This site is very interesting. The guy who's behind it has some out-there ideas - he's an interventionist. If you follow some of the links to his nexus articles, you'll see what I mean. He attempts to punch a bunch of holes in the Darwin evolution theories, and he is rather successful with the gradualists. However, all of his arguments against the believers of puncuated equilibrium are pretty weak (that's the school advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, saying evolution takes place when a vacuum is created, whether by comet or climate change or, say, humanity (that last one's mine)). While there isn't too much you can directly refute in his interventionist argument, it doesn't hold up to Occam's Razor (which he purports to use to arrive at his conclusions). What I think is very interesting (and telling) is he most vehemently attacks creationists and intelligent design proponents, when they are the ones he most resembles. He calls them crazy for saying God (or an undefined higher intelligence) did it; they say he is crazy for saying Aliens did it. But the basic underlying arguments are identical.
All that aside, he has got a very interesting find. It is a skull found in South America that has extremely unusual features. Check out the skull - he is pretty sure that it is an alien hybrid, but he is using good science to get at it (he is a scientist who has extensive background in this field - it is unclear whether he was an interventionist before or after this find). Currently the skull is undergoing DNA analysis, and it has been determined that the bloodline is European! That's a very interesting thing to find, as it was found in Mesoamerica and is from around 1100, thereabouts. So, regardless of his views, his methodology seems sound and it looks like something of import might come out of this, tho I doubt it will be exactly what he's looking for. More likely to rewrite some history. Regardless, it's something that bears watching. The press on this will probably start to grow soon - he has been doing some work in the mainstream press already. I don't know what to make of it, I just think it's something that is worth checkin on occassionally, even if only to find it a hoax (frankly, I'm gettin very interested in the concept of hoaxing and trying to figure out a good methodology for weeding out well-crafted hoaxes from true unconventional finds, other than thowing up the hands and saying "too far-fetched", for many of the larger turning points of humanity have come from things that initially seem too far-fetched. With the internet and various technology becoming available, faking evidence is becoming a simpler thing, so this is something that I think is worth studying. For resources arguing the sceptics side of things, check out this site, and especially this one. Very useful for eliminating some of the more plausible chaff from the wheat...

Howard Dean is an interesting democratic candidate. The interviewer here is quite liberal and doesn't have much pretense of objectivity here (grinds an axe or two) and tries to steer the conversation in that manner, but Dean might be the best of the bunch, from as much as I've gleaned thus far. He proclaims himself as a straight-shooter, and aside from rhetoric he does seem it. If you research him, it seems plausible - at the very least, I trust him a lot more than the other politicians who've already thrown their hats in the ring. He is my dark horse candidate - look for him to suffer a major smear campaign at some point, likely from the White House (with subtler ones emanating from fellow Dems, who have to be careful because everyone is pushing for them to present a united front against the GOP - and indeed, if they are to have a hope, that's what it'll take). Dean is doctor, not a lawyer - like him already. He's done good things in his state, and might end up the best hope of dethroning King George. That said, it's likely he won't survive the primaries - straight shooters rarely do. He doesn't have the machinery of more embedded candidates, and at his best would probably end up like Dukakis - a liberal dude who has little appeal outside the Northeast. Still, one can hope... and who knows: nothing like an evil on one side the aisle to galvanize the opposition and create grassroots movements. I think Dean is probably the best hope of that, which makes him the best hope. I still cling to the fantasy that Bush's reign will, in the long run, be a good thing - if it inspires activism and a changing of the order of things.

While you're at truthout, check out the letter coming from France regarding American propoganda directed against it, and Rober Byrd's thoughts on the state of things...