Looks like the Kairos Prison Ministry weekend for October is a “go,” as they got enough volunteers.  Looking forward to the training starting this Saturday with the regulars plus some new volunteers!

I am not making this up: Be sure to subscribe to Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ Sojourners magazine — you know, the “evangelical Christian” publication — so you can get a free copy of a Gandhi poster.  Yeah, Jesus was all about promoting other religions.  I suppose the bright side is that the fakes aren’t even trying hard to disguise themselves anymore.

False teacher fallacy-fest on Prop 8: Fake Christian Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie teaches the opposite of Jesus and the Bible at nearly every turn but really out does himself with his bit about how “Prop 8 Was Incompatible With Christianity; Court Decision A Victory For All God’s Children.”

The Wintery Knights says that Women should read The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands.  Anyone read it?  Comments?

How to kill a church, Episcopalian style – yep.  They followed this advice to the letter.  If your business lost 60% of market share (which is roughly what they did as they went apostate) then lots of people would get fired.

Wow, even the NY Times can see how un-scientific people like PZ Myers are.

MUST-READ: FBI records show Howard Zinn was a communist – yep.  And watch how many theological Liberals worshiped the guy.

47% of Gay Couples Have “Sex Agreements” – Only 45% Monogomous: Study – some tidbits:

SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 2010 ( – Forty-seven percent of gay couples in a recently published study said that they had “sex agreements” with their partners, which clarify how often and in what circumstances they are permitted to have sex with others. Only 45% said that their relationships were monogamous, while another 8% disagreed about whether their relationship was “open” or exclusive, according to an ongoing study by the Center or Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University.

The Gay Couples Study said that the couples interviewed typically put a positive spin on “open” relationships, with three out of four participants describing non-monogamous agreements as “positive” because it eliminates the need to lie to one’s partner.

Lying = bad, sex with other people = good.  Check.

The authors also claimed that, “we found that couples make sexual agreements because they want to build a strong relationship rather than for HIV protection.”

Yeah, nothing strengthens a relationship like having sex with others.

The study’s authors note that examining homosexual relationships is important because “previous research shows that gay and bisexual men in relationships engage in substantially higher rates of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with their primary partners than do single men with their casual partners.”

Anal intercourse and other forms of homosexual behavior are associated with a variety of diseases and syndromes, including high rates of sexually transmitted diseases such AIDS, syphilis, and hepatitis, which homosexuals suffer at rates many times higher than the general population.  It is also associated with damaged rectum linings and a variety of anal and intestinal diseases that were once known in the scientific literature as “gay bowel syndrome,” until the term was dropped following pressure from homosexual activists.

The New York Times, writing about the study in January, before its release, noted that the study tends to vindicate those who have warned that homosexual “marriage” will lead to a redefinition of the institution itself, destroying its traditional meaning.

The rate of HIV with gays is 44 times that of the rest of the population, and the syphilis rates are similar.  If this were any other sub-group the media would be all over it.  Instead, we get crickets chirping.  Political correctness can be deadly.

Normally I wouldn’t find this that amusing, but, for the first time in my life, I did this very thing the other day.

Digg This

0 thoughts on “Roundup”

  1. Neil,
    I read the article on killing the church, and the sad reality is that when I was at Dallas Theological Seminary, there were those there crying out to make the gospel relevant for today. Those were the same cries that the mainline denominations were making back when they truly started their decline. Gene Robinson was nothing more than the fruit of their turning from the gospel back in the 1960s. It seems like evangelicals are doing the same thing now, trying to make the gospel relevant.

    As I’ve said before and will continue to say, the gospel is relevant today because it is the gospel, and given to us by God. Not because we take it and make it relevant. The moment we forget this is the moment we become irrelevant for the Kingdom.


    1. Amen, Pastor Timothy. The real Gospel is always relevant: Jesus died and rose again for our sins. Yes, there are some cultural things to consider when approaching people with that truth, but it should always be the lead story.


  2. I liked the last one. Took some of the sting out of the previous absurdities. Here’s one more for you – this month’s edition of Christianity Today featured nne other than Beth Moore on the cover. I couldn’t even read it; I opened at random and the following sentence popped out:

    “Moore is truly a Bible teacher. Her teaching is rooted in her strong affinity for Scripture. She does not show much interest in theology or tradition, distrusting the way the academy has, at times, handled the Bible.”

