text:
Showing 1-10 of 10 items found in History
- Sort by:
- <
- 1
- >
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Black History Month
Throughout the entire month of February, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign will be hosting a variety of events to celebrate Black History Month. Check out their calendar of events for location, time and event details!
Champaign County Historical Museum at the Cattle Bank
The museum is located in the oldest commercial building in Champaign County, the beