Saturday open thread; Update: GI Jill makes Miss America finals
Update: GI Jill, Miss Utah, makes the Miss America finals.
***
I’ll be blogging the South Carolina Democrat primary results later in the day. Here’s a primer from the AJC and here’s Pajamas Media coverage.
Reuters offers a few factoids:
* South Carolina is the nation’s 11th fastest-growing state. Its population grew 9.9 percent to 4.4 million between 2000 and 2007. The U.S. population grew by 7.2 percent during that same period.
* South Carolina has a higher percentage of blacks (29 percent), a lower percentage of Hispanics (3.5 percent) and a lower percentage of foreign-born residents (4.1 percent) than the nation as a whole, according to Census Bureau statistics.
* South Carolina is bleeding manufacturing jobs, especially due to competition from low-cost imports from China…
* The military is also a significant employer. The state is home to 15 major military installations and has a substantial veteran population.
* Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards won the Democratic primary in South Carolina, where he was born, during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid.
Leave your predictions in comments.
***
If you’re sick of politics, the Miss America pageant is tonight. As a South Jersey native, I’m a bit appalled by what the event has morphed into after bailing out of Atlantic City. It’s now a reality show on the TLC network. Tradition has yielded to to the MTV age. Oh, well. Looking for someone to cheer on? Miss Utah Jill Stevens is an Army National Guard medic who served in Afghanistan. Gateway Pundit has details.
***
And a bit of Saturday family fun for you: A short clip of a giant iguana that my daughter and I watched eating a salad the other day. I shot the vid with my Casio ExilimEX-Z77. It’s a great little digital camera if you’re looking for one:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
If I had a vote it would be for Jill hands down the winner.
Cool video, here’s another way to enjoy an iguana.
Yum?
Tried to forget politics but, the lizard reminds me too much of the Clinton’s and their campaign.
Apologies to the iguana.
I learned more for the Iguana video in under 1 minute than I did the latest Dem and Rep debates. Thanks!
Re #2, where’s the video? I can’t appreciate the recipe without seeing how it turns out.
You care about animals? I thought we conservatives were supposed to hate the animals. Oh well, another stereotype debunked.
Obama: 38%
Clinton: 31%
Edwards: 23%
Iguana: 08%
Obama 48%
Clinton 17%
Edwards 12%
Football, any sort 23%
This will be huge victory for Obama but will be characterized as a convenient win. Hillary is yesterday. Obama today. Republicans such as Romney will show these two charlatans for what they are. Big legacy government or government by DNA change.
Nice iguana. Animals are much more fun to watch with kids.
Iguana vids nice but I may never eat another salad!
I just bought a Nikon Coolpix L15. No videos yet. I’m still trying to figure out how to take pics. I haven’t even downloaded them to my comp yet either.
Obama wins hands down.
Nice video of Bill Clinton eating a salad. Ooops. An iguana. Oh, sorry, iguana, for the insult.
I would love to see Miss Utah Jill Stevens to demonstrate marksmanship for the talent portion of the pageant. How to field strip an M-16 in under 60 seconds.
Sounds like your daughter has a bit of a cough, Michelle…..
The iguana factor — the number one rated iguana on the internet! Thanks for staying with us.
I thought all of us lizards were strictly carnivorous. Must’ve been some Bacon Bits in that salad.
Michelle is real people? Don’t let the left-o-sphere get a hold of that, it might cause their heads to explode (and we’d have to clean up the mess.)
I predict Hussein shall dominate. With few latinos voting against him (lets face it, they hate each other. It’s the gang warfare.) and blacks flocking to him in scores, plus not being the abrasive witch Hillary is, I predict a win for him.
Marshall, that’s a very funny line.
There’s a big difference between an Iguana and the Clintons, however. The only green the Iguana steals from you is your salad and otherwise minds his own business. The same, alas, cannot be said of the Clintons.
RedWinged Blackbird,
Yes, while secular mainstream science has deduced that as a blackbird you were descended from the dinosaurs, remember that the lizard, like the Clintons, are cold-blooded and you and the dinosaurs are not.
Those of us who have seriously studied palentology as a hobby since childhood and have come to the intellectually honest extrapolation that evolution is far more a fairytale than any Christian denomination have a problem with the whole mess, however.
Maybe even better, demonstrate how to defuse an IED. The looks on people’s faces would be priceless.
So let me get this straight - according to Reuters, Edwards was born during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid?
I can see now why Reuters has so little credibility LOL
This is the worst week of the year…it is “dead week” for the NFL. There is no football since the Superbowl is next week. It is a painful reminder that 7 months of suffering will be with all leatherheads soon.
So I guess politics is the only salvation.
I remember when the Miss America pageant was a beauty contest. Now it is a politically correct talent contest.
On an unrelated note, my column today (since nothing else outside of politics seems to be going on in this world) is about how liberalism has destroyed the Jewish community, especially young singles.
It is entitled, “Why young single Jews are totally…(censored)”
Ok, back to the South Carolina primary and the NFL Network.
Happy dead week all.
eric aka http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
High percentage of Blacks? Low percentage of Hispanics? Yawneroo of a prediction: Obama will stomp Hillary tonight. Were the percentages reversed? The answer is equally obvious.
I hate this identity politics BS. I really, really do.
Personally, I would vote for the iguana over either of them. I actually did write in the name of the family pug for the local water commissioner. Sadly, the pug didn’t win.
Nevertheless, come this November, I urge everyone to write in the name of Sweety von Pugenberg for President. You can’t find anyone better.
‘Saturday open thread’
… It’s CATURDAY!
I’m in the market for a smaller digital camera. I have a Fujifilm S9000. It’s great for work and serious stuff but is too large to carry around all the time. I’ll have to check out that Casio.
Can anyone recommend a good book or video series to get started with Photoshop CS3 Extended? I made good on my Christmas gift to myself and purchased a copy. Now I need some lessons!
By the way, who owns the iguana?
My apologies for interjecting, but it’s absolutely true: “Edwards [really] was born during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential bid” It should be obvious, but many people still don’t realize it or understand how such a thing could ever be possible. But trust me — Reuters was telling the truth for once.
I want to alert everyone to a story that I have been following. It involves Gary Peters and Central Michigan University. Gary Peters was recently chosen to the distinguished Griffin Chair at CMU. The problem is that Peters is simultaneously running for U.S. Congress in a district hundreds of miles away.