    Right. So to be a good Bible teacher we want to avoid theology at ALL costs. Makes perfect sense.

    Hey, maybe that’s her excuse for never having gone to Bible college…she might have been exposed to some ACTUAL THEOLOGY! You know, the kind that allows you to rely on something other than iesogesis and spiritualizing whatever texts in whatever way strikes your fancy! (Gag).

    You dropped a roll of tp in the toilet……dat’s funny! 🙂


    1. The thing about Beth Moore that creeps me out the most are her claims of personal revelation.

      You dropped a roll of tp in the toilet……dat’s funny!

      I hope I go another 47 years without making that mistake!


      1. Could you guys e-mail me with more info on your views of Beth Moore. I have done 3 of her in-depth Bible Studies; the latest being her study on Paul which came at a very difficult time in my life. I really liked them and her. Granted there are a few things that she has said that I didn’t necessarily agree with but I could say that about many authors and pastors that I have read or listened to.


      2. Alysa,

        The issues with her teaching basically fall into three categories: claims of private revelation & related charismatic doctrine; mixing pop-psychology and the “self esteen gospel” with the Bible (and trying to read it into the text); and poor hermeneutics (the study of correct biblical interpretation – aka the literal/historical principle…she reads her own agenda into key passages and wrenches things way out of context).

        I have been following her ministry since about 2002 (when she was still relatively sound), and have a file folder two inches thick. Most of it I have in electronic format – I’ll e-mail it to you.

        Are you talking about “To Live is Christ”? That one is quite good, really. Definitely one of her best. That’s the thing – such a mixed bag. Some of her material is excellent (like “Daniel”); some is dangerously close to being heretical (“Believing God”; “Breaking Free”).


      3. That is interesting to read that her teaching has changed. It makes sense now, as years ago I knew of very sound people who liked her teaching and as I learned more about the recent things I wondered why.


      4. Yes, I’ve done “To Live As Christ,” “Daniel,” and “The Patriarchs.” I did not do “Believing God” but I heard good things about it. I bought her “Breaking Free” book several months ago but have not read it yet. I am really interested in doing her “Esther” study which I have also heard good things about. I look forward to reading your file 🙂


      5. “Believing God” was horrible: I sat through all 10 DVDs and felt like I was in that fictional place called Purgatory! Breaking Free was one I looked at also and found too much false teachings. She just makes things up as she goes, and claims direct revelation from God for it!

        I couldn’t recommend Beth Moore to anyone because she has much more poison than good food. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised Christianity Astray has praised her so highly.


      6. Glenn, I encourage you to go back and reread the articles, especially “First Came the Bible” which presented a theological/hermeneutical analysis of Moore. I’m quite confident you will see, upon further reading, that the author was pointing out the problematic issues in Moore’s teaching, but using kindness as a guiding hermeneutic rather than polemics. 🙂


      7. I didn’t read the articles – I don’t waste my time with that so-called Christian magazine. It appeared to me from the description that they would be touting her, and if she is on the cover without a big “FALSE TEACHER” emblazoned across her, then they certainly are promoting her. One can use kindness, as I think all the articles by PFO do when addressing her, while being harsh at the same time.
        I would be interested to see exactly how C.T. describes her teachings.


      8. Alysa,

        I’ve never read any books by Beth Moore nor gone to any of her conferences. I’m not interested in such things. But I know several women who have and they have positive things to say. I’ve always said if God can use Balaam’s ass he can use anybody or anything. Don’t let these guys shoot down something that has helped you. Scripture is frequently used here like a loaded gun, firing on anyone or anything they disagree with.


      9. Marty,

        That is petty and hypocritical of you to say that. Why is your use of scripture appropriate and ours abusive? Do you see how I could say the exact same thing to, yet I don’t? I just focus on the scripture itself.

        We are commanded to test the teachings of others in light of scripture.

        Sent from my iPhone


      10. Neil I’ll admit that sometimes my use of Scripture might not be appropriate or even right. I’m human and not infallible. But, the difference is that I don’t accuse anyone of a being a false teacher, nor do I EVER question anyone’s faith. That kind of judgement I leave to God. We can disagree on interpretation, but to think ourselves wise enough to know what God thinks is beyond our pay grade.


