text:
This conversation is closed.
Is Faith inherently irrational?
I would like to propose the motion that faith is inherently irrational.
I consider rationality (in a nutshell) to be:
'An accurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
I can think of no better definition of faith than the exact opposite of this:
'A grossly inaccurate apportionment of belief in a statement concerning the objective nature of reality, with respect to the available evidence.'
However, I invite those who have faith, and profess it as a virtue, to submit their definition of faith.
(EDIT 16/9/12: This is intended to be a discussion on the nature of religious faith, of the sort people cite when putting forward claims of the supernatural, of gods, of an afterlife etc.... This is not intended to be a discussion of the wider concepts of hope, loyalty, trust or monogamy, but feel free to mention them in passing, or in comparison to faith. ENDEDIT).
Joseph Dorrell
edward long
Sep 13 2012: Believing in something you have not seen is completely rational when contrasted with the assertion that everything unseen does not exist.Sep 13 2012: Faith like all attempts to knowledge is relative.. the only truth humans possess of nature is the consensual acknowledgement we gather from theory, science, philosophy, trial and error, sensation, intuition, reasoning etc.
- +4
We are subjective beings... to claim anything is absolute besides perhaps "stuff happens" is instantly disregarding the fact we are only able to view things in relative manners. There are no such things as absolutes and pure objectiveness without first recognizing our mentalities are the source in which is establishing them as such...
rationality is debatable; I consider the longevity of actions being in the positive spectrum to be rational. And on my terms this allows psychological determinations to be a priori to philosophical beliefs and conclusions... which I would argue endlessly is important to really distinguish what is rational or not.. in other words the state of mind in reflection of active thoughts.
Faith, does tend to be irrational but it is also an innate feature in our human Psyche. Humans are naturally irrational creatures... cognitive bias theory makes this apparent. Faith is not the problem it is what faith is applied to.
Faith is relative thus there is no innate nature. It does tend to be more irrational in the religious context but it is not universally irrational.
- Thank you for inviting me to your conversation and look forward to a response from you Joe.
Ehis Odijie
Sep 12 2012: Dear Joseph
- +3
Yes, faith is inherently irrational and it never claimed otherwise. Faith, in this usage, is belief in things that cannot be detected or proven - it is not logical or reasonable. People of faith do not suggest that it is somehow rational or logical - they just believe.
So my friend you are dancing in the dark if you assume that people of faith assume rationality in any form - they don't.
Sep 16 2012: We can test your hypothesis by looking at how much disagreement there is in the comments... there may be some selection bias however.
. .
Sep 12 2012: Yes. Just as is love.Sep 19 2012: Is religion nothing more an exercise in linguistics?
- +3
At its roots, religion is an attempt to explain the unexplainable. These explanations are for the most part imparted to us at an early age, when we are the most susceptible to forming such irrational beliefs about the world. Jesus and the tooth fairy and Santa Claus are, at a point, all the same to a child. It is only because we continue to institutionalize religion within society that it does not become understood to be a myth.Sep 17 2012: I have nothing to add except encouragement and to recommend Christopher Hitchens to you though that is probably unnecessary.
John Smith
Sep 15 2012: "Is Faith inherently irrational?"
- +2
Yes, if you had evidence to back up your beliefs it wouldn't be faith anymore...
Roy Bourque
Sep 25 2012: I have made other comments, but I would like to add the following;
- +1
Faith which is based on blind acceptance of dogma IS irrational.
My father believed in purgatory. It eventually drove him to alcoholism. It was this result that caused me to question faith. It was in questioning that I came to see faith in a different light. If you never challenge your faith, never put it to the test, then it has no substance. And how can anyone say that they have faith if they aren't willing to put it to the test?
Jesus spoke out against blind faith. It was the religious leaders of his day that had him put to death. Yet there are many religious leaders today that advocate blind faith. They don't like you questioning things. The Catholic Church reduced faith to believing what the bible says, they themselves determining what would go into this book. That is not how faith started out. At one time it was very open.
The early church waged a war against gnosis. There are case histories where gnostic Christians were persecuted as heretics. In this regard, the church has been very controlling. It is only in our present day that people are challenging the doctrines of the church. I would advocate that this process continue.
My biggest beef against modern religion is its rebuke of scientific evidence. Science was originally part of faith in action. Many early scientists were from the church. It was the Catholic church that divorced itself from science after its rebuke of Galileo. We should never have to make a choice between science and God, and yet we are being challenged to do so because the church has created a dogmatic conception of God that is irrational.
My faith has taken me to studying other religions, to spiritual experiences, and has been a guiding force in my life that is completely in tune with modern science, personal integrity, and moral character development. They are all integrated in my life.
Roy Bourque
Sep 19 2012: Joseph,
- +1
As one who has had spiritual experiences, I offer the following;
The definition of the word faith has changed in the last hundred years. The 1904 Daniel Webster Dictionary defines "faith" as "the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed." The ascent of the mind or understanding is not blind. It requires that we put it to the test and let the results speak for themselves. It is in the results, and not blind belief that my faith abides.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for. When John Kennedy challenged the United States to put a man on the moon and return him to earth, that was a declaration of faith. He believed it was possible, but no one knew how to do it at the time. It took faith in action to make it happen. You may say that his was a faith in man and not God. But Kennedy was a religious man, and like most religious people, they don't separate the two. To them, God is where we derive our inspiration from. We believe that God will show us the way through inspiration, we don't believe that God will do it for us.
What people believe today, and what people believed in a more spiritual people have no comparison. Allan speaks of contamination. He is on the right track. There is much contamination in modern religions. Jesus was declared "the Christ". Christ is the seventh energy chakra of Eastern philosophy. Most modern Christians have no knowledge of what this means.
The Catholic church divorced itself from science after its attack on Galileo. In the 1904 dictionary, the word "theology" included a reference to "what God has revealed through nature and reason". Such a reference would deny religion the right to ignore scientific evidence. The modern definition contains no such reference.
At the age of nine, I had a spiritual experience while meditating on God. I have found full compatibility between that experience and my training in nuclear physics. I find virtue and confirmation in that.
Sep 23 2012: Thanks for your reply. It's always nice to hear from scientists: One can be near certain of their respect for the importance of truth.
It is interesting to see how the definitions of words has changes over the centuries. The Webster 1904 seems to be very much a product of Christendom of the time. It reminds me a little of P. Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy in which science is called 'experimental theology' in an alternative world. Webster's definition begs the question of the existence of a god, and would be completely stumped when it comes to the modern use of 'faith' as it applies to all world religions. Furthermore, it uses the metaphorical idea of ascending ones mind, referencing the idea that god is somewhere 'up' there. Are you suggesting this is still a valid or useful definition?
Sep 23 2012: To answer your question, God is not something "up" there as in outer space. The "up" of heaven and the "down" of hell is presented in a fundamentally different way in Eastern philosophy. It speaks of the lower and upper subconscious, the lower subconscious being an extension of the animal from which we evolved, the upper subconscious being the transcendence of intuition and inspiration. The lower subconscious is where the seat of the devil resides (all our fears and passions), the upper subconscious is where creativity is unleashed (acknowledging what the cosmic soup is capable of producing through our harmony with it). Thus to ascend, is to utilize the capacity of the cerebral cortex to overcome the brutish ways of the lower subconscious and to unlock the secrets of the cosmos through learning more and more about it.
As far as God is concerned, the mystics never saw God as something apart from reality. They saw the hand of God as the collective driving forces embedded in reality. Today we call them quantum fields. God doesn't create paradise for us, God creates paradise through us. We are the instruments through which God works, because we are all part of God. There is nothing that exists that is not part of God. God is the collective whole. It fills the universe. It has jurisdiction over all that is possible by establishing the fundamental conditions that direct the unfolding of the universe over time. We are doing everything in our power to understand it, and it is producing phenomenal results. Organized religion lost sight of all of this a long time ago. We need to bring them up to speed.
Sep 24 2012: So... are you putting forward this definition of faith?
"the ascent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed."
and is it: "(The ascent of the mind), OR (understanding of the truth of what God has revealed)"
or is it "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding of)) the truth of what God has revealed"
or: "The ((ascent of the mind to) OR (understanding to the truth of)) what God has revealed"Sep 25 2012: Your second reference is most correct.
Eastern philosophy deals with higher realms of consciousness. The ascent of the mind is to awaken to higher realms of consciousness where understanding can take place. As to the truth, the truth reveals itself when you can understand what the truth is. Without understanding, one cannot know the truth. You can believe something, but if you don't understand it, you are incapable of explaining it to anyone else, nor are you capable of effectively putting it into action. Belief without understanding is of little value.
According to the older definition, "the ascent of the mind" is synonymous with "understanding". As to the truth of what God has revealed, one can know it intuitively (through spiritual experience), or one can know it by examining nature to determine how it works (the scientific method). these two methods were included in the old definition of theology. The new definition of theology excludes any reference to nature and reason.
Sep 25 2012: Thanks for the clarification. I think what you have put forward is a terrible definition of faith.
1. It begs the question of God's existence: It has an internal assumption.
2. It does not cover all cases where faith is commonly used, e.g. belief in other gods.
3. It leaves the open question of how we can test if something is a matter of faith. How do we know what god reveals? I have no problem with looking for evidence in nature, but what do you mean by 'know[ing]... through spiritual experience'?Sep 26 2012: By knowing, let me give you a few examples.
Einstein realized time dilation as the answer to how the speed of light could be constant regardless of the initial speed of an object in which light is being measured. This was a moment of revelation in which he knew without someone else explaining it to him. Later he referred to a cosmic religious feeling. He knew that this feeling was not in harmony with what religion teaches, but he also knew that it was an awareness that comes from within.
Mozart wrote symphonies at an early age. No one taught him how to do this. He knew intuitively how to do it.
Intuitive knowledge is what is meant by knowing through spiritual experience. I knew that everything in nature could be reduced to a common denominator at the age of nine. I would not understand exactly what that meant until eleven years later when I studied the unified field theory.
These are examples of knowing without being taught. They are not common, but they are numerous throughout history. How one knows something is not always through the learning process.Sep 25 2012: I really would like to be able to put these things as elegantly as you have.
My own thinking is that if faith is irrational then everything is irrational. To quote Socrates, "The only thing that we KNOW is that we do not Know." Humans live entirely by faith in all things. We have to believe our senses in order to call something "evidence". Kudos to you sir !!
Sep 25 2012: Helen,
Thanks for the compliment. You might like my book. You can find it in my profile. It took me twenty years to write it.
According to modern science, the visible world (stars, planets, galaxies, all that we can see) only makes up 4% of the entire universe. To say that we know something based on observation still leaves 96% unaccounted for. How much do we really know? I don't remember who said it, but it is fitting; "he who knows, knows not. He who knows he knows not, knows"
Faith is only the starting point. The apostle Paul to James says that faith without works is dead. If we don't put our faith to the test to see what happens, then how can we say we have any faith at all? Blind belief is not faith, it is stagnation. Many modern religions have been caught up in dogma, not faith. I see a great chasm between those who exercise their faith and have personal experience to back it up, and those who go to church on Sunday just in case. They are worlds apart even though they may be standing right next to each other. It is the latter lot that has turned many away from the church because they speak the language, but can offer nothing more.
Your profile says to me that you have gone beyond blind faith. Good luck to you in where it leads.Sep 16 2012: Why start a new conversation:
This conversation is about epistemology. What is knowledge? How do we know 'truth'? When is knowing - believing and believing - knowing?
Faith was called into question. Knowing, in the sense 'knowing' without 'proof' - but KNOWING.
My best argument for why Joe considers his position and I believe Gabo: In longevity of actions, fundamental faith in thought - proves irrational and biased - while - consciously refusing alternative considerations to 'said' thought(s).
Yet, why does that argument have a negative connotation? Don't people have faith about things that are not religious? Can't we be faithful about thoughts in nonreligious subjects?
Biggest problem with faith came from the negative in the actions.. Harming others, being arrogant, getting angry when someone disagrees with you/them, not listening to someone because they do not share this fundamental faith... Disclaimer: NOT all are intrinsic features in modern fundamental religion, historically; more so.
My questions are:
Where is the line between 'positive' and 'negative' thinking? *This also calls into question: morality and ethics as religion.
What would a positive spectrum of thinking look like?
What does positive thinking mean to you. and does your determination consider faith as a negative?
Is it really negative, if the actions (prevention of actions) in the longevity' prove positive?
Are actions (prevention of actions) not louder than words?
+ No harm no foul, is a rhyme for a reason!
Question for Joe: Is calling into question rationality, fair, without first understanding intelligence itself?
Sep 17 2012: "Is calling into question rationality, fair, without first understanding intelligence itself?"
Could you expand upon what you mean here. I'm not sure I can do the question justice without first knowing what it is you are suggesting we need to understand about intelligence, and how this relates to rationality.
"In longevity of actions, fundamental faith in thought - proves irrational and biased - while - consciously refusing alternative considerations to 'said' thought(s)."
I find this argument intriguing, though rather opaque. 'longevity' as in 'length of time'? Also, are you referring to a particular 'thought', a place-marker 'thought' or the process of thinking in general? An expansion and explanation would be useful.
Sep 17 2012: Well where rationality comes from is a type of thinking. Thinking is a product of intelligence.
How can we suggest what is a logical conclusion - perhaps about faith being irrational - if we do not have a systematic understanding of our psyche? Especially if science now suggest we are more prone to acting (thinking) irrational - with the cognitive ability to be correcting - which suggest to me, well, more relative manners. Manners involving the process of thinking.
Consider what faith would be applied to, in the long run of those applications of faith would account in further reasoning and logic structuring (or lack of). At the point where the faith becomes restricting or open-ended in thought is the point it becomes a degree of rationalism. That degree may be low, thus considered irrational.
