text:
Sjogren's Syndrome Center - Bloomfield, NJ
Bloomfield Rheumatologist Doctors for Sjogren's Syndrome
Type of Physician: Rheumatologist
What is a Rheumatologist?
A subspecialty certification by the Board of Internal Medicine; practitioners treat diseases of the joints, muscles, bones, and tendons. The rheumatologist diagnoses and treats arthritis, back pain, muscle strains, common athletic injuries, etc. The rheumatologist may work closely with other specialists such as orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists.
Specialty: Rheumatology
Common Name:
Rheumatologist Doctors in Bloomfield *
Nicholas A Cannarozzi MD
Arthritis Management LLC
Jonathan M Simon MD
University Hospital Phys Assoc
University Hospital Phys Assoc
Frank T Barbera MD
North Jersey Rheumatology
North Jersey Rheumatology
North Jersey Rheumatology
New Life Rheumatology Center
Michael P Lewko MD LLC
Michael P Lewko MD LLC
Michael P Lewko MD LLC
Louise A Albornoz MD
New Jersey Physicians
Beth Israel Med Ctr Medicine
Beth Israel Med Ctr Medicine
Primary Care & Subspecialties
Andrew B Weinberger MD
Harleen Brar MD
James S Paolino MD
Hanauer & Mesnard Mds
Hanauer & Mesnard Mds
Malcolm H Hermele MD
David A Worth MD PA
David A Worth MD PA
Lesley A Fein MD
Arthritis Center of New Jersey
Robert A Fogari MD
Tatyana Grinchenko MD
American Board of Rheumatology
Arthritis Center of New Jersey
Girolamo G Cuppari MD
Carl Restivo Jr MD
Jerome Barr MD
New Jersey Associates In Medcn
New Jersey Associates In Medcn
Arthritis/Rheumatology Disease
Rochelle Park Medical Center
New Jersey Associates In Medcn
New Jersey Associates In Medcn
Anil Kapoor MD
Institute RHU/Auto Immune Dis
Institute RHU/Auto Immune Dis
Hackensack Rheumatology
Institute RHU/Auto Immune Dis
Institute RHU/Auto Immune Dis
Marc Goldstein DO CMD
Maryann R Curiba MD
Edward A Ewald MD
C Michael Knee MD
Arthritis Center At Westfield
Prospect Medical Offices PA
Prospect Medical Offices PA
Prospect Medical Offices PA
Prospect Medical Offices PA
Bergen Medical Associates PC
North Jersey Rheumatology Ctr
Bergen Regional Medical Center
Ahmed M Famy MD
Emergimed LLC
Rheumatology Associates
Rheumatology Associates
Rheumatology Associates
Rheumatology Associates
Middlesex Ear Nose & Throat
Englewood Healthcare Associates
Summit Medical Group Rheum
Summit Medical Group Rheum
Summit Medical Group Rheum
Summit Medical Group Rheum
Andron Medical Associates
Cholhan & Salem MDs
Cholhan & Salem MDs
Arthritis Allergy & Immunology
North Jersey Center Arthritis
North Jersey Center Arthritis
Old Hook Medical Associates
Atlantic Rhmtlgy & Osteo Assocs
Atlantic Rhmtlgy & Osteo Assocs
Atlantic Rhmtlgy & Osteo Assocs
Berry J Efros MD
David Widman MD
Medical & Arthritis Doctor Inc
Fu F Bai MD
Center Arthritis & Rheumatism
Richard R Brodman MD
Gugu R Mohapeloa MD
Allergy/Asthma/Arthritis Assocs
Allergy/Asthma/Arthritis Assocs
Gaito & Lutz Mds
Allegra Arthritis Associates
Allegra Arthritis Associates
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
RWJU Medical Group Rheumatology
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
RWJ Univ Med Grp Rhmtlgy
Bloomfield, New Jersey
Sjogren's Syndrome
Sjögren's syndrome facts
Other Related Sjogren's Syndrome Articles
Emergency Contact for Bloomfield
Nearby Bloomfield Hospitals *
Clara Maass Medical Center
Mountainside Hospital
East Orange General Hospital
VA Medical Center
Saint Michael's Medical Center
University Hospital
Kessler Institute Rehab West
Essex County Hospital
St Mary's Hospital
Newark Beth Israel Medical Ctr
Saint Barnabas Medical Center
Meadowlands Hospital Med Ctr
Hudson Cny Meadowview Psy Hosp
St Joseph's Regional Med Ctr
Christ Hospital
Kessler Institute Rehab
Hoboken University Medical Ctr
Jersey City Medical Center
Trinitas Regional Medical Ctr
Trinitas Regional Medical Ctr
Bayonne Medical Center
Hackensack University Med Ctr
Overlook Medical Center
Palisades Medical Center
Summit Oaks Hospital
St Joseph's Wayne Hospital
St Lukes Roosevelt Hospital
New York Downtown Hospital
Holy Name Medical Center
Beth Israel Medical Ctr-Ptrie
Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hosp
Richmond University Medical Ctr
New York Eye And Ear Infirmary
NYU Hospital For Joint Diseases
Bellevue Hospital Center
VA Medical Center
NYU Langone Medical Center
Rusk Institute Rehabilitation
St Luke's Hospital
Lenox Hill Hospital
Long Island College Hospital
Rockefeller University Hospital
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Mount Sinai Medical Center
New York Weill Cornell Med Ctr
Gracie Square Hospital
Hospital For Special Surgery
Chilton Hospital
Metropolitan Hospital Center
The Brooklyn Hospital Center
Bayley Seton Hospital
Bergen Regional Medical Center
Christian Health Care Center
R W J University Hospital
Harlem Hospital Center
Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Ctr
Manhattan Psychiatric Center
New York State Psychiatric Inst
Calvary Hospital-Brooklyn Cmpus
Lutheran Medical Center
Columbia Presbyterian Med Ctr
Morgan Stanley Children's Hosp
Sea View Hospital Rehab Center
Mount Sinai Queens
Valley Hospital
Englewood Hospital Medical Ctr
Lincoln Med/Mntl Hlth Ctr
New York Methodist Hospital
Morristown Memorial Hospital
Saint Clare's Hospital/Boonton
Runnells Specialized Hospital
Maimonides Medical Center
Woodbridge Developmental Center
Woodhull Mdcl & Mntl Hlth
Atlantic Rehab Inst
*Provider Directory Terms of Use:
The WebMD 'Provider Directory' is provided by WebMD for use by the general public as a quick reference of information about Providers. The Provider Directory is not intended as a tool for verifying the credentials, qualifications, or abilities of any Provider contained therein. Inclusion in the Provider Directory does not imply recommendation or endorsement nor does omission in the Provider Directory imply WebMD disapproval.
- Home
Image Collection (categories)
- Allergic Skin Disorders
- Bacterial Skin Diseases
- Bites and Infestations
- Diseases of Pigment
- Fungal Skin Diseases
- Medical Anatomy and Illustrations
- Noncancerous, Precancerous & Cancerous Tumors
- Oral Health Conditions
- Papules, Scales, Plaques and Eruptions
- Scalp, Hair and Nails
- Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
- Vascular, Lymphatic and Systemic Conditions
- Viral Skin Diseases
- Additional Skin Conditions
See All Quizzes (119)
& Conditions
Topic Centers
& Living
- Medications


text:
MSRP $32,285* As shown
*Picture may not represent actual vehicle. Price varies based on Trim Levels and Options. See Dealer for in-stock inventory & actual selling price. All prices plus tax, title & license with approved credit. Dealer doc fee $98.95. Prices may be different outside of each advertised period and do not necessarily reflect cash price at any other time. Instant savings in the form of dealer discounts.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Amazing deals on top collections.
Shop now.
Exclusive finds with a new theme each month.
Shop: Pop-In
Our director of creative projects shares what she's into.
Read More
Stay updated with a steady stream of new info.
Make waves or wheelies in rad summer essentials from O'Neill, Volcom and more cool-kid brands.
Time to chill out in statement-making rompers, cool tees, shorts and more.
Classic sneaks meet a classic mouse for the ultimate capers.
From Tucker + Tate and more.


text:
Most individuals decide to employ a public insurance adjuster just because they do not have the time to negotiate with the insurance during the file claiming process.
However, the general rule of thumb is that if one estimates to have incurred losses of $10,000 or more, then it is wise to consider hiring a public claims adjuster.
But in overall it depends on ones circumstances and the insurance company's reaction. If your adjuster does not answer your questions or return your calls, or if you think he left damages off your claim, then you should get your own public insurance adjuster.
So, how do you really acquire a reputable public claims adjuster?
You can begin by searching for one in the NAPIA website. This organization requires members to have been in business for at least 2 years and be licensed for them to become members. Additionally, they have a vetting process so you can be sure you are getting the real deal.
Note that a license alone is not a guarantee that you are employing the best of the best. Be sure to check their websites, seek for a reference list and reviews from their clients.
This way you will be hiring a public insurance agent that will negotiate and handle your claims appropriately.


