One of the best Skeptic groups (real skeptics, the kind that roll their eyes at this nonsense) I know of is based in Atlanta. And the wonderful Skepticality podcast is by two Atlanta folk. There is reason there, but it doesn't get a as much publicity.

After watching that I feel very sad. Very, very sad.

It's important to note that the data from WISE will tell us if it exists, not if it doesn't. If we see it, it's there. If we don't see it, it might not be there, or we just might have missed it.

While I can see some logic in that, I'm not sure why it needs to be a law separate from laws against assaulting women. Except, of course, the logic that the law exists to protect the fetus, not the woman. But any physical assault aimed to kill a growing fetus would surely be covered under current assault laws…

I can't comprehend that kind of lunacy.

What is the point of proposing a law like this except to make yourself look like and absolute lunatic? I mean I know there is a fringe that supports this nonsense, but it's not like there was a risk they would not vote on the right. How could this law ever do any good at all for anyone? Even from the perspective of…

I was sad every Valentine's Day I was alone and didn't want to be. I was sad every Valentine's Day I was in a relationship with someone I didn't want to be around any more. But, when I was in those situation I was sad every day (to varying degrees). Any day I was alone and didn't care, I was fine. Now days I'm in…

Except Ray Muzyk, who praises a game that was up against his for Game of the Year pretty much everywhere.

Oh Jack, who knew your plan to be the most famous Fable of them all would really work.

My favorite part is when he say "You know, from tv."

I'm saying exactly that, and it's not nonsense, it's commonly known fact that people acknowledge and are trying to fix.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has long had a very good rundown about how to deal with this.

It is Mitchell!!!

How about people who can't afford anything else. There are a lot of place in this country were people have to drive hours just to get to a Walmart or a Safeway. They can't afford the gas to get there, let alone the cost of the healthier foods. They have to feed their kids with whatever they can afford. Would it be…

Here, here! If there is a high correlation between junk food consumption, poverty, and low test scores, maybe the first conclusion people come to shouldn't be that poor people are dumb and lazy. If you only have a dollar to spend on lunch, are you going to buy food that will fill you all afternoon, or just make you…

"one could safely utilize common sense to know that it's true" Not if one is a scientist, or is actually trying to solve a problem using scientific means.

This is a very good point. High junk food diets aren't a sign of bad parenting, they are almost always a sign of low income. People who have little money can find more calories for their buck in junk food. So, though the two things may be related (junk food and IQ) one does not cause the other.

*passes out from the awesome

WHY REBOOT?!?!

They are going to 'hear' lots of human speech in utero, if you talk to them specifically or not. Every word the mother says is going to reverberate through the fetus/baby.