text:
To learn more click here
The US Dollar Index fell for the week, but got a little bit of a bounce on Friday. We are currently below the 80 handle, and as such we think that this market is ready to continue falling with the right catalyst. However, right now looks like it has gotten a bit of a reprieve during the week and this could set up potential selling opportunities on rallies. Of course, you'd have to be willing to take a straight off of the daily chart, but it may be a viable way to take advantage of the continued weakness of the US dollar.
With all this being said, we are bearish of the US dollar at the moment but recognize the fact that we are in a world that is very unstable. With that in mind we could see a run back towards the US dollar, and this could cause choppy conditions. With everything being equal, we are much more comfortable selling this market under the 80 handle. If we get above 80, we think a run back to the 82 level is very likely.


text:
Skip to comments.Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Actually I think you took the opposite message from the lecture than was intended.
The networks he was modeling, unlike a transistor radio, are extremely robust. While the transistor radio fails when one part is misadjusted, the networks that Odell was modeling turned out to be extremely robust. Even with randomly generated parts, it was difficult to create a model one that would not function!
That led to the title of his lecture:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
For the lurkers who have no idea what we are talking about, the link to this lecture is here. It is highly recommended.
Lets try something a little new here Instead of spouting off more unfounded statements try to learn something about the GHZ either here or here.
...and was issued a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation that paid 25 percent of his salary at Iowa State for three years. Furthermore, ISU endorsed his research by administering the grant. I pulled in more than that as a graduate student. No big deal. $58K over six years is less than 10k per year.
You missed the point entirely, but beyond this, you conveniently and intentionally omitted:
Dr Gonzalez authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002), co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.
Now, you stated, Mr. G contributed almost zero to the department in six years. I stated I do believe Dr. Gonzales has been treated unfairly due to preconceived beliefs of others. Due you realize that you are merely confirming my statement?
You're not wrong and thank you for the input. I do not have a science background so my explanations will be quite elementry.
The order in which cells operate definately suggests a higher order of design. We can all agree on this. The question then becomes if cells move in a direction toward a higher order of design, how do they know to move in a more complex direction of design? What drives them? Science has not answered this question yet and the observable available evidence definately suggests an intellegence.
For some science to turn a blind eye to or deny any evidence by using the charade of a statement, "There is NO evidence of ID" is not only detrimental to further their research, it's quite a foolish conundrum they place themselves in.
Exactly. I understood this, that's why I made the comment about him making me realize how complex life really is. He almost contradicts himself with his "Abstract Math" because what he's proving is the exact opposite of what the lecture's title suggests.
Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.'
This is pure unadulterated subterfuge. It proves how Intellegent the networks to be because of their robust nature! He's just offering one (In my view, false) perspective of how to look at the calculation, that's all this shows.
Anybody who thinks that achieving tenure is anything other than political is very naive.
If the Doc holds ANY views that displease the powers that be at his university, he's toast.
Im curious. If people who observe some form of id in the universe and science are immediately (knee-jerk) labeled anti-science, does that automatically invoke the label of anti-intelligence for those who do not? Honestly I dont see this label cast upon those who disagree with id anywhere close to the degree the anti-science label is cast out To paraphrase Berlinsk (a Secular Jew); if we were to replace the word evolution with allah and the label of id with infidel - I dont think these discussions would read significantly different.
First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent.
Now you are equating reliability to intelligence. For some reason, in your mind, if something is robust it is also intelligent. What is next, if it is green it is a result of intelligent design?
In this same statement you confuse the origin and the essence of the systems. Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop through random, 'undesigned' processes. Your complaint about this is that the robust system is intelligent, not that it requires an intelligent agent to produce such a robust, complex system, but that it is in itself intelligent. If you keep expanding the definition of intelligence you will eventually remove all meaning from the word.
From what I can see you are attempting to validate ID through an appeal to incredulity and an overly broad definition.
To a hammer, everything is a nail. This describes your entire attitude toward ID.
Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped. They are attacking science directly by demanding that the way science is done be changed.
Nice attempt to portray those that don't support ID as against intelligence when you know very well that we are against Intelligent Design, a very specific philosophy, not intelligence. Your tactic is called equivocation.
an inference of design means that "we wouldn't learn very much about the world", beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism.
Their view makes sense, of course, once you assume up front that materialism is really true. (Of course, on that view, religious people believe myths, but evolutionary psychology can explain why they do. We all have the right to our purely private delusions and indulgences.) But in reality, it is merely childish to attribute any feature of the universe to design, just as it would be childish to attribute it to fairies.
And - note this carefully, for this follows too - when we identify evidence that looks like design, we must seek an "explanation" that rules out design, even if it doesn't really work well. That's okay because some day we will have an explanation that rules out design that works a lot better. Otherwise we wouldn't learn very much about the world.
That is actually a classic recipe for a point of view that can never be disconfirmed by evidence. So it is not surprising that materialists insist that the evidence for their point of view and for their creation story (Darwinism) is overwhelming. Following their rules, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be otherwise.
Its not easy for anyone with any sense to get tenure in any college in America..
i.e. if you have tenure you are very probably a Moonbat.. or look like one..
Which leads one to wonder what all the fuss is about.
The cell responds to "stressors." The stressors may be random, but the cell's response is not. For example, cosmic radiation is presumed to strike cells randomly, some mutate as a result and most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not. Those that survive, reproduce and they in turn may also mutate and survive to reproduce, and so it goes on and on. Eventually, the end result may somewhat removed from the original progenitor cell. And that's just in response to one of a whole slew of stressors in the cell's environment.
From the cell's point of view it is to adapt to the stressors in the environment and those which survive are accomplishing that goal by using the information derived from the stressors.
Hardly. We are a result of natural processes yet we at times show indications of intelligence.
Have I denied that the natural processes we see around us are the result of an intelligent agent? Absolutely.
"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought and was only recently replaced in science by the politics of the young guard and the x-club that embraced Darwins theory as a avenue towards their beliefs.
The process we now call Methodological Naturalism is a direct offshoot of Newton and other religious scientists who realized that because God is not capricious and would not interfere with the regularity and constancy of nature in such a way as to invalidate their examination of nature God can be ignored within the methods used. Despite what you believe to be the philosophical underpinnings of much of Western thought, the methodology of science was designed, by an intelligence, to minimize the influence of an individual's belief system on the results of his/her science.
Your whining about the putative abandonment of the 'Intelligent Designer (God)' within the practice of science does not invalidate the fact that scientists, even religious scientists, recognize that the Intelligent Designer needs to be removed from the process of examining nature. However if you want to put your Intelligent Designer under the microscope, then the physical evidence of its work can be examined by science. That evidence must be better explained by an intelligence than by non-intelligence for it to be followed. So far we haven't seen such evidence.
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
[First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent]
Technically he'sa asserting what other scientific minds have asserted that observable complexity and design means there is an intelligent design (Which upon close examination does indeed appear to be the case), and that some sort of designer must be present. All machines have a design and involve a designer, and for al lintents and purposes, species are basically machines. Our machiens of course are much more sophisticated than man made machines, and have built in adaption codes that can be influenced by environmental pressures, but all designs have limitations- which is basically what I've been trying to opine about. These limitations prevent manipulations beyond species specific limitations- go beyond them and hte design breaks down- this is evidneced by the extreme selective breedings that cause offspring that are much less than the original optimums.
[Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped.]
We're proposing that methodological naturalism be abandoned? Noone here was stating that, nor are we suggesting that anyone change anythign about science- Tell me, is it a change in science to observe design, carry out experiments that show how manipulating design renders somethign innoperable? Design can be observed and tested on many many levels, from the smallest systems to the most complex. Is it so terrible to have several hypothesis at work in science? The accusation that ID doesn't perfom science is well, anti science to tell you the truth
[The cell responds to "stressors." The stressors may be random, but the cell's response is not.]
Granted, some cells are coded to indeed respond to stressors, and infact to switch functions sometimes, however, it's clear that many cels don't- cells which would have been necessary to change in order for hte next higher form of life to evolve. As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere, and one should ask where? If a cell doesn't have the necessary info to begin with, it will not be able to adjust and survive- One must also take into concideration that the amount of changes in higher in higher lifeforms is simply staggering- simply too much to account for the cause being random mutations and environmental stresses. Most of the cells present in differing species don't change according to stressors.
I can see where you're going with htis, and yes, it's a hypothesis that does make soem sense incertain cases, but I'm afraid I have to dissagree with the premise
As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere...
The "coding" lies in the cell's response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the "coding."
I don't see the need to add the concept, 'that the coding must have come from somewhere.' The cell cannot foresee all possible stressors, (in fact it foresees none) and many cells' responses are not sufficient for survival---but those that are, do survive. You might call that process, "accidental." I would call it incidental to being alive.
-authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002),
How many of the 21 was he NOT the primary author. How many were in sub-tier publications? How many were really short letters rather than scientific papers?
co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.
Co-authoring a textbook is NOT research. What new research did he accomplish at ISU?
BTW, the amount of grants pulled in by Dr. G was a factor of more than 100 less than the average of the rest of the staff during his time at ISU.
I asked, "So what happens now?"
"I don't get a paycheck," he replied.
[The "coding" lies in the cell's response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the "coding."]
The concept you're suggesting is that all advancements to higher forms (although there could also be lower degredation as well) come from stressors increasing information in cells, and if that were the case, then we would be able to demonstrate evolution from one species to another through experiments. Also the problem comes in that only species specific changes can happen to gene coding for which the species has been already coded to accept- if evolution through gene changes through stressors to cells were a reality, then we certainly would be able to demonstrate this process today- but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.
Again I must point out that not all advancement in evolution hypothesis is based on stressors- those who beleive in evolution contend that environmental pressures necessitate adaption that leads to evolution- this need isn't a direct stressor on the suppsoed systems that some say evolved such as first feathers then wings (although I'm not sure what the pressing need to fly was when so much food is available on the ground- but that's another story). So supposedly, added information comes from environmental induced needs that urge a species to only accept mutational mistakes that would advantage them- although one really needs to ask- since evolution supposedly takes millions of years, wouldn't those 'needs' be changing in all that time while a species awaited their feathered wings? If the need to evolve is so great at a given time, and it takes millions of years to evolve something like wings, then it would seem that those individuals that could overcome the fact that they didn't their required wings in time would have no logner needed wings because they would have found other resources to survive.
You might find it it interesting to read Hans Selye's works: General Adaptation Syndrome; Stress, Distress and Eustress (I think that's the order in the title.); The Stress of Life (His most famous work.)
Environmental pressures are stressors.
Consider Walter B. Cannon's concept of Homeostasis, an idealized steady state of a given organism's physiology where all is stress-free: no hunger, no cold, no thirst, no distress, etc., etc. The fact is the organism, in maintaining its own life in an ever-changing environment is constantly working toward homeostasis but, of course, never achieves it because of the rapid flux of changing conditions, both internal and external.
but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.
Say what?
No I do not!! I claim complexity is evidence of intellegence.
Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop(e) through random, 'undesigned' processes.
You're totally missing my point! Odell has an "opinion" which I do not agree with. I believe intellegent information is introduced and nothing in his mathematics refutes my claim. I might not have been as clear as I should have been. Odell was pointing out the Complexity of these sytems, but didn't ever resolve the question of "how" they become so complex. All he does in his "Abstract Mathematics" is push a conjectural notion, "that complex, highly robust systems can develope through random, 'undesigned' processes." Which I will admit, I do not understand how he showed this...or if he really ever did. His evidence for showing "random undesigned processes" must have flown completely over my head. If you know what evidence he presented, please tell me.
My point simply is by his investigation he just showed even more how complex these processes and systems to be.
And again (and again, and again) you are wrong.
Whining? Do you deny that an intelligent cause was a given within science for two millennia and proceeded Christianity? Are you so naive to think that modern scientists do not see any intelligence or any design in our existence (or would you prefer all to focus only on those who do not)? Even agnostic Greek philosophers made reference to a prime mover at the beginning.
Beyond this, what are we to do with those who believe in human consciousness within the recently imposed Methodological Naturalism constraints? Are those who believe human consciousness the next in line for the anti-science label? Surely you realize that human consciousness under the current paradigm must merely be an "emergent property" of the complexity of the processes and structures underlying its expression. IOW our intelligence (morality, love, altruism, etc..) must ultimately come from this unintelligent and un-designed universe. Obviously those who believe otherwise must believe in a soul or some sort of dualism that cannot exist in Methodological Naturalism and must therefore be labeled as anti-science.