However when looking at things in longevity of how people think, what do we see? Behavior, attitudes, personality/intellectual development, self actualization ability, etc. If at any point these ideals of the psyche are being actively degraded due to the (in)actions of thought - that is irrational. This is what I would like to call a negative spectrum of thinking. Denying even your most the most fundamental fact you possess can create new realities - thus is positive for interpreting more nature.
I am new to this epistemological via psychoanalytical arguing. Bare with me.
I call a fundamentalist, a cave person at times, not to be crude but to be blunt. A fundamentalist in religion can be the nicest person in the world - help others, charity, communal work, etc. however they still hold faith in a supernatural thought. Are they really thinking in the negative spectrum of thought, if they had never harmed anyone? Never tried to prevent your active thoughts? Was accepting of others life styles?
Although I suggest the argument from where you are coming from, I don't buy into it. Because although faith could be irrational, those who practice faith can be very much not.
Gross Ryder
Sep 15 2012: Faith consists in making oneself believe, through the power of one's own reason OR intuition to undertake a worthy and challenging task that common sense/social reason says is impossible. Faith is against all odds, just as existence is against all odds - therefore is entirely individual and solitary, and yet is meaningful only in action. Just 'having faith' without it being put to test is useless and meaningless. Ultimately, faith in the strongest terms is tested in life and death situations where one's entire being and the values one holds to be absolute are at stake.
- +1
AS an example of what I mean study the dialogs of Plato about the trial and death of Socrates.Sep 15 2012: The man was looking at the uber expensive racing machine and asked "How much is it?" The answer came back, "If you have to ask you cannot aford it."
The same is true with faith. If you question it you don't have it. Faith provides a peace of mind and sooths the troubled soul. It inspires hope and calms the troubled waters.
Faith is as unexplainable as love ... or most emotions But as real as the air you breath and fulness of nature.
Rational and irrational are concepts of man. Faith is personal and consumes the heart and soul it become the very essence of your personna. These are intangables but can be measured in the character, morality, and ethics of the holder.
The absence of faith can also be measured in the lack of peace that surrounds the troubled soul of an atheist. That person seeks to debase the joy a person of faith feels while not have a belief system of their own.
So again, If ya gotta ask ya ain't got it. Hang in there it is available at a church near you.
Sep 15 2012: Love makes us say 'my partner is the most beautiful person in the world'
Faith makes us say 'my god exists, created the world, and cares for me'
The difference between the two is that love only makes us make subjective claims. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so the former can be said to be a true, but subjective statement. It says as much about the person in love, as the one who is loved.
Faith on the other hand, often makes people make claims about 'the objective nature of reality', about things existing, or processes happening, or medical cures working.
To treat the two as the same would be a mistake.
Sep 15 2012: "Faith is as unexplainable as love ... " was the comment I made above.
I made no mistake of treating the two the same.
However I agree with how you put things.
Thanks. Bob.Sep 15 2012: May I also recommend to you the wonderful talk 'The Brain in Love' by Helen Fisher.
The existence of the experience of love can most certainly be explained, and is a subject ripe for scientific exploration. Neurochemistry, psychology, evolutionary psych. ... it's all good stuff.Sep 15 2012: Sure but the dictionary doesn't define faith like this, faith is defined as confidence or trust in a thing. It can also be defined as belief without proof. Absolute proof must ultimately rely on induction which is inherently falsifiable, so such a thing cannot exist. Therefore all conclusions must be deduced from the available evidence which you mentioned. This evidence cannot provide absolute proof since it is inductive, therefore one must place confidence and trust in available evidence to deduce conclusions. This makes the dictionary's definition of faith much like your definition of rationality.
Gabo Moreno
Sep 15 2012: So perhaps instead of trying and answer the question, we should ask which faith are we talking about.
- +1
However, I think you are just playing semantics to make any faith look like rationality. Faith as in the religious kind is inherently irrational.
Sep 15 2012: Yes, we need to get definitions down first, becuase the OP is clearly talking about religious faith. If you think I'm doing that, that's a ridiculous assumption because I'm using a dictionary definition of faith.
Sep 15 2012: Budimir Zdravkovic :
Why don't just deduce conclusions from the available evidence ?
The conclusions would be right as long as the available evidence are correct .
The rationality is simple : that one has evidence and from them deduce conclusions , on them he builds beliefs .
There is no need to complicate the thing with the idea of 'absolute proof' .Sep 15 2012: Of course, it's physically impossible to derive proof in any other way. I'm just saying faith has a wider definition than religious faith. At least in the English language.
Sep 15 2012: And if that thing about 'absolute proof' falls , it's useless , does the wider definition of faith still applies to rationality , in other words do you still claim we need to place trust an confidence in the available evidence in order to deduce conclusions ?
This was what I was heading to , I know you're saying that faith has a wider definition .
John Smith
Sep 15 2012: "This evidence cannot provide absolute proof since it is inductive, therefore one must place confidence and trust in available evidence to deduce conclusions. This makes the dictionary's definition of faith much like your definition of rationality."
- +1
No, believing in evidence is rational because the probability of the evidence being correct is high. When you have faith you don't care about the probability of being right, that's not rational. Me playing the lottery because I have faith that I will win is not equivalent to me not playing because I believe I will not win, one of those outcomes is clearly more likely than the other so it is entirely rational and not an act of faith for me to go expect that outcome, even though I can't be entirely certain that outcome will occur.
Sep 15 2012: That's incorrect, placing your trust and conference in any uncertain event requires some degree of faith. I didn't say believing in evidence is irrational.
Sep 15 2012: I'm saying it's not faith when you're betting on the most likely version of events. It's a fallacy to think that just because you have two possibilities their probabilities must be 50/50 and all you can do is have faith in one of them.Sep 15 2012: Surely we can have degrees of trust or confidence. Belief is not black and white, on or off, yes or no; there are degrees (or as I would put it 'apportionments') of belief. This degree of belief is the summation of rational belief based on evidence and irrational belief, faith.
When I have an uncertain matter, I apportion an appropriate amount of belief, with no need to 'top up' with faith.Sep 15 2012: I'm aware that probabilities don't have to be 50/50, they can be 90/10 for instance. But all evidence is evidence with reference to a theory, the evidence can either confirm your theory or not, you can have rational faith in your theory based on this probability.
Sep 17 2012: "Rational faith" is a contradictio in terminis at least using the common definition of "faith".Sep 17 2012: I think you just need a dictionary.
Sep 17 2012: "Faith (noun):
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith."
I think I got it covered. You want to redefine faith as including evidence backed belief but you can't just change the meaning of words to win an argument. Worse, you just can't argue when you change the meaning of words because then you stop speaking the same language as the other person.Sep 17 2012: John Smith :
You don't know what you're talking about .
1. the confidence itself or the trust itself aren't irrational or rational things , they just are .
2. the belief that has no proof is not necessarily irrational , 'without proof' is not equal with 'irrational' , e.g. the belief in the existence of alien life has no proof , does it mean that 'the existence of alien life' is an irrational thing ? Of course not .
The existence or the non-existence of proofs for a belief is not an enough criteria to can say that is rational or irrational .Sep 18 2012: EG I'm not sure what angle you are coming at this from.
It is difficult to debate whether a belief is more or less rationale or irrational until you examine a specific claim, the nature of the claim, who is making it, what evidence or reasons might there be to support it or refute it.
If you claim to absolutely know alien life exists I suggest you are being irrational unless you have some evidence I'm not aware of. If you claim the alien overlord Xenu absolutely exists without any evidence you are being even more irrationale.
If you believe it likely that life exists on other planets, but admit you do not know for certain, that is a more reasonable belief.
So it depends on the nature belief and how certain you are relative to the evidence and reasonable consideration.
With the alien claim we see life has evolved here. There are probably billions of planets. It could be possible. But to claim you know is irrational unless you have information I'm not aware of.
It is not irrational to believe gods may exist. It probably is if you believe god does exist and was born of a virgin and is named Dave and lived in a cave in Africa 10,000 years ago or that Adolf Hitler was a prophet of the creator and an alien angel inspired him to write Mein Kampf.
It is even more irrational when there is a lot of evidence to believe people have similar experiences related to conflicting supernatural religious beliefs, and yet believe your particular guru has identified the truth and everyone else is misguided.Sep 18 2012: G M :
No , no you didn't get what I said . What I said is about pure logic . I don't wanna suggest alien life exist or not .
Let's say ' a circle is a square ' is a belief . This belief has two characteristics :
- it has no proof
- itself makes no sense .
If you know only the first you can't say that belief is irrational , it would not be enough . In order to know whether that belief is irrational you need to know the second besides the first .
You talk generally because you're not sure what angle I'm coming from but because you talk to me it may suggest that what you say applies to me . That does not happen . I won't take anything you say and comment it to show why that doesn't apply to me .
The question was : 'is faith inherently irrational ?' this question was asked mainly because faith means no proof but as I said right in this comment the existence or the non-existence of proofs alone doesn't make a belief irrational .
The same thing about the belief in God : - you may not have evidence for the existence of God but as long as the concept of God is consistent you can't say that the belief in God is irrational .
That's what everybody misses here . Atheism lack of thinking..... that is what happens.
Am I clear enough ?Sep 17 2012: Who said anything about winning? That's not my intention, it might be an intention you are projecting onto me but it's certainly not my intention. Yes so two of the above definitions are related to the kind of faith you are talking about. Are you telling me that one is not supposed to have some degree of faith in a hypothesis? That having faith in a hypothesis is not rational? Well if that was the case no one would bother testing a hypothesis. Even theories, a theory is not a proper proof because it is falsifiable, believing in a theory requires faith, finally confidence and trust in a thing or person can be considered rational faith in many instances. All these definitions I think demonstrate that faith has a wiser definition than how it has been discussed ib the thread, yes faith can be irrational but all faith is not irrational.
Gabo Moreno
Sep 15 2012: Using a dictionary definition or many dictionary definitions? Conflating things by using several meanings is called a fallacy of equivocation. It happens when people jump from one definition to another and eureka! A wrong conclusion. It is part of rhetorical trickery, but it is quite often done by mistake. Among the hardest to understand unless you look at them carefully enough. Great trick though. Lots of people buy into them and can't see what the problems might be.
- +2
Besides that, you made rationality to require absolute proof, thus building something of a straw man of rationality.
Sep 15 2012: The definition of faith has a wider meaning than religious faith, as I pointed out above. All definitions of faith are united by a single conceptual framework, which is trust in uncertainty. I'm tricking you by using dictionary definitions? Way to expose my trickery champ. Anyway I don't care that much you can make up your own words and meanings or your own language it doesn't really matter to me. We don't have to go by the English dictionary. But remember we are speaking english so my assumption was we are sticking to common English definitions.
I didn't say that, rationality doesn't require absolute proof. I just stated that faith according to the dictionary and rationality according to the OP are not mutually exclusive. One is not the opposite of the other. The OPs definition of rationality is more in accordance with the dictionary.
Sep 15 2012: Nope, not all definitions of faith are united by a single conceptual framework. The word can mean quite different things. Yes, this is English we are writing. So what?
If the OP is talking about religious-like faith, and you use a different definition (from a dictionary), then compare that to whatever you perceived rationality to be from the OP, while "reducing" (I could not find a better word) its meaning talking about the impossibility of absolute proof, you are building an equivocation fallacy by any standard. Sorry. I did not say you did this with the purpose of misleading. But mislead you did.
You are right on one thing though. You did not say that rationality requires absolute proof (my mistake). You just implied that for rationality to be different to faith it would require absolute proof. Which is still wrong, but not the same.Sep 15 2012: Budimir performed no such fallacy, (Rather he opened up his definition for more interpretations than combining or mixing them up)
However Gabo you did perform a confirmation bias; since Budimir's more broad interpretation conflicts with your position (beliefs) you claim it is fallacious.
Also I have faith Budimir would have a much different position had the debate been "religious [based] faith is inherently irrational"
Sep 15 2012: "Opened up" his definition to conflate faith with rationality. That's an equivocation fallacy. Also remember that Budimir himself said: "the OP is clearly talking about religious faith."
So, nothing to do with conflicting with my "beliefs" (which beliefs? should we start another set of equivocations?)Sep 15 2012: Finally someone that gets what I'm saying, thanks Nicholas.
Gabo, that's great that you are stubbornly persistent with this, but "faith is inherently irrational" is a false statement. Maybe the statement "some faith is inherently irrational" makes more sense according to the English language. If you wanna make a distinction in such a way that you either have faith or rationality, the two words meaning two opposites that are mutually exclusive then you can redefine faith as the OP did but that is not how it has been traditionally used in academic and philosophical literature, and this new definition reflects an politically ideological distinction, which in my opinion is much closer to the "trickery" you are accusing me of.Sep 15 2012: Budimir,
"Faith" has "traditionally" been used in many different ways in academic and philosophical literature. If you looked carefully you would also notice that in those works the kind of faith to be discussed is defined at the get go.
If someone wants to talk about the faith as commonly referred to in religions, I do not see how trying to figure out if it is inherently irrational or not is making a "politically ideological distinction." It looks to me as if the person wants to talk about this kind of faith and about rationality, not about how you can level terms off by playing semantics.
Be well.Sep 15 2012: Ah no, he suggest that Joe's definition of rationality is on a parallel to faith.
"This makes the dictionary's definition of faith much like your definition of rationality."
Which THEN his argument is welcoming to Joe's interpretation but on the grounds (terms) Joe recognizes that can be faith-based too. Not the definitions in general. So again, your opinion of him being fallacious is misleading.
And Joe is CLEARLY talking about religious faith, hence his 'related videos' and history of arguments - which are available to view via his profile. (Edited: OH and his latest comment on this thread is evidence also.)
Your position on what faith is as being "inherently irrational" this is false. That is a belief because it is not true to everyone, obviously. Please reference my original post on this conversation.
Also note, humans are naturally irrational creatures with the potential to be rational, thus faith-based thoughts are more common than otherwise. So if irrational thoughts are the normal, what is most likely the base for the rational? (Note: without consensual (empirical) knowledge, reasoning would take much longer to permeate even the slightest absolute truth.)