text:
Articles by Brad Milner
South Walton rallies past Chipley for title
LAKELAND — Chipley's Rakeia Sorey staying on the bench for much of the fourth quarter with foul trouble wasn't the deciding factor in Wednesday's Class 1A state title game loss to South Walton. It was one of many. READ MORE
Walker, Holmes County hold off Hawthorne
LAKELAND — The only thing that overshadowed Chris Walker's triple-double was a dramatic finish. READ MORE
Holmes County wins first state boys basketball title
LAKELAND — Holmes County wasn't the most heralded Class 1A team in the state entering the postseason. But the Blue Devils finished as the best. READ MORE
Chipley's Hingson to coach East girls all-stars
CHIPLEY — Chipley's Heather Hingson has accepted an invitation to lead the East girls basketball team in the ninth annual Halifax All-Star Classic. READ MORE
Port St. Joe: Tiger Sharks hope speed overcomes size
There's no shortage of skill at Port St. Joe. Size is another matter. READ MORE
Wewahitchka dropped by Liberty County
Liberty County Coach Grant Grantham said he didn't know what kind of team he would have this season. After Friday's win over Wewahitchka, the answer so far is a good one. READ MORE
24 area players named to all-state football teams
Twenty-four area football players, including seven first-teamers, earned all-state honors when the end-of-season awards were announced on Monday. READ MORE
Tigers finish season 23-8
FORT MYERS — The Rural classification continued to be fruitful for smaller schools on Tuesday. That is, fruitful to schools not from the Panhandle. Trent Johnson had 10 strikeouts in a two-hitt... READ MORE
Chipley's Whitson chosen by Boston in 11th round of MLB Draft
The Chipley native and Florida Gators' right-handed pitcher Karsten Whitson was selected by Boston in the 11th round of the Major League Baseball Draft on Saturday. He was the highest-drafted player with area ties during the third and final day of the event. It also marked the third time he was chosen in the draft. READ MORE
Tillman starts anew at Wewahitchka
Loren Tillman wanted a challenge. He'll get one in Wewahitchka. READ MORE


text:
Woody Allen's Excellent Adventure
Up for four Academy Awards on February 26 and Woody Allen's biggest box-office hit ever, Midnight in Paris seems likely to overtake even 1977's Annie Hall as the man's most beloved movie. And I wish I could belove it myself, honest I do. In this case, it's no fun to disparage the core audience's genuine pleasure.
It's not as if a marketing juggernaut turned the thing into a must-see. Nobody expected Allen's latest to do much business until old-fashioned word of mouth brought his longtime fans out of the woodwork while earning him more than a few new ones. Since I live for chances to fake being an endearing sort of fellow, it's just my lousy luck that I couldn't help abominating Midnight in Paris pretty much from lights down to closing credits.
Presumably, you all know the premise by now. On vacation in the City of Light with his snot of a fiancée (Rachel McAdams) and his gargoyle-Republican future in-laws, discontented screenwriter Owen Wilson finds a portal in time that lets him zip back every midnight to the Paris of the 1920s. There, he rubs elbows with Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, and a passel of other luminaries from 20th-century art's founding playpen. That gives him the courage to follow his bliss by saying toodle-oo to McAdams and Hollywood moola to turn novelist (with a compliant new girlfriend) at last.
Granted, it's probably been decades since the last time I looked forward to a Woody Allen film. Even so, I did expect him to cough up something a mite less flimsy than Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure for English majors. Featuring a couple of clueless high-school metalheads who go back in time to recruit the "real" Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Billy the Kid, Beethoven, Lincoln, and so on to avoid flunking history, Bill & Ted was the better—and certainly less cloying—movie of the two.
That's partly because the blast-from-the-past personages on hand in Bill & Ted didn't need to be more than one-note caricatures of their famous selves for the joke to work. Nor were the filmmakers stroking viewers' vanity about being in the know as to who these dead celebrities were. Besides catering to a somewhat more sophisticated crowd than the audience for stoner comedies, Midnight in Paris is supposed to be a love letter to a great period in literature and the arts. Yet Allen's depictions of its legendary figures stay on an even more clownish comic-book level, even as he flatters us for being able to tell our Picasso from a hole in the ground.
Not that I'm asking for piety, mind. Far from it. But considering the movie's presumption of chummy complicity with the boutique audience that's up to speed on this particular edition of Who's Who, irreverence more informed might have been nice. You have a hard time believing that Allen has read any of these authors' works or even boned up on their biographies; he's just regurgitating the glib impressions he must have formed about their reputations 50 years ago when he was teaching himself to sound like the collegiate version of Mad magazine. Are we really supposed to exit all aglow at how cultivated we are just because we recognize their damned names?
Apparently so, considering that Adrien Brody's cameo as Salvador Dali consists pretty much in its entirety of him saying "Dali." At least that's supposed to be funny, unlike Wilson being hailed one midnight from the mystery cab that takes him back in time by a beaming chap who introduces himself as Tom Eliot. "T.S. Eliot?" Wilson gasps, then hops in—and that's the last we see of the author of The Wasteland. Including him at all amounts to product placement for the cognoscenti, which isn't an unfair description of Allen's overall m.o. here.
Even as comic books go, Midnight in Paris is softheaded. What any dilettante knows about Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald is that he was a drunk who died young and she went crazy. But that's too downbeat for Allen's fairy tale, so their stand-ins—the gifted Tom Hiddleston, who at least looks right, and Alison Pill, who doesn't—are reduced to bubbly partygoers. And while the younger, ruder Allen might at least have treated us to a few irresistible dirty jokes about Gertrude Stein's lesbianism, the ultra-capable Kathy Bates often looks fairly stumped about how to sell her as a sort of Left Bank Cub Scout den mother. The next time Allen happens on sculptor Jo Davidson's great bust of Stein outside the New York Public Library, I hope he's got the grace to feel ashamed.
Considering his own history of borrowing greatness from his (cinematic) betters, it's also a little icky that Allen has both Stein and Hemingway give the Wilson character's novel their unlikely imprimatur. As Hemingway, Corey Stoll gives the movie's only genuine comic performance, as opposed to mannequin impersonation. He's really good, too. But the lazy, half-bright laughs that Stoll's Hemingway is designed to trigger set my teeth on edge.
No doubt, it's pedantry to object that the movie turns him into a raffish cooze hound when every reader of A Moveable Feast—not to mention Paula McLain's The Paris Wife—knows he was passionately devoted to the first Mrs. H. at the time. Or that Woody casually ships him off to hunt big game in Africa a decade before fame and the second Mrs. H. put him in a position to afford safaris. But the conflation of Hemingway the dedicated young artist with the macho blusterer of his later years gives away the opportunism under the movie's pretense of affection. More than any other single figure, at least to Americans, Hemingway crystallizes why "Paris in the Twenties" has become a legend. If he's a blowhard, then what, exactly, made the Wilson character romanticize the era in the first place?
The present-day scenes aren't any less cheap. I used to wonder whether trying political satire might stimulate Allen, but the terrible lines given Kurt Fuller as Wilson's right-wing potential father-in-law—being noisily pro-W. proves he's an asshat—have made me rethink that. As for McAdams, who may deserve better, she could have played her role mute so long as I'M A SELFISH BITCH WHO'S ALL ABOUT MONEY was spelled out on her forehead in neon, which it more or less is anyway. Michael Sheen does his best in a tired part as the intellectual poseur she's really hot for, but at times Allen's scorn of pseudo-intellectuals looks a lot like resentment of the real thing. To recycle a joke the real Hemingway made about John O'Hara, we could have spared ourselves all sorts of tsuris just by starting a fund to send Woody to Yale.
And yes, I know. A lot of people who loved Midnight in Paris would be the first to say it's a trifle, so what's the diff? None, really. But I haven't felt so estranged by someone else's interpretation of artists I cherish since Greil Marcus's Lipstick Traces put me off the Sex Pistols for a good ten years. While Marcus overdid the significance of it all, Allen's best-kept secret may be that he's a philistine wrapped in art's clothing. When do I get to be Goldilocks?
Fri, 2012-02-03 12:25
You say next to nothing about the protagonist, the non-artist posing as one, whose fantasy life imagines himself accepted by a cartoon vision of the 1920s that never existed. Isn't Allen, whose protagonists have always been stand-ins for himself, revealing his own late-in-life reflections on where he stands in the pantheon of great art? Has he managed once again to put himself at the leading edge of the generation about to slink offstage filled with regrets? I'm afraid the reviewer has missed the point, or at least my takeaway from the movie. Don't worry about great art. Follow your passion, and do the best you can. And as far as the ex-future family is concerned, always remember: Don't let the bastards get you down. That's why audiences, who are fully aware of their limited knowledge about 1920s expatriate community in Paris, have responded so well to the film.
Fri, 2012-02-03 13:04
I'm a huge Woody Allen fan, which is probably why this film didn't totally work for me; it's main fault is that it's too much like his prose "A Twenties Memory," with a dash of "Kugelmass."
And I agree that the politics are simple (reminiscent of "Everybody Says I Love You," where a blood clot starves a kid's brain of oxygen, which is why he becomes Republican--only stretched out across an entire movie); and the 20s lit/art jokes are very in-crowd but also simple--so everyone who got through high school English should feel part of the elite who get the in-joke. (Which is why Hemingway gets his treatment as Great White Hunter--and most screen of any character. Man Ray isn't as recognizable to most people; and the Bunuel/"Exterminating Angel" joke is clearly aimed to film history lovers.)
But there is something still attractive about Wilson learning his lesson and giving up some of his pretensions--shades of "Bullets Over Broadway," where Cusack learns that he's a terrible playwright. In "Midnight," the image of settling is faintly ludicrous: Paris instead of Hollywood, Seydoux instead of McAdams--oh, such a sacrifice!
But I don't think Wilson's character is meant to elicit all that much sympathy and his comeuppance is a pleasure I can't describe as guilty. That's the part that works the best for me. It's a comedy of second-chances.
Craig Simpson
Sat, 2012-02-04 12:25
Tom, while you're a terrific critic, occasionally I feel you're too much of a literalist. That quality comes in handy when exposing the fraudulence of a reality-and-accuracy hyped production ("Saving Private Ryan," for instance), but isn't a comedy-fantasy steeped to some degree in caricature in the first place? Your criticisms about Wilson's fiance and would-be in-laws are more valid; had they gone back in time as well, the interactions might have been more combustible. (Imagine, too, Michael Sheen contradicting the facts of the lives of the actual people who are living them.) That said, I think what's winning people over, in a year dripping particularly with nostalgia, is that "Midnight in Paris" ultimately rejects nostalgia - as when Wilson and Cotillard go back even further to the Fin de Siecle, and all the major figures of that era talk about how boring it is. To me Allen isn't flattering the audience for knowing the names of these historical figures; he's subtly critiquing folks who know those names better than they know themselves and their place in the present day.
So while I think "Midnight in Paris" is a pleasing minor work, nothing more, I find it odd that so many critics eager to call out Allen's fantasy and "Drive" and other films as con-jobs are falling for the year's biggest crock in "Moneyball," the baseball movie made by people desperate to conceal they know nothing about baseball (the breathless piling on of statistics being a pretty big tell). You'd think the '02 A's, possessing the year's MVP and Cy Young Award winners, were the raggedy major league equivalent of the Bad News Bears; that the maniacally focused Art Howe was an absentee manager; and, most hilariously, that the Richie Rich '04 Red Sox took the Series with a food-stamps approach to success. Also, while it's true Hatteberg came off the bench to hit the game-winner at the end of the 20-game hot streak, Sorkin and Zaillian's script makes such a big deal about him becoming a starter that narratively the pinch-hit makes no sense. Forget Woody Allen: If you want to see a screenwriter out to flatter the audience for being ostensibly as smart as he is - all the while employing smoke-and-mirrors - look no further than The Sork.
Sat, 2012-02-04 20:59
I am grateful for Tom Carson's dead-on review of this film. Woody Allen is certainly capable of making great movies that deserve to be celebrated--not just Annie Hall but also Broadway Danny Rose and Sweet and Lowdown among them--but this was not one of those. I too found it insulting to the historical figures and to his audience--simple-minded and even condescending. As well as a waste of good actors. Too bad.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
L-Arginine is an amino acid that has a number of vital roles in human biochemistry and has shown to improve high blood pressure through its properties that aid in vasodilation.
Due to its vasodilation properties, nutrients can be delivered more effectively throughout the body. Additional benefits of supplementing L-Arginine is that it assists in athletic performance and boosts the immune system function.
L-Arginine when consumed is converted by the body into a chemical called nitric oxide. Nitric oxide causes blood vessels to open wider for improved blood flow. L-Arginine also stimulates the release of growth hormone, insulin and other hormone production in the body.
|Key Benefits:
|Suggested Use:
|Nutritional Info:
Please remember to add postal time (2-3 working days) to obtain a complete estimate of delivery to your door.
You will receive an email to confirm when your item has been sent.
You can also check the status of your order and individual items by accessing your account details and following the prompts.
Please allow 10 working days from dispatch of your order before notifying us of any late deliveries.
It may be advisable to check with your neighbours to see if a parcel has been left with them, check any outhouses you might have where it may be left if it cannot fit through your letterbox and contact your local sorting office to see if the item has been returned to the depot as undelivered and awaiting collection.
Please see our returns policy.
There are currently no reviews.


