem cell research…”
—Jason Clayworth, “Iowa Opens new debate over use of stem cells”, Des Moines Register, Jan 16, 2011,.
And that’s not all – visit the HuffPo link for more.
With all the existent and mounting evidence about the usefulness of stem cells, why the Republican opposition? Very simply, it’s a wedge issue. On this front, I truly don’t think Republicans are terribly fussed about preventing the advancement of technology. Honestly I think they just use stem cells as an issue to enrage people. Can it really be a moral issue when most Republicans on the national stage have no morals? Whatever the case – whatever the reason – the sad fact is that this is likely to be an ongoing war. It’s a war that’s worth fighting, however.
Just as an aside, stem cells are still sparking plenty of controversy outside the US of late.
America COMPETES Act
The America COMPETES act was miraculously made law under George W. Bush, so let’s be thankful for that. It was drafted in light of concerns about the United States potentially becoming unable to compete in the global economy due to a lack of funding for sundry types of research, especially in areas such as science and mathematics. Just as a tiny overview (click the link below the snippet for more information):
The America COMPETES Act is intended to increase the nations investment in science and engineering research and in STEM education from kindergarten to graduate school and postdoctoral education. It is designed to focus on two perceived concerns believed to influence future U.S. competitiveness: inadequate research and development funding to generate sufficient technological progress, and inadequate numbers of American students proficient in science and mathematics or interested in science and engineering careers relative to international competitors. The act authorizes funding increases for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIS
T) laboratories, and the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science over FY2008-FY2010.
Sounds like good stuff, yes? Of course, but in 2010 we had a near slip on this front, due to Republican balking:
House Science Chairman Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., reintroduced the America COMPETES Act after it was pulled from the floor last week, when lawmakers passed a GOP-sponsored motion to recommit the measure.
House leaders brought the revised version of the bill up Wednesday under suspension of the rules, but it failed to garner the two-thirds vote required, 261-148. The measure garnered the support of all Democrats who voted but only 15 Republicans.
Republicans said that while they support the bill’s goals, it is too costly and strayed too far from the scope of the original 2007 America COMPETES law, which expires this year.
[. . .]
“I’m disappointed, but not deterred,” Gordon said in a statement. “This bill is too important to let fall by the wayside. More than half of our economic growth since World War II can be directly attributed to development and adoption of new technologies. The path is simple: Research leads to innovation; innovation leads to economic development and good paying jobs.”
It ultimately passed both the Senate and the House in the Democrat-controlled Congress, despite the resistance of Republicans, but only after pointless revisions were made to appease the GOP.
A lot of Democrats are complicit in this too. Support for marijuana research and legalization among politicians is not always easy to come by. While some Republicans may support it, a preponderance of those in favor of researching for medical purposes or legalization are Democrats. Marijuana has a whole host of benefits. We already know that, but more research is needed to test what we already suspect, and to discover additional ways in which it is medically therapeutic and applicable. Research on marijuana, however, is not easy to conduct in the United States:
To study marijuana in human subjects in the United States, researchers need to go through a number of steps. Marijuana is classified by the Drug Enforcement Agency as a Schedule 1 drug, a category that has the highest level of restriction, so researchers must apply for a license from the DEA before they begin their studies. Because of the fear of drugs being diverted for nonresearch purposes, the DEA has strict eligibility requirements for Schedule 1 licenses. Researchers also need approval from their institution (usually a university or research center), which can be a challenge-employers may be skittish about the fallout of studies on illicit drugs, whether from disgruntled university or foundation donors, bad press, or unforeseen consequences of the research.
Now to my gripe about Republicans (am I creeping into CT territory?): The anti-drug positions of the Right are significantly more stringent than those of the Left. The “war on drugs” is obviously not anywhere near a “strictly Republican” endeavor, but it’s clear that Republican views of drug use (even medical) and drug research are harsher. Feeding the hysterical anti-drug mentality is just another obstacle to making research easier. Why is there no room for nuance in the Republican mind?