You cannot be objective or absolute without the subjective or relative first.
Sep 15 2012: Nick,
Yes, he "suggests" so based on equivocations. First by changing the faith originally referred to into one with a "wider" definition, then by "levelling off" rationality to this redefined "faith" arguing about/against absolute proof. That's equivocation, again, by all standards.
That not everybody is convinced about something does not make such something a "belief" (further equivocation as I predicted).
Whether humans are inherently irrational or not is an aside. Here you are committing a non-sequitur fallacy that disguises as a genetic fallacy. If irrational thoughts are the "normal" it does not follow that rational ones have irrational ones as a basis. Humans being naturally irrational does not change anything. It might justify that faith is inherently irrational, but will not make it any less so, will it? I know that what you pretend is to level rationality with faith, but that's mere rhetorical trickery.
Finally, objective and absolute are not synonyms. Subjective and relative are not synonyms either.Sep 15 2012: There is no deception here (or at least intentionally), as the premise of this entire argument is the semantic nature of 'faith'. Budimir suggestions were based on him trying to be objective while, again, recognizing Joe's subjective opinion. Budimir intentions are not to be 'correct' but to allow more ideas to put down and taken off the table - it isn't just logic, it is better, it's more procedural; many-valued logic.
Recognizing the above, Budimir and I are coming from the position of being argumentative with the premeditation of allowing and requiring more ambiguity to accept all interpretations of the terms 'faith' and 'rationality'. You call it fallacious because it makes logic more difficult, we would call it being a well-rounded philosopher because it makes logic more difficult.
"That not everybody is convinced about something does not make such something a "belief" (further equivocation as I predicted)."
Please take a moment to search the term 'belief' - okay, now - since your comment indicated a "yes" to faith being inherently irrational - that is a knowledge claim i.e. a belief. Perhaps you are offended by my diction choice? Too bad, I speak from a broad use of words on purpose, because I am no elitist with thoughts and words, like you. (Evidence: your attempts to point out fallacies)
Epistemological concerns are a must to be referenced here Gabo, the question being concerned with 'knowing' and 'knowledge' which is consistent with terms such as 'truth' and 'faith'. Therefore the ideals of the objective and absolute must be called into question.
On the accord of human nature. We must learn rationality and must be taught how to reason and think. Those lessons are based on nurturing; societal and cultural, norms and ideals. However nature is never not there and our sciences suggest we are primarily irrational. My point: faith is prior to rationality.
Finally, I never suggested they were, but rather that two are the prior for the other two, to exist.
Gabo Moreno
Sep 16 2012: Part of being a good philosopher is precisely trying to use a precise word over a very open-to-interpretation one. Part of rather being a sophist is to use as much ambiguity as possible. That way you can keep moving around and never get anywhere. Being a good philosopher is not about trying hard to keep yourself in the dark, but rather being able to reach conclusions when necessary. To that end, your terms have to be precise. Does this sound philosophically sound to you at all? I hope so.
- +1
During the times when I explored Buddhism I enjoyed the most the concept of illumination. At that time I had no idea about how misleading equivocations are. I thought they were puzzles, rather than fallacies. I thought they helped me get rid of restrains of thought. Anyway, I admire as much as the next the kind of poetry that equivocations can produce. The mental states so similar to those felt when we get to understand something. They look magical. Anyway, they are still tricks. Maybe the mind gets an orgasm out of the jumping of meanings. But that still does not make equivocations any more valid as arguments to attain any proper understanding. They just make discussion go round and round because people are talking about different things (while thinking that they are talking about the same thing), and thus reaching a conclusion is naturally impossible.
Faith may or may not be prior to rationality. That still does not make faith rational, nor reason into faith.Sep 15 2012: At this point I am attempting to be the well-rounded philosopher and be broad with interpretations... In doing so I must create more grounds for arguments, not to misdirect, but to essentially dictate that these issues are more grander than the original premises and conclusions can allow in brevity.
My point of human's being naturally irrational and suggesting faith is more of a common occurrence than not. Is to again, open up the terms for argument to even allow religious faith to be apart of my idea in argument. Claim to support noted arguments: Human's have religious behavior - we cannot escape this, and by recognizing such we can be more rational.
Yes it took me 5 comments to make a claim rather than just broaden the terms to preexisting ones.
Sep 16 2012: I bet you are enjoying the process of becoming a well rounded philosopher. It shows.
All the best.
(No sarcasm intended whatsoever. Clarification just in case any misinterpretation could arise.)Sep 16 2012: I think the attempt to being precise with words that are in nature ambiguous i.e. the words HEAVILY repeated here, and if not, is asking for constant debate and arguments.
That is why open source dictionaries are really essential to understanding how individuals and cultures in the sciences, arts and/or the relative enterprises - understand and are viewing the world. Allowing broad interpretation in words is procedural to also being able to interpret other works in literary respects.
A single word can hold a bible of thought(s) if constantly reverted back to; why the word 'God' is so powerful to the psyche to those with faith in an omni-being.
Existentialism, Nationalism, Science, Nature, Universe, Space, God - words that can be used in a multitude of manners should be treated as such - not because that is the best way, but that is because that is way it actually exist; to be a 'multicultural' philosopher is to be a well rounded philosopher.
Seeing as how I find mythical/spiritual and Eastern philosophy just as valuable as Western philosophy - I have derived universal principles that can be acceptable to anyone, not because they are correct, but because they anticipate changes in meaning
A conclusion is only as good as it's premises. No question, should have one answer - common sense is relative (pun)... Assuming absolutes is dangerous to dialectic thinking. Science in history was referenced more for the arts; today, science is an enterprise of consensual professionals involving in various levels of paradigmatic/methodical cultures - I never assume an empirical fact is the entire Reality of anything, but rather the best measure to the absolute, as a species, we have.
Conclusion: At the time you began to believe this word had one definition, is the time where you appeal to an authority that is not your own. Rather than looking at various authorities to existentially 'nitpick'.
Faith =/= rationality, but they derive from one another. Not opposites.
Sep 16 2012: I could counter a lot, and I see too easily many ways in which you have made your position worse. But I think that now we would be just going in circles. So I am done for now.
Keep the learning Nick. So will I.
("At the time you began to believe this word had one definition" I didn't. What I did was try and keep the definition that was under consideration instead of allowing the jumping from one definition to another, which is, again, fallacious.)Sep 16 2012: Well Budimir's definitions were not jumping (this is what you are not comprehending from me and this maybe just as much my fault as yours) - rather he was linking two seemingly opposites in terminology and arguing they have relative natures... This is the procedural thinking I referenced.
Further defended by the entire comment above suggest - which to me and many, is the best way to approach philosophy. Being multicultural, nitpicking from a variety of philosophies, learning from ancient belief systems, figuring out basic psychological determinations from mysticism/scientific sources, appreciation for science in general, knowing of different beliefs... (arguably)
You say you read Buddhism... I would say you missed the mark, and/or did not grasp the holistic metaphysics that is foundationalism for the majority of Eastern thought, and arguably language..
You suggest the logical fallacy, sometimes, logical fallacy is practical in arguments. Logic itself needs to be broaden in our Western practices of philosophy and science (this is a giant movement in art. historically and apart of contempt philo.). Biases exist in our natural function of thinking. Cognitive bias theory is brilliant. - What is intelligence, isn't even answered, let alone what is rational. All speculation, theory and/or culturally agreed upon definitions.
We are limited by words. The words should not be our limit.
I don't believe we exhausted this conversation.
This conversation is about epistemology. What is knowledge? How do we know 'truth'? When is knowing - believing and believing - knowing?
Faith was called into question. Knowing, in the sense 'knowing' without 'proof' - but KNOWING.
Best argument: In longevity of actions, fundamental faith in thought - proves irrational (to a degree), biased, arrogant and/or refusal of alternative consideration.
Who decides the line between 'positive' and 'negative' thinking? What is a positive s[spectrum of thinking? Rationality?
Sep 16 2012: I can't do much more Nick. Look carefully and you will see that you are just insisting on your kind of solipsism and on how right changing the definitions is, while I keep insisting about how wrong changing the definitions is. Everything else is interesting argumentation at times. Cheap pseudo-philosophy at other times, and et cetera.
I embraced Buddhism but I did not renounce my own mind. I don't think I have ever embraced anything to the point of renouncing my own thinking. I was able to enjoy and criticize at the same time. You should try it. No wise man in the whole world has anything on you. Start by respecting your own mind. I am not saying that you should forget the respect for people who have thought deeper and longer than you. I am saying that you should still remember that you have your own mind. (Don't read this in haste.)
I hope that was clear.
See ya later alligator.Sep 16 2012: Very nicely put Nicholas.Sep 15 2012: 'Sure but the dictionary doesn't define faith like this'
Faith is a rather nebulous concept, but much of what it covers is equally well served by other words and concepts:
- I have faith (trust) that my brother will buy a nice present.
- I am faithful (monogamous) to my wife.
- We have to have faith (hope) that the rescue boat will come soon.
- This is my faithful (loyal) friend, Lawrence.
But the faith we are discussing here is that which is used as an explanation for a belief in supernatural phenomenon, e.g. gods, afterlife, reincarnation etc... You cannot trust someone you do not believe exists, monogamy does not apply, belief in god is not simply wishful thinking, and you cannot be loyal to someone, again, who you do not believe exists.
It is a mistake to start talking about 'absolute proof' outside of pure mathematics. Any theory can be overturned with enough evidence, so none should be believed in 'absolutely'. However, not having absolute proof does not mean the evidence cannot be accumulated, or used to support hypotheses.
Your point about 'one must place confidence and trust in available evidence', was interesting. Are you making the point that we must first make the assumption that the world is real before we attempt to study it?
Sep 16 2012: There you go, that's what I wanted to clear up, we are on the same page.
I think there are numerous ways we can also define real, and discussing the nature of reality is quite a complicated debate but at the very least we can place confidence in available evidence and fact because it is useful to do so, what we can do and achieve is dictated by fact, not by celestial orders or other things we imagine might exist.Sep 14 2012: Faith is not 'inherently' irrational, which is to say, faith in itself is not based on irrational thought.
Faith, in the truly Christian sense, only means that one can state with certainty that what has not yet happened has in fact already happened.
OK that does sound irrational, but let me try to put it this way: you've heard the phrase " Dress for the job you want, not for the oneyou have.". Imagine you are so certain that you will get that greeat job, that faith guides you to dress the part, and diligently to prepare for those responsibilities, to learn what you need to know so that one day,when everybody elseknows what you knew all along, that you were going to be in that position, you are ready. That's faith.
Irrational faith is just going into the office, plunking yourself down in the big chair and issuing wild orders until security comes to take you away.
Sep 14 2012: May I suggest that that what you describe is confidence in one's own ability and/or worth, which leads to others confidence in the same. This, again, is not the type of faith for which I am asking a definition. Your example is telling: like the job, are you suggesting that the faithful simply pretend that a god exists until the people around them start to pretend along with them?
Sep 18 2012: May I suggest if you've already answered your own question, then it is not necessary to ask of others?
Your question is telling. You believe that faith is inherently irrational, and thus should be diacarded. My example was an illustration between rational and irrational faith.
Faith can be irrational. Or rational, depending on the person. But faith is not inherently irrational, because it does not go against reason, but rather, qualifies reason.
Sep 18 2012: It's not a question thread, it's a debate: I have put forward a proposition and I am defending it!
However, to open up the debate I asked for alternative explanations and definitions of faith (the kind of faith that is cited when proposing supernatural phenomenon), in order to explore peoples views, and see if there were any arguments that I hadn't yet heard.
If I have misunderstood your example, please go back and explain what you mean by your example with the job and the clothes. If there is a deeper meaning that was lost on me, then I apologise for the flippancy of my original answer.Sep 22 2012: Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I did misinterpret your response and being flippant, but I must apologise for my somewhat testy response in return.
I realise my example is rather facile, and really touches only the surface of faith. But I use it to illustrate the difference between rational faith and irrational faith. Again, faith is essentially being certain that what will come to be will indeed come to be, and to prepare oneself for that eventuality so much that you, in a sense, act as though it has already come to pass. That is how faith, very logically, prepares you. This may seem like a self-fulfilling prophesy, the power of positive thinking, whatnot, but it is quite rational.
Unless taken to the extreme - such as disaster mongers who "know" for certain that the world will end unless they jump off a two-story rock in AZ on 12-21-2012, ripping a hole in the fabric of space time and thus saving the universe. (Just saw that guy a few nights ago on TV - an example of irrational faith)
Granted, faith does not always have to mean faith in God. I speak of Christian faith because that is where I draw my faith. That does not mean I disparage the rationality of the sources of other people's faith.
The central tenet of Christian faith is to realise, however, that we as humans, can lead ourselves astray. Our own whims and desires can alter our impression of what is logical, or even rational. That's why we are called to study this force beyond our understanding (God) so that we can attain an objective viewpoint on our world, our fellow humans, our universe, and our lives.
I'm not saying it all makes sense. I'm not even saying I can explain it with any sort of coherency. All I'm saying is that faith is not INHERENTLY irrational. It certainly CAN be, but not in and of itself.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify.
Jaime Lubin
Sep 13 2012: Thank a God....yes.
- +1
Gail .
Sep 13 2012: You confuse faith (belief) and religion. It is impossible to live without faith - something that I learned when my worldview crashed some years ago.
- +1
I had just learned that liberty, equality, and justice did not mean what I had been taught that they meant. In that same moment, I considered how my actions were affecting others. This left me confused to the point of immobility. Should I go to work to support inequality, tacit slavery, and injustice? Or should I stay home and feel better about myself, but risk starving to death? It was a terrifying time.
Without faith in something, even if it is faith that when you get out of your bed, your feet will touch the floor, you are paralyzed.
Beliefs form the fabric of our reality. You can choose your beliefs and see evidence for them begin to play out in your life. This makes you a powerful being - the god of your reality.
Abrahamic religions are different than faith by itself, in that those religions tell their members what to think, and discourage active self-exploration so that members will not find their own power. I have faith in this. (It is one of my beliefs).