Heck, lets just take a look at how current science defines our human consciousness as qualitative piece parts:
DAWKINS: (snip)" But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"This is what you are left with Human consciousness; its all an illusion that exists for no ultimate reason. We, as humans, think/believe we fortuitously stumbled accidentally upon this via science. To believe that our morals, the beauty that we see, art, literature, and science itself came from something other than a mindless cause is heresy within this current paradigm of science.
PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives "(end snip)
Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.
This is current science and 'your' philosophy - so you must tell us all how we evolved our morality and how it is actually an illusion because morality does not actually exist in the universe we live in
The ownness is with you.
morality consists of a universal moral code- some might argue "Well there are cultures that don't concider murder/rape etc wrong, so morality is a subjective ideal, however, this is a false argument as those who have come out of such cultural practices have testified that even though it was an accepted norm to commit these attrocities, and everyone encouraged it, something deep inside them told them it was wrong and that they never felt right about it. Philosophers have argued about whether morality was a subjective or objective truth for a long time now, and there is more evidence indicating that it is indeed an objective unioversal moral code and not some drummed up evolutionary process- Dawkins has tried desperately to argue that emotions have 'evolved' and that there are genes that control things like selfishenss and morality- however, this simply isn't the case- Some have also argued that folks with frontal lobe damage aren't capable of morality, however this is also false, and they know right from wrong still, but choose not to take part in a morally driven society anymore.
I won't be commenting much further on this, but I wanted to address the accusations that ID isn't a estifiable science, and to show that the accepted Methodological Naturalism, somethign some suggest is the golden goose of science, is such a narrow tunnel vision that it doesn't result in objective science.
If an investigator were to try to discover a designer of say a watch, but instead of objectively looking for the designer, were to exclude all people of color, and only look for a white designer thinking that only suc a person could design the watch, then this would not be concidered an objective search, but rather a priori belief that quite frankly blinds the investigator to all evidences along the way that might point to the designer as being someone of a different race.
The same thing holds true for discovering where we came from. If you are going to immediately exclude the possibility that the designer of all the designs we see in nature might be something other than methedological naturalism, then you've set yourself up in a position of subjectivity instead of practicing a completely honest system of objective science.
Now, to state that it's impossible to investigate a supernatural creator is quite frankly reiculous. We have the modern technology to replicate and investigate occurances such as creation by following evidences such as radiation that would be left over from a massive energy utilizing/consuming event, we can study the after effects, calculate and measure the results, and even predict what we should find for evidences. As I mentioned in a post several pages ago, a student has written a thesis on how light wasa produced through a massive event that caused somnolumenscence (sp?). This has been reproduced in labs, and has shown how massive pressure on water can cause the bubbles to produce luminescence.
While God worked outside of the natural laws in some instances, He did utilize natural laws, and we can investigate and conclude with a reasonable amount of credibility, that what we know today can be explained by creation through design.
You might find this astonishing, but science has been investigating the world of science going on the premise that design is present, and they have made many important discoveries going on this premise. Mathemeticians have known for a very long time that there is a mathematical design in nature, and bioscience has known this as well. One doesn't have to believe their is a spiritual premise to the design in order to investigate the design and come to reasonable and intelligent conclusions.
Being objective means not excluding a reasonable hypothesis simply because one believes in a priori conclusion, but rather investigating ALL angles, exploring ALL plausible leads, and using the science to investigate the very fingerprints of origins. Adopting the idea that a person of color simply couldn't produce a watch leaves one blind and non objective, and opens them up to practicing a biased 1/2 science that simply isn't up to the acedemic standards of true objective investigation.
The role of objective science is to concider and scientifically investigate all probable explanations/hypothesis, and to conceed when an hypothesis is problematic enough that another hypothesis is a real enough alternative as to warrent at least an investigation. That's simply not what we see in regards to ID.
Admittedly, there are many problems with Evolution hypothesis, and not just some podunk minor problems that are of little consequence.
Evolutions god, being nature itself, has some evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far far from conclusive.
ID's God, Being God Hismelf, has soem evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far from conclusive.
Both sicneces will have both weak and strong scientific evidneces which support their hypothesis, and prop up their models, but neither will have conclusive irrefutable evidence presicesly because they both are investigating the inner workings of phenomena. The hypothesis of descent from common ancestry is a weak proposal based on anectdotal evidences that are subjectively interpreted- ID's hypothesis the same. There is a mathematical element to everythign we see, and Darwinism simply doesn't account for the fact that mathematics can't be accounted for by natural means. It can be argued of course that nature can randomly create mathematically designed systems, however, Darwinism offers no reasonable falsifiable tests to test for this known fact, thereby rendering their hypothesis weakly supported by anectdotal evidences which are subject to subjective interpretations which objiosly vary from one scientist to another. I say 'weak' because there are no obvious scientific facts that can concretely and decisively define the phenomena of life origins.
It has been said that evolution provides the best predictabilities, however, while some predictions have been discovered, so have predictions for ID, and even for creation. The predictabilities don't offer proof of origins for evolution, they simply offer predictabilities for natural selection- not macroevolution. The predictabilities are common sense sinsibilities in regards to natural selection, which as we all know, is a scientific fact that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt.
Design, as we are finding out more and more through careful scinetific analysis, is intelligent in nature, and is a reality, and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it's presence. Hopefully, they will do this objectively in the future, but so far, all they are offering is a biased and subjectively motivated antagonism to a ligitimate competing hypothsis, and they are using a method that does not have a true objective scientific basis.
Methodological Naturalism is a practice of science that seeks to promote only one way of interpreting the evidences, and seeks to exclude any other hypothesis from any sort of concideration. This practice isn't science, it is a form of dogmatic religious reasoning.
You should check out the review of Behe's new book in Science.
Great link. It shows that the average professor brings in 1.3 million while Dr. G brings in less than 1/10 as much! No someone that is performing up to the standard of his peers. Don't you believe in hiring the most qualified?
Stick to your day job; don't count on a career in science.
Perhaps you should discount a job as an editor/proofreader/technical writer as well.
Seriously, the understanding you exhibit of science, and how science works, is minimal. You have apparently settled on a particular religious belief, and you twist and bend scientific evidence until it agrees with your preordained conclusions. In the process it ceases to be science and becomes pure apologetics.
Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend it is science.
Gee- insults- Gosh- those refute the issues being discussed so brilliantly coyote- thanks for dropping by and contributing so much intellectual prowess- now run along back to DC- the back-slap-fest going on over there misses your kiddie rhetoric
[Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend it is science.]
Thanks- I will- apparently you'll beleive what you want and pretend it's 'science' too- Hey- got a cynodont and a therapsid, gosh, they look similiar, despite being seperated by millions of years, why by golly, there's the link we've all been waiting for to show the evolution of reptiles to mammals-
Woopsie- someone forgot to mention the Cynodont has no direct relative before it, and woopsie number 2, someone forgot to mention that the examples given were seperated by whole continents, and were found in layers that didn't match the timelines, and that oceans seperated the species- Shall I go on coyote? Or are the scienctific FACTS too deep for you? Twisting the evidences Coyote? Who's the one twisting again? Who's the one NEGLECTING to FULLY inform the public about ALL the facts because they aren't conducive to the accepted hypothesis of evolution? Pfffff- Accuse all you like- the only one pretending their science is sound are those who throw out easily refuted 'evidences' and pretend there aren't serious problems, and those who prove exactly what I said, that when they got nothing, they resort to childish petty ad hominem attacks exactly you did- thatnks for proving me correct again!
Let's just define whos being the apologist here coyote- As I said- you're the pot calling the kettle black.
Us: The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.
You (and other evolution apologists): Well, evolution 'could have happened but the for some reason species weren't fossilized before the Cambrian episode" Drum roll please...... Apologist! Is there any evidence to back this statement up? Why No, no there isn't- it's a leap of blind faith!
Us: It is biologically impossible for a species to gain NEW non species specific organs and systems through a series of random mutations.
You (and other evolution apologists): Well, Evolution "could have done created new organs IF given enough time, and IF enough benificial mutations accumulated" Do you or anyone else offer ANY proof that accumulations of mutations can produce the biologically impossible? Nope- not an iota of evidence. The best you can do is throw out examples of microevolution and assert that Macroevolution- something that has NEVER been proven to occure, is one in the same when infact it clearly isn't. When htis is repeatedly brought to your attention, all we get is foot stomping insistence that micro and macro are the same, and we get petty little insults thrown our way. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!
Us: It is both mathematically impossible for mutations to accumulate enough that even one minor functioning new system could evolve in a species that simply doesn't have hte code for the new system, and irreducible complexity shows that without all the pieces in place, species specific systems could not function.
You (and other evolution apologists): Behe is a big poopie head and pseudoscientist. New organs that species aren't coded for could happen, all you have to do is click your heels and believe that time cures all impossiblities. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!
Us: Interdependent chemicals within the body, such as seen in the eye in abundance, simply would have no functions if the other dchemicals that they rely on were not present and performing organ specific functions. We ask how long a time it would take for all the components of the eye to assemble while each interdependent part and chemical waited around for everythign to assemble BY CHANCE
You (and other evolution apologists): Light sensitive skin patches prove the eye evolved. Anyone that says different and doesn't believe that and questions the science is ignorant. Some of the chemicals and parts COULD HAVE had otehr functions, although admittedly, we have no proof that they did. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!
Us: There is no direct link between the Cynodont, the favorite species of ear evolution advocates, that could have preceeded the Cynodont, yet amazingly, the chart used to show the suppsoed ear evolution contains species that we're told preceeded the Cynodont, because the chart would simply break down when trying to show a supposed ear evolution if species were not shown preceeding the Cynodont. Furthermore, what is hidden from the public is the fact that all the intermediary species that showed a VERY clear reversal of suppsoed jaw bone migration. Furthermore, we're not told that the species in the supposed ear system evolution chart were found continents apart, and in the wrong layers which were simply explained away by 'environmental phenomena' (It would appear that if you wish hard enough, and twist hte evidence, hide refuting evidneces, and neglect to mention certain facts, that the impossible could then become the possible)
You (and other evolution apologists): Arrrrgh- you know nothing about how eovlution happens. There are branches on the tree of life, and although not perfect, and although there are missing links and gaps, ear evolution happened- you're just being difficult. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!
Us: The supposed early earth conditions were absolutely non conducive and hostile to any beginnings of life, and furthermore, it is bioilogically impossible for the cell membranes needed for life to function on even the lowest levels to take place. Lab experiments have ignored many impossible facts in an effort to produce idealized membranes that ignore the natural supposed progressions of biologically possible membranes. The idealized membranes produced by lab technicians could not have happened. Fatty acids could not have survived in the environment needed for the miraculous evolution of fatty acids from chemicals, let alone the furhter problems associated with membranes that couldn't transport waste or induce movements and transportation of material. The abolute minimum requirements for self replicating organisms was simply biologically impossible given the environment and hostile elements that would have annihilated any begginings of life on the molecular level. Provided though, that these impossibilities were somehow miraculously overcome, we then come to the impossiblities of amino acids surviving in a hostile enivironment long enough for evolution to miraculously morph them into protiens while the evolution of DNA miraculously took place from nothing.
Concidering that molecules can't reproduce without the help of numerous other molecules critical to multiplying,, and concidering that it's hard enough hypothesising about just one molecule evolving from chemicals, how is it possible that one cell, comprised of thousands of atoms, somehow got hundreds of amino acids to align in the precise order, all doing their specifc part by providing a cell membrane, synthesizing fats, providing energy, synthesizing the building blocks of DNA the nucleotides, and synthesizing proteins, worked to produce a viable cell membrane conducive to life advancement up through the hostile ladder of evolution in an effort to, in the words of one fella, climb mount improbable?
You (and other evolution apologists): Abiogenisis isn't a part of the study of evolution. Besides, that's not my field, so I don't have to comment on that- Phew, dodged that bullet. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!
Us: What about the problem of the same genes in different species performing the same functions despite differing in their molecules being alined differently? How bout the same molecules performing different functions? How about the hemoglobin of yeast being nearly identical to human hemoglobin? How about the fact that the divergences were predicted, and show, not a nice smooth gradual progression from original species, but a ragged, divergent, unexplained pattern that defies the proposed evoltuion of species to higher orders. Proposed homologous systems are infact, non-homologous genetic systems.
You (and other evolution apologists): Um, divergence isn't my field of expertise- hang on, I'll find an article that ridicules.... er I mean proposes yet another impossible workaround to those problems that defy the laws of biological reality and rely on the age old notion that "Time + Mutations soles everything". Yuo have terrible spelling, and thusly, noone should concider any of the facts you present and instead discount you because you don';t take the time to correct your typing mistakes!!! (Brilliant refutation of the facts) Drum roll [please.... Apologist!!!
""Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques" by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action." - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. ""