text:
We invite you to view this video to learn who Eastman is and who we aspire to be, driving an engaging dialogue with everyone we touch.
Watch it. Use it. Share it.
Moving forward togetherEastman has released its 2014 Sustainability Report, an overview of the company's sustainability strategy, progress, goals and advancements. Learn More


text:
Results 1 — 10
Sort By:
Post Production
Business Rockstars — Santa Monica, CA
Company Info: BUSINESS ROCKSTARS is an Entrepreneurial Business Show that brings together some of the world's biggest and most accomplished CEO's as well as successful small business owners and Entrep…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Podcast Post Production Intern
Eager to be Healthy — Virtual
Do to the high number of applications we are asking everyone to apply at: http://eagertobehealthy.com/creative-team Eager to be Healthy is building a health and wellness network and is producing free …
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Video Production / Post Production Ninja
House Studio DC — Washington, DC
The Park at 14th www.thepark14.com is looking for outgoing interns who are creative, detail oriented, and eager to learn. If you thrive in fast paced environment and want to gain hands-on insight to t…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Post-Production Internship Spring
Make It Happen Productions — Sherman Oaks, CA
I am looking for a post-production intern to work with me and Make it Happen Productions for a few months doing the following: organizing media, prepping hard drives, syncing and transcribing footage,…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Video Production/Post Production
ATB Productions — Baltimore, MD
Across The Bridge Productions (ATB) is a video production based out of Baltimore. We are a new company (1 year old) and looking to find an intern that will grow with us. The job is mainly Post Product…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Post Production Internship
We Are Famous Creative — Culver City, CA
This is an internship position with a rapidly growing company. If you are well versed in post production and are eager to edit cool, trendsetting content, this could be an exceptional opportunity to j…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Development & Post-Production Assistant
Blackbelt TV — Santa Monica, CA
Global television channel with a martial arts orientation seeks interns to participate in researching, developing, producing and editing of programming.
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Post-Production Internship
Live Forest Farms — Virtual
Live Forest Farms is looking for a bright, ambitious, and talented college student or graduate to assist in the creation of a short video to be used for marketing purposes. This internship is a unique…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Multimedia & Post-Production Internship
The Station — New York, NY
We are The Station Media, a Multimedia Production Company in SoHo. We have unpaid internship positions available. If you're interested in a position, please take a look at our website (http://www.thes…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round
Post Production Intern
infusedmediagroup.com — New York, NY
WE ARE A NEXT GENERATION MEDIA GROUP We are your source for social media integration strategy, SEE IT, BUY IT interactive video, branded content and consumer engagement. We also provide, video product…
Application Deadline: Available Year-round


text:
Mercedes has taken great strides to refine the luxury roadster experience with the SLK, regardless of whether you're driving with the top up or down. The retractable hard top can be had three different ways: as the standard metal roof; as a panoramic glass roof; or as the Magic Sky Control roof, which features a glass panel with adjustable opacity. The optional Airguide uses Plexiglas pieces that rotate out from behind the seats to calm cabin turbulence when the top is open. Other open-air comfort options include sun-reflecting leather and Airscarf, which blows warm air onto the necks of the driver and the passenger. It's a stretch to call the SLK a sports car, but it is definitely sporty, and many of the editors of this magazine have just as much respect for this car as they do for the BMW Z4. All SLK models use variable-ratio steering, called Direct Steer, that quickens during aggressive driving. While these systems have traditionally felt unnatural and unpredictable, Mercedes has executed it nearly to perfection in the SLK. The SLK350's direct-injected V-6 is quick and powerful and has a raspy growl, and its seven-speed automatic delivers silky-smooth upshifts. For those interested in better fuel economy, the SLK250 uses a turbocharged four-cylinder paired with either a six-speed manual or a seven-speed automatic and is expected to achieve an EPA rating of 23/31 mpg. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the normally aspirated V-8 of the AMG car will power the SLK to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds.
Certified Pre Owned Price


text:
Queen Elizabeth I Barbie® Doll
The last of the Tudor monarchs, Queen Elizabeth I is considered one of the most successful and popular British rulers in history. Her reign lasted until 1603 and this Elizabethan era was considered a "Golden Age" in English history. Elizabeth's subjects called her Glorianna and Good Queen Bess, as she was enormously popular. Elizabeth I liked to wear lavish gowns and opulent jewels and her court featured stylish entertainment. She was beloved during her reign, and, after her death, she became a legend. Barbie® doll pays homage to this extraordinary monarch dressed in a sumptuous gown inspired by Elizabeth I. Elaborate jewelry and a golden headpiece lend an air of regal sophistication.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
Vitamin A & E 2n1 Deep Moisturizing Lotion
We make healthy skin hydration easy with this antioxidant blend of Vitamin A, Vitamin E, moisture rich Grape Seed Oil and soothing Aloe Vera. Luxurious and extra rich, this formula softens, nourishes and hydrates for healthy, beautiful skin.Absorb this!
Your skin absorbs what you put on it, so treat it right! Our unique, balanced formulas are bursting with botanicals and essential oils to soothe and hydrate your hands, face and body. After bath or anytime, let our sensational scents and extracts nourish your skin, senses and soul.
Since our humble beginnings in the early 80's (yes, way back in the 1900's) Kiss My Face has been a cruelty-free company, never testing on animals. We continue to evolve as new information and ingredients become available. Today, all of our products are paraben-free, phthalate-free and SLS free. In addition, our products are free from dyes and synthetic colors such as F, D & C. Kiss My Face products are pH balanced and are formulated without carmine, lanolin, mineral oils, petroleum or nanoparticles. It's only natural to love our products!
Like our ingredients? How about our values? They're right here!
Formulated With:
Water, Stearic Acid, Isopropyl Palmitate, Vegetable Glycerin, Cetyl Alcohol, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea) Nut Butter, Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil, Olea Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Seed Oil, Squalane, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe Vera) Leaf Juice, Tocopheryl Acetate (Vitamin E), Retinyl Palmitate (Vitamin A), Oryza Sativa (Rice) Bran Oil, Panthenol (Vitamin B5), Calendula Officinalis (Marigold) Flower Extract, Chamomillia Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis (Orange) Flower Extract, Cetyl Esters, Sodium Borate, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Phytate, Polysorbate 80, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, Sorbic Acid, Fragrance
- $ 11.95
- 16.00 oz.
- In Stock. Ships within 1 - 4 business day.
Orders typically arrive within 3-9 business days with Standard Shipping


text:
A godly man needs to be prepared for attacks from the enemy. Find out how to lean on God's Word and defend yourself from these assaults. read more
Page 48 of 98
12 Things That Can Cause Marriage Failure
Satan tries to ruin your marriage with many stumbling blocks. Read and find out which ones are most pertinent in your relationship with your spouse. read more
How to Stay Above the Perilous Line Between Marriage and Divorce
Statistics says the odds are against couples enjoying lengthy marriages. It's a victory that can be won, however, and here's how. read more
Exploring a Husband's Role as a Prophet, Priest and King
In theology, Christ occupies the classic threefold office of prophet, priest and king. Find out how that relates to you as a husband. read more
A Guide to Writing a Love Letter to Your Wife
Words on paper can last forever. When is the last time you penned a love letter to your wife? read more
5 Essential Tools for Your Christian Walk
What weapons do you have in your arsenal to help you in your daily relationship with the Lord? Find out what crucial elements you may be missing. read more
Dating for a Godly Man: 4 Keys to Success
While not many dating techniques can be found in the Bible, find out what principles God's Word does set down for the process of choosing a mate. read more
Are You a Fearless Christian?
Fear is a real emotion, and it makes us ineffective. Find out why we don't have to listen to the enemy—the master of lies. read more
What's to Love About Being a Dad?
It's a difficult job sometimes, but here are some of the reasons you should embrace and revel in your role as a father. read more
5 Ways to Filter What You Say
Do you ask the Holy Spirit every day to guard your tongue? Do you speak good things into people's lives? read more


text:
Originally written on Football Nation | Last updated 7/2/13
Dick "Night Train" Lane. Walter "Sweetness" Payton. Billy "White Shoes" Johnson. "Neon" Deion Sanders, aka "Prime Time." The Nigerian Nightmare. The Terminator. Hacksaw.NFL lore is rife with great nicknames, and modern day players are no exception. Some are great descriptions of what a player does, some refer to how they do it, some just refer to who they are.Most are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.To make this list, the only qualifications are a) a great nickname (obviously!) and b) to have been on any team's active roster during the regular season in the last ten years.Group nicknames will count too, because really, who's to say "The Fearsome Foursome" isn't as cool as "The Manster?"Let's get this party started!
Comments are closed.
What do you think?To leave a comment, you can:
NFL News
Delivered to your inbox
You'll also receive Yardbarker's daily Top 10, featuring the best sports stories from around the web. Customize your newsletter to get articles on your favorite sports and teams. And the best part? It's free!
Follow us on Twitter
|Best of Yardbarker
|NFL News
|MLB News
Today's Best Stuff
For Bloggers
Join the Yardbarker Network for more promotion, traffic, and money.
Company Info
What is Yardbarker?
Yardbarker is the largest network of sports blogs and pro athlete blogs on the web. This site is the hub of the Yardbarker Network, where our editors and algorithms curate the best sports content from our network and beyond.
|© 2015 Yardbarker, Inc. All rights reserved. Use of this website (including any and all parts and components) constitutes your acceptance of these Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. (What's New?)