An enterprising student named Dennis Lennox began tracking his hiring and he even started this site to track the controversy. The administration immediately closed ranks around Peters and they slowly began to intimidate Lennox. Things came to a head after he had a highly publicized and controversial confrontation with the Dean of Students Pamela Gates.
They have since formally charged Lennox with violating the school’s policy against distribution of literature inside school buildings. The fiasco stems from an incident in which he was confronted by a professor Koper on October 23rd of last year. He was passing out fliers in a school building at about 9 in the evening. This is a technical violation of the student code. The professor confiscated the fliers and confronted Lennox.
Keep in mind that underage drinking is also a violation of the student code.
The reason I mention this is that Lennox faces a disciplinary hearing about this incident. While he does, no student I know of faces any disciplinary action for under age drinking.
Lennox has already had his right to film in public places taken. This was so extreme that even the ACLU sided with Lennox.
Lennox faces a disciplinary hearing this Wednesday. He may even be expelled but there is no doubt he has been targeted in a manner no other student would be and it is because he dared to challenge the administration on this.Here is how I wrote about it. At the end of the piece, I list some emails of folks people can get in touch with. I hope you will help. Media pressure is Lennox’ greatest ally.
I’m not sure if the perhaps anachronistic Miss America pageant outgrew Atlantic City or vice versa, but it no longer holds any interest for me, a former Jersey guy. It’s now just another bland contest in an even blander city.
Watched Hillary mechanically waving her right arm during a campaign speech covered this morning on Fox, finally ending the robotics with her hand over her heart. I couldn’t help but notice the same botox, wide-eyed, smooth faced and blank expression as practiced by Nancy Pelosi. Obama may not have a clue, but if destiny returns a dem to the big house, let it be him, where he will be effectively neutralized (or neutered) by his inexperience.
Since this is an open thread, and this story got only 4 comments over at HotAir, maybe someone here might be interested in this latest spin from Reuters.
At first, this seems like an INTENTIONAL Al Qaeda bombing, with 40 innocent civilians killed.
Wait until the last two paragraphs, though, where the ACCIDENTAL ??? explosion of an explosives cache is finally revealed!!
I wonder how many of the 40 killed were, in fact, Al Qaeda inside the building attending bomb-making classes???
Bias? No way!
Paul Tait and Matthew Tostevin - proud J school graduates of Columbia??
The last two paragraphs:
As this is an open thread I just wanted to post this site so you can support it. It’s about fallen police officers and it’s a wonderful, well-organized site.
http://www.odmp.org/
MCC, yup…evolution is junk science, the world is flat, earth is the center of the universe, lead can be turned into gold, etc. Hard to believe someone would seriously post such a ridiculous comment.
1.) Obama
2.) Clinton
3.) Edwards
I have no idea on percentages nor do I care, really. But, that is the order I foresee.
1.)Dumbest
2.)Dumber
3.)Dumb
Go check out my ‘M&M Axl’ I created for my 3-D Computer graphics class.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pAqnfwQbRc0
I think he looks pretty cool!
Thanks!
Yesterday I got a call from Clinton’s campaign. It was a poll wanting to know which Dem I was going to vote for or if I wasn’t going to vote for a Dem period. We got around 3 calls this week alone (one just a little bit ago today) from Spanish speaking people, which I have a feeling were political calls. Since I don’t speak Spanish, I don’t know for sure, but we don’t normally get these kind of calls. Saw a Clinton ad on local tv yesterday.
how cool guitarguy, better get an ‘A+’
I watched it guitarguy. It was very cool. I am impressed.
Katie you should have just said “Bush” and hung up,that would prolly confuse the heck out of em….
After I watched the video, I purchased that cool camera. It’s small enough to take with me on my many (25 mile plus) hikes through the Sierra Nevada. Maybe I’ll get a picture of the Mars bigfoot, Ron Paul’s’ blimp, or a Dennis Kucinich UFO. Anyway, I’m sure it will come in handy during the Silverman Triathlon. It’s 2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, and 26.2 mile run. Don’t ask me to convert that to kilometers for you British commentors. (Coffee) I hate conversions.
José
To listen the the Democrats, AJ, they sound like they think they are running against GWB this time around too.
Newsflash!!! Obama wins SC. I hope she doesn’t cry again!!!!!!
I would like to be a fly on the wall to see her head spin, if/when she loses the first in the South Democrat primary. ROFL
Uhhhh….forgot about Louisiana. Ooops. LOL
Sometime you have to wait for excellence in journalism. I hope Part II will be out soon.
In other news, FL governor Crist has endorsed McCain.
LMAO
Their are turorials all over the net you don’t need to buy a book, plenty of people willing to help for free and some for pay.
Here is one site I just googled
http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/cs3-photoshop-10.html#Adobe_Photoshop_CS3_video_training_tutorials
That’s pretty good what program’s did you create this with. I use Maya, Lightwave, Poser, Sasquatch, Terragen, Adobe Premiere, After Effects and several plug in’s.
Check this site out
http://www.cgchannel.com/
Thanks Mule. I’ll give that one a visit. Appreciate it!
Wow, she is terrific, energetic, sharp too! I understand you did not advance any further. Best of luck to her.
Oh my, Hillary is on with that “voice”, ugggg! I keep expecting her to screech out “wanna play ball scarecrow”!
Dakine,
If you really want to get into it I can make a case that will leave you in a case of knee-jerk hysteronics. Do I need to do that?
No, the earth is not flat (though thousands of years ago the Bible described the earth
as “the circle of the earth hung upon nothing”, which is an interesting potential abstraction of a globe suspended by gravitational forces, which is in fact the case), the universe does not orbit the earth and Darwin’s theory, such as could be expected from a naturalist a few years out of oxford with no scientific experience (though Huxley, a man who by his own admition, had no formal education, took the next step suggesting men descended from apes) has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. In fact, the fossil record has not only derided Darwin’s progressive theory, but subsequent theories of evolution by mutation. Anyway, this could take some real time.
Suggestion: Stop being a nice sheep and make clear and original extraoplations from the manifest facts and sensible statistical probabilities. Science has never been very good at that despite self-aggrandizing claims to the contrry. Neither have educators. Both groups have shown throughout history that they’re most comfortable with conventional wisdom, as much so as the Roman Church. Keep your thinking on the edge, and remember the old line: the likely explanation is usually the most elegant. Evolution is not only not elegant, it is becoming evermore unsupported by the very fossil record that was onced hoped would bear out that very hypothisis.