But But, Wait a minute... I thought evolution science was strict science- testing, falsifying, experimenting? But what does my eye spy? An admission that laws and experiments can't be performed? They are unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Gee- whoda thunk that the evolution proponents engage in the very thing that they accuse ID'ers of doing? Pots calling Kettles balck once again!
""We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31""
You're right Coyote- I guess I didn't know how evolution works. I assumed it sought truth. Apparently, to folks like you however, it works by wishing on a star, ignoring massive gaps, ignoring evidences that refute proposed hypotheses, and ignores biological impossibilities. Apparently the god called TIME is enough to overcome impossibilities and apparently placing dissimiliar species next to each other, and pointing out a few commonalities while ignoring the billions of genetic dissimilarities, is enough to convince those such as yourself who need for there to be no God in the equation. Apparently whining about opposing posts and calling the poster ignornat is enough to refute biological impossibilities. I guess I was in the dark about what 'real science' is all about - thanks for setting me straight- I was blind, but now I see. Onward evolution soldiers. So please, keep crying about how ID folk are 'apologists' - it's quite funny.
The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.
Your claim is false, as is so often the case.
The following information should help to clarify the actual facts of the matter. This is from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. In particular, this information is from Claim CC300. You see, there have been so many false claims made by creationists that they have been arranged and numbered, with detailed refutations.
I don't expect you to accept this, or much of anything else that science shows; I am posting this for the lurkers.
See the original article for the references.
Cripes- noone said it was the origin nor that there weren't earlier MICROBIAL life- that's your problem you twist what is said, ignore the important issue being discussed, and pretend there aren't problems with the FACT that the cambrian explosion of FULLY FORMED species in the hundreds is a problem for the 'molecule to man' hypothesis. The claim that there was an explosion IS NOT false- You know, you keep throwing out petty little insults claiming we're ignorant, but the fact that you can't even follow a conversation honestly, and the fact thaT you make claims about what we say that are blatantly false shows once again that you're either blatantly dishonest, or you simply have an issue with following conversations precisely.
[The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.]
Lol- yeah- there's such an abundance of fossils of predators in the 'precambrian' era.
[Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.]
Oh this is getting funny- Yup- too small to see, yet the Cambrian explosion consits of fossils all not only visible to the naked eye, but much much larger than microbial finds that are reputed to be 'precambrian' nased on the highly *cough* reliable dating methods
[Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today.]
BS- nearly every form found in the cambrian strata are near identicle to the species we have today- some species of the cambrian era went extinct, others- infact most, have survived today showing ONLY small MICROEVOLUTIONARY changes.
The rest is NOTHING but assumptions and speculations proposed as a means to prop up a hypothesis in trouble lol
pre cambrian- microbes microbes microbes, Cambrian- WHAM! Fully formed highly complex and functional species- Worms with legs? Egads- ya got us there with that stunning evidence-
Has anyone here who says ID is not science read anything written by these people in support of the theory and research plan of ID outside of some pop-sci article in a MSM newspaper? These folks are scientists with credentials, degrees and boxloads of letters after their names. The papers they write cite scientific literature: chapter, verse, and page number. They dream the molecular structure of mitochondria, the phase space of protein folding and the big numbers at the extent of the universe. They are not trailer park young-earthers with fabricated human/dinosaur fossils next to their King James Bibles. I don't care what you think you learned in your undergrad Biology 101 class or how many Federal Megabucks you have spent cranking out interminable DNA-sequencing boilerplate, the universe remains unexplained and Reality/Truth will still every generation rise up and surprise the lethargic and comfortable academics who have papered their offices with back-patting certificates of achievement in MSS (mainstream science).
Science is not done. All is not discovered. Roger Penrose himself knows there are holes and if the name is unfamililar perhaps you aren't as book-larned up as you might be.
The same people at FR who disdain Global Warming "science" because those scientist are distorting their science in pursuit of grant money get all warm and fuzzy about Darwinians like Richard Dawkins who are doing the same thing.
You cannot argue both that 1) ID is not science because it isn't published and 2) that ID should not be published because it is not science.
(Hit and run posting)
[Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example ]
Oh this is precious- hypothesising about somethign with no evidence- 'Major radiation' occured causing an explosion of fully formed highly complex NEW species? lol- Yup- there's just whole buildings right chock full of the mutant freaks that would have been caused by such massive radiation, and we know from radiation experiments that NEW species KINDS evolve rapidly and fully formed (sarcasm- all we got were mutated freaks of the SAME species)
You don't expect me to accept it? Gee I wonder why.
Evos speculating on what happend with no evidences to back it up- Perfectly acceptable- ID'ers speculating about what happend- not acceptable. Why by golly we're just swimming in a pre life soup of chemicals here aint we?
[Has anyone here who says ID is not science read anything written by these people in support of the theory and research plan of ID outside of some pop-sci article in a MSM newspaper?]
Oh, they read it, but they ignore the science and glom onto moot points like hte fact that a suggestion that anythign but the impossible model of evolution should be mentioned renders the science invaLID. Some here are obsessed with the scientists personal opinions or the fact that they sign statements of faith as though it would render the science FACTS discovered and examined by ID'ers invalid. The priori belief and dogmatic adherence to the god called mutations is just too strong to allow a focus on the science. Even supreme court judges aren't imune to ignoring the science while focussing on NON issues that have NOTHING to do with hte science being presented.
It was my impression that science was attempting to make statements regarding reality. If science is merely about rules then you are correct, we have no argument.
You can sit with the rules committee making pronouncements about who can and cannot play your game while we will attempt to understand the universe and reality using mathematics, game theory, information theory, computer science or whatever else we can get our minds around.
You stand by your peer-reviewed journals and your accredited institutions chasing off anyone too ignorant to realize they are nilkultoorni and should remain silent in front of their betters.
There are no repeatable, laboratory experiments regarding the evolution of species either. Theories explain anomalies in data. Life is an anomaly. You cannot create it in a lab. Therefore all of your theories regarding life are unscientific.
Not to show up late to the party but the system that the simulation ran on was intelligantly designed (I hope). Many arguments regarding the efficacy of computer modeling neglect the fact that in the world although systems/algorithms may exhibit persistence and robustness some THING must preexist the system and that thing is the mechanism that runs the algorithm.
Excuse me if I am not clear, but the point is that even though your algorithm returns a result that looks like bird-flocking behavior, it only means you have discovered a bit of programming that imitates behavior. It doesn't mean you have anything to say about the lving meat-machine that runs the natural algorithm.
Natural systems run on meat-machines. Computer programs run on human-designed electrical machines. The argument is about the nature of the machine. If you want to argue about algorithms you have joined the ID community in admitting that algorithms run on Designed Machines.
This is a true explanation of evolution of species if and only if all information regarding the construction of an offspring is contained in DNA coding. This is not establlished. In addition your statement "most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not" is inexact from a mathematical standpoint. The real numbers reflect a statement more like, " mutations resulting in significant differences that do not actually kill the offspring are astronomically unlikely, while some trivial modifications do occur very rarely."
Before you begin the infinite monkeys argument please be aware that I am aware that the time allotted for mutation to play its species game is 1 billion years more or less from the Cambrian explosion until now. Not much time at all for a stepwise approach to making a behemoth out of a multicelled bug.
This is a true explanation of evolution of species if and only if all information regarding the construction of an offspring is contained in DNA coding. This is not establlished. In addition your statement "most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not" is inexact from a mathematical standpoint. The real numbers reflect a statement more like, " mutations resulting in significant differences that do not actually kill the offspring are astronomically unlikely, while some trivial modifications do occur very rarely."
Before you begin the infinite monkeys argument please be aware that I am aware that the time allotted for mutation to play its species game is 1 billion years more or less from the Pre-cambrian explosion until now. Not much time at all for a stepwise approach to making a behemoth out of a multicelled bug.
"It was my impression that science was attempting to make statements regarding reality. If science is merely about rules then you are correct, we have no argument."
More precisely, science is an abstract. Like mathematics or even painting a picture, the purpose of an abstract is not to define, but to describe. A picture of a flower is not the flower itself, it is just one way of describing the flower.
The problem happens when someone looks at the painting and says, "That is a flower." It is not a flower, it is a picture of a flower.
And believe me, this is such an important distinction that JHVH Himself remarked on it, in a way, to Moses. When Moses asked God his name, he replied with the statement "I AM THAT I AM". And that is a profoundly philosophical statement.
The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber wrote a thin book entitled "I and Thou", which was a remarkably easy read for the profoundly deep thought that went in to his analysis of personal pronouns. It can be read in a few minutes, but only understood after days of slow and deliberate consideration.
In any event, the statement "I AM THAT I AM" defines reality as a product of God. But it also puts man in a quandary, namely that while God defines reality, He leaves it up to us to describe reality, through the use of abstracts.
This was a philosophical dilemma that was only finally met by Rene Descartes, when he pronounced the very similar "I think, therefore I am." In effect, this arrogant statement said that man, not God, defines, not just describes reality. This caused a revolution in philosophy, allowing philosophers to "write God out of the equation."
Since that time, however, people have been so confident of their abstracts that they assume they actually create reality. But this has never really been the case, to those who understand what abstracts really are.
If you ask them, people also say that "the sun comes up in the morning", even though must of them know better, that the Earth turns.
[Since that time, however, people have been so confident of their abstracts that they assume they actually create reality.]
To go ALong with this idea, people have tried to argue that morals evolved and are subjective, andit is up to hte individual to define the morals that one abides by. Dawkins tried doing this when he argued for a 'selfish gene' and tried to assert that God was nothjing more than a delusion of the poor unfortunate lesser evolved folks who can't escape the chains of mass hysteria that drives poor sheeple to think there is a God.
The depths of Dawkins arrogance and delusional self superiority know no bounds, but unfortunately for him, He'll discover too late that genes don't dictate what the Great I Am is.
Dawkins understood that morals were not subjective, and that the argument for subjective morals had failed, so he, in his bias against Christians, devised an unprovable, untestable hypothesis that religion was a result of genes (Which he amusingly suggested could be passed along as though they were a contagion- like catchign the common cold from others. lol)
There really is nothign new under the sun- The arguments for subjective morality have failed, and the 'selfish gene' and the 'God gene' are nothign more than an attempt to revive the old argument that there is no God, and that we, being god-like, could determine our own fortunes by controlling something like a God-Gene and erradicating it from our lives so that we can supposedly become absolutely free. The problem is that poor Dawkins doesn't realize that 'freeing' oneself from a good and loving God only leads to a bondage that can only lead to eternal death. Freedom from God is no freedom at all, yet people like Dawkins will argue until their dying breath that we are mini-gods and can define our own existences how we like without a need for the great I AM. Trying to define morality by arguing that an evolving gene is to 'blame' for universal moral codes is nothing new- it's just the same old tired out excuses that are just said in a different way.
As I understand Descartes' program of radical doubt he came to the end of it when he realized that he could not doubt his own existence. The trouble is that in using the words "Cogito ergo sum" he used WORDS. The language he used came from outside himself. That language could only be maintained by something that transcended his existence. The concept of a private language is absurd.
We face a similar problem. Man may manipulate the language of science, but what we are calling attention to is the fact that the language itself, the universe itself, transcends science.
This science as defined has a limited aim. That is fine. The trouble is when science so-defined arrogates to itself the right to define reality. And usurps the responsibility of parents to convey their understanding of reality to their children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thanks all. I just wanted to be sure. I was doing red meat twice a week SAD but since going primal, it has been considerably more than that. Sometimes 2 times a day. (yesterday 3 because I had breakfast) And not every day, but many days. And it's never (usually never ) a little weiney deck of cards either
Last edited by gopintos; 05-18-2012 at 03:31 PM.
Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )
I really think it's the combination of red meat and bad carbs that have given red meat a bad reputation. If your insulin is out of whack then your body cannot properly deal with saturated fats and cholesterol. This makes the fat and cholesterol look like the culprit. But take away the bad carbs and your body can deal with and process the fats and cholesterol just fine. Unfortunately, CW wants to continue to point fingers at the fats instead of the processed garbage.
Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )
My view:
It's healthy as long as it's not consumed in excess (definition of excess: living off an all-meat diet with no source of minerals and vitamins such as organ meats, or nutritious plant foods such as fruits/vegetables). I also don't believe processed meat is healthy, and processed meat, if eaten, should be in moderation.
I eat red meat everyday. Grass fed = eat fat. Grain fed = take off fat. I rarely eat grain fed anymore, though. I don't know what I'd do if I couldn't eat red meat. I'm allergic to seafood, I don't care for pork (nearly impossible to find pastured anyway) and I am really not very fond of chicken because it does not seem to satiate as well as red meat -- unless they are chickens in their egg form.
Last night I bought a $17 bison ribeye just for myself. It weight .81lbs. I cooked it fairly rare, a tad toward the medium side. It was extremely tender. I cook it at so low a temperature it's not really even cooked. It was my best steak yet. I ate it with a half a small sweet potato over which I drizzled the small amount of juice that was left after I seared the edges of the steak in a pan. Such a simple meal and so satisfying. After I ate this, I was not stuffed, I was not "full". My stomach didn't stick out. I was simply satisfied and happy. I had energy to do things around the house. Later I slept like a baby. I woke up this morning and had a cup of black coffee while I read the paper. I needed nothing. That my friends is the power of red meat. For me anyway.
Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.