text:
After trademarking the leaf and patenting the rectangle, Apple has outdone itself by trademarking the shop.
The US Patent and Trademark office last week granted Apple's application to trademark a retail store featuring computers. It is the "distinctive design and layout" that Apple now holds the unique design rights to, thanks to US Trademark 85036990. The application to exclusively own this particular store arrangement - specifically "rectangular tables arranged in a line" - was filed in December 2010 and granted on 22 January 2013.
Source: http://www.theregist...rk_shop_design/


text:
Reviewed by 2 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-5
Previous | Next »
Best Uses
Comments about Slap Bracelet Craft Kit:
Great Craft time filler
Best Uses
Comments about Slap Bracelet Craft Kit:
The snap bracelets work great and the felts were fine, it was the fact that these bracelets now are just covered with paper, rather then cloth like the old ones were. Get the cloth ones, they are much much better.
Displaying reviews 1-2
Customer Service: email@example.com
Webmaster: firstname.lastname@example.com (Problems or suggestions related to the site only.)
Toll-free phone: (800) 288-9941
Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 7:00pm, EST
Representatives who speak Spanish are available
Monday to Friday 9 AM to 6 PM EST
Representantes que hablan Español están disponibles
Lunes a Viernes 9 AM to 6 PM EST
24-Hour toll-free fax: (800) 566-6678
S&S® Worldwide
PO Box 513
75 Mill Street
Colchester, CT 06415


text:
Shippuuden episode 8 + 9
|Contains 556 image(s)
These are the screenshots taken from Naruto Shippuuden episode 8 and 9. All screenshots are taken by Naruto-Kun admins. Please note that as a site you are not allowed to copy galleries and use them on your own site. This is called copyright!


text:
Seasons come and go, but a good value never goes out of style. Save up to 90% off of your favorite products from Taylor Gifts. Buying something on clearance doesnt mean youre forced to deal with the bottom of the barrel either! From discounted housewares to seasonal novelties, our continually updated selection of clearance gifts is sure to offer something for every budget, so browse our affordable gifts and products to find the items that fit your shopping needs.
braclet helper
Your Price: $9.98
duck dynasty hats
Your Price: $39.98
flipeez hats
Your Price: $19.98
set of 3 canvas prints
Your Price: $14.98
marquee message signs
Your Price: $39.98
solar outdoor animal
Your Price: $34.98
pet treat launcher
Your Price: $12.98
set of 6 camo melamine cups
Your Price: $29.98
plug in wax melters
$5.98 - $14.98
solar wind chimes
Your Price: $34.98
instyler wet to dry straightener
Your Price: $99.98
set of 2 fresh sticks
Your Price: $19.98
wooden plate rack
Your Price: $99.98
collapsible klip scoop
$8.98 - $10.98
roll up toiletry travel tote
Your Price: $14.98
duck dynasty shirt
Your Price: $24.98
comfort diabetic sock
Your Price: $19.98
set of 2 deer mugs
Your Price: $19.98
stride n style sheer knee highs
Your Price: $19.98
swing table
Your Price: $99.98
battery charger with status screen
Your Price: $29.98
magic layer thermal tops
Your Price: $19.98
activ tights
Your Price: $39.98
cell phone holder and wallet
Your Price: $11.98
Our hundreds of clearance novelties and home items are broad enough to satisfy your shopping needs, regardless of whether youre looking for cleaners and organizers, musical toys, holiday dcor and more. Whats more, many of these discount novelties make for unique gifts that will be both playful yet practical. These diverse products will still prove useful for years to come and at a price too good to pass up. Were constantly updating our selection, so be sure to check back often so you can catch your favorite products once they go on sale!