      11. But that’s exactly what you do. You’re doing it right now now.

        Example: you think it is bad to point out perceived errors in Beth Moore’s teachings. But by stating that you are pointing out what you see as errors in what we say. Why is it ok for you but not for us? Why not just debate the merits of the arguments instead of shutting down conversation with hypocritical accusations?

        Sent from my iPhone


      12. Marty, James 3:1 reads as follows: “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

        The Apostle Paul himself castigated any false teachers, and warned those who followed them. Christ denounced the leaven of the Pharisees in the strongest possible terms; flatly stated that false teachers would come in His Name; and instructed His followers in discernment and “making a right judgement” (John 7:24). Are you claiming to be more righteous than He? Or is this about “tolerance”?

        Throwing Truth under the bus is not loving, and it does not promote true unity. Correcting those who err by misrepresenting the Gospel does.


      13. “you think it is bad to point out perceived errors in Beth Moore’s teachings.”

        No, not at all . You can point out “perceived errors” all you want. Doesn’t mean that you are right, only that you perceive them as errors. I’m suggesting that ALL of us need to be careful when we point out what we believe to be “errors” that we not tread into matters only God can determine.

        “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”


        Judged by God who knows the desires and motives of our hearts.


      14. “Judged by God who knows the desires and motives of our hearts.”

        But how do you know that is what God meant? I think that theological Liberals are so accustomed to their false humility about understanding scripture that they can’t see their own hypocrisy.


      15. I know that I got a lot out of her studies that I have done in the past. But I know that I am someone who often misses things unless they are obvious. I requested more information from Marie & Neil because I am interested in hearing other perspectives. I have already started reading the material that Marie sent to me via e-mail and it does have some good points.

        When I come across things that are controversal; I like to research them myself so that I can make my own decisions after hearing both sides of the arguement. I did this when I encountered the “KJV only” arguement and when I heard your view of Christians serving in the military. Most recently for me it was how the princess culture effects young girls (which I blogged about yesterday).


      16. Beth Moore doesn’t have “perceived” errors – her errors have been demonstrated by many apologetics ministries, and if you take a look at my articles on her you will see I have demonstrated conclusively where she is a false teacher and not to be trusted with anything. Just because people get some good from a person’s teachings, that doesn’t mean that teacher should be recommended – after all, I got some good out of Joseph Smith’s teachings when I was a Mormon!


      17. I’ve never been interested in Beth Moore. Mainly because of how the women I know who attend her conferences go on and on and on about how wonderful she is. We had a Beth Moore study at my church once. I politely refused to attend. It’s kinda like that book “The Shack” that everyone was fawning over. When I finally read it….sheesh. Still don’t understand the excitement over that one. But I must say, my curiosity has now been peaked since you called her a “false teacher”.. Perhaps I’ll read her stuff after all and see for myself. I’m sure the local libary has her books. Don’t think I care to buy them.


      18. @ Marty –

        Good thinking! Libraries are a good thing. I must have saved myself mucho dinero when I was going through my mis-guided Joyce Meyer phase a few years ago by borrowing from the library.

        @ Glenn – not to worry; your articles were among the links I sent to Alysa. Only thing I’m missing is that in-depth analytical paper you did on “Believing God” a few years ago. I recall having it on my hard drive at one point and e-mailing it to our Associate Pastor, but that was several years and a couple of computers ago. 🙂 Could you please send it to Alysa? It highlighted many of the major doctrinal errors quite well.

        Now that we’ve got Neil’s blog totally hi-jacked, he’s gonna have to write another post to get us all back on track! LOL!


      19. I do need to write more posts (many, many half started but haven’t gotten back on track lately!), but feel free to keep hijacking here!


      20. @ Glenn –

        Beat ya to the punch. I sent Alysa all 4 PFO issues the other night (which I’m pretty sure I got from you). She’s got enough reading material to keep her busy until Labor Day. 🙂


      21. Don’t even get me started on The Shack! We read it a couple years ago for our church book club and I about had a cow! We were reading it because it was really popular in the Christian community at the time. It really upset me. I wrote a review on it but it was posted on another site that I don’t go to anymore. I should copy it into wordpress.