text:
With summer well on its way more and more people are taking caravanning holidays. What better way to save some money and have a great time in the British Isles. For many the interior space of their caravan can be very disheartening and often they'll opt for extending their vans with full size caravan awnings, but for weekend trips these are just not practical. Used caravan porch awnings will not only save you money and extend the usable space of your caravan but they shouldn't take you 2 or more hours to set up.
78x39 Clear Hollow Polycarbonate Porch Window Door Cover Awning UV Water Proof
Retractable Patio Awning Canopy Outdoor Porch Sun Shade Shelter Garden Tent NEW
Door Window Canopy Awning Porch Sun Shade Shelter Outdoor Patio Rain Cover
Big DIY Retractable Patio Awning Canopy Outdoor Porch Sun Shade Shelter Garden
Retractable Patio Window Awning Canopy Sun Shelter Outdoor Porch Garden Tent NEW
Metal Wall Gazebo Awning Canopy Pergola Sunshade Marquee Shelter Door Porch A0D9
39x39 Clear Hollow Polycarbonate Porch Window Door Cover Awning UV Water Proof
Metal Wall Gazebo Awning Canopy Pergola Sunshade Marquee Shelter Door Porch I6D9
Outdoor Porch Canopy Patio Door Window Cover Awning Projection 2 Deck 6Ft Black
Door Window Canopy Awning Porch Sun Shade Shelter Outdoor Patio Rain Cover
Patio Garden Wall Gazebo Canopy Awning Door Porch Marquee Sun Shelter US H9R6
Used caravan porch awnings are ideal for buying as a mail order item as they are often far less bulky and weigh a lot less than their bigger counter parts. If you take a look at eBay you'll probably find individual sellers willing to post you their used caravan porch awning to anywhere in the UK for around £10. That's a bargain if you consider the cost of fuel and parking when you visit your local retailers.
SunnCamp caravan porch awnings seem to be the most popular make available within the UK but all the other major manufacturers like Bradcot, Isabella and Dorema all have their own take on their caravan porch awnings. Another advantage of buying used caravan porch awnings from eBay is that many times the seller will actually erect the awning and take pictures of them for you to see the item before you buy it. Used caravan awnings being sold often are done so with just a stock photo of what it looked like when it was new.
For me the main things I look for when buying used caravan porch awning is price, size, weight and postage. Unlike caravan awnings the porch awnings are far less to buy new so to get hold of a used caravan porch awning should not be bursting the bank. Just like the full size awnings, porch awnings come in a variety of sizes. Choosing the one that suits your needs will depend on what you want to do with it. It should be a light weight affair now as modern technology has developed light weight materials and it should be easy to put up and take down. For me postage is always something I consider in the price of the unit. eBay is a wonderful way to buy second hand used caravan porch awnings along with everything else you'll need for a great caravan holiday, but often the sellers try and get some extra money for their item by upping the postage, just something to remember.
Should you buy a used caravan porch awning or a used caravan awning? That is a simple question to answer really. If you do weekend trips then most defiantly you should be looking to buy used caravan porch awnings, if however you spend a week or more with your caravan parked on a site then used caravan awnings would be the choice for you. For me, I have them both and in fact I have 2 of each, not because I'm greedy but because each porch or awning is better for a specific task. Weekend walks in the hills in rainy April only requires that I have a very small caravan porch awning to take my wet waterproofs and muddy bots off in but my 4 weeks holiday in the south of France I have a 350cm Isabella for the maximum amount of space outside in the hot humid evenings.