If you need a more involved explaination I can give one, but I wonder what I’ll get out of the effort.
MCC, let’s cut through the crap. Two questions:
1. Are you an evangelical Christian?
2. Are you a creationist?
Dakine,
LOL, I see. If I’m one or the other, what was written is to be dismissed as religious extremism, and if not, presumably dismissed for some other reason.
Well, Dakine, I wrote what I did before seeing that you are planning to vote for McCain. That and your shallow collective view of certain Christian denominations makes you not someone who is capable of more complex intellectually honest discussion. The proof, of course, is in the “cutting through ther crap” part is another way of skipping the substance and debating on the basis of your personal prejudice. Nice.
Anyway, I’ll answer neither question thanks Debate the issue on the merits or not at all. To meet your initial post on this suject, hard to believe someone would seriously post such a ridiculous comment.
Cat, your response to Dakine is accurate. To someone worshipping atthe altar of Darwin those that disagree are labeled as mere Christian extremist dumies.
Unfortunately for Dakine, there is a story to tell that illuminates the unwillingness of the Darwinists to debate only on the facts.
Dr. Walt Brown, PhD., is a creation scientist (his degree is scientific, not religious) with a standing offer: he will give $1M of his own money to any evolutionist that will debate evolution. The catch? Scripture is off limits. To date, no one has taken him up on the offer. They don’t have to win the debate, they just have to show.
That’s right: when faced with the opportunity to debate evolution on the facts alone, evolutionists decline.
The things that make you go Hmmm….
re: M&M Axl video
Thanks for the kind words.
The only program I used was 3Ds max 9. That animation was my final assignment for a 16-week course. I’m VERY happy with the lip-synch. I think that turned out really well. I also have the latest version of Max (2008), as well as Z-Brush (which looks like an amazing tool!)…..and I may even have a copy of Maya around here somewhere. I’m eager to try those apps as well, but I really had to stick with Max while taking this course. Now that all assignments have been handed in, I’d like to take a break for a week. A great learning experience….but I really need to take a break from it.
…and please feel-free to spread that YouTube link everywhere….
It would have been a great thing to do aj. Unfortunately, it was recorded and only gave me the opportunity to push a number on the phone to correspond to how I plan to vote. Smart move on their part. Too many people would be bound to give their opinions to a live person! LOL
SHoward,
You got it. I’m not sure I’ve heard of Brown and I never heard of his offer. But it doesn’t surprise me in the least that no one took him up on it.
I’ve witnessed (no pun intended) several reliable patterns when it comes to what I call “devout secularists”.
1. Never argue the merits
2. Skip direct debate on merits by citing quotes by “well-regarded scientists”, whatever that means. In other words, hide your lack of direct knowledge of the facts behind the skirts of someone else’s reputation.
3. Start all scientific query and debate on the assuption that any religious concept, including a creator, is off the table. In other words, they feel certain that science can never lead one to a religious conclusion. Starting with abstract assumptions is the worst kind of science.
4. Ignore the lack of facts with the statement: “We just don’t know yet”. In other words, the theory comes before the fact. Darwinian evolution definately fits: these so called secularists are always hoping that fact with bear out theory as opposed to theory based on fact (this can include mathematical theory, though such things should never be taught as fact as is done with evolution, but at a best a “best guess”) . What these secularists don;t see is that they have developed their own religion: a hope based on assumptions and belief. By that reckoning the Bible is way ahead of them in other witnessed miracles, and knowledge that was scientifically unknown at the time of writing plus, intrinsically, via “racial memory”, an understanding of a higher power, though often manifest by very different powers in different cultures.
Anyway, you’re certainly on the rare and right track. But you don’t need stranger on the internet to tell you that.
zorro, I particularly like the Luminous Landscape for practical advice.
http://luminous-landscape.com/
Did that iguana have a cough due to cold?! Did anyone else hear that?
Wow! GI Jill. What a good looking woman. I like women in uniform.
http://www.pageant.com/soldier/images/jill2.jpg
HOOAH! Go Jill! Go Guard!
sorry. a little self promoting there
I’m just bummed that I don’t have any hot females in my company
Zorro
No problem you may want to go to the main page and check out plugin’s, brushes and action’s. Here is another site that has some plugin’s,
one plugin I use alot is eye candy
http://www.alienskin.com/ec-effects-collection.html
Here is a sight that has some free ones
http://www.thepluginsite.com/resources/freeps.htm
Here is couple more tutorial sights
http://www.video-tutes.com/packages/Photoshopcs3.php
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/tutorials.htm
http://www.photoshoproadmap.com/Photoshop-tutorials
Here is a resource site
http://www.renderosity.com/
guitarguy
I’ve used that 3dmax but I prefer Lightwave, Maya I can produce more realistic 3d animation’s with them they used these two to create Shrek and Final Fantasy movies they also used them to make scenes in Scorpio and End of Day’s if you have Maya break it out you’ll be amazed at the thing’s you can do with it and as for Z brush awesome if you have it use it if you don’t
http://www.pixologic.com/home.php
get it.
Here is a link to sasquatch another excellent one for hair.
http://www.worley.com/E/Products/sasquatch/sasquatch.html
I understand you need to take a break I’ve done few 3D promo’s for some companies and it is to say the least work intensive. I appreciate the work you put into your M&M video and I think the lip sync turned out pretty good and the movement,joint’s and hair look good also Ok I’ll stop the Siskel and Ebert critique.
My apologies for the long comment. This is an open thread, right? And, now that it is Sunday, I doubt many will read it anyway.
Mr_Conservative_Cat (#37), I appreciate the thoughtful posts (this is sincere) and I certainly am not interested in engaging in a debate of creationism versus evolution. I’m not qualified in either area.
I’d like to comment on your comments though about the patterns you’ve seen in arguments from secularists:
What do you mean by “merits”? Jumping to conclusions and trying to identify what you mean by this pattern wouldn’t move the dialogue forward, so I’m just asking, not trying to be flippant.
Isn’t this common among the laymen on both sides of most arguments, even among scientists? After all, indirect knowledge is the most common kind. This how knew knowledge is obtained, on the foundation of prior knowledge learned. It is up to us to continually affirm or reject prior claims to knowledge with our own thoughts and experiments, isn’t it?