text:
* * * * *
I'd like to get down to basics and inquire as to the atheist's (or agnostic's) first principles, axioms, starting-points, premises, initial presuppositions or assumptions (pick your favorite term). Then I'll play Socrates a bit if I may. :-) Just a summary is fine; I'm not looking for a treatise at this point, or even a bare-bones outline of atheist epistemology, or "atheology" if you will: just the very first premises you start from, such as, e.g., "I exist," "minds exist," "the senses can be counted on to accurately perceive external natural events," "non-sensory 'internal experience' is inherently untrustworthy and hopelessly subjective," "logic [as classically understood] is an immutable eternal principle," etc.
I am assuming that atheists on this list are of the post-Enlightenment (usually positivist or analytical, and materialist) humanist variety, with no particular religious belief (as a working generalization). I realize that all belief-systems are more complicated once you look at them more closely, and the shortcomings of generalization, but as I said, I'm just trying to find out how these (various atheist) views are built up: what the starting-points are. I'm not trying to "do" technical philosophy at the moment (if I am ever qualified to do it). All positions (philosophical, religious, or otherwise) start with axioms -- I think we can all agree on that; there is no escaping it.
Every atheist has positive premises that he believes. Nobody operates on a basis of simply "I don't believe x, y, and z, and that is my axiomatic starting-point." You believe something, in a positive sense. I changed the nature of my initial inquiry by acknowledging that, yes, there are many sorts of atheists (which I knew, anyway). Nevertheless, a certain type predominates on this list. So I changed the question to "what are your premises?" (i.e., any given individual).
Atheists start with first premises just as I do. It is foolish to think that in order for you to talk about your own beliefs, you must make mention of a God whose existence you deny. That would be like me as a Christian saying that in order to talk about my beliefs, we must start by discussing polytheism, or the nonexistence of spirits and the supernatural, tenets that I deny. I'm not interested in polemics and controversy at the moment: just the basis upon which materialism or naturalism logically builds itself up. You ought to welcome such an inquiry.
You are not merely operating on a minimalist premise of "I don't believe in what doesn't exist [God]; that is my starting-point." You must affirm something without reference to that which you deny, in order to have any belief-system at all, in order to communicate in words at all, otherwise you are merely babbling nonsense (in its literal meaning).
Atheists must, at some point in their thinking, of course, diverge from theistic conclusions, but not necessarily in the beginning. On the other hand, even when an atheist states, "the universe exists," the tacit assumption which lies behind that is, "the universe is self-existent and has no cause outside of itself." In other words, how the universe came to exist at all is the question we all must ultimately deal with if we are curious about nature and reality.
When I wrote, "every atheist has positive premises that he believes," I was referring to the atheist as a species of man, viz.:
1. Every person has positive axioms in his thought.I could just as well have said that "every gardener has positive axioms in his thought" or "every art museum curator has positive axioms in his thought." Logically speaking, no implication is present which would require atheist presuppositions to be unique to atheism, or in inherent conflict with theistic presuppositions. That comes later (in the larger worldview), but not at the very beginning, as we are seeing now, with the first replies to my initial question. I, for one, am quite happy that there are many common beliefs which theists and atheists share.
2. Atheists are persons.
3. Therefore, atheists have positive axioms in their thought.
Some questions and issues which might arise in the course of this discussion are:
1. How did the universe come to exist in the first place? And why do you believe it exists?Furthermore, one can distinguish between the following two propositions:
2. Why are the senses to be trusted to give us knowledge about the real world? For instance, sensory observations could be merely systematic illusions. A certain "logic" (or self-consistent alternate "worlds") might be said to be present even in dreams which aren't real, in terms of natural events corresponding to the "visions" therein. Arguably, truth also comes from inside our heads, from the very way we think, before we ever get to the "outside world." It seems to me that we have to place an extraordinary trust in the reliability and accuracy of our senses (and in our brains, which process and organize the data received from sensory perception) to even be able to take in data of the scientific sort: that which is "publicly available" and "justifiable" and falsifiable, and replicable, and so forth.
3. We can agree on the necessity of logic, but we must keep in mind that all logic involves premises, as logic consists merely of laws of relationships of one idea to another. One must still begin with ideas which they take as unquestionable in order to do logic at all. So, again, there are implicit, unspoken assumptions behind all axioms.
4. Many of atheist's axioms are commonly-held, more or less across the board (excepting perhaps, several eastern religious views, where the universe is an illusion, or maya, etc.). But how they are understood and applied will differ fairly quickly, between atheist and theist. Also, the epistemological grounds for holding the axioms in the first place may differ, perhaps greatly.
A. All atheists have starting assumptions or axioms.I accept A, but not B. Many atheists seem to mistakenly think the Christian is arguing B because they seem to be (I speculate) predisposed to think that all theist critiques of atheism see little or no common ground whatever between the two views. I agree that some strains of Christian apologetics or religious philosophy do that (one in particular is called presuppositionalism, which is dominant among Calvinists), but "mainstream" Christian apologetics and theology do not. And I believe that the Bible itself does not do this either.
B. All atheists' starting assumptions or axioms are inherently atheistic (and therefore, unalterably opposed to theistic assumptions).
The epistemology (or what might be called the "ontological framework") which lies behind atheists' vs. theist's premises might differ widely. No doubt those factors will enter into this discussion in due course as well. One might ask why atheists and theists diverge in their beliefs in the first place. In a nutshell, I would venture to guess that it is because materialist atheists (which I understand to be the "standard" or most prevalent kind) deny the existence of spirit and the supernatural: a sort of intrinsic "anti-Platonism." Everything is reduced to physical matter and the laws of nature. I think there is a failure of what might be called the "intellectual imagination," whereby matter is seen as the be-all and end-all of reality. That is what I would regard as the fundamental mistake or error.
I would argue that this position is not as self-evident as most atheists seem to cavalierly assume. And the reason for that is the set of axiomatic assumptions lying behind scientific inquiry: that which bolsters, in the materialist mind, atheism, and supposedly mitigates against any non-materialist entities (science almost being tantamount, in effect, to "God" for many atheists). One has to make several assumptions to "do" science at all, none of which are airtight and unquestionable, e.g.,:
1. The universe exists.Etc.
2. One's own senses can be trusted to accurately perceive external events.
3. Uniformitarianism of natural law.
4. That order is "ontologically superior" to disorder and chaos.
5. That order is a real entity, existing outside our minds, etc.
6. Laws exist and can be codified and systematized.
7. There are such things as theories and hypotheses which may correspond to physical realities.
Traditionally, Christians (and even some non-Christian cultural observers) have asserted that modern science in fact arose (and arguably, necessarily) in a Christian milieu, and that there was very good reason for that: science required starting-assumptions which Christianity provided. The above questions were resolved by recourse to God, who created our minds and made them able to perceive and conceive, and Who created the universe with laws so that it could be orderly and predictable and observable in the first place: Kepler's observation that scientists were "thinking God's thoughts after him."
Why materialist atheists are so convinced that neither spirits nor miracles nor the supernatural exist, and how and why they think mind, intelligence, and things like DNA could evolve in a materialistic universe, are questions I am curious about. I hope to delve into those in due course.
Science is something all parties can largely agree on, since it is so verifiable and replicable. The differences really stand out when we talk about origins and First Cause and teleology; why and how the universe is here, does it have any "purpose," and if there are entities which transcend matter and natural laws alike. We contend as Christian philosophers that God as First Cause is perfectly plausible, and at least as good, if not more so, than any other explanation of the universe, according to reason and modern cosmology.
We say that science cannot rule out spirits and God because they are simply not its domain, being neither physical, nor subject to natural laws. And we say that miracles (the supernatural) can be verified by observation, and thus cannot be so easily dismissed as philosopher David Hume and others seem to think. Lastly, we contend that God is as necessary for thought, intelligence, and the ability to be rational and to do science and philosophy, as logic itself is, because only an Intelligent Designer could put together all the marvels we see in the brain, things like DNA, and the universe as a whole, and make possible both the marvels themselves, and our ability to perceive and understand the workings (and for that matter, beauty) of them.
Here are "large" truths whose negations I take to be incoherent, hence truths which I regard as necessary:
(1) Something exists.
(2) Laws of logic cannot be violated; contradictions cannot be true.
(3) Incoherent propositions (e.g., Socrates is a prime number) cannot be true.
Good. I agree. But I am curious as to how and why something came to exist, rather than nothing.
I am toying with the notion of adding
(4) There is nothing that science could never (even in principle) discover and explain.
How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion? And why would you even consider it as an axiom? It seems to me to involve several intermediate assumptions and deductions.
Well, it is basically just a tenet of something like positivism or naturalism, a somewhat different way of saying that metaphysical sentences (e.g., "there is a personal being outside time and space") are cognitively meaningless.
Another discussion . . . I don't buy the concept of defining away metaphysical entities by merely playing around with words. That's partially why I'm not that fond of the ontological argument, because it is so utterly unempirical. But it is infinitely superior to this sort of analytic positivist gobbledygook, which would rather render concepts like God "cognitively meaningless" than examine the possibility that God's existence is perfectly consistent with a scientific view of the universe, and as plausible an explanation of origins as any other.
But for right now I will stick with just (1)-(3). It is with some hesitation that I affirm the necessity of even (1), and I concede that I may be wrong about that one. However, it is my contention that meaningful discourse with someone who doubts (2) would be impossible, and such discourse with someone who doubts (3) would be very, very difficult (if not impossible).
What I doubt is the NECESSITY of (1), not the TRUTH of (1). That is, I have doubts that "something exists" expresses a proposition that MUST be true, but of course I unreservedly affirm that it expresses a proposition that IS true.
For what it's worth, the Christian says that the existence of the universe is not a necessary state of affairs. So for a materialist, this belief would negate the necessity of #1. We do think that God's existence is necessary, in order for anything else (material) to exist. But since for you spirit and supernatural are nonsense and gibberish, this whole paragraph is rendered null and void. :-)
I am sympathetic to calling (4) a necessary truth because I have great difficulty conceiving its negation, i.e., the proposition that there might be something which science could never (even in principle) discover and explain.
Why? You just gave several examples above of something quite near to this, if not fulfilling what you have "great difficulty conceiving": e.g., "As for how the multi-verses came into existence, we might suppose that we cannot answer that because the explanation for it lies within the laws of the multi-verses themselves." Then you stated, as to the mystery of why something exists rather than nothing: "In the final analysis, . . . the best answer at present is a supremely simple and thoroughly honest 'we don't know.' "
Yet you are tempted to call #4 a necessary truth, when you yourself refute it all through this post (self-refutations always make the critic's job so much easier)? Science -- by your own virtual admission -- can't even explain the origin of that which is its specialty and field of inquiry: the universe! Yet you want to believe that it can explain anything, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Curious. Odd. And very revealing as to your presuppositional biases. Science, too, is a philosophy, and it starts with unprovable axioms. It's not the sum of all knowledge. Not by a long shot.
After all, as Ted recently queried, what is the (conceptual) difference between an empty jar and a jar containing only a necessarily undetectable existent? My answer is, "The difference between a world just like ours and a world full of magic that has no effects whatever on anything whatever."
The fallacy here is in assuming (on what basis, I wonder?) that the supernatural would not and could not have an effect on the natural, or partake of observability, or (in its effects) be capable of undergoing observation (e.g., a medically-verified healing). The difference is the fact that the existent is in the second jar, of course. If you want to merely talk about "appearances," I find that uninteresting philosophically. E.g., we can't see natural gas, either (even the odor we smell is added so we'll know it is present at all). Don't mean it ain't able to cause bacon to be fried indoors or help dry up a pair of wet socks.
Which is to say, there is no difference at all between the two. To put it (sort of) succintly, to me the supernatural is impossible nonsense, and talk of the supernatural is meaningless gibberish,
I can see that, but why?, is the question? You having great fun poking holes in caricatures of what you oppose is one thing; explaining why you oppose it (i.e., the real thing, rightly understood) and how your view is epistemologically superior, quite another.
The supernatural is to me impossible nonsense because the idea of supernatural beings is incoherent. Therefore, talk of the supernatural is (cognitively) meaningless gibberish.
How is "the idea of supernatural beings" incoherent (it's interesting that you used this word rather than "impossible")? Because spirits can't exist? Is that all you got for me: dogmatic assertions on no grounds other than unprovable axiomatic assumptions?
but psychologically and sociologically fascinating noise-making of the most urgent variety.
Atheism is equally fascinating from our standpoint, I assure you.
No doubt. It is, after all, rebellion against God Himself,
More like a revolt against reason and logic, judging by your present response. :-)
whose existence is so incredibly apparent in "nature and conscience" that no sane and honest person could rationally deny it.
There are many reasons, I think, why people come to have atheist beliefs, just as there are many for coming to believe in Christianity. There are non-rational, emotional, and psychological (even geographical and sociological) influences on both sides. To deny that for either is folly, in my opinion. I find the study of both processes equally interesting, myself. But I don't by any means regard the average atheist as a dolt and gullible idiot (quite the contrary), let alone insane and dishonest, as so many atheists regard us. I think atheists have made honest or inadvertant mistakes in their reasoning process, and adopted inadequately established premises, which are at least as unprovable as our axioms (and, of course I believe, less plausible). Hence, the present thread. You are not disabusing me of my present beliefs on this matter at all thus far. :-)
Natural gas can be detected both actually (in various ways) and in principle. By contrast, a necessarily undetectable existent cannot be detected (even in principle).
The very statement presupposes that something exists ("existent"); therefore it could conceivably exist! Therefore it is not a meaningless or inconceivable object, because existence is a pretty important trait to have. Whether one can detect it or not is irrelevant, except as a practical matter. But as I reject the pragmatic criterion of truthfulness, that is of no import to me.
At any rate, you seem to have totally missed the point of my example, which is that to utter sentences like "there exists something that could never be observed, measured, recorded, etc." is both vacuous and unintelligible.
Not at all. It only seems to be that to you because you axiomatically presuppose that only observable things exist in the first place. That is hardly compelling, being circular from the outset, and no real argument.
For such sentences lack content
Not at all; they merely lack empirical content. There is a difference, you know.
and nobody can understand what it would mean for them to be true, despite all that some might say to the contrary.
Nonsense. That was why I used my natural gas analogy. A better one might be one atom of ytterbium (Yb) floating around the room I am in. How likely am I to be able to detect it? Does that make it nonexistent? Appealing to sophisticated scientific machines does not overcome the analogy, because we're talking about my perception. Just because I can't perceive something (or even if it is flat-out impossible to perceive) does not necessarily make it nonexistent.
Thus, if science can't observe a spirit, this proves absolutely nothing one way or the other about whether spirits exist, because no one who knows anything about science would expect it to be able to do so, as spirits are not matter, and science is the philosophy of matter (yes, it reduces to philosophy: its called empiricism). Science could observe the effect of a spirit or the supernatural, though; that gets back to the miracles discussion. In fact, science always does this because everything it observes was created by God, or that which is causally derived from same. :-)
There is just no proposition there at all;
No, there is no perception there at all. What is this?: the philosophical application of "out of sight, out of mind"?
there is only more of that meaningless noise-making that I referred to earlier.
It's only meaningless if you presuppose that empirical observation is the key to all knowledge (and you must tell me why that would be). Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate logic and possible reality. I'm quite surprised that you can't see this, as sharp as you are.
As Dr. Drange writes in his book NONBELIEF & EVIL,
If a sentence is unintelligible, then either it does not express any proposition at all or else it expresses a proposition that is inconsistent or in some other way unthinkable. Therefore, it does not express anyone's belief.And if a sentence is deemed unintelligible because unproven and unprovable axioms render it that way from the outset, by arbitrary definition, then we can create nonsense in any sentence we like, can't we Steve?
If people go around saying, "I believe there is a personal being who is outside space and time," then my reaction is to deny that they really believe THAT. Rather, such people are apparently mistaken about their own beliefs.Why, if logic and mathematics and geometry can be perceived as outside space and time, and eternal principles of the relationships of ideas? So now you're telling me that in fact I don't (and can't) believe what I believe? That's interesting. We must flesh that out sometime. But I always tire very quickly of the word-games of analytic philosophy. If I wanna spend my time playing around with words, I'd much rather play Scrabble or write poetry, or come up with clever aphorisms or limericks. No offense intended (you don't think much of Christianity, either, so why beat around the bush?).
To have a belief requires more than just the disposition to assert given sentences. It is also required that there be some thinkable set of ideas to serve as the object of the belief. [end of quote]That's what we're trying to get at with regard to your views, but as usual, it has already been switched around to the lambasting of theism.
But if a sentence is unintelligible, then it does not express any such set of ideas. It cannot express anything which anyone could entertain in thought and which could thereby be the object of a belief.
Yep. The question is what determines "intelligibility"? If you think it is some spectacular and irrefutable philosophical discovery to simply assume empiricism with no proof and then to go on and regard anything non-empiricaly ascertained as nonsensical and meaningless, then I must inform you that you have overestimated the strength of your position just a wee tiny bit. It's another instance of building a house of cards with no very sure or solid foundation.
I have no idea what it might mean for a being to be necessary.
Do you have any idea what it might mean for logic to be necessary? If you do, please explain how such an analogous belief in God is intrinsically unthinkable or inconceivable?
As Hume noted, "There is no being the nonexistence of which entails a contradiction."
I can conceive of God not existing. I have no problem with that. David Hume, remember, accepted God's existence on the basis of the teleological argument, which he made himself, quite forcefully. Many atheists don't seem to be aware of that, and I pointed it out last time I was here. So he is in our camp on this one, and very few atheists are willing to call Hume stupid or gullible, or one who believes in things which are "gibberish" and "meaningless nonsense," etc.
It might be said that the best explanation for why things appear to exist in a certain way is because they really DO exist in that way, and that that is the best explanation because it is simpler than the skeptic's alternative. Though it has its defects, I think there is great merit in this type of approach to the skeptic's challenge.
My analogical mind latched onto this immediately. Try this:
It might be said that the best explanation for why belief in God is nearly universal and that God appears to exist in a certain way is because God really DOES exist in that way, and that that is the best explanation because it is simpler than the atheist's alternative. Though it has its defects, I think there is great merit in this type of approach to the atheist's challenge.Why would this argument for God's existence be less valid or sound than the way you use the exact same logic for existence of the physical world? In both instances we are dealing with a widely-perceived reality, held by the vast majority of people. Most people regard God as a necessary belief in order to get through life, just as acceptance of the physical world is required to get through life with "life and limb." Atheists are in a minority amongst theists, just as absolute idealism or solipsism is a tiny minority amongst those who accept the material existence of the universe. What's the logical difference?
Gotta love philosophy (actually logic) when it is this much fun :-)
If (1) ["something exists"] is indeed a necessary truth, as I believe it is, then it makes no sense to ask how the world (or the "first thing") came to be. For it DIDN'T come to be.
On what basis do you believe it to be a necessary truth, though? Existence per se is a separate proposition from the possible beginning or eternality of existence. Existence and duration are distinct concepts. It seems to me that two possible scenarios can occur:
A. That which exists always existed, never did not exist, never had a beginning (nor will it have an ending) and is infinite in duration.It simply is (or, alternately, there IS no "first thing"; the world is just eternal).
B. That which exists began its existence some time in the past and is therefore finite in duration.
In a metaphysical philosophy conveniently disconnected from science, sure!
If, on the other hand, (1) is a merely contingent truth, then one possible explanation for the existence of the universe is that it began acausally. That is how most contemporary cosmologists (incl. Stephen Hawking, Alex Linde, and Andre Vilenkin) think the present-day universe was birthed.
Can you explain this curious concept in layman's terms, so we can grasp more clearly what exactly you are talking about. How does something like the universe begin without a cause, and what is the evidence for such a remarkable assertion?
Another possible explanation is that the observable universe sprang from an (unobservable and possibly no longer existent) hyper-universe of sorts. Perhaps there are (or were) many such "bubble worlds."
"I'm forever blowing bubbles . . . " (God)
Do you consider this more plausible and rational than positing a God? It obviously is not a scientific belief at all, since the thing under consideration is "unobservable" and maybe non-existent. One wonders how the evidence which can be brought forth for God is any less compelling than this!
Contingently unobservable entities can be inferred to exist from their effects. (God, by contrast, is a NECESSARILY unobservable entity).
Effects of God can certainly be observed. They are called "miracles." You simply assume (like Hume) that miracles are impossible, hence that God is "a NECESSARILY unobservable entity," unlike your "bubble worlds." You also seem to have forgotten that a certain man claimed to be the Christian God come in the flesh. :-) Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it "a NECESSARILY unobservable entity."
As I understand the situation (which is pretty dimly), the theory of multi-verses is, like the notion of an acausal inception, quite popular among working physicists. As for how the multi-verses came into existence, we might suppose that we cannot answer that because the explanation for it lies within the laws of the multi-verses themselves; and, whether necessarily or due to empirical constraints, we lack knowledge of those laws.
But you're willing to possibly accept this nonetheless, lest the alternative be the dreadful God-hypothesis, which is, of course, irrational, unbelievable, implausible, and unworthy of adherence, being far inferior to "multi-verses" whose laws cannot be known, and about which we can (by the nature of the case) know nothing or next to nothing. Talk about fideism! This puts the most childlike, gullible faith of the most uninformed Christian to shame. This is the sort of faith which is impervious to all disproof, since it has no proof whatsoever in the first place!
Yet another explanation is that the universe was brought into being by an impersonal mechanism of some sort, or a finite deity who is now dead, or an infinite yet largely malevolent deity who created the universe for the sole purpose of tormenting its denizens with things like earthquakes and plagues and tornadoes (from whose devastating results this wicked god derives boundless glee).
All options which are, of course, more plausible and feasible than the traditional God of Christianity. Of course . . . who could deny that?
In the final analysis, though, I agree with Mark: the best answer at present is a supremely simple and thoroughly honest "we don't know."
I deem that as infinitely superior to the other options you have presented, so I am delighted that you adopt it after the quick run-down of the alternatives (excluding theism, which is prima facie absurd and irrational).
Right now there is just too little information about the matter to make a reliable judgment concerning it. Though the best guesses of our brightest scientists appear to be on the right track, the fact of the matter is that the origin of the cosmos may be the last "Great Mystery."
Fair enough.
In any case, it should go without saying that even the weakest of naturalistic explanations is ipso facto superior to even the simplest and most plausible of supernaturalistic explanations,
Only under materialistic and naturalistic assumptions, so this is not particularly compelling reasoning, unless we are first informed as to why naturalism is self-evident over against supernaturalist dualism or theism.
for the former is just naturally much less obscure and far less extravagant than the latter.
I often find truth to be rather extravagant. Occam's Razor is nowhere near as impressive to me as the complexity of DNA or galaxies or even your average pretty sunset or woman. The more we learn, the less simple things get, so why would we cling to a maxim which touts the likelihood of simplicity being truth?
Furthermore, I do not even consider the "God Hypothesis" (i.e., the hypothesis that the universe was created by a timeless, bodiless, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent personal being) to be a viable candidate for the simple reason that it does not even meet the basic criteria of an explanation, namely, illumination and understanding. It is also unreasonable, anomalous, counterintuitive, and incomplete.
First of all, the "God of the philosophers" or philosophical theism is not, strictly speaking the Christian God. A Creator-God would have to, it seems to me, be timeless and a spirit and quite powerful indeed, and arguably personal (since He makes created personhood possible), but I don't see how the four "omnis" are required for a minimally-conceived creator. The other negative qualities you see in the proposition merely follow from the axiomatic and often circular skepticism and materialism of your premises, so they are of little use to our discussion. With those qualifiers, I don't see how the theistic scenario is a whit less plausible than your others, about which you admit we (and you) know little.
Where have we heard this chant before, of "there is no necessary need to posit a God"? Darwin, was it? Actually, it was the materialist evolutionist scientists after him (and after T.H. Huxley, who said that evolutionism didn't necessarily imply materialism, by its very nature) who said these things.
One of my points (if we ever get back to my discussion of premises) is that our predispositions and biases constantly color how we perceive (and even conceive) the world. The atheist scientist will tend to readily adopt such a theory (as we observe Steve doing) because it upholds his prior notion of atheism. It may be weak or actually have some merit to it, but he will be almost inevitably be predisposed to adopt it, so that he can lessen his own "cognitive dissonance." Likewise, the theist will be predisposed to accept what might be called "classic Big Bang cosmology" because it appears to him so consistent with monotheism and creatio ex nihilo. Bias is universal.
Bias among scientists (and philosophers, too, for that matter) is no novel concept. This has been examined at length by Thomas Kuhn and also much recently by Stephen Jay Gould. My interest in the present discussion is to determine why your particular axioms seem true and unquestionable to you, and (in due course) by what process they logically lead you to atheism (i.e., materialism, or secular humanism; whatever term you prefer).
. . . (Also, try reading the articles by Smolin and Linde, where the evidence for the model in question is meticulously examined.)
What I read (not in these articles, but in your earlier postings in this regard) was sheer and mere speculation, which seems not a whit more plausible to me than an Intelligent Designer who was behind all these marvels of what I call creation.
I never said that the given explanations are MORE plausible than the God Hypothesis (GH). However, certainly they are (at least) EQUALLY plausible.
Why? And try to answer without trotting out all the "omnis," which are irrelevant to a bare philosophical theism, or deism. Simply put, theism is not Christianity. The latter is a far more developed version of the former, adding in the huge factor of revelation. But when making theistic arguments, there is no need at all to import all the "omnis." Even a Creator need not be omnipotent, etc. You must know this. I can't believe that you don't. Philosophy is not religion. Even philosophy of religion is neither religion nor theology. It's the gigantic distinction between arguing for theism and arguing for Christianity. I do the former here, most of the time. And if I get to Christianity in the course of discussion, I almost never argue for exclusively Catholic Christianity, because that is not my point here.
So, GH is NOT the best explanation for the existence of the universe; the other explanations are just as good. There is thus NO REASON WHATEVER for preferring GH over those (alternate) explanations. Naturalistic explanations are by their very nature simpler and broader in scope than supernaturalistic "explanations."
So what? Why bow to the god of Occam's Razor? Why should that be some unquestionable axiom? The more we know, the more complex the universe becomes. Mendel's peas (and, for that matter, bare "natural selection") have ended up in DNA, which is not a "simpler" explanation, but a vastly more comprehensively explanatory one. So God is complicated! Big wow! He's no more complicated than, e.g., some entirely fanciful hypothesis of how life came (by purely natural, perhaps even random processes) from non-life, which materialist scientists still have little or no clue about, yet continue to believe, with no compelling positive evidence that such a thing could ever take place.
(I put quotes around "explanations" because I do not think something so obscure and unenlightening as "God did it" warrants the label).
No one is saying it did, so that's neither here nor there. But it is a quick and easy way to make the theistic option appear inherently foolish.
They posit at least one fewer entity and do not introduce a bigger mystery (God and his nature and methods) than the mystery they were introduced to dispel.
Again, this "simplicity" mantra is not all that impressive to me. Science is simpler than, say, mythological creation myths, but matter itself (the stuff of science) is extremely complex, and the quick denial of any design or teleology (on circular materialistic grounds) simply doesn't work anymore. Science has gotten beyond that point.
Because if an explanation x is simpler than an explanation y, then x is more a priori likely than is y;
Why? So Mendel's pea experiments better explain genetics than DNA, because they are simpler? Newtonian physics is more true than relativity on the same basis? The Genesis creation account is far simpler than Punctuated Equilibrium, so it is obviously true, etc. ?
and, all else being equal, if x is more a priori likely than y, then x is more likely the case than is y.
Unless you prove why I should accept the premise, I reject the conclusion. I would opine that coherence and cumulative, comprehensive explanatory value is profoundly more evident as an indication of truthfulness than simplicity.
I never claimed that science could never (even in principle) explain the origin of the cosmos, should there indeed be such. Rather, I suggested merely that it cannot do so at present (at least not fully). The difference between being contingently unexplained and in principle inexplicable is vast indeed!
Agreed. But, you see, whenever a materialist grants that he can't explain everything, he grants a little more (however little he may think it is) to the theist, because we, too, believe in some things we can't fully explain or understand. Absolutely comprehensive understanding is not in the cards for any view.
If it was SO obvious that God is not shown in creation, and that materialism could fully explain it, then wouldn't you think that science could explain the universe and its origin more or less totally by now? But if there are intricate complexities, then it is reasonable to posit some Design: something other than sheer chance and randomly colliding atoms. One either grasps this or they don't. But for those of us who do, we regard it as self-evident and intuitively true. Pick at that all you want, but you have equally unprovable assumptions, which is a big point of my thread. It is not a matter of gullible, irrational blind faith vs. science and reason.
My chief objection to the Cosmological Argument for God's Existence could be formally constructed as follows:
(1) There are alternate (nontheistic) explanations for the origin of the universe that have NOT been shown to be inferior to the God hypothesis.The premise that Dave was apparently inclined to attack is (1). Unfortunately, though, he never really made it clear just what is wrong with that premise. In response to each of the five alternate (nontheistic) explanations for the universe that I put forward in our dialogue- we might call them "the Brute-fact Explanation," "the Acausal-inception Explanation," "the Hyper-universe Explanation," "the Impersonal-mechanism Explanation," and "the Finite-or-malevolent-deity Explanation," respectively - Dave simply complained that it is unscientific and no more plausible than the God hypothesis. I have several replies to that:
(2) Therefore, the God hypothesis has NOT been shown to be the very best
explanation for the origin of the universe [from (1)].
(3) For there to be a cosmological argument that empirically supports the
existence of God, it would have to be the case that someone has shown that
the God hypothesis is the very best explanation for the origin of the universe.
(4) Therefore, there is no cosmological argument that empirically supports
the existence of God [from (2) & (3)].
1. The Acausal-inception and Hyper-universe Explanations (as well as, arguably, the Impersonal-mechanism Explanation) are perfectly scientific, as both are in principle testable and falsifiable. Furthermore, while neither has been clearly or uncontroversially confirmed by empirical data and neither is universally accepted among cosmologists, elements of both can be found in the theories of leading physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Alex Linde, and both receive at least SOME support (albeit indirect) from science. Therefore, describing them as "pure speculation" or something of the like (as Dave did several times during our discussion) is patently wrongheaded.
2. Even if all five of my alternate (nontheistic) explanations for the universe WERE completely unscientific, that would NOT render them inferior to the God hypothesis and so would NOT suffice to refute premise (1). For the God hypothesis is ITSELF completely unscientific (in that it posits a cause for the universe which even in principle defies scientific investigation and which does not conform to the scientific method). It is also obscure, anomalous, unreasonable, counterintuitive, incomplete, and incomprehensible. In those respects alone it is explanatorily INFERIOR to even the weakest naturalistic explanation and so cannot be regarded as the best explanation for the universe.
3. In order for premise (1) to be true, it need not be the case that the given alternate (nontheistic) explanations are more plausible than the God hypothesis. It need only be the case that they are EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE to that hypothesis. Hence, Dave's complaint that none of the explanations in question is more plausible than the God hypothesis is simply irrelevant to the above argument (as well as to our discussion).
It is clear, then, that Dave has his work cut out for him if he wishes to successfully defend the Cosmological Argument (or show that the atheist's "axiom" that the universe can exist sans a divine being is somehow mistaken or flawed).
Uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 13 January 2002, with express editorial permission from Steve Conifer.