text:
To learn more click here
The gold markets had an extraordinary day on Friday as the commodity exploded $50 to the upside. The European Union seems to come up with at least something that the markets like, and as Spanish banks are going to be capitalizing it appears that the "risk on" trade is back in vogue at this moment in time. This of course leads to more gold buying, and as such the commodity spike wickedly to slam into the $1600 level.
It is the 1640 level that we see as massive resistance above the needs to be overcome. With the explosiveness of this candle, is very likely that we will see continued bullishness in this market but a pullback could be coming over the next day or two. Because of this, we are very cautious buying gold but we do know that we want to be on the buy side. In fact, unless we see a daily close below the $1500 level, we don't see any signal to sell.


text:
Rating: 4.1 out of 326 votes
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (2013)
Movies Comedy
25 October 2013 (USA) 92 min $32,055,177 IMDB 6.6 Johnny Knoxville, Jackson Nicoll, Greg Harris, Georgina Cates, Kamber Hejlik, Jill Kill, Madison Davis, George Faughnan, Grasie Mercedes, Marilynn Allain, Jack Polick, Spike Jonze, Catherine Keener, Marlon Davis, Quintin Duncan
Director: Jeff Tremaine | Country: USA | Language: English Mpaa: Rated R for strong crude and sexual content throughout, language, some graphic nudity and brief drug use.
The Plot
Eighty-six-year-old Irving Zisman is on a journey across America with the most unlikely companion: his eight-year-old grandson Billy, in "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa". Jackass characters Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville) and Billy (Jackson Nicoll) will take movie audiences along for the most insane hidden camera road trip ever captured on camera. Along the way Irving will introduce the young and impressionable Billy to people, places, and situations that give new meaning to the term "childrearing". The duo will encounter male strippers, disgruntled child beauty pageant contestants (and their equally disgruntled mothers), funeral home mourners, biker bar patrons, and a whole lot of unsuspecting citizens. Real people in unreal situations, making for one really messed up comedy.
There are 53 links for Movie - Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (2013)


text:
About This Activity
Our PGA SPORTS ACADEMY - JUNIOR GOLF CAMP program is the ultimate in connecting willing youngsters (aged 7-15) in a fun and and safe atmosphere. Going beyond a "junior camp," the PGA Sports Academy is the perfect developmental program for your child to explore golf, learn skills in agility, balance, power development...plus curriculum on character, nutrition and team-building. To ensure fun, we'll be doing fun "play" formats that include creative drills, hybrid-sports and games, etc...this is going to be fun! The program will be directed by Sara Griffin, PGA...we hope you can join us.
Organizer Info
Tacoma Country & Golf Club Player Dev
Get ACTIVE on the Go
Map & Direction
Tacoma Country & Golf Club 13204 Country Club Drive SW Tacoma, WA 98498Get Directions


text:
The West Coast's top full-service company for casting, acting, film, commercials, voice over and animals. We also cast professionals that are credited Film & TV Directors of photography, Directors of Art, Location Managers and their properties. Actors, register now to submit to projects currently casting.sign up now
Register and submit to paying professional acting projects now! Easy, fast profile set-up with quick and secure project submission.
Toni Staniewicz is an independent Casting Director/Producer and the owner of Toni Staniewicz Casting which casts talent for Commercial and Theatrical productions.
Learn more about the craft and business of acting. TodaysActing.com provides news, tools and unique views for and from those involved with acting.