This isn’t limited to debates between evolutionists and creationists. This is at the core of all sciences. It is far easier to see the facts and affirm or reject in the hard sciences, where experimentation allows for better control of the variables. But it is also true of the soft sciences such as economics, sociology, anthropology, and political science, to name a few. We almost always appeal to higher more learned authorities to justify our beliefs. This isn’t an attribute peculiar to someone with secular beliefs.
Doesn’t this happen in theological debates, too? What makes a reference to the Holy Bible stronger or better than a reference to the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Yasna or any other writings that a true believer considers scripture and a source of doctrinal truth?
I agree that many people do this. They dismiss this notion without a thought. I prefer the term supernatural instead of religious. Religious, to me, implies all sorts of non-scientific doctrines and rituals that guide people to a higher moral life and, in some cases, to prepare them for an afterlife. Supernatural, to me, implies the miraculous or an unobservable force outside the realm of my ability to prove or disprove.
Should scientific thinking be open to all explanations? Yes, of course. There is a burden of proof, however, before an explanation can be accepted. Claims of divine intervention should be provable. If they aren’t, then they won’t be part of the scientific theory. Perhaps this can be viewed as a limitation of science (I say more on this below.)
Again, I don’t know enough about evolution science (or paleontology) to tell you where the holes are in that theory. I would have to think that it has moved well beyond Darwin’s original thoughts on the subject. One would also have to assume that it is subject to continual revision as new information is gathered and applied. It happens in physics and biology, for example, regularly, so I don’t see why evolution should be treated any differently.
The same is true for creation science. Those that put forth this theory should be subject to the same rules that govern the other sciences.
This paragraph covers a lot of ground. I addressed some of this in the previous section.
Personally, I find the humility of science, the ability to say “we don’t know” one of its primary strengths. Concomitant with “we don’t know” is the desire and action to discover and, ultimately, to know. This kind of thinking has been the engine of our prosperity since we left the Middle Ages.
We can never stand satisfied with our current level of knowledge. We should always be challenging and acquiring data, analyzing and vetting our results, and upgrading, either through tearing down or adding to, our theories.
You said, “the theory comes before the fact” as if this were a bad thing. This is the process of deductive reasoning, isn’t it? One states the theory and then performs experiments or makes observations to gather facts that either support or refute the stated theory. The theory is subject to revision.
Theories based on facts observed are based on inductive reasoning. One notices patterns in the observations and from this induces a theory. This sounds like what Darwin did on his Beagle voyage. He didn’t create the theory and then force the facts to fit it. Didn’t he do just the opposite? That doesn’t make the theory true, of course.
Once the theory has been stated, then deductive reasoning kicks in to affirm or reject (or modify) it. Once could say that in the process of deducing the merits of the theory, they might observe facts or patterns that force them to induce changes to it or create a new one.
Does science seem religious? Yes, it does, in the fact that science requires faith in our ability to know. Science doesn’t have an avenue for the unknowable. It doesn’t address that. It doesn’t recognize the possibility of the unknowable. It merely declares that we don’t know…yet. It is that dogmatic aspect of science, that faith that can’t be argued, that gives it a religious feel (to me.)
Thanks again Mule, it will take sometime to explore all the features of CS3, that’s for sure.
The answer to the question from Ms. Malkin, do iguana have teeth, is yes.
Morning, Cat. Here’s a link (I hope) that will tell you about Walt Brown.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
He’s a former Air Force Engineering professor.
I also found out at least one person trie dto accept his offer, but there are a number of restirctions; for instance, he wants to debate another PhD. Don’t know if that is that important, but he has a right to face someone at his own level. There just aren’t many willing to leave theology out of it and debate on the facts alone.
Good Mornign to everyone else. guitarguy, that was a really cool animation. And zorro, you’ll love CS3. I use Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign at work, and they are all pretty cool over CS2. (I just got a new desktop, and they installed all 3 when I wasn’t looking. Glad they did now.)
DougT, I seldom see the humility of science. I see the arrogance of scientists who far too often promote theory as fact and then will not suffer debate. Global warming is the most current theory that supports this.
I have enjoyed yours and Mr. CC’s discussion. Very interesting.
Hi, Guitarguy,
I’ve made it apparent here that I’m firmly esconced professionally in the media, but that also means animation. I found your work to be surprisingly professional for a student. Generally it was successful. I’d like to make a few hopefullu helpful critiques, but feel uncomfortable doing so without your permission.
This is directly from the FAQ page at the Miss America website.
Basically, a bunch of guys got together so they could ogle pretty girls in swimsuits.
However, I support the Miss America pagent. To a point. I support it because liberals HATE any type of beauty contest, even if it is the country’s largest scholarship program. I don’t support it because it has grown to embrace political correctness.
Remember when they were toying with removing the swimsuit competition a while back? The organizers knew that if they took out the swimsuit competition, viewership (and support) would drop like a rock. What eventually happened? The one-piece swimsuit requirement was dropped and they allowed bikinis! The femi-nazis were frothing at the mouth over that.
So, I support Miss America because it gets the liberal feminists angry. These are the same people that tell you if you don’t like what’s on TV (sex, violence, foul language) just turn it off or change the channel. But they think all beauty pagents should be banned because they demean women and you’re sexist if you want to watch.
I know liberalism is a mental illness, so would someone please explain why liberals allowed to be outside of the asylum?
Dakine, you need to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science by Tom Bethell.
The “flat earth” believers weren’t. Practically every person involved in science from the first century until now (most were also very religious) knew the earth was round. Calling someone a believer in a flat earth (to make them out to be unscientific) was an invention of the 19th century. According to Tom Bethell, “It was an early warning shot in the evolutionist wars.”
So, please stop with the “Oh, you must believe the earth is flat” statements. They are old and tired and founded in myth. When you use that argument, even as a joke, it shows your incredible stupidity and lack of education.
If you really want people to accept evolution as a fact, why don’t you go find a fact about evolution? Don’t be suprised when you can’t. Remember, it’s “The Origin of Species.” Not micro-evolution or macro-evolution.
Basically, the evolutionists will not debate evolution because they claim the debate is closed and evolution is a fact. Even though they offer no proof. They accuse the people that want to debate of having closed minds. As opposed to themselves. Since when is questioning an unproven pseudo-scientific theory “having a closed mind?” Isn’t that the whole point of science? Question until you get to the truth? So why do the evolutionists want to quash all debate on evolution? Their fallback position - “It’s just a theory.” But they teach it as a fact. They even show “Inherit the Wind” in science classes around the country. This would be like showing “The Flintstones Movie” in a paleontology class.