text:
A private cottage just south of Seattle, with a spectacular view of Puget Sound…
Discover Soundview Cottage, a hidden gem near downtown Seattle, but off the beaten path. Secluded, quiet, and intimate, this personal bed and breakfast feels like home.
Whether you need a personal retreat, a honeymoon hideaway, a vacation rental, or a comfortable place to stay while in Seattle on business, Soundview welcomes you. Come share the legacy of romantic seclusion and thoughtful hospitality of this private guest house.
At this Seattle B & B, you'll be amazed by the spectacular view from your private deck and hot tub. Cottage guests enjoy dramatic vistas that overlook the waterways of Puget Sound and the beach houses of Three Tree Point, with a backdrop of the Olympic Mountains and sometimes Mt. Rainier. Sunsets linger over Vashon Island and eagles cruise the treetops.
Located just minutes from SeaTac International Airport, just south of West Seattle as the eagle flies, Soundview Cottage is among the nearest bed and breakfasts to the airport – yet, it is delightfully quiet, secluded and peaceful. It's only 15-20 minutes from Pike Place Market and the Seattle Center, 10 minutes from the sports stadiums, and 4 minutes from Highline Hospital.
High-speed wireless lets you stay as connected as you like, while a Scrabble game, jigsaw puzzle, board games, books, and an extensive library of DVDs offer hours of private entertainment. The kingsize bed is famously comfortable, with soft, smooth sheets and a pile of down pillows. You'll find extra towels stacked in the cabinet, a pair of bathrobes hanging in one closet, and a washer and dryer for your convenience in the other.
Enjoy breakfast at your leisure in the complete kitchen and delightful dining area. We provide a wide variety of breakfast foods such as whole-grain breads, fresh fruit, gourmet coffee, yogurt, orange juice, pancake mix, free-range eggs and omelet fixings like grated cheese and sliced mushrooms. You'll find everything you need to create your own morning feast, whenever you feel like it.
Your other meals can be self-catered in the complete kitchen, or you can order food delivered to your cabin door. Several excellent restaurants are within 5 minutes of the cottage. But some guests never want to leave!
Want to experience Soundview Cottage? Inquire about a reservation.


text:
From catching fireflies under the stars, to s'mores, to fishing with your little buddy in a shallow river just deep enough for him to wade in, camping is the best way to enjoy your summer vacation with the kids.
Here are three different options for taking the family for the road trip to heaven in the great out-of-doors.
Snake River Park in Jackson Hole, WY, is close to everything awesome you want to see outdoors.
Their website explains where they are like this:
10 miles south of historic Jackson Hole, Wyoming
9 miles to the whitewater put-in of the Snake River Canyon
1 mile from the Hoback River
17 miles from Granite Hot Springs in the Bridger Teton National Forest
11 miles to the National Elk Refuge
12 miles to the Wildlife Museum
24 miles to Grand Teton National Park
80 miles to Yellowstone National Park
21 miles to Teton Village
186 steps to horseback riding
2 top-of-your-lungs Adele songs from the tubing put in north of the KOA
Hershey High Meadow Campground in Hershey, PA, combines campfires and roller coasters for all the fun of the great outdoors with the convenience and benefits of staying at an Official Resort of Hershey Park.
Year-round camping allows you to bring your tent, RV, or rent one of our cabins to enjoy the natural beauty of Hershey The Sweetest Place On Earth!
Lake Texoma State Park in Kingston, OK, is one of many state parks in the Texas and Oklahoma region where fun in the sun fades into pleasant evenings full of great family fun.
Eisenhower State Park is perched on the rocky bluffs above Lake Texoma. Enjoy camping, group facilities, picnicking, swimming, boating, fishing, hiking and biking trails.
And there's even a park store where you can find that thing you always forget to bring!
And, of course, make sure your kids are wearing their favorite camo t-shirts. Better yet, these won't let them blend into the woods when you're trying to find them! Happy Camping!


text:
Beneficiario di un regalo CRÉATION? Beneficiario di un forfait LYS?
"Unique in the world:tucked away in five hectares of forest, in the shade of juniper bushes and holm oaks"Gianluca Giannini, Maître de Maison, presents his property:
Tiny traditional stone houses, tucked away in five hectares of forest, in the shade of juniper bushes and holm oaks, have been converted into sophisticated rooms where you can while away your time in peace and quiet. The architecture is a blend of rustic elegance, and draws its inspiration from local natural materials such as rough-hewn stone and timber. The air is fragrant with the scents of the garrigue, and there are delightful views to be enjoyed over the Gulf of Arzachena and the Archipelago of La Maddalena. The wellness centre, housed in natural granite grottos, offers a whole range of treatments specialising in Oriental techniques. One attraction is the superbly light and appetising, Italian regional cuisine served in the restaurant. Unless lunch on board a boat on a private excursion exercises an even greater attraction. The beaches and clear waters of the Costa Smeralda are only minutes away, as is the picturesque village of San Pantaleo.
No products
0,00 € Total
Need Help?Consult online help
Contact our customer service
Phone:0 825 880 firstname.lastname@example.com
CRÉATION Collection
now available in stores
The Maison des
Relais & Châteaux in Paris
Buy gift certificates
and boxes on site
33 Boulevard Malesherbes 75008 Paris France
Tel +33 1 58 18 30 00
Offering a
Relais & Châteaux CRÉATION
gift, means:
2 years*
to use it
More than
520 properties
around the world
Your order delivered within
48 hours*
to the requested address
100 %
Relais & Châteaux experience


text:
Dr. Baweja practiced family medicine from 1994 to 2002; after which he chose to continue his education / training in radiology / medical imaging with additional fellowship training in thoracoabdominal imaging/MSK imaging.
To request a referral or to make an appointment, call the Physician Referral Line.
For questions regarding the information shown on this page, contact our Physician Liaison.