text:
Well HALO there,
Well HALO there,
Nov 11, 2004 6:20PM PST
Halo 2. Yep, I got it dudes. And Yep, it is awesome. I'm currently about 3/4 through the campaign and I'm very impressed with bungies little FPS so far. I'm not going to give anything away in terms of story (It's got some awesome twists), but it really expands from the first one. If you don't have an X-box..cough..cough.."Melee and Die"... this title will make you pick up one for sure. Anyways...what up Chakaholics, I know it's been a while, but between Halo 2, the gym, work, and the bands, Chaka has been to worn out to even touch a computer let alone sit and write a blog. This weekend is Halo Fest 04, where a big group of the coolest dudes in the universe gather to "GEEK OFF" at Halo 2's multiplayer. I'm anticipating much alcohol induced fighting over who took out who in blood gulch 2, self inflicted pizza comas, and I can guarantee that nobody is getting laid this weekend. Yeah... good times! As much fun as I plan on having this weekend with all my buddies, I cannot wait till next weekends solo run on the biggest game of the year (in my opinion) METROID PRIME 2. Thatâ??s right, once MP2 is released I will set aside Halo 2, and my friends to embark on the latest Samus Aran story. Notes will be firmly placed on my door to notify my roommates to "Get lost" and "No, you cant' borrow any of my adult entertainment DVDs". Metroid has always been meant to play in seclusion with the lights out and the sound up, and to be honest I don't want to be bothered by anybody. Thatâ??s it for this week friends but before I go here's you weekly list, because you need it like a fat kid needs cake Halo 2, nuff said I said it before and I say it again: Read DC's "Identity Crisis": who's the killer? The Atom? Boomerang? Your Mom? Watch Arrested Devlopment, AMAZING. Watch Battle for Ozzfest, it's so awesome you'll forget about how lame the contestants are. Until next time Chakaholics...
Comments (0)


text:
The nervous system is a complex system that regulates and coordinates body activities. It is made up of two major divisions. They are the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system. The Central nervous system is made up of the brain and spinal cord. The peripheral nervous system is made up of everything else.
In addition to the brain and spinal cord, these are the main organs of the nervous system:
Sensory organs of taste
Sensory organs of smell
Sensory receptors in the skin, joints, muscles, and other parts of the body
Neurological conditions refer to diseases, injuries, and disorders of the brain, nerves, and spinal cord. The nervous system can be damaged by:
Structural defects
Blood flow disruption
Listed below are some neurological conditions that can affect children.
Head Injury
Seizures and Epilepsy
For Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts members
Find a Doctor & Estimate Costs
Health & Wellness
Review Benefits
Review Claims
Attend a Seminar
Medicare Plans
Request a Call
Manage Your Account
Plans & Products
Forms & Documents
Tools & Support for Educating Employees
Medical Policy
Office Resources
Provider News
Annual Report
Contact Us
Corporate Citizenship
Diversity Leadership
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.® Registered Marks of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.© 101 Huntington Avenue, Suite 1300, Boston, MA 02199-7611 | 1-800-262-BLUE (2583)
About Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Terms of Use, Privacy & Security
Nondiscrimination and Translation Resources
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts is a leading provider of quality health insurance for residents of Massachusetts. Our main goal is to make health care cost-effective by offering health insurance solutions for individuals, families, and large and small businesses at affordable rates.
Our Vision — Making Quality Health Care AffordableOur Promise — To Always Put Our Members First
To learn more about our Massachusetts health plans, please visit our Plans & Products page, where you can compare Massachusetts health insurance plans, buy health plans online, and get Mass health insurance quotes.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts also offers insurance, pharmacy coverage, and Medicare Plans for seniors; life and disability insurance through Indigo Insurance Services (a wholly owned subsidiary); and insurance for individuals aged 18-26 years. Learn more about our other insurance plans and Medicare plans, or contact a sales representative today.
After your visit, would you be willing to provide some quick feedback?
(It will only take a minute)
YesThis will open a new window
No Thanks


text:
Tuesday, August 5th, 2014 Edition of The Daily Standard
Online Local News Stories
State Attorney General Mike DeWine is restricting law enforcement access to a facial recognition database following controversy over privacy issues and overly broad use of the system. DeWine recently narrowed access to the sys . . .
Print and E-Edition Only News Stories
• Celina softball team makes pitch to raise $125,000
• Art show this week leads up to St. Marys Summerfest weekend
• Ruling expected soon on chief's bid to get back post
• Summer not much of a vacation for athletes
• AMFY Waves have great showing at Junior Olympics
Local Obituaries
Randy A. Tomberlin 59, St. Marys, died suddenly at 1:50 a.m. Aug. 4, 2014, at Joint Township District Memorial Hospital, St. Marys. He was born June 25, 1955, in St. Marys, to the late Don Tomberlin and Susan Jane Stephenson To . . .
Louis Leroy Fleck, 75, Knoxville, Tenn., died suddenly July 27, 2014, during a family visit to Piedmont, Calif. He was born Feb. 20, 1939, in Celina to William and Anna Fullenkamp Fleck. He was married to his wife, Marjorie, fo . . .
Evelyn M. (Hemmelgarn) Ahrns, 79, Fort Loramie, passed away of natural causes Aug. 3, 2014, at Joint Township District Memorial Hospital, St. Marys. She was born May 2, 1935, in Guadalupe, to the late Anthony and Alvina Kloster . . .
Verna M. Buschor, 93, St. Henry, died Aug. 4, 2014, at The Gardens at St. Henry. She was born Jan. 17, 1921, in St. Henry, to the late Harry and Margaret Severt Romer. On Jan. 23, 1945, she married Louis "Jake" Buschor, who sur . . .
Local Pictures
Tuesday Night
Wednesday Night
Thursday Night
Friday Night
Saturday Night
3 Day
Saturday, October 22
Saturday, October 22
Saturday, October 22
Saturday, October 22


text:
Available turquoise pied female, possibly split dilute and Ino. I have a lot more pics listed on my Facebook page. She is banded and comes with a hatch…$400
Sariel is available for adoption here at Ramsey Ringnecks in Hephzibah Ga. for $15. European Collared Dove cock Surrendered by Highland's Wildlife…$15
FM25-1 is available here at Ramsey Ringnecks in Hephzibah Ga. for $20. Ringneck Dove Blond Cock ADA 15 895 Fabio X Marilyn 12/7/15 Bred by Ramsey…$20
I have a bonded pair of quaker parrots for sale. The male is green and the female is blue. The male is very sweet and loves to be held, the female is more…$300
Young unsexed $40. Sexed $60. American Singers and Mosaics. Contact for appointment and availability. Cash only. Must bring your own cage to pick…$40
Chewy is a 5 year old African Grey. His previous owner hand fed him so at one point he was handled but has been neglected for the past few years, we rescued…$900
YUSRE Super Friendly Pair of Congo African Grey Parrots,Text or call us only at 323 x 448 x 0114$500
GSTEFD Proven Pair of Blue & Gold Macaw Parrots,Text or call us only at 323 x 448 x 0114$500
Beautifully marbled male turquoise dilute. Proven breeder, 2 and a half years old, and makes kiss sounds at you. I need to make room for new bloodlines…SOLD
Very friendly and hand raised bird. She is 6 years old and loves children and other animals. Must find a new home since there is a newborn and no time…SOLD


text: Cool Judge 3 - Hang Ten Edition By chrislockefun This judge is cool, man. Watch. What? Yeah, I like orange soda pop but my doctor says I can't drink it anymore. Published May 15, 2013 103 views More Info » Full Credits chrislockefun Uploader Stats & Data 25 Funny Votes 0 Die Votes 103 Views Published: May 15, 2013 Categories: Web Series Sketch Jokes Keywords: chris locke cool judge hang ten Up Next: Hello, What? AUTOPLAY Up Next In: 10 Hello, What? A Scene From BIG Chris Locke Game Of Thrones Bad Actor 1 Chris Locke Game Of Thrones Bad Actor 2 Follow Facebook Twitter Tumblr Instagram Browse Related Comments 10+ more View All ▶ chrislockefun Vaguely Related Videos Vaguely Related Pics & Words Advertisement Tags: chris locke cool judge hang Advertisement


text:
Honoring the memory of former head coach and legend Darrell K. Royal, the AP No. 18 Texas Longhorns really found their stride in blowing out the Iowa State Cyclones 33-7. And it was not even that close.
The Longhorns dominated the offensive and defensive sides of the ball from start to finish thanks to David Ash's new-found ability to complete the long ball and the defense's second truly good game in a row. With 4-2 now a distant memory, the Longhorns have a very realistic shot at their first 10-win season since 2009.
Here are the winners and losers from the Saturday's statement win over the Cyclones.