text:
It is so freakin' good to be back! A world away from gloom ass SoCal, it blows me away that Tahiti is a mere seven-hour flight from LAX. I made the hour drive down to Teahupo'o from the airport and slid into a nice sleep despite the snoring of Dylan Longbottom and TransWorld SURF ace photog Brian Bielmann (who bounced over to Moorea with Bruce Irons and Kamalei Alexander…apparently they scored, too). Upon waking up I had a quick cup of coffee with Papi Maoni (a legend of a man) jogged down the road, over the bridge, and onto the point in hopes of scoring a ride out to the pass. One of the guys from Billabong was there and within a few minutes I was staring at gaping four foot barrels with just a few dudes out. While it wasn't big by any means, the power of the wave is there at any size. The early morning crew consisted of Dusty Payne, Joel Parkinson, Occy, Anthony Walsh, and some riff raff like myself.
Currently ranked #1 in the world, Parko is looking sharp and relaxed. He's here without his family, solely focused on riding the barrel backside. And my God can that guy paddle. Sitting a bit out of position, he'd kick and windmill those long arms into just about any wave. While you don't normally associate Parko with Teahupo'o (he's more known for his act at Kirra/Jbay/Snapper) he is a contender in my eyes. Anthony Walsh was on fire as well. After getting third in the trials for "like the fourth year in a row," he's a little bummed but eyeing the big swell headed this way. "I just want it to get too big for the contest," he added. "If I get a few waves during the swell I'll be fine."
After an hour or so most of the pros paddled in, leaving me, Walshy, and one of the ASP judges. We figured that the pros have no vested interest in flawless, four-foot Chopes. They're not going to get cover shots out there, and they'd be screwed if they broke their best boards, or worse, got injured. So yeah, there was a small handful of us surfing one of the best lefts on the planet right smack in the middle of a World Tour event. I love this place!—Justin Coté
Follow us on Twitter for up to the minute updates and happenings from Teahupo'o
TAGS: Adam D'Esposito, ASP World Tour, Billabong, Billabong Pro Tahiti, Bruce Irons, Cory Lopez, dusty payne, Josh Kerr, Kamalei Alexander, shark attack, Tahiti, teahupoo