text:
Based on exclusive interviews with the justices themselves, The Nine tells the story of the Court through personalities, from Anthony Kennedy's overwhelming sense of self-importance to Clarence Thomas' well-tended grievances against his critics to David Souter's odd 19th-century lifestyle. There is also, for the first time, the full behind-the-scenes story of Bush v. Gore and Sandra Day O'Connor's fateful breach with George W. Bush, the president she helped place in office.
The Nine is the book best-selling author Jeffrey Toobin was born to write. A CNN senior legal analyst and New Yorker staff writer, no one is more superbly qualified to profile the nine justices.
©2007 Jeffrey Toobin; (P)2007 Books on Tape
"A major achievement, lucid and probing." (Bob Woodward)
"Absorbing....[Toobin's] savvy account puts the supposedly cloistered Court right in the thick of American life." (Publishers Weekly)
"This is a remarkable, riveting book. So great are Toobin's narrative skills that both the justices and their inner world are brought vividly to life." (Doris Kearns Goodwin)
This book is about the Supreme Court Justices - not the law. I found this to be a fascinating look into the individual nature of the justices and how their background, personalities, public and public opinion influence their decisions. The book covers many of the more well known cases regarding afirmative action, abortion, death penalty, gay rights, women's right etc. However, the focus is not on the cases but rather how the decisions were made. Insight into why the Chief Justice is so important, how 'liberals' judges like David Souter got nominated by a republican president. Why did the justices intervene in the Gore-Bush election? Which justice cried after the decision? What did the justices think of the Clarence Thomas confirmaion hearings? How did the presidents actually go about choosing a justice? How in the world did Harrier Myers get nominated? These any more topics are covered. if you have any interest in the Supreme Court, you will find this an interesting read (listent).
"Pulp Jurisdiction"
The Nine is written as a travelogue of the recent to not so recent history of this esteemed panel. It has many interesting facts and anecdotes concerning an 'inside baseball' perspective of the court. The average listener to this type of book however is probably more interested in a more academic approach to the subject. It is not that this title is not enjoyable, much to the contrary, I was quite engaged all the way through...It's just that when I got to the end I wasn't sure that I understood the court any better than I had before listening. What I was hoping for was how the cases were presented to the Justices and how they interpreted the Constitution in their findings. Fortunately Audible has actual Supreme Court hearings downloadable for free...This I found more informative, if a bit less entertaining.
"5 stars for leftys, 4 for others"
If you are interested in politics and the court, this book is pretty darn interesting. Toobin is quite liberal, and writes from that point of view. As long as you can accept that, he writes a good tale, and you learn a lot about what drives the justices, albeit from his very left-leaning view of piety.
My biggest complaint is the author's omissions of important parts of arguments, for example, the whole Bush v Gore election. He totally glosses over the strident incompetence of the Florida Supreme Court. Only if you were a news junky at the time would you have the proper context to understand the whole story. He leaves out many details that don't comport with his liberal views; but, I guess we all do that some. Overall, very good book.
mostly nonfiction listener
"Supreme Reporting"
In terms of pure craftsmanship and bang or the buck in learning about the U.S. it is hard to beat Toobin's "The Nine". Simply put, Toobin is a great writer. He infuses drama and erudition into his narrative of the Supreme Court under Rhenquist (and then Roberts). We learn that the Court was really the O'Connor Court, as for two decades she held the center ground and therefore the deciding vote. We see the Court at it's best, as it tacked to moderation on social and commercial issues, and at its worst as it short-circuited the Florida recount in 2008 and installed Bush to the Presidency.
The Supreme Court is the least well understood of the 3 branches of the Federal Government, but often the most important. Toobin takes us behind the closed doors of the Court, giving the reader a sense of how opinions are crafted and how the personalities of the Justices (and their relationships to each other) determines the law of the land. "The Nine" should become a standard text for undergraduate departments of Government and Political Science.
"Well researched and a great read"
It is very scary to read how the Republican Christian Right-wing decided to conquer the Supreme Court - and succeeded. A less known - and quite dirty - part of American history is here brought to light. It is somewhat of a scary science fiction novel to read how ultra-conservative people can influence our daily life. But it is true. Apart from how that swing in majority in the Court was made possible, this is a very good analysis of the Court and how it works. Even the legal parts are well written and analyzed (says this legally trained reader.) Highly recommended!
"Very Human Group"
Jeffrey Toobin sure flat knows how to reveal what the court is really like. In his fine book, "The Nine," the listener comes to know about each high court judge warts and all. Sharp character sketches and descriptions of how the judges work individually and together are great.
Toobin, it seems, has set out to help us understand how the court works from the perspective of those a part of it. He succeeds wonderfully in this task. His portraits of the individual judges extends over a 15 year period allowing for him to introduce key decisions made over that period.
This book is well written and read. It tells how the individual judges work and interact rather than telling how the court works, per se. Therefore, the book will be of broader interest. Listen to it for what it is and you'll not be disappointed.
Listening to audio books is pure pleasure for me as I can listen while sitting quietly, while driving as well as when I have chores to do.
"The Nine"
A very educational look at how the appointments to the judicial bench influence the laws of the country and how the judges make their decisions. Disturbing in how removed from reality some are. A fascinating look at their culture. I enjoyed this book.
Although the book does have its interesting moments -- some factual, some gossipy -- it more reminded me of my law school days (now more than 25 years ago) of listening to a student "briefing a case" to the professor and class. That was uninteresting. What's more, the book makes an argument that a pervasive right wing conspiracy is afoot in the the selection of Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and other cases of perceived judicial activism. That could be, but I felt the arguments as presented were either weak, unsupported, or did not add up. I thought Woodward's "The Brethren" was far better. This book was quite underwhelming.
"An entertaining peek behind the red curtain"
A fascinating look into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. Lots of interesting tidbits about the court, its justices, and how their personalities and politics influence their decisions. Toobin focuses mainly on the justices serving in the 1980's through the appointment of John Roberts as Chief Justice. For casual watchers of the court you will find lots to like - equal parts analysis of some of the more important decisions over the past 30 years, biography, and insider anecdotes - all told within the context of shifting political trends. I found it all very entertaining and informative but those interested in the history of the court or in depth legal analysis of landmark rulings should look elsewhere.
"Another attack on the Court's right."
Overall this book has an adequate summary of the behind the scenes ongoings in the Court covering the Rehnquist to the Roberts period. Although I often wondered where the information was obtained - how the author had access to comments made during the Court's private conferences.
I take issue with Toobin's constant attack upon the jurists to the right. I would have enjoyed this book much more had the treatment of all of the Justices been handled with the same objectivity. The author clearly expressed this opinion that the jurists on the right are somehow intellectually inferior than the others. I found it quite insulting, inappropriate, and unnecessary. This should have been a neutral reporting of an important period of time of the Court, not an attempt to get even or to take a shot at the right.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
There are 41 results - Show results on a map Print this page
Showing 21 - 30 of 41
Popular with tour groups, this long-established hotel enjoys a central, prominent seafront location overlooking the pier. Spacious public areas include a choice of lounges, and regular entertainment i...More about Queens Hotel
An attractive Victorian property ideally located close to the seafront, Wish Tower and Congress Theatre. The bedrooms are bright and spacious. Family rooms are available, plus there are facilities fo...More about Congress Hotel
This friendly, family-run hotel is conveniently located close to the seafront, the Congress Theatre and Winter Gardens. Public rooms are well presented and include a cosy bar, a small comfortable loun...More about New Wilmington Hotel
This well-managed and popular hotel enjoys an elevated position with views of attractive gardens and the sea beyond. The spacious bedrooms are attractive and well equipped. In addition to the comforta...More about Hydro Hotel
High quality, budget accommodation ideal for both families and business travellers. Spacious, en suite bedrooms feature tea and coffee making facilities, and Freeview TV in most hotels. Internet acces...More about Premier Inn Eastbourne
This family-run hotel is ideally situated close to the seafront and local theatres. The well appointed public areas include the lounge, spacious bar and stylish restaurant. Bedrooms vary in size but ...More about The Palm Court
A family-run guest accommodation, The Bay Lodge offers a warm welcome in comfortable surroundings opposite the Redoubt and Pavilion Gardens. Bedrooms are bright and spacious, some with balconies. Ther...More about The Bay Lodge
High quality, budget accommodation ideal for both families and business travellers. Spacious, en suite bedrooms feature tea and coffee making facilities, and Freeview TV in most hotels. Internet acces...More about Premier Inn Eastbourne (Polegate)
Located at the west end of the town, opposite the Wishing Tower, this hotel boasts panoramic views of the sea from many rooms. Bedrooms vary in size but are comfortable with good facilities for guests...More about Alexandra Hotel
A handsome family-run hotel handily placed for the seafront and theatres. Attractively furnished rooms are spacious and comfortable; many boast king-size beds and all are equipped with WiFi and satell...More about The Devonshire Park Hotel


text:
2013 Girls Spring Showcases
Maximum Exposure Basketball is in its seventh year of offering showcases for High School, Prep School, and Junior College basketball players that are looking to move on and play at the next level. Players that attend our showcases will be placed onto teams and play 2 or 3 games in front of college coaches. Each player will also be evaluated by the Maximum Exposure Basketball staff. Evaluations will then be sent to every college in the ENTIRE country!
*** College Coaches and recruiting services will be invited to and present at each event. ***
*** Each Showcase is NCAA Certified and Division I Coaches can attend. ***
Players can register online or through the mail. Showcase cost is $85.00 per player. A $45.00 deposit is required to reserve your spot.
2013 Spring Showcase Dates & Locations
*** Click on Links below for starting times, directions, hotel information, etc. ***
Saturday April 20 Lake Wales, FL Warner University
Sunday April 21 Miami, FL Miami Christian School
Colleges that have attended our Events