text:
realmagick.com The shrine of knowledge.
A selection of articles related to manhood.
Original articles from our library related to the Manhood. See Table of Contents for further available material (downloadable resources) on Manhood.
- Pagan Mythology
- Is the traditional story presented as an historical event that serves to illustrate part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. The mythological beliefs a culture shares gives shape to its actions and choices....
Paganism & Wicca >> Holidays
- Ingwaz
- Welcome to the Rune-of-the-Month Club! Ingwaz is the sixth rune of the third aett, and the twenty-second rune of the Elder Futhark as a whole. Its sound is that of the English "ng." Like Thurisaz, it represents a sound written by two letters in the Roman...
Divination >> Rune Stones
Manhood is described in multiple online sources, as addition to our editors' articles, see section below for printable documents, Manhood books and related discussion.
Suggested News Resources
- So, is there any merit to the 'tiny hands, small manhood' comment Rubio made
- In case you were blissfully unaware of the new lows the 2016 presidential election has stooped to, let us fill you in. Sen. Marco Rubio seemingly questioned the size of Donald Trump's manhood during a rally in Virginia on Feb.
- Marco Rubio Says He Regrets Mocking Donald Trump's Manhood Size
- He called him a con artist and said among other things that he had small hands, a charge that Trump took to mean as questioning the size of his manhood. Until Rubio got personal, the U.S.
- Samantha Bee on Trumps Manhood: Let Me Just Wipe the Vomit Off the Camera
- Samantha Bee on Trump's Manhood: 'Let Me Just Wipe the Vomit Off the Camera'. In the wake of last week's shambolic debate, the host paid her respects to the party formerly known as the GOP on Monday's Full Frontal. The mental image of Donald Trump's ...
- Protect Your Manhood With Radiation-proof Boxer Shorts
- Protect Your Manhood With Radiation-proof Boxer Shorts. Silver-embedded undershorts significantly deflect the mobile phone radiation that can impair sperm. Hope you like earth colors.
- Hulk Hogan's manhood shrivels up during sex tape trial
- On the stand where you must tell the truth (or, at least, the closest you can get to it), Hogan testified that his manhood didn't come close to his Hulk Hogan claims which were in the ten-inch region.
Great care has been taken to prepare the information on this page. Elements of the content come from factual and lexical knowledge databases, realmagick.com library and third-party sources. We appreciate your suggestions and comments on further improvements of the site.
Manhood Topics
Related searchesteam 17 the amiga power dispute
list of most common surnames india
hermann plauson
normalization factor
en vogue members
fn fal fal 5061
dream dictionary daisy
About - Contact - Advertising
© 2000 - 2016 Realmagick.com, All Rights Reserved.
© 2000 - 2016 Realmagick.com, All Rights Reserved.


text:
Skip to comments.A couple of suggestions to possibly make your pages load faster [UPDATED]
Posted on 10/29/2012 11:49:58 AM PDT by Jim RobinsonEdited on 10/30/2012 2:16:38 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Very sorry about the problems with our servers causing FR to fail under heavy traffic loads. Praying that John finds a solution or workaround soon.
In the meantime, here are a couple suggestion you can use to possibly make your pages load faster:
Select "Disabled" in the "Region" pulldown for each sidebar block you wish to temporarily disable then click "Modify":
And its simply a click to toggle "Brevity" from "Text" to "Headers" or back the other way when needed: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/news-forum/index
If enough of us did this we would reduce the amount of data downloaded on each click, reducing the load on the database and the server and possibly increasing overall systems performance.
To reset your preferences later, click on "Account" at the top of any of the main index pages and then "Manage Blocks" to configure your sidebars and "My Preferences" to set your number of threads and replies per thread preferences.
Thank you all very much and good luck.
I'll give some of that a try.
Thanks for the suggestions!
Will do, sir.
good idea.
Can you guys reset the default to do something like that?
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Funny, I clicked on this post, but my browser couldn't load it.....I guess I will try these suggestions and see how it goes. Thanks for all you do.
Done and done!
Thank you for giving US a way to help the situation.
And could someone please tell the man in the middle to please speed up our connections to Free Republic too...
I made the changes. Thanks Jim.
Are those settings the default settings now?
You could reset everyone and tell them to change it if they like.
I haven't actively used some of these blocks in years. Thanks you suggestion.
I did it.
You have to log off to reset the parameters.
That is a downside re trying to log back on.
I did it.
You have to log off to reset the parameters.
That is a downside re trying to log back on.
I did it.
You have to log off to reset the parameters.
That is a downside re trying to log back on.
Done..still having problems timing out, though
thank you sir
Ok, worth a try.
Thanks and done.
JimRob how about you just change everyone's settings yourself, right now, in the database
when things are like this you HAVE TO take dramatic action.
It hurts NO ONE, but FR being crashed would be a problem.
(it would kill me - I would be jonesing in an hour)
Do you need some help? I am a computer systems engineer- I can VOLUNTEER some time and maybe even get some new servers for you
Jim, thanks. These suggestions helped some with loading speed but the big bottleneck still seems to be in the posting code. FR suffers the most when a thread is busy enough that more than a few people want to post to the same thread at the same time. Then we get the 3 Stooges in a Doorway Effect and nothing moves.
Works much faster for me. Thanks Jim!
Worked like a charm! Thanks!
A few suggestions for your consideration:
As it stands now, the only difference between a "live thread" and any other thread are the words in the title.
It might be useful to formally define the live thread as a unique thread type that would be specified at the time of the initial posting, or perhaps after the fact by a moderator.
Certain limitations would be imposed on anyone posting on that thread that would materially reduce the loading on the FR servers (and the poor little squirrels that run them).
The live thread specification would include the reduced posts-per-page setting you mentioned.
Another possible load-reducer might be to default the "I have already previewed..." selection to the checked state.
Since a lot of the activity on a live thread is just refreshing the page to see new posts, it might be helpful to block any user that posts or refreshes from another action for a short time, maybe 30 seconds or a minute, just to calm things down a bit. Maybe the block would best be just on a refresh request, and let the posters get priority. That might also cut down on duplicate posts.
Finally, a few years ago I saw a post by another FReeper, whose name I have long since forgotten, that was promoting some piece of software which overrode the FR pagination scheme and allowed a more visually appealing presentation of thread contents, with colors, indentations, linkages, and the like.
I tried it out, thought it was interesting, then deleted it.
I realized that to work, it required the entire thread to be downloaded. That wouldn't be a problem on a short thread, but on a live thread that can easily run over 1000 posts, it would absolutely kill the server. I tried it on a long thread, and it took forever to fully load the thread.
I don't know if anyone's actually using this software, or if they are, if there's any way to block it on a long thread.
Boss, I don't think it's FR:
C:\>tracert www.freerepublic.com
Tracing route to www.freerepublic.com [22.214.171.124]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
[Redacted first 8 hops to keep fumbly fingers from bothering me]
9 25 ms 22 ms 23 ms xe-0.equinix.asbnva01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [206.223
10 22 ms 21 ms 21 ms ae-6.r21.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [184.108.40.206
11 181 ms 179 ms 184 ms ae-4.r20.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [126.96.36.199
12 198 ms 197 ms 204 ms ae-1.r07.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [126.96.36.199
13 233 ms 233 ms 137 ms xe-0-2-0.r20.mlpsca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250
14 92 ms 160 ms 96 ms xe-6-4.r03.mlpsca01.us.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.3
15 117 ms 96 ms 100 ms mg-2.a00.mlpsca01.us.da.verio.net [18.104.22.168
16 98 ms 96 ms 93 ms mg-1.a01.mlpsca01.us.da.verio.net [220.127.116.11
17 98 ms 100 ms 100 ms 188.8.131.52
18 93 ms 96 ms 94 ms 184.108.40.206
Trace complete.
Those backbone servers shouldn't be showing those triple digit latency times.
I think this should be in breaking news, so everyone will see your suggestions for a speedier FR!
Are you sure there isn't any sand and water getting the FR servers from the hurricane that could be cleaned out?
Hope this helps!
I ran / posted tracerts on two of the debate threads, verified with info posted by others, and the nodes at ntt.net (mainly) and verio.net (lesser extent) have consistently been a huge drag on transit times.
That's odd. I was able to reset everything without logging out and from my old Android tablet. Hmmm...maybe I better double check when I can get to my main home machine.
You might want to ping the Q&R group when you get a chance, this seems to work!
I'd do the ping but I'm on my tablet...also cooking sgetti sauce and keeping an eye on the weather. My weather radio is going off non stop.
That worked well. I disabled several blocks as recommended in #1. I did not do anything as to #2.
Result...from a 10 second delay to a 4 second delay, which is probably the best that can occur on my broadband download.
I had to do reset the parameters twice.
I have Windows 7, and it can be tough on sites where I try to go back after leaving to check for email or calls. Often I have to relog/sign in. Free Republic is one of the worse in that reqard.
Thnx Jim!
Self ping to read later. Thanks for the information.
I didn't save the log, but there was one node earlier showing a latency of over four thousand.
Currently Ntt and Verio both show latency between 190 and 290.
There is something really screwy going on with the backbone.
Wow....good catch!
Informational pingout.
I did my part. I like it a whole lot better. Cleaner and less busy page. :)
Hope everyone does it.
FR used to be much quicker, as you well know, even in times of huge traffic.
Leads me to think something outside FR's internal architecture is causing most of the problems.
Thanks Jim
Just worried John may get fed up, and one day we'll on click on FreeRepublic only to get that guy from Jurassic Park saying...
"ahh ahh ahh...you didn't say the magic word, ahh ahh ahh..."
Tomkat, Mesta, myself, and a few others have been doing tracert and such to look at some things.
And what we're seeing shows not FR having a high latency, but instead everything BUT Fr as having high latency.
Just saw gin.ntt.net having a latency of 500 to 600.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Designed to delight. Our Enamelware Dinnerware is simple and beautiful, with a nod to vintage style. Its steel with porcelain-enamel finish is also shatterproof—ideal around kids and klutzes. Dishwasher safe.
Dishwasher safe; do not microwave.
Most purchases are shipped from our Distribution Center by UPS, to arrive in your home within 5-7 business days of order receipt.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping options. View Shipping Rates and Options
Next Day Delivery
For an extra charge of $17.50 per address, we can arrange for rush delivery to most destinations.
Return Policy
We take great pride in the quality of our merchandise. If for any reason you are not happy with your purchase, you may return the item(s) within 30 days of receiving the order for a full refund of the merchandise cost. After 30 days, we will replace or refund your purchase against manufacturer's defects ONLY. Please note that we cannot accept returns on mattresses, monogrammed/personalized items, special order upholstery items and special order rugs, one-of-a-kind rugs, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. We also cannot accept returns of final-sale items, which are identified by a price ending in .99 or .97.
For further assistance please call our customer service department at 1.888.922.4119 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.com
|White Glove Service
|Enamelware Dinnerware, Black, Dinner Plates, Set of 4
|No Longer Available
|No Longer Available
|Enamelware Dinner Plates, Set of 4
|No Longer Available
|No Longer Available
|Enamelware Dinnerware, Black, Salad Plates, Set of 4
|$9 Special $6
|Enamelware Salad Plates, Set of 4
|$32 Special $22
|Enamelware Cereal Bowls, Set of 4
|$32 Special $22
|Enamelware Tumblers, Set of 4
|No Longer Available
|No Longer Available
|Enamelware Mugs, Set of 4
|$24 Special $16
|Enamel Dinnerware Place Setting, White/Black
|No Longer Available
|No Longer Available