    2. Notice “good” was not inserted in the article before “Bible teacher.” To be good, she would need to draw on the riches of theology and church tradition, and not merely rely on her own personal interpretations and claims of direct revelation.


  3. Me too. I’d be willing to overlook some of the pop psychology and maybe even the poor hermeneutics if it weren’t for her head-long dive into charismania.

    The women at my church just don’t seem to “get” how off-base (and in opposition to the sufficiency of Scripture) this stuff is. Bring up the importance of sound doctrine, and you’ll get labeled “divisive” – especially regarding Moore.

    As more and more people in my church pursue NANC training, however, I can only hope that the problem resolves itself.

    I’m still floored at the Sojourners piece (above). Yipes.


    1. The Sojourners are so awful. They are more subtle wolves than Currie and the like, but they are wolves just the same.

      Lots of people swoon over Moore at my church. Sad.

      Sent from my iPhone


    1. Good link, Kathy. It’s good to hear what we already knew confirmed once again by their own testimonies. To say that they want to redefine marriage becomes even more dangerous when they’ve also redefined “monogamy”. It seems that based on the conclusions of the author, there’s some fuzziness over the meaning of “therapy” and “counseling” as well. Incredibly immature all around.


  4. I read parts of “Care and Feeding of Husbands”. My thoughts, in no particular order:
    1. The caveat at the beginning of the book is crucially important. Dr. Laura wrote it for women who love their husbands and want to improve their marriages, not for women who are married to SOBs. If you are at the point in your marriage wherein you are so resentful and unloved that you don’t want to improve it, don’t read the book, get counseling. (That’s Dr. Laura’s advice.)

    2. I wish they made similar books for MEN. Not that everything has to be exactly, 100% totally equal all the time, but the sad reality is that once men do get dragged down the aisle, they are happier in their marriages than their wives are. It’s no small matter: that disparity results in women initiating the super-majority of divorces. (Not that I’m a fan of divorce as a solution, but it’s a problem that is symptomatic of another problem.) Bookstores are filled to the brim with ways for women to please their husbands in bed, be better wives, cook better, clean faster, and raise happier kids. The “self-help” books aimed at men couldn’t fill the trunk of a SmartCar.

    I guess what I’m really saying is that the best “self-help” (or marriage help, or whatever help) book out there for women would probably teach them to communicate to their husbands, in language that men can understand (not that they are simple creatures, but to analogise for their benefit), what they need. Aside from making the unhappy party happier, it also opens up communication and makes women more amenable to listening to constructive criticism.

    3. I’m going to really step into it with this one: just as it’s one thing for someone to look at him/herself and say, out loud, “I’ve been putting on a bit of weight” and it’s totally wrong for someone else to voice the same opinion… it’s not really okay (IMHO) for men to suggest self-help books to women. It comes off as very, “Okay, little lady, go and do this and be a good wifey while your husband does whatever the hell he wants.” Dr. Laura is, well, Laura, and a woman in a happy marriage. She’s not blind to how women think and emote, so taking advice from her seems like a decent idea.

    Likewise, if Neil were to write about how to be a better husband, and write things that are uncomfortable for men to hear and give very one-sided advice (i.e. proscriptions for men only), it wouldn’t really be right for me – or any other woman – to say, “Husbands, read this!” In my old-fashioned opinion, that should go through the channels of men – family, blogs, close friends, or church officials, not through women.


    1. Roxanne,

      The reason “self-help relationship books for men” are so few, is that there is no market for them. Women are the relationship experts; men are more or less clueless (or if they get unhappy in marriage, they either leave, cheat, or withdraw emotionally, rather than sit and whine to their wives about how bad things are). So, it’s really up to women to make good relationships. Not fair, but then as Mom says, “Life is not always fair.” Women tend to marry men for who they think they are, or who they think they will become, and then when men don’t change like the women think, they become dissatisfied with their husbands for not fulfilling their (the wives’) plans. That’s not fair to men.

      Check out the blog “What Women Never Hear” for an older man’s (with the help of his wife) view on male-female relationships. Eye-opening and thought-provoking.


      1. Kathy,

        Wow, that’s some serious misandry!

        If men care about their wives and their marriages, they will figure out how to communicate and make their wives happy. Period.