So please, stop calling us “flat earthers” or “believers in an earth-centric universe.” If that’s the best you’ve got, no wonder why us intelligent people are questioning evolution!
Doug and SHoward,
Sorry for getting back so late in the day, but it’s beena busy one for me.
Apologies in advance for the typos, but this is far to long for me to put in word and spell check. I’ve spent too much time on this already.
Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is what I call an online conversation!
As demonstrated here, I am the chairman of the board of Verbose University, so you need never apologize about wordiness to me.
Relevent reasonable facts, circumstantial evidence (which cuts either way and is pretty much the basis of our judicial system since few cases are resolved on the basis of smoking guns)and sensible extrapolations. What is sensible? Well, our judical system is also based upon the concept of “a reasonable man” and it is that that juries and judges are expected to render verdicts and pass sentences. We can debate those concepts but that’s another conversation. The interpretive grey area inherent in these concepts is naturally where disagreement arises.
However, on the merits in this case means what you can reasonably deduce, but to do this, you have to be thinking independantly, as objectively as possible. This means ditching comfortable thoughts whenever they are proven less likely as a fact or truth than another. I’m not sure how else to explain exactly without getting into very common language like “let’s cut the crap”.
Alas, no, but it was true in context to the discussion at the point in which it was written. It’s one thing, as you state, to reaffirm what we believe, but then the question really is “how did you come to believe (whatever it is)?” In the case of most secular sciences, I have found that a dogmatic statement from a well-respected PHD is enough. This is a ghastly mistake for human understanding. The flip side is that it’s also true for religion (a word I’m using very commonly here); do we just take the minister’s or Father’s or Preacher’s word for the gospel? Alas, yes, and with the same consequences.
Naturally I was never putting the word of Pope bendict over the word of Darwin on the basis of who had the better sounding title. The fact is that sciences can be understood well enough by the laymen if he puts in the effort. Shoemaker/Levy is a great example. While all the big observatories missed it, two amatuer astronomers with their own home equipment accurately predicted the asteroid shower that impacted the surface of Jupiter (and made future asteroid impact probability on earth something to take seriously).
The same is true for the Bible. I’m afraid this example will offend some people, but I’ll couch it a bit: there is a certain holiday on the christian calendar which celebrates something very big. We have been told by some that it is of pagan origin. Others say the pagan origin doesn’t matter because
one is celebrating fior a christian purpose. Both miss the point. there are certain rituals in this celebration that are catagorically disallowed about which there can be no doubt. Read jeremiah chaper 10, verses 1-5 out loud several times and you’ll get the message loud and clear.
Not only do you not need your pastor to explain this for you, the chances are he’s telling you something that quite frankly isn;t nearly as accurate as it should be if being a right christian is the question at hand.
My experienmce is that most secuarlists (and my oldest and best friend back in NJ is an impressively degreed,hard-science secularist!) is that they really do not think for themselves. I mean this literally. Oh sure, they can tie their shoelaces, walk out the door, go to work, order lunch, etc, but when it comes to thinking independantly they don;t even bother to learn the facts. They grew up with evolution as fact. That’s enough for them. And that’s a shame.
I won’t pretend to admit to a lack of bias here. I have a few reaons based on circumstantial evidence. The first is deeply personal, wasd a long time ago was quite manifest, and I’ll leave it at that, thanks. No, it wasn’t as huge or melodramatic as the sense of mystery would suggest, but it was huge and manifest enough for me, and that’s that. Objectively, I find that there are several references in the Bible which describe scentific facts about the world that were written before such science was otherwise known. I mention the “circle of the earth which is hung upon nothing” for example. There are several others, one or two I’ve found to be true independantly of any academic research, quite frankly - simply putting facts together and after way too long suddenly realized that I was staring at a dumbfounding “eureka moment”. Anyway, I’m working on a project now and won’t go into it any further. There is plenty to recommend the Bible’s scientific accuracy, which while written somewhat in the abstract, needs no suspension of disbelief to understand exactly what is being described in context.
Once again, most of these things things you simply won’t get on Sunday morning, and you’ll never get a schoolteacher to fess up that the unhappy fact for scientists is that the fossil record has, circumstantially, disproved the theory of evolution. One objective sign you see for that, Doug, is the sudden explosion of almost desperate preportions in the last few years of variations of secular evolution that really run the gamut. One such theory has imagined that the haphazard consequences of life on earth constitute the unknowable minutia which have driven life to where it is today. In other words, a nice blanket theory that holds evolution in esteem while casually dismissing the fact that the fossil evidence currently appears to disprove it.
I agree the term is more accurate, but I use religious because in casual conversation “religious” generally includes supernatural circumstances in context, while the casual term “supernatural” indicates witchcraft and any endless number of supernatural concepts which operate entirely out of the realm of Biblical reference (and about which I remain skeptical, as i do about UFOs and the Ghost of Elvis. If you read the Bible I recommend a book called “where to find it in the Bible” to make approaching such a large and complex tome really very easy.) you will find there is much to recommend it scientifically, and much that shoots down some very commonly held belief about who christians are and what they may and may not do. Sometimes it’s wonderful, other times it’s dissappointing, but there is much in the Bible which is almost certain to surprise any 21st century American. It’s called the most bought and least read book in the world. I recommed it heartily, but cast off whatever Mr Preacher says in advance and get your own nose into it. Despite the old-english of the King James version, you’ll get the hang of it. If you can’t, I recommend that you read a little familiar shakespeare first (seriously) to get your mind firmly confortable with the phrasiology and sentence structure.
Do know, though, that there’s a reason why many people spend their entire lives studying it.
This is a common secular view and it has merit. But this is really rather simple to break down.
1. What do you have already available to work with (not blindly rely on)?
2. You start with the Bible, which is the oldest “science book” because it has descritions it it which really do correspond one-to-one with recent scientific understanding, abstract poetry in the descriptions nothwithstanding. This is hugely significant. This includes something evolution still cannot account for: form as regards function.
3. You rightfully challenge it (without being disrespectful). The bible says God made man. Evolution says man came about through random collections of circumstaces.