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Suvi Parhankangas has not begun favoriting items on BurdaStyle.
Suvi Parhankangas has not begun favoriting items on BurdaStyle.
Denise's Desk
Our Copycat online course starts now!
Power Sessions
Join Meg this Thursday and learn about pattern making! As a SPECIAL OFFER Dress pattern included
Miami heat is the perfect summer sewing collection, you'll get 10 patterns for only $16.99!
Editors' Picks
Purely feminine and floral, this collection is composed of beautiful flowing dresses
Denise's Copycat Course starts TOMORROW! Why should you join? Find out here...
You must allow our "request for permission" request to login to Burdastyle with Facebook.


text:
Today's Holiday Gift Pick: Japonesque Touch Up Tube Brush Set
Our sister site, TheNest.com has come out with a comprehensive holiday gift guide with must-haves for everyone in your life including a fiance, family or co-workers. While you may be busy with wedding planning you'll still have to make some time for holiday shopping and all these items are available online. For the next month, we'll share our favorite gift-guide picks. (Psst: They make for great registry ideas too!)
Today's pick: Japonesque Touch Up Tube Brush Set
Why we love it: With these essential tools, you can perfect your look anywhere, anytime.
Price: $19


text:
Kosher Side Dishes
|Risotto with Mushroom Ragout & Truffle Oil
Adapted from a recipe by Executive Chef David Kolotkin, Solo Restaurant, Manhattan.
Yes, risotto is time consuming to prepare, and this version is long. However, once you get the hang of it, the method is actually simple and the results are truly superb. Before you begin, have all of your ingredients ready and prepped.
Mushroom Ragout:
Turn off flame, and add brandy to mushrooms. Place pan back on the heat and reduce the brandy by half.
After brandy has reduced, add 2 cups of chicken stock and reduce by 3/4ths. Remove from heat and reserve half of the cooked mushrooms.
In another pan, heat oil and sweat onions until soft and translucent. When onions are sweated, add the Arborio rice and gently toast for 3-4 minutes. Stir in white wine and let the rice absorb it while continually stirring. A wooden spoon or silicone spatula is recommended for this.
On low flame, stir and simmer rice and wine; Then slowly start to add the warm chicken stock to the rice 1/2 cup at a time until the liquid is absorbed by the rice. Keep adding the stock 1/2 cup at a time until the rice is cooked and no stock remains. Make sure to continuously stir the rice to ensure it cooks evenly and doesn't scorch. Season rice with salt to taste.
Just before serving, add the pureed mixture to the rice, and bring it back up to temperature. Gently fold in the white truffle oil. Adjust seasonings if necessary.
Place cooked risotto on plates and top with the reserved mushrooms.
Yield: Servings: 6 appetizers or 4 entrees
*Chef Kolotkin advises that If kosher truffle oil or fresh truffles are unavailable, just omit.
Recipes: Side Dishes, Risetto, Parve, Kosher


text:
Model No. 14 — Collection 003
Customize. Personalize. Play!
Barbie Basics® is all about permission to play and this collection focuses on fashionable fun in the sun. Each Barbie® doll wears an oh-so-chic ensemble complete with swimsuit and shoes in the same color, golden earrings and a bracelet, golden metallic tote and a blue or orange sarong.
Model No. 14's blue tropical sarong includes accents that perfectly match her halter-top bikini!
Each doll sold separately, subject to availability.
For the adult collector.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.