        The only time that it is a woman’s job to teach a man how to communicate, love, and show affection is when the woman is a mother and the male in question is her son. Period.

        This business of expecting men to act like children is infantalising. No, I don’t expect them to be women, but I do expect them to be ADULTS.

        Trust me on this, sweetie: if you are one of those women who thinks that her husband is an emotional cripple who is incapable of meeting her halfway in all things loving and domestic, I’m here to tell you that he is sick of you. (Most of my friends are men. I know their brains.) The nagging? The “honey-do” lists? The subtle deprecation – so evident in your comment to me that it must simply ooze out in your marriage, probably in front of both your friends? The idea that he’s just not capable of making you happy, and this is your special burden as Woman? Boys eat that stuff up with a spoon, but grow to loathe it by their 40s.

        Babe, I don’t know what “men” you’re hanging out with, but the men I know will walk through fire for their wives. They just need to know what fires to walk through and to be respected for it. This, Kathy, is the opposite of respect:

        men are more or less clueless

        Such a sad, sad statement about the men you’ve met.


      2. If women care about their husbands and their marriages, they will figure out how to communicate with their husbands and make them happy. Period.

        Don’t call me sweetie — you don’t even know me. My comment is not deprecating; my husband is happy; I don’t nag him, I don’t have “honey-do” lists [as an example, he has said he will build something to cover the crawl-space openings under our house, and as a teacher had the whole summer to do it, and I haven’t asked him once if he was going to do it, although lately I have mentioned that the neighbor’s puppy is going under there and doing who-knows-what under our house].

        Did I say that my husband is an emotional cripple? Did I say that he is incapable of being loving? or of making me happy? You don’t know me, much less our friends — they all tell him that he’s lucky to have me! (including his mom, my MIL, who tells him that he doesn’t deserve to have me; and his fellow-teacher who chided him for letting me assemble a stool for his classroom — I sweetly let her know that it was my pleasure) — so much for my “subtle deprecation” that “my friends must be picking up on”! My husband would die for me.

        My parenthetical statement interrupted my flow of thought in the previous comment, and perhaps I shouldn’t have said “clueless.” Women tend to speak; men tend to act. Men do loving things for their wives (like wash the car, or something else that is concrete) and women wonder why they don’t buy flowers or candy — totally missing the love that the man is showing. Men and women tend to have a difference in the way they view marriage, romance, and relationships. Men tend not to know what women want, and women tend not to know what men want. I might have easily said that “women are clueless” (in general) when it comes to what men want, and that doesn’t make me a hater of women.


    2. I recently did a study with the book “Love & Respect” by Dr Emmerson Eggerichs. I highly recommend it to both men and women. He speaks bluntly to both but is easy to understand and relate to what he is saying. I have it in book form but also in audio book form for my husband who hates to read. We are going to be facilitating another study with it soon. I am the first to admit that my marriage is not perfect and that we have a long way to go with dealing with past hurts. God has brought us through a lot. There are several good christian books out there addressing marriage.


  5. My wife read the aforementioned book so I asked her what she thought and she said, “if women want to enjoy their marriage they should read it” and so there you go. 🙂


  6. “Judged by God who knows the desires and motives of our hearts.”

    ‘But how do you know that is what God meant? I think that theological Liberals are so accustomed to their false humility about understanding scripture that they can’t see their own hypocrisy.’

    Perhaps. It’s hard to see clearly sometimes with a log in our eyes. But how do you know that it isn’t what God meant?


    1. You’re missing the point. Can’t you see that you jump back and forth from assuming a clear understanding of scripture when you tell us how to act vs. a hyper-skepticism when others make claims? That’s convenient for you, I suppose, but not terribly fair or consistent.

      It isn’t about who is right on this verse, as we probably agree on that.


      1. Neil, I’m always skeptical when others make outrageous claims. I’m cynical too. Can’t you tell?

        But I positively admire your work in missions. 🙂


  7. Marie,
    Ran out of reply spots. PFO just had a new journal with a new article about Beth’s latest book, “So Long, Insecurity: You’ve Been a Bad Friend to Us.” They are now including that journal in the Beth Moore group for purchase as a bundle. They make a good point in this article: “If all of Moore’s other books really worked and delivered what was promised, there would be no need for this new book.”