text:
Thursday, June 09, 2016
Earthwatch: Supporting the business response to the SDGs
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Earthwatch Europe assembled a panel of expert speakers to debate the issue of Natural Capital - whether we should put a price tag on Nature in order to conserve it.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Get involved in the Thames Water Blitz on Monday 25th April.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
More than 1,000 people have signed up to protect the UK's coasts and marine life with Capturing our Coast.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Want to get down and dirty and find out about the hidden world of the earthworm? Try our new citizen science project Earthworm Watch.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Rima Chang has been raising money for Earthwatch for six years, find out how she does it and how you can run, cycle and swim for Earthwatch this summer.
Monday, February 08, 2016
17-year-old Bethany Nagle spent two weeks in Malaysia as part of a student expedition on the Climate and Landscape Change in Borneo's Rainforest project.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
BOSTON, February 3, 2016—Earthwatch Institute announced today that Scott Kania has been named its new Chief Executive Officer.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Since 1900 more than 64 per cent of the world's wetlands have disappeared. Earthwatch looks at citizen science in action in three wetlands under the HSBC Water Programme.
Monday, January 25, 2016
For coastal communities, such as those living around Gazi Bay in Kenya, mangrove ecosystems provide key services such as firewood and building poles, fish nurseries, coastal protection and opportunities for tourism.
For press information, interviews and image requests, contact us today.
Poachers in Malawi: Camera Trap Catches More than Animals
Ecologist Alison Leslie has collected more than 40,000 photographs of the Majete Wildlife Reser...
Earthwatch Unveils Nine Brand New Expeditions
Earthwatch is thrilled to announce five of nine new expedition opportunities for volunteers in ...
Rewriting History, the Earthwatch Way
Recently, newspapers and wire agencies were abuzz with a dramatic archaeological discovery&mdas...


text: There was a time when you had to choose between delighting a recipient and making a small move for social good. But now you can win on both counts. Here's a batch of handpicked beauties your friends and family will love that also happen to boost really worthy causes. Read, get inspired, click, give... and collect the hugs. Everybody wins.


text:
'The Pacific' - 'Part Nine': War is even more hell than usual
A review of the penultimate episode of "The Pacific" coming up just as soon as I work on your Christmas present...
"I hope they don't. I hope we get to kill every last one of them." -Sledge
Okinawa was intended to be the United States' staging ground for the inevitable invasion of Japan. Instead, the fighting on the island was so savage, so devastating to both sides - and to the island's large civilian population - and such an obvious harbinger of what would happen should US troops set foot on Japan itself, that you can understand why Truman might have felt compelled to do the unthinkable and try to end the war by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And watching the battle of Okinawa play out through the eyes of Eugene Sledge, we understand what a cost was paid even by those who survived the battle, and the Pacific theater, with their bodies intact.
The Sledge of Okinawa is unrecognizable from the eager Alabama boy who couldn't wait to go to war and prove his manhood, or the nervous boot on Pavuvu, or even the Pepeliu vet who inherited Gunny Haney's lighter when Gunny couldn't take it anymore. This is a Sledge who cares about nothing and no one but blood - who feels nothing for the Japanese soldiers he kills, nor for the civilians he sees cut down, nor even really for the young boots who are just as scared as he was on the boats heading towards Peleliu.
He is, by this point, as far gone as Snafu - and, really, farther, because the carnage and unrelenting horror of Okinawa actually helps Snafu start to rediscover his humanity.
When Sledge gets news that his dog - the dog we remember from those early scenes in Mobile that now seem far more essential than they did at the time - has died, it's just another excuse for Eugene to lose any connection to life, where it provides Snafu with an opportunity to get as warm as he can and try to comfort his buddy.
When Sledge chews out the boots for expecting different out of war than what they're seeing - in other words, for being exactly like him - it's Snafu who tries to distract Hamm with a question about where he's from. When Peck's meltdown gets Hamm killed, Sledge unloads on Peck, where Snafu recognizes the guy is so far gone that the only thing to be done is to quietly reassure him that Hamm's death wasn't his fault.
What a pair of amazing performances by Joseph Mazzello and Rami Malek, building on what we've seen before from these two so the role reversal didn't feel forced, and yet finding new levels of, respectively, despair and tenderness as the hour went along. Snafu becomes more Sledge-like, and Sledge becomes more Snafu-like (and a bit more Leckie-like as well), but both still have pieces of who they were earlier in the war.
By this point in the miniseries, the combat scenes have been so frequent and so confusing that the viewer experiences a level of combat fatigue as well, one no doubt designed to evoke Sledge's reaction to all of this. Endless, seemingly pointless combat, day after day, with no safe haven, even among the civilians. If a woman with a baby can be a suicide bomber, what respite is there?
And then we come to that astonishing, horrifying scene in the hut with the mortar hole in the roof, and the orphaned baby, and the woman begging for Sledge to put her down (just like the dog he lost?). That tableau becomes the latest image that Sledge will never be able to unsee, but it also seems to jolt him back into some semblance of humanity. The episode's time on Okinawa ends not long after Eugene has his moment of clarity, so it's entirely possible he would have gone back to his amoral bloodlust. But the episode, and the island conflict, ends in time for Sledge to leave it a shattered man, but not a monstrous one.
I first watched this episode months ago. I still shudder whenever I think about it.
What did everybody else think?