text:
The Impeachniks Roar
There have been only two presidential impeachments in the 224 years since George Washington became America's first president. Both—of Andrew Johnson in 1868 and of Bill Clinton in 1998—failed to get the required two-thirds majority in the Senate. And Richard Nixon, of course, was about to be impeached in 1974 when he chose to resign instead; unlike the other two, there would have been nothing partisan about Nixon's impeachment and he almost certainly would have been convicted. There are always some partisans of the party out of power who would like to impeach the president, simply because it's the only way to get rid of him if you can't beat him at the polls. But a presidency without too much actual criminality shouldn't produce too many such armchair prosecutors. Or so you'd think.
But these are no ordinary times, and the Republican thirst for impeaching Barack Obama (or "Barack Hussein Obama," as impeachniks inevitably call him) has gone mainstream, as evidenced by the fact that The New York Times featured a story about it over the weekend. The pattern is becoming familiar: at a town hall meeting, a member of the House or Senate is confronted by a constituent practically quivering with anger and hatred at the President. The constituent demands to know why impeachment hasn't happened yet. The Republican politician nods sympathetically, then explains that though he'd like nothing more than to see Obama driven from office, it would require a vote of the House and then a trial and conviction vote in the Senate, and that just isn't going to happen.
As Steve Benen said, "I remember the good old days—back in 2011—when unhinged conservative Republicans in Congress used to come up with pretenses of high crimes when talking up presidential impeachment. Lately, they don't even bother. Obama is the president; he's a Democrat; the right doesn't like him; ergo impeachment is a credible option. QED." Take, for instance, Representative Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan. When the ritual question came to him, Bentivolio said it would be "a dream come true" for him to submit a resolution to impeach Obama. But he lamented the fact that "Until we have evidence, you're going to become a laughingstock if you've submitted the bill to impeach the president." I mean, come on—evidence? What is this, Judge Judy or something? No constitutional scholar he, the congressman only realized this bit about "evidence" after doing some careful research. "I've had lawyers come in—and these are lawyers, PhD.s in history, and I said, 'Tell me how I can impeach the president of the United States.' [They replied,] 'What evidence do you have?'" The nerve!
Meanwhile, out in the ideological hinterlands, the rabble are getting roused. People are putting "Impeach Obama" signs on overpasses! There's a Facebook page! "Movement To Impeach Obama Snowballing" shouts World Net Daily (along with a plea to "Visit WND's online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama").
To be sure, it isn't that there aren't plenty of Republicans who reject impeachment out of hand, because there are. But they're regarded by many in the base as contemptible quislings; within the party, the moderate middle position is now occupied by those who wouldn't mind impeaching Obama, but realize that the practical hurdles are too difficult to overcome. And yes, there were liberals who wanted to impeach George W. Bush back in the day, but they were almost all fringe characters. They weren't the people making our laws. As always, on the right the extremism goes much farther up the tree.
There will come a point—around October of 2016, I'm guessing—where this insanity will just peter out. But between now and then it could well grow more intense, with more and more members of Congress (not to mention 2016 presidential candidates) forced to take a position of sympathy toward impeaching Obama. For the base, disappointment long ago turned to anger, which is now turning to a kind of guttural explosion of rage. Like early primates who find that all the shrieking and pounding of chests has failed to drive off the interlopers who had the temerity to walk right in and think they could coexist in this part of the forest, they're left with nothing to do but to fling their shit in the general direction of those they hate and fear. But hey, America is "polarized" and both sides are equally to blame, right?
Mon, 2013-08-26 10:23
No, not right. George bush was a nice guy, not very bright, but nice. His cronies assisted in lying to us about a need to invade Iraq. We have muddled through two unfounded wars started by bush and an economy that fell to its knees, but is recovering. the war in iraq ended and the war in afghanistan is coming to an end. Obama did that. The debt has been cut in half. Obama did that. We have healthcare reform. Obama did that. Regulatory reform of Wall Street, although that needs to be tougher. Don't ask, don't tell. Saved the auto industry. Is investing in clean energy. Passed the Lilly Ledbetter bill for equal pay for equal work. Killed bin laden. Passed the economic recovery act. Protected unemployment benefits. Gave tax benefits to employers who hired veterans. Provided consumer protection from financial institutions. Forced BP to pay for the damage from the gulf oil spill. Won an $11 billion settlement for freddy mae and freddy mac.
Obama did all that and many other good things, all while a destructive Republican Party tried to block everything he tried--and admitted that's what they were doing.
Impeach obama? For what? I would suggest that we arrest bush and his neocon buddies and try them for treason. I think that there is more than enough evidence to support that. since treason can only occur during war, I think the murder of thousands of soldiers and civilians brought about by countless lies passes the litmus test.
Mon, 2013-08-26 13:23
Mon, 2013-08-26 20:10
sure, how 'bout "healthcare reform" that unions and congressional staffers are end running as fast as their dirty little feet will let them. how bout the nevada afl-cio issuing a damning statement on this debacle. yeah he "passed it", with the help of partisan cronies, but that doesn't mean it goes automatically in the "plus" column. wait til people witness the famous lie ("if you like your doctor, you can keep him, if you like your plan, you can keep it) as it descends on their own little lives. maybe they'll finally realize what a narcissistic propagandist looks like.....
sure, how 'bout "healthcare reform" that unions and congressional staffers are end running as fast as their dirty little feet will let them. how bout the nevada afl-cio issuing a damning statement on this debacle. yeah he "passed it", with the help of partisan cronies, but that doesn't mean it goes automatically in the "plus" column. wait til people witness the famous lie ("if you like your doctor, you can keep him, if you like your plan, you can keep it) as it descends on their own little lives. maybe they'll finally realize what a narcissistic propagandist looks like.....
Wed, 2013-08-28 08:24
Wed, 2013-08-28 08:35
To borrow a phrase from the author "...they're left with nothing to do but to fling their shit in the general direction of those they hate and fear." You are very successful at emulating that behavior and it also demonstrates very well how you need to learn to use your head for something besides a space maintainer.
Wed, 2013-08-28 10:52
We are still in afghanistan, and Iraq does not look so hot. We had less justification for intervening in Libya, and less again in Syria. Benghazi is a caldron of lies and incompetence.
"The Debt has been cut in half" ROTFL
Dodd-Frank is a disasterous mistake that the administration can not figure out how to impliment, PPACA - same.
The AutoBailout and the Recovery act were pork to unions and public employees.
We got into the housing mess atleast party as a result of "consumer protection from financial institutions"
Fanny and Freddie as one of the other big cuases of the current mess.
The GOP was upfront about blocking this and more. Someone has to say no to this idiocy.
Ernie Banks
Wed, 2013-08-28 12:43
I don't understand why liberals aren't leading the charge to impeach Obama, led by the fellow that would take over, Joe Biden. In 2007, Joe said he'd work to impeach Bush if he started a war without Congressional approval. The video is on you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw . As this author put it, Biden is seething with rage and anger as he draws his line in the sand: Congress must approve it first.
As for Obama's accomplishments, I must admit I am impressed too. He reset relations with Russia. He closed Guantanamo Bay. He cut the annual budget deficit to $200B by the end of his first term. He healed the planet, and caused the sea level to stop rising. We are much more respected throughout the world because Bush isn't running foreign policy. His health care plan has reduced medical costs and provided more access to everyone. His economic policies are a huge success; we now enjoy strong economic growth and lots of jobs. He reduced tensions with Iran. He calmed racial tensions in the US. He restored our faith in government. He stopped unauthorized wiretaps. He protected whistleblowers.
/Sarcasm off.
Wed, 2013-08-28 08:44
Obama has engaged in unconstitutional acts and is fair game for impeachment. His despotic and tyrannical acts include the following:
--He has spied on Americans via the NSA, violating the rights of thousands.
--He has used the IRS to harass and bully political dissenters.
--Like a Roman emperor, he hopes to govern by executive edict, though he has no authority to do so. When the DREAM act on immigration failed in Congress, he forced his views on us by fiat in 2012, declaring he would not enforce the laws on illegal immigration.
--He issued exemptions to members of Congress on aspects of the Affordable Care Act, though he had no authority to do so.
--He is not enforcing the laws on illegal immigration, violating the requirement that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article II, section 3).
--He has made a scapegoat of an innocent filmmaker, blaming him for the attack on our embassy in Libya even though the administration knew all along that Al Qaeda was behind the attack. He allowed this lie to be promulgated partly in order to deflect criticism and win the 2012 election.
--His disastrous economic policy has helped contribute to 22 million unemployed or underemployed. It has choked and stifled the rights of many Americans, including the young, to pursue the careers of their choice.
--He has put his party above the Constitution and the common good of the nation.
--He sent troops to Libya without Congressional authorization, violating Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Wed, 2013-08-28 09:09
"early primates who find that all the shrieking and pounding of chests has failed to drive off the interlopers who had the temerity to walk right in and think they could coexist in this part of the forest, they're left with nothing to do but to fling their shit in the general direction of those they hate and fear."
--Actually, this seems like a fairly good description of how many on the left treat dissenters. It's no secret at this point that many leftists are exceedingly intolerant. They've tried to get rid of dissent in many left-controlled institutions, including many media outlets and universities. Even a poor rural rodeo clown must not be allowed to perform a satire; he must be fired. All dissent must be rooted out and destroyed, with Saul Alinsky as the guiding star.
Wed, 2013-08-28 10:30
It should be pointed out that impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. High crimes and misdemeanors actually has a specific meaning in common law. That meaning is harm to the society you are in. A President who was a drunken sot and did not preform his duties or miss preformed them, even if he broke no actual laws could fall under this rule. Impeachment is a political remedy to remove a President that is harmful to our society. I can understand why conservatives would wistfully think about impeachment without actually contemplating it.
Wed, 2013-08-28 11:02
There are numerous excellent reasons to impeach Pres. Obama.
Flouting the rule of law at the top of the list.
But this is not going to happen.
That is a crime. The Nixon impeachment threat and resignation restrained presidential overreach for decades.
If congress fails to require this president to follow the law, subsequent presidents will be even freer to ignore it with impunity.
But the "high crimes and misdemeanors" of this administration are not particularly sexy, there are no stained dresses, no arguments over whether oral sex is sex. this presidents offenses are mundane, deliberate or incompetent failures to do the job, often failing at tasks he begged for.
The real outcome is that the next president will be even freer to rule by dictat rather than law.
Wed, 2013-08-28 11:04
Oh Please! A couple of Republicans have mentioned the word impeachment and the left is all atwitter. Clearly Obama is the most corrupt and lawless President to ever sit in the White House. Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, the Justice Dept spying on the press, and now Obama's massive, domestic, police state, spy program that is totally out of control abusing the rights of American. You can bet that the Obama regime was reading every email from the Romney campaign and RNC during the election campaign last year. Obama has far surpassed the abuse and illegality of Richard Nixon. However, the facts are that the democrats and Poodle Media are supporting Obama's law breaking, and with a few exception cheering it on. They may regret it when it sets a precedent for future Presidents, but with the democrats in control of the Senate and backing Obama's massive violations of the Contitution there's no chance of a conviction. The Majority of Republican no doubt think Obama should be impeached. They are right. They also know it would be a waste of time to try. This isn't going anywhere, and this article is mostly nonsense.
Wed, 2013-08-28 11:58
Wed, 2013-08-28 13:56
"And yes, there were liberals who wanted to impeach George W. Bush back in the day, but they were almost all fringe characters. They weren't the people making our laws. As always, on the right the extremism goes much farther up the tree." - Paul Waldman
A few seconds with Wikipedia turns up this:
"During the presidency of George W. Bush, several American politicians sought to either investigate Bush for allegedly impeachable offenses, or to bring actual impeachment charges on the floor of the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. The most significant of these efforts occurred on June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives... The Kucinich/Wexler impeachment resolution contained 35 articles covering the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame affair, creating a case for war with Iran, capture and treatment of prisoners of war, spying and or wiretapping inside the United States, use of signing statements, failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas, the 2004 elections, Medicare, Hurricane Katrina, global warming, and 9/11."
Now, I suppose you could say that Dennis Kucinich, as a known wackjob with no legislative accomplishments, doesn't really count as someone who was "making our laws." But there's also this:
"On June 16, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) assembled an unofficial meeting to discuss the Downing Street memo and to consider grounds for impeachment.
Conyers filed a resolution on December 18, 2005 to create an investigative committee to consider impeachment. His resolution gained 38 co-sponsors before it expired at the end of the 109th Congress. He did not reintroduce a similar resolution for the 110th Congress."
Now, it's possible that today's Republicans have done much more than Democrats in 2005 or 2008, but Mr. Waldman doesn't actually mention any examples. I'd say his premise is rather weak.
Sat, 2014-03-29 14:21
Democratic Senate hopeful Kesha Rogers doubled down on her calls to impeach President Barack Obama in an interview taped Friday, as the party establishment continues to pull away from her candidacy.
Rogers refuted the suggestion that her stance might be unpopular with Democratic voters, whose votes Rogers needs in the party's May runoff with Dallas dentist David Alameel.
"It is popular with Democrats who recognize that this president is continuing the Bush-Cheney policy, and recognize you have a Wall Street control in the Democratic Party that must be removed now.
Rogers received 22 percent of the March primary vote, but forced Alameel into a runoff. The interview was taped for the television show Lone Star Politics, a joint program between NBC5 and the Dallas Morning News. The entire segment airs Sunday at 8:40 a.m. on KXAS-TV(NBC5).
The Texas Democratic Party wants nothing to do with Rogers. Gilberto Hinojosa, the party chairman, sent out an email blast before the primary election warning voters against voting for Rogers, calling her an "insult to our party, our president, our state [and] our Democratic values."
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
The Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology provides stimulating educational and research opportunities at the forefront of mechanistic life sciences. We welcome you to explore our pages and to participate in the community of molecular, cellular, and developmental biologists at UC Santa Barbara.
MCDB is now accepting for Fall 2015
Master's Application Deadline Extended
February 2, 2015
All PhD applications have been reviewed and interview invitations have been extended. Wait listed applicants have been notified as well. Admissions and fellowship decisions will be made after the interview process is completed. All applicants should be sure to have submitted GRE scores, transcripts, and 3 letters of recommendation.
Review of Masters program applicants will take place after February 2nd. We anticipate contacting Masters applicants in mid March.
Help us contribute to solutions to some of society's most pressing biomedical problems and educate the problem solvers of the future.
Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology •
University of California, Santa Barbara
Copyright © 2015 The Regents of the University of California, All Rights Reserved.
Site Information • Terms of Use • Privacy • Login