If you’re not yet twitching while reading this diary, you’re about to be. For anyone who cares about the environment, Republican policies are absolutely galling. Please visit the League of Conservation Voters’ website to see the national environmental scorecard for the 111th session of Congress – or just click HERE for the full document (warning: it’s a PDF) – if you’d like to see exactly how the votes on environmental legislation played out last session.
We have piles of scientific evidence about the dangers of pollution and the importance of protecting the environment, yet Republicans treat it as just so much noise. Through deregulation, attempts to discredit scientific findings, and efforts to undermine the EPA, Republicans will destroy this beautiful planet of ours if given half the chance.
Let’s not give it to them.
For an eye-rolling glimpse into idiocy, check this out:
A bit like the Republican party, they are white, seemingly indestructible and bad for the environment. But after an absence of four years, foam plastic coffee cups have made a comeback in the basement coffee shop of the United States Congress building after Republicans began reversing a series of in-house green initiatives undertaken by Democrats.
The about-turn was announced by a press aide to John Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives, who tweeted on Monday morning: “The new majority – plasticware is back”.
When the Democrats held the house, the former speaker Nancy Pelosi put the cafeterias at the centre of a plan to hugely reduce the carbon footprint of Congress.
Just a few more of those “little things” that could make a big difference in the long run being ignored by Republicans. But Styrofoam is no big deal, right? Well according to scientists, it really is. Why it makes no difference to Republicans… is kind of beyond me.
Just one more complaint real quick-like before I move on. Regarding gas drilling:
Pioneered by companies such as Halliburton, high-volume horizontal slickwater fracturing – otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing, or simply fracking – involves the drilling of horizontal wells that are then injected with large volumes of water, sand and chemicals at hig
h pressure to open up rock fractures and help propel rock-trapped gas back to the surface. For landowners, those in the gas industry and governments of cash-strapped US states that find themselves sitting on the gas-rich lines of the Marcellus Shale rock formation, this new technique has opened up lucrative opportunities and created a rush unseen for decades. Vast reserves of previously untappable natural gas, perhaps in excess of 50 trillion cubic feet of gas, can now be extracted on US soil, and the arguments used by advocates of fracking seem impressive.
Research has calculated that in Pennsylvania each fracked well requires an average of 592 one-way truck trips, with each truck commonly weighing more than 80 tonnes. As Northrup observes, there are more than 11,000 disposal wells in Texas, but in the temperate geology of a state such as Pennsylvania, only a few disposal wells exist, so much greater distances must be driven over trickier terrain. ‘This is like taking that rough and tumble, highly industrialised activity and plopping it right down in the Cotswolds. Maybe not such a good idea… the amount of fluid running around out there, literally, in tanker trucks, you know thousands of tanker trucks, is such that one doozy going off the road, with fracking chemicals in it, into a river, would pretty much wipe it out.’
[. . .]
But for organic farmers like Carolyn Knapp, close to the town of Towanda, the opposite is true. ‘As an organic farmer I don’t feel that they should be allowed to put chemicals into my ground. Chemicals that I feel can do harm to my family, to the people around me, and I feel violated.’ Stories of misleading landmen trying to lure mineral rights from unsuspecting farmers are commonplace. What has really shocked Carolyn isn’t just what she has given up in selling mineral leases on her land, but who she has effectively sold them too.
As she explained, from the topsoil downwards, every portion of the rock strata on her organic farm has now been divided and repeatedly resold by the company she originally leased it to, so that individual investors in Australia now have financial interests in one particular subsurface rock formation, while a Chinese company now owns the rights to mine for coal. ‘The way I look at it now is that I didn’t lease my property, I sold my property. I sold the subsurface… we’re talking about years of people extracting whatever minerals they want from our land whenever they want.’ Even if Carolyn had refused to lease her mineral rights, a law on the statute books ominously known as ‘forced pooling’ looks set to compel landowners to allow gas extraction from under their land where the majority of surrounding landowners are in favour of fracking.
Long story short, there are a lot of questions and concerns – and evidence to back them – about what this could do to our environment. Naturally, Republicans are in favor of it, and especially in favor of blocking regulations.
And just one of the most recent drama-fests:
The most opposition from the right seems to be directed toward the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions, which Republicans are framing as a “backdoor” alternative to last Congress’s cap-and-trade bill that failed in the Senate.
Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee voted to advance the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. The measure, which will ban the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, passed by a voice vote in the subcommittee markup session, and no amendments were offered. On Monday and Tuesday of next week, the full committee will consider the bill, likely passing it along for a vote on the House floor.
This is part of the GOP’s “destroy the EPA” tactic, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
The bigger question is, why does the GOP hate clean air? I don’t get this one. They breathe air too, so how stupid can they be? Is the cash of the lobbyists padding their wallets really worth it? Apparently.
I’m only going to address one issue here because I think it’s enough: “Dril, baby, drill!” The potential harms of offshore drilling are many, and though Republicans may be hesitant to scream “LET’S DRILL MOAR 4 OILZ!” in the wake of the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf, they haven’t given up on offshore drilling.
Two years ago, feisty Republicans commandeered the darkened House chamber during the summer recess to loudly demand that oil companies be allowed to “drill here and drill now.”
Now, with an ominous oil slick threatening the Gulf Coast from a deep-well blowout, Republican cries for more offshore oil production have grown quieter. But they have not ceased.
For now, Republicans have adopted a multifaceted approach as they try to finesse the issue. First, call for an inquiry to determine what caused the accident, so as to be able to reassure the public that a recurrence can be prevented. Then, raise the possibility that the White House could have done more, a position that suggests that some of the damage could be a result of bureaucratic inertia rather than a hazardous energy operation.
And, finally, point out that Republicans have called for a broad energy program of which offshore drilling is only one element and that federal revenues generated by drilling would be put toward developing alternative fuel sources.
Democrats are complicit in some of this too, by the way, but Republicans are still the biggest proponents.
Lovely, isn’t it?
Well, the GOP doesn’t care if it turns into an oil slick or a toxic waste dump.
It doesn’t matter what science says, I suppose. All a bunch of technical, complicated mumbo jumbo anyway, eh? And this is why they foster ignorance: to keep the population in the dark. Why would the masses rise up and demand sensible legislation if they either A) don’t know what’s going on, or B) think it’s no big deal? Republicans are hell-bent on destroying the Environmental Protection Agency. It thwarts a lot of their interests, particularly deregul
ation and the GOP’s attempts to deny climate change. The EPA makes things more difficult for Republicans, so they’re seeking to destroy it by any means necessary. How? For starters, by stripping it of its authority to regulate:
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) accused Republicans on Tuesday of having an “allergy to science and scientists” during a House hearing on a Republican-led proposal to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
[. . .]
Despite the impasse, however, the hearing didn’t go over without its fair share of sparks.
“If Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein were testifying today,” Inslee, an environmentalist with a knack for confrontation over green initiatives, posited, “the Republicans would not accept their views until all the Arctic ice has melted and hell has frozen over, whichever comes first.”
Huffington Post, emphasis added
Cutting funding undermines the EPA too, of course – and drastically.
The range and destructiveness of these assaults were breathtaking. They include provisions to curtail the scientific study of climate change, blocking the EPA from protecting wetlands and streams from harmful dumping, stopping the EPA from dumping waste from mountain top removal in stream valleys, and, that old GOP favorite, barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
The National Wildlife Federation called the spending bill a “pollution pinata.” It identified 14 egregious examples of environmentally damaging amendments for which the total budget savings was zero (although many of them will end up costing the nation money by endangering public health). It also noted that an amendment that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies was defeated. So much for this being all about the deficit.
**long suffering sigh** More spending cuts. More deregulation to allow corporations to pollute the environment. I won’t even start on how this garbage causes job loss (that topic will have to wait for another day). A seemingly endless barrage of assaults on the environment, and since the EPA is perhaps the first line of defense, it is one of the first and primary targets of the GOP-controlled House. The science about the need to protect the environment means nothing to them. Naught is as important as the almighty dollar, and Republicans bow to it with an embarrassing degree of reverence.
(Now we must proceed to Part II for the rest, for I have literally… LITERALLY… reached the ends of the
Earth Moose. Soapblox srsly told me my diary was TOO LONG TO POST.)