    1. Wow, would I love to see THAT one! A few of us tried, to no avail, to convince our church’s “ladies leadership” that having that Insecurity Telecast was a really bad idea, given all of the red flags in her theology. Incredibly, we were silenced – even by NANC certified people! Now, the next women’s church newsletter will focus on testimonies of women who were “blessed” by that simulcast. I could just gag.

      (I think “blessed by ___” is Christianeze for “___made me feel really good about myself!” It clearly has nothing to do with application of biblical principles.


    2. Yeah, she sent me a lot of material! I have started reading it but it will probably take me awhile to get through it all. We are currently packing up our house and will be moving from Japan back to the states soon.


  8. “Don’t even get me started on The Shack! We read it a couple years ago for our church book club and I about had a cow!”

    Yeah. That’s why I read it too. We have a reading circle at my church and someone suggested it. I actually had to force myself to finish it. So did a few of the other ladies in my group. None of us really cared for it. The best book so far that our circle has read, since I’ve been involved, is “The Tent of Abraham”. We had a great discussion on that one. I’m looking forward to reading “The Kite Runner”. Someone suggested that.


  9. The rate of HIV with gays is 44 times that of the rest of the population, and the syphilis rates are similar. If this were any other sub-group the media would be all over it.

    Can you elaborate on this? For instance, the rate of HIV with black women is 22 times that of white women, but I haven’t heard calls for banning the former from donating blood.


    1. There are many people who are banned from donating blood, and that includes men who have had sex with men [MSM], even one time, since 1977; women who have had sex with a man who had previously had sex with a man; those who have injected (illicit) drugs with needles; those who have sex for money; those who have traveled to various parts of the world where HIV or malaria are more common, etc. If they’re not outright banned, they are at least very closely screened. I remember being asked these questions when I have given blood numerous times. You’re not even allowed to give blood if you have a cold.

      All these things make very much sense, when you realize the diseases that blood donors can carry (including a common cold, which could be a serious problem for a recipient with compromised immunity), and the various things people can do to raise their risk of having a disease in their blood.

      So, I guess the real question is, why is the rate of HIV so high in black women, compared to white women? And, would these women who have HIV be screened out by normal processes, because they acquired it through tainted needles, having sex with bisexual men, because they are recent immigrants from certain African countries, or some other known high-risk factor? I don’t know if they would, but that seems a logical reason why blood donation would not be denied them as a group. Considering that anal sex is one of the most common ways HIV/AIDS is transmitted in the US, and taking as accurate the rates of multiple sex partners MSM have according to multiple studies (a large minority of MSM admit to 500+ sex partners in their lifetimes), and considering that HIV/AIDS takes some time to manifest in the tests we have, we have to be very sure that we do not infect innocent people with diseases — whether it’s a cold or AIDS — through lax screening processes. What was meant to save a life could end up being a death sentence.

      I know someone who nearly died of Hepatitis C, caught by a blood transfusion made prior to proper screening. This is no light matter, that should be ruled by political correctness at the expense of people’s lives.

      [It would also be interesting to have the exact rates of the various groups, so that we’re comparing statistics and rates properly. If MSM have 44x the rate of HIV compared to the rest of the population, then that’s a different calculation when comparing black women to white women, if white women have a lower-than-average risk. We’d need to know what the rate of HIV among MSM is compared to white women as a sub-group; or we’d need to know what is the rate of HIV among black women compared to the rest of the population (MSM excluded), in order for us to know how much greater a risk the average MSM blood donation is compared to the average black woman.]


  10. Um, HIV infection rate is so much higher in black women than in white women because the rate is so absurdly low in white women. When you start off by comparing to something so small, everything looks big in comparison.

    I’m trying to tease out the exact numbers, but it looks like white women account for less than 1% of HIV infections and about 40% of the population. (Women account for about 1/4th of HIV infections, and white women account for about 2% of those, from what I can see.) That black women have higher rates compared to white women, who are severely underrepresented overall, hardly means that black women are at especially high risk.


  11. Oh, mea culpa: white women are 17%, not 2%, of new infections (although the “living with AIDS” category is smaller); so that’s still 1/6th of 1/4th, which is about 5%, not 1%. Either way, white women are absurdly underrepresented in the AIDS samples.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s