text:
rhyno is awsome, no one but the original ecw ever used him right..I think he is in some indy fed
Want to join EWN's original e-fed? Join EWNCW NOW!Want details? Just ask me!
I'd rather have nothing than have a lie.
R.I.P. Eddie Guerrero, the last wrestler who made wrestling not only fun, but brought a spark that could never be matched.
1967 - 2005
There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it. - Ron Paul


text:
Posted: 6:04 pm, June 26, 2013 by jfinch
Habitat for Horses is always on the lookout for a few great people at our ranches. The work is unique, the animals are special and we want folks who both know and understand the special connection our animals need.
Click here to find out more about job opportunities at Habitat for Horses!
Posted in:


text:
Station: WCIV
Market: Charleston, SC
Studio/Location: Sottile Theatre
Station: WJLA
Market: Washington, DC
Studio/Location: Howard University
Station: WKEF
Market: Dayton, OH
Studio/Location: Studio
Station: WCHS
Market: Charleston, WV
Studio/Location: Mary C. Snow Elementary School
Station: Baltimore, MD
Market: WBFF
Studio/Location: Studio
Station: WPEC
Market: WPB, FL
Studio/Location: Studio
Station: WEAR
Market: Pensacola, FL
Studio/Location: Pensacola State
Station: KABB
Market: San Antonio, TX
Studio/Location: Sunset Station
Station: WTVC
Market: Chattanooga, TN
Studio/Location: Studio
Station: WKRC
Market: Cincinnati, OH
Studio/Location: TBA
Station: WJLA
Market: Washington, D.C.
Studio/Location: Newschannel 8
Station: KEYE
Market: Austin
Studio/Location: TBA
Station: KBAK
Market: Bakersfield, CA
Studio/Location: CSUB
Station: KOMO
Market: Seattle, WA
Studio/Location: TBA
Station: WJLA
Market: Washington, D.C.
Studio/Location: Newschannel 8
Station: WGME
Market: Portland, ME
Studio/Location: WGME
Station: WPMI
Market: Mobile
Studio/Location: Alabama School of Mathematics and Science
Station: WBFF
Market: Baltimore, MD
Studio/Location: Douglass Memorial Church
Station: WPBN
Market: Traverse City, MI
Studio/Location: WPBN
Station: WZTV
Market: Nashville, TN
Studio/Location: Trevecca Nazarene University
Station: WLOS
Market: Asheville, NC
Studio/Location: Virginia Boone Building at the WNC AG Center
\Secret demands mark escalation in Internet surveillance by the federal government through gaining access to user passwords, which are typically stored in encrypted form.
Since February of 2009, the first full month of Barack Obama's presidency, 9.5 million Americans have dropped out of the labor force. Nearly 90 million Americans are not working today!
From Politico's Matt Wuerker: a perspective on the NSA spying scandal. MORE: http://politi.co/1aIEXd1
According to the chart, if the $16 trillion national debt were divided among every man, woman and child, each person would receive $52,000"an amount Republicans are highlighting on Wednesday, the 1,400th day since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a budget.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an estimate saying that by 2023, the federal debt will be $7 trillion larger
That didnt take long. The U.S. Treasury quickly surpassed the old debt ceiling as it unwound measures it had used to stay under the legal limit.
The bill contains one caveat, a provision introduced by the House GOP that would force the Senate to write a budget by withholding lawmakers' pay if they fail to pass a spending resolution. Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said her committee planned to draft a budget this year anyway.


text: So Good Fortified Soy Beverage and Frozen Desserts. Discover So Good's soy milk products and delicious non-dairy, lactose free soy milk recipes, and learn all there is to know about the goodness of soy milk products (beverages, frozen desserts including soy milk ice cream). Soy is a delicious and healthy dairy milk alternative.