4. What is the evidence for evolution? Fossil record appeared to be the way.
But the fossil record in Darwin’s time didn’t support evolution by slow progression. NOW HERE IS WHERE EVOLUTION THEORISTS GET CRAZY. they amend the theory to say it was evolution by random mutation. An acceptable concept at first blush. Now, where is the evidence to support the specificity of that theory? Welllll…. the jumps in evolution according to the fossil record. No no. Because that ignores the law of averages. For evolution by mutation to be viable, certainly there must have been plenty of evolutionary dead ends. The fossil record indeed should have literally millions of dead ends more than remains of successful species. It’s a random process, you understand, and as such is not a machine or a self-driving mechanism. Both those latter concepts need an intelligence behind them to make them work. This whole of earth’s life according to secular science is one giant random collision of biological and external circumstances, like rolling dice with billions of sides and numbers and always coming up 7 or 11 - because evolution by mutation appears to render almost only entirely successful new species. When one considers the complexity of life, and how fragile each species really is onto itself, the statistical probability of evolution by mutation becomes truly absurdly unlikely. I have a statician trying to just figure out how to approach the problem, let alone publish the resultant statistical odds. Evolutionists are starting to get that picture. and we know this not by their admission (there aren’t any), but by all the new theories springing up which make it clear that there is a scrambling around to shore up this warm, fuzzy belief - and so far that’s all it is, a belief, like a religion, only without an old book which described scientific fact which only became apparent by scientific formula and observation in the 20th century to give the book credibility. Evolution has no such startling revelation. Indeed, it’s going down the septic system of human understanding, but secular science is nothing if not resistant to change.
Well, that’s - pardon the word - the theory. What has happened is that the rug is being yanked out from under the theory and they’re running around trying to fill the cracks in the breaking dam instead of admitting secularist defeat - and that’s what it is, because to disavow evolution means you’re back to square one - God, or intelligent design, and that seems to be something secualr science is not prepared to even consider. They have much personally and ideologically invested in a world in which science runs seperate from God, to those who believe that God exists at all. Knocking down evolution is a very big deal. People, their careers, their personal reputations and childhood heroes, the cores of their egos is reliant on evolution being in some way feasible. But as the fossil record becomes evermore clear and erodes Darwin’s and Huxley’s and the theories of all the rest, it’s becoming panics-ville for secular science.
No one thing is true for everything. We’re also talking about the matter of degree. That’s how old theories are cast off and new one developed. Such as was the case with Einstein originally thinking that the universe was constant when Hubble proved it was expanding. But Einstein was honest about it. He didn’t say “Right, that only confirms what i said” and made up some tortured logic to stick with it. He called it the biggest blunder of his life. In other words, “Oops”. But again, the stakes with evolution are very large, because without eveolution in some form, we’re back to God again, and many people, interestingly, seem to find that prospect absolutely terifying.Einstein was also deeply religious as he got older, which doesn;t prove anything, but it’s food for thought in the form of a little more circumstantial evidence from a man considered the only man ever to really come close to understanding the universe, save for Hawking (and Hawking, too, has been nice enough to admit to his own Oops moments).
I think I’ve addressed some the circumstantial evidence for that, above.
Actually, I’ve had at it with a great number of scularists and I find the reverse true, I find most secular scientists absolutely dogmatic in their insistance on general theories they hold dear. They only say, “we don;t know” when it comes to being asked about the hard evidence required to prove their deeply held scientific beliefs. Like, for example, evolution. Darwin said it and hoped the fossil record would bear him out. It never did. Or maybe the way to say it is to say that scientists are good at saying “we don’t know” but loath to say “oops”. Einstein was big enough, but few others have been. Wipple who invented radiocarbon dating knew that his process could only measure backwards to the point of the diminishment of all the carbon a species absorbed in life, and that only goes back, at most, 50,000 years. Yet to his shame wipple never said Oops. He said, “this works”. Unfortunately, so does every scientist who uses readiocarbon dating to date anything older than 50,000 years. No I see very little humility in the world of secular science. I see some very big egos who are enraged at the thought of a being fundementally and absolutely greater them themselves to an extent which they cannot hope to meet. My experience is such a concept makes them either angry or cynically amused. I always find that a little startling, to be frank.
No, the concept that the people of old were wrong and we, now, in this generation(whatever generation that might be in history), are right is the kind of ego-driven motivation which appears to move science (I won;t say forward because very often it goes oblique). When was the last time you heard a medical scientist say, “not only will the future see advances many times greater than ours, but in 99 percent of what we hold true, it will all be understood as absurdly wrong to the point of comical”? Never. But that’s what we think of when we think of remedies to maladies from 300 years ago, don’t we, and one thing the Bible shows us is that human character has essentially remained uneveolved for the last 3,500 years. We can admit to not knowing it all, but never to being fundementally wrong across the board on any given subject. That’s not humility. That’s blind ego. But it’s in us, because those medical men from 300 years ago were just as certain in their techniques, most of them, weren’t thay? (the answer to that rhetorical question is yes, and most wrote with an amazing amount of self-absorbed authority despite being 100% wrong. Just like today)
No arguement. However, there is alot more building than is warrented and a lot less tearing down as is required. We’d move alot faster is secular science were a bit speedier at saying oops. And not closing the door to, as you would phrase it, supernatural explainations. After all, magic really is just science misunderstood, isn’t it? I’ve met people who can absolutely comrehend the concept of supreme beings from another dimension fashioning universes out of raw energy, but not a single one will have anything to do with a Biblical God. The problem with science is that it’s fashioned by scientists who are nothing more or less than human beings, with all their inherent failings.
It is not. That’s called creating fiction. The theory should be based upon the fact of the observation, a sensible extrapolation. Evolution might have fit that catagory initially when darwin wrote the origin of the species, but it fell apart even in his own lifetime, when the fossil record made it clear that evolution as a slow progressive force just wasn’t substantiated by the evidence.
Well, in terms of experimentation, we’ve done that, in a way. We as a race have bred countless breeds of dogs. The base dog of that breeding has more or less remained unchanged. Yet secular scientists from 10,000 years hence might dig up the bones of the large and miniature poodles and sensing they were not offspring and adult, theorized that one evolved into each other. And in a way, they would be right. But not progressively and not through random mutation - but by intelligent design. By us. It seems to me that the circumstantial evidence supporting intelligent design is being proved even by those people who support entirely secular viewpoints.
Initially yes, later no. People can be quite unpredictable, especially when their careers are at stake, as we all know. He eventually stated he hoped the fossil eviudence would bear him out. In other words, he never came to grips with the emerging fact that he was just plain wrong. That was his problem, but we have adopted it by continuing to teach his theory as fact as opposed to one essentially disproved possiblity, with intelligent design being another one which has not been disproved.
Or as Eignstein occasionally did, go back to square one. Which in the case of evolution means God. I’m not holding my breath for secular science to take that leap of intellectual honesty.
Once again, no one thing is true for everyone. Much of secular science puts more non-religious faith into the mix than they usually ever admit. But it depends on the science, the church, the scientist and every individual. The difference is that once a random process like evolution has been debunked, you, by all logic, need to fall back on the next best guess. One guess as to what that guess might be, unless you know something the rest of the world has yet to discover.
Once again, saying we don’t know is great unless it used as an excuse for ignoring the lack of evidence that supports a theory or even the counter-evidence that debunks it. And that faith, as you describe it, can very much be argued. Also, but closing their minds to things like the Bible, they have shut off an avenue by which some issues might be understood. Had copernicus studied his Bible a little bit better when theorizing the rotation of the spheres, we might not have needed to wait for Newton to have understood the force of gravity.
Good discussion, Doug, and I appreciate your polite sensitivity on what have always otherwise been pretty touchy topics for most people. I don;t feel you’ve studied it quite enough, but you’ve approach it straight and honestly, and that’s rare and appreciated.
Thanks. I’ll read it tonight.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
This almost certainly explains why no one has responded to speak of. It elimates every average joe who needs an extra grand and puts very touchy, degreed egos in an uncomfortable place.
I’ll get back to you on that Brown link. Thanks again.
“It’s just a theory” is simply not a valid fallback position for someone who considers themselves a scientific researcher. You might find lay people using the language in that manner, but you shouldn’t find a scientist saying such nonsense.
The debate on evolution is not closed and actual scientists would not say such things. If they were doing that, then why do they continue conducting research and studying evolution?
Now, if you mean that they are dismissive of creation science claims, perhaps that’s because creation scientists aren’t putting forth much peer-reviewable research. But that’s just a guess on my part.
And no matter what my opinion is on a scientific topic, I don’t recommend showing a movie, even a recreation of actual events, as a method of teaching.
Katieanne (#66), thank you for the kind words. However, I have to disagree with you about stifling debate. Science is all about research and argument and debate, but it is within the context of an agreed upon set of rules. If folks are putting forth arguments that don’t adhere to those rules, then I wouldn’t be surprised if those arguments are dismissed.
The question of whether the earth is warming is not at issue. It has been.
But the questions of how much warming will really occur, what are the causes of the warming, what the effects of such warming would actually be, and what should be done about it, if anything, are all, to varying degrees, open, unclear, and highly politicized.
I’m not an expert on climate change, but it’s fairly easy to tell that this is more of a political fight than a scientific one.
I don’t know about low numbers of Hispanics in SC. I live in Clemson and they are EVERYWHERE!
On the bright side, however, there are 5 Mexican resturants and two of them are VERY good.
DougT, I’d like to weigh in on your comments.
You’re right — Evolution isn’t ‘Just a Theory.’ It is a theory that has grown over time with some supporting evidence. Much biological and genetic research combined with discoveries by archeologists and paleo-anthropologists does support evolution.
My 2 cents worth: evolution is just one theory. Intelligent design is one theory. Pure cration and a young Earht are also a theory.
The fossil record could be explained as easily by a world-wide flood as it could by a slow progression of life, death, and fossilization. Young earth creationsts suggest all the species that lived and died all might have lived at the same time, and the fossil record was laid down at once.
As for methods of dating fossils, radio-carbon and strontium 90 testing have both been proven innaccurate for ages beyond a few thousand years, so we really cannot say for certain through those means that older species came before man.
As for stratigraphic dating, if a world-wide flood had occurred, and the surface had been liquified, this would also explain the layers of strata and rock we find today. Thus, we have two competing theories for why we find things buried the way we do.
I’ll agree that evolution is more than just ‘a’ theory, but it is just ‘one’ theory.
SHoward,
Okay, I’ll bite. Care to name some?
Don’t worry, Cat, I’m not supporting it. I’m just stating that the people that now worship at it’s throne did have somewhat of a reason.
Darwin observed something that he incorrectly ascribed to evolution, that being species differentiation. This misinterpretation has been carried forward.
We, as a species, do share common chromosomes with other bipeds, quite a bit in fact. (99% common with orangatangs (I know it isn’t spelled right)) This is often theorized as being an indication of common ancestry.
What I was pointing out is that evolution is only one possible explanation of our origins, not the end all and be all.
C’mon, Cat. You should know by my earlier posts that I don’t believe the evolutionists. I was responding to Doug’s statement about evolution not being ‘just a theory.’
As an aside, I was reading a book review written by an avid evolutionist, and he stated absolutely that evolution was a fact. He said “we know that it occurred.” He said the theory of evolution explained how it happened. This is the kind of blind following that goes on in the world of evolutionary science. They want the facts to fit the theory, not the other way around.
Another person to look up: Grady McMurtry. He was the man that introduced me to some hard evidence against evolution. And his parents were professors at……..drum roll please…..Berkley! He said to us :”How do you know an evolutionist is lying? His lips are moving.” McMurtry was an evolutionist, by the way, until he investigated for himself.
Doug,
No, they don’t ever say “it’s just a theory” and they should. Much more honest than stating speculation as fact.
There are no peers between these two camps. Creationists accept the research of creationism readily, but secular science won’t.
Intellectually dishonest response. we already agreed that most secular scientists immediately reject any conclusion that might point to intelligent design. As they say, “religion must be put aside befoire scientific discusiion begins” (meaning what you would call “supernatural”. So “the agreed on rules” are at the very heart of the issue - they’re skewed against anything that points to a supreme creator, and that’s just dishonest science.
Not at all, but your tone has turned decidedly sharp and angry. I don’t know if it’s because you’re tired, dislike christian views of science, feel your views are threatened or are disappointed because you may have felt you were going to spoof christans and you got complex responses instead. Anyway, this last remark of yours isn’t the complex, thoughtful responses in your intial post so we can close up the talk, thanks.