text:
Iron Maiden
Iron Maiden just announced a summer tour of the USA, touring the Maiden England Disc. Must be there. Check out the IM site.
Keep rocking. Ant \m/
Replies to This Posting
Re: Iron Maiden
I'm super stoked for this tour. What a great a band. Im excited for the show even though it's not August 3rd for me, but it will come eventually.
RE: Iron Maiden
I love Iron Maiden. Fear Of The Dark is one of the coolest songs ever. Maybe I can get my mother to take me, although she isn't much of a fan. But Iron Maiden rocks.
I can see, I can see, I can see I'm going blind.
RE: Iron Maiden
It better translate into a World Tour - I'd love to see it


text:
Everyone loves a beautiful backyard. It's one of the main reasons why so many of us become involved with gardening and display a variety of gnomes, fairies, and other garden statuary. Angels add a special touch to any backyard, especially when they show cute, highly detailed, angelic children. Big, dramatic angel statues have their place in the backyard but won't add to the beauty of a flowerbed like the small Heaven's Comrades Garden Angel Statue. This adorable sculpture captures the innocent beauty and wonder of a child lucky enough to have a bird perch on her hand. Her wavy hair, folded robes, and details of the feathers in her wings and on the bird are a wonder to behold. The small basin also turns this statue into a fine bird feeder or bird bath.
The Angels Garden Blessings Statue is another exclusive Design Toscano sculpture from the Acorn Hollow collection that captivates with beautiful, lifelike details. Similar to the Heavens Comrades statue, this sculpture shows an innocent, young angel reaching out to gently touch a small sparrow as she stands over a bird bath. The innocent beauty of this statue adds an endearing touch to any garden. It can also be used as a petite bird bath or small bird feeder.
Save on these and other beautiful, realistic angel statues at Design Toscano.
Sign up for our email list to hear about tomorrow's exclusive offer!


text:
Wednesday, January 8 @ 11am
Join Miss Kristine and Miss Alex every Wednesday for a fun-filled hour of stories, songs, and crafts. This program is geared toward a wide range of ages, including families with toddlers, preschoolers, and elementary-aged children.
There was a farmer who had a dog and Bingo was his name-o! Let's read some stories about man's best friend: dogs!


text:
To be quite honest I don't care whether or not I made it onto any list. Life is too short to worry about being popular on a random internet forum.
This x1000.
I ponder why I didn't make it in any list so far.
Guess I'm less of who I am recently and more reserved or formal...
remixedcat gets the award for most catnipped avatar from me.
Never dare to change it again!
Kitteh hates change!
Glassed Silver:ios
She's not that hot imho.
Hottest Cat: Remixedcat


text:
Top Section of a Water Jug
This remarkable object is the top half of a habb, or water jug. The unglazed ceramic body allowed for the cooling of water stored inside; for this reason, habbs have been used in Mesopotamia since pre-Islamic times. Surviving early examples vary in their degree of decoration. This habb is elaborately embellished, with a depiction of a ruler seated on a carpet and flanked by armed attendants and harpies (mythical birds possessing the head of a woman) with tails that terminate in dragon heads. A background of scrolling vines inhabited by birds is pierced into the vessel's body. Overall, such figural decoration is typical of the courtly imagery popular in the eastern Islamic world during the medieval period, as is evident from both architectural decoration and manuscript painting of the time.
- Medium: Ceramic; earthenware, pierced decoration
- Geographical Locations:
- Dates: late 12th-early 13th century
- Dynasty: Possibly Seljuq
- Period: Possibly Seljuq
- Dimensions: 11 1/2 x 13 1/2 in. (29.2 x 34.3 cm) (show scale)
- Collections:Arts of the Islamic World
- Museum Location: This item is not on view
- Accession Number: 73.30.6
- Credit Line: Gift of The Roebling Society
- Rights Statement: Creative Commons-BY
- Caption: Top Section of a Water Jug, late 12th-early 13th century. Ceramic; earthenware, pierced decoration, 11 1/2 x 13 1/2 in. (29.2 x 34.3 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Gift of The Roebling Society, 73.30.6. Creative Commons-BY
- Image:
- Catalogue Description: Top of a large water cistern or cooler of porous clay. It has an elaborate molded and incised ornament of human and animal figures in vegetative motifs in ogival panels, which constitute a decorative screen for an air space 1 1/4" thick. Center motif is of a seated figure on a throne with a cup, a symbol of office in his left hand, perhaps in the manner of a Seljuk sultan. He is dressed in a long embroidered robe, riding boots and a conical fur brimmed hat from which 2 pigtails dangle. Surrounding the seated figure is an open-work intertwined arabesque ornament. Surmounting this are two confronting birds with heads turned towards their tails. Flanking the seated figure to right and left are standing guards dressed in early 13th century Seljuk fashion, one of whom carries a sword. The standing figure on the right is faceless and probably was also carrying a sword, but it is absent. Next to the guards are crowned, winged sphinxes with tails terminating in a dragon head. The handle emerges from a straight piece is jagged with several missing sections.
- Record Completeness: Best (86%)


text:
Art After 5
Enjoy discounted admission every Thursday 5pm-8pm
Explore the Museum of Art permanent and special exhibition galleries, and the Circus Museum. Whether it is a Gallery Walk and Talk, Ringling by the Bay, or a self-guided tour, there is something for everyone.
Art After 5 Admission includes select events and programs. Events with limited capacity may require a ticket; please view the individual event to learn if a ticket is required.
Please Note: Ca' d'Zan is not open for viewing during Art After 5, except on select dates in November and December. These dates will be added to the calendar when they become available.


text:
An earful about agEric Cantor toured the Bakken Oil Patch on Aug. 28 to see North Dakota's energy production firsthand, but he also talked one-on-one with Cando, N.D., farmer Gene Nicholas about the state's other leading industry.
By: Amy Dalrymple, Forum News Service
WILLISTON, N.D. — In the middle of a crew camp that houses North Dakota oil workers, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor got an earful about agriculture.
Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, toured the Bakken Oil Patch on Aug. 28 to see North Dakota's energy production firsthand, but he also talked one-on-one with Cando, N.D., farmer Gene Nicholas about the state's other leading industry.
Nicholas, a retired state legislator, says he came away from the discussion with confidence that a farm bill "that we can live with" will be passed this year.
The Senate has passed a farm bill that deals with farm programs, as well as trimming some funding from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.
The House has passed a bill just dealing with farm programs and some House Republicans have called for huge cuts to food stamps — which has been a key sticking point.
"They're working hard on coming up with some middle ground on the food stamp portion of it," says Nicholas, a Republican. "He stressed that he's had calls from people that did not support it in the last go around that would support it now."
Cantor's visit was closed to the media except for a press conference in which Cantor took three questions.
Cantor says Speaker of the House John Boehner will appoint members of a conference committee on the farm bill in September, after passing a bill dealing with food stamps.
"We in the House expect to move a nutrition title out of the House," Cantor says. "That title will reflect the reform agenda that we've been about in the nutrition program."
Nicholas says he emphasized to Cantor that a permanent farm bill would give the industry some stability so the rules aren't always changing for farmers and ranchers.
"If we could put a permanent farm bill in place, I think that would be extremely beneficial to all of rural America," Nicholas says.
Praise for energy development
Cantor, hosted by Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., met with energy industry and community leaders at the crew camp, toured a drilling site and other oil field locations in the Bakken and met with North Dakota Petroleum Council members in Watford City.
Cantor praised North Dakota's approach to energy development and says the country needs to follow the state's example and adopt a national energy policy.
"I hope to be able to tell the president that there's a lot for him to learn here as far as energy production here in America," Cantor says. "North Dakota seems to have gotten it right."
Cramer says although the Obama administration talks about an "all-of-the-above" energy policy, it seems to only support everything but fossil fuels.
"All-of-the-above doesn't mean just everything above the ground. It also means stuff under the ground," Cramer says.
Tags: ag education, farm bill, livestock, crops, life, updates


text:
Update: Thanks to all of you who have already sent your real-life dad hero stories! If you haven't yet, it's not too late. We're accepting submissions until Monday, March 11th.
We're celebrating dads in our June issue!
Do you know a dad who's an everyday hero? Maybe he doesn't have thousands of Twitter followers or isn't leading a Fortune 500 company, but he's a hero at home. We want to honor him!
Here's the info we need:
1. Your name and contact information
2. The dad's name and contact information
3. An email detailing why you think this dad is a hero in his home (200 to 400 words)
Share your stories at email@example.com. We'll contact you for more info if we choose to print your story. You may see this dad in our June issue!


text:
Jump to content
|Last action by
|NBC Cuts Business Ties with Donald Trump Over Immigration Remarks in Domestic Politics
|New Mac owner in Apple (Mac) Discussion & Support
|Firefox dying at just 10% marketshare in Web Browser Discussion & Support
|Falcon 9 / Dragon CRS-7 ISS Resupply (mission thread) in Science Discussion & News
|International Space Station (Updates) in Science Discussion & News
Posted 27 September 2012 - 19:53
Posted 27 September 2012 - 19:56
Can anyone recommend a good alternative?
Posted 27 September 2012 - 19:59
Why not just try it out first? Maybe you'll find it's actually worth the $5.
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:00
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:01
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:03
How is it an outrage that they're charging for software?
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:07
My suggestion would be, try doing without and you will like the new method better once you get used to it.
It's just as quick to press the Windows Key on your keyboard, type half of what you want to load and press enter.
I dunno, I was the same way at first, but once I got down the concept, I realized it works much better.. plus you can still pin apps to the taskbar if you want.
How did people not see this coming? This is a perfect opportunity to cash in with the release of Windows 8 in less than 30 days.
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:08
I have tried, and with a desktop metro is actually quite fine. However I use laptops throughout the day mostly at work on the go and metro is not touchpad friendly from what I have experienced.
Posted 27 September 2012 - 20:08
Classic Shell. Only complain is the Most Frequently used list of programs is a little messed up.


text:
Handpainted Spring green and Mango color chiffon Flower Hair Pins : AmuAndPriShop - ArtFire Accessories
Chic - flower pins or ponytail holders!
Stores »
Chic - flower pins or ponytail holders!
We are a community of shoppers sharing our best finds from across the web.
© 2015 ThisNext, Inc. ThisNext is a member of BUZZMEDIA Entertainment, a division of BUZZMEDIA.
Create your own free digital magazine at our new site Glossi.com