Hey SHoward,
I understand, you’re right, I misunderstood the part aout the ehory growing; I thought you meant growing credibility, not growing in popularity.
I love the term, “the evolutionists”, as in, you know, the minority. I hope we all live to see the day.
Isn’t that ever the truth!
I’ll check it tonight. I’m always immediately interested when the term “hard evidence”is used to debate evolution.
I’ll post back here tomorrow night on this.
Mr CC, my last comment regarding the politicization of a scientific question was about global warming.
I also figured that my comments on the scientific method would be viewed as the problem.
I wasn’t feeling angry or upset about anything. There’s no need to guess at my feelings. I will always avoid the ad hominems in a reasoned discussion. As we spend more time together around Michelle’s blog, I hope you’ll find that I am nothing if not open-minded. I strive to be.
If you haven’t completely dismissed me, I do have a question: Why would a scientist dismiss the notion of a creator? Why would that be taken off the table as a valid explanation?
I ask, because I would think that if proof were given, how could someone who considers themselves a scientist reject the facts?
My guess is that there are a variety of answers. It can’t all be career protection and ego-driven, can it?
Personally, I am enjoying this discussion. (Can’t speak for others who are seeing our 24 column inch posts, though.)
(I’m traveling today and won’t be back until later this evening.)
Mr Conservative Cat says:
“As they say, “religion must be put aside befoire scientific discusiion begins” (meaning what you would call “supernatural”. So “the agreed on rules” are at the very heart of the issue - they’re skewed against anything that points to a supreme creator, and that’s just dishonest science.”
Welllllll……why should ‘religion; be included in a scientific evaluation of anything? And how is it decided WHICH
Mr Conservative Cat says:
“As they say, “religion must be put aside befoire scientific discusiion begins” (meaning what you would call “supernatural”. So “the agreed on rules” are at the very heart of the issue - they’re skewed against anything that points to a supreme creator, and that’s just dishonest science.”
Welllllll……why should ‘religion; be included in a scientific evaluation of anything? And how is it decided WHICH
(Ooops! Got cut off)
Anyway, Who decides WHICH religion (or deity) should be included? And why would you include something that’s never been proven (existence of god….or ‘a’ god) into something that you’re tying to prove/establish…? To state that any research that omits the possibility of a deity is ’skewed’ is nonsense. Any research should begin with a blank sheet of paper. You then add/compile data retrieved from proper testing involving only those items directly related to the phenomenon. Any conclusions - or theory - should be arrived at based upon elements of that ocurence/phenomenon.
And what, exactly, is a ‘Christian view of science’…? The science of molecular engineering…..or biochemistry…..or medicine….or whatever, shouldn’t be concerend with a view of any religion. That one puzzles me. A scientific breakthrough occurs regarding…..a new cure for cancer. So we should run it past the Vatican? We have to get their OK on it?
(Not looking to be a wise-a$$. I’m only asking.)
Here’s an interesting anecdote that relates to what Cat and guiterguy have said.
Once upon a time there was a poem about a great battle in a place called Troy. The poem had existed for millenia, but since no one in modern times had ever seen Troy, the city must not exist, right? I mean, it was just a long poem, for crying out loud.
Then one day, the city of Troy was discovered. After much discussion and discovery, it was found to indeed be the place Homer wrote about.
My point? Just because something was written about in antiquity and we haven’t seen the evidence for ourselves yet doesn’t mean it did not happen that way.
Just because the stories of Creation and the flood were recored in the Bible does not mean that they could not have occured. If the fossil record has been mis-interpreted, could the Bible be accurate?
Just sayin…
Here’s something that just came out today which I hope adds to this debate constructively.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59914
Enjoy….
Another good book about evolution is Michael Dentons “Evolution: A theory in crisis.” Though dated, 1980’s, it is a very good read.
CC, good points so far. So many just take for granted that evilution is a fact they never question it. It’s no more a fact than the moon is made of green cheese. People are sucked into beleiving it because Professors and teachers are too lazy to teach themselves the truth. And before someone jumps up and screams I am a religous bigot hold that thought. Disproving evilution is easy, but it does not prove Gd exists. Those are two different arguments.
Azygos says:
“People are sucked into beleiving it because Professors and teachers are too lazy to teach themselves the truth.”
………and that would be….what….exactly…?
guitarguy,
As I stated, it’s easy to refute evolution but that does not prove creation is the correct answer. Pick your faith. Faith in evolution, something that connot even be labeled a scientific theory because one cannot observe or reproduce it. The ability to observe and reproduce results is required of a scientific theory.
You might also look up the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Both of them speak against evolution being true. Believing in evolution is the mark of a lazy mind.
Azygos says:
“Believing in evolution is the mark of a lazy mind.”
??????????????????????
Evolution is the ability of an organism to change and adapt to it’s surroundings & environment. That ability ensures it’s survival. It’s not a ‘belief’, it’s an observation of a reality. Some species die, others survive. They survive because they adapt. They evolve. Evolution is the way life survives, not how life is created.
And what about the ‘truth’ you’d mentioned earlier. Exactly which truth are you referring to? (In post #84)
Guitarguy, I’d like to pose a question.
How does an organism know it must evolve to survive?
I’ll restate it like this: assume I am below a primate (an assumption that has been made before about me), and all I have is a paw, no finger and no opposable thumb. I can knock fruit out of trees most of the time, but it is getting harder and harder.
Here’s the question: how do my cells know they should grow an opposable thumb and some fingers?
The core of evolution is that either I will grow some fingers by accident or my cells just know they need to grow some.
How do you say this squares? If cells know they need to do that, who told them? What, pray tell, are the immense odds of it happening by accident?
The fundamental question goes to the root of evolution: what is the mechanism by which ‘things’ know they should evolve?
We here on “Mt Olympus” (well, that’s what we call it because from here the view of Vermont is pretty nice) are pretty heavily engaged in phone and e-mail work to people and organizations we know in Florida to try to folow-through on a last-ditch effort to see that ” the Sheriff” as he likes to call himself, or as I call him, “Sheriff Open-Boarders McCain” DOES NOT get the nomination - and Florida is critical.
Not that politics are more important than the current discussion, but my part in the current discussion will have to wait until tomorrow. See you then.
I hear ya, Cat. I’ve told my friends in Florida what I think of him, and I hope my family has the sense to choose better. (I’m from that state; I still don’t know what I did wrong to get sent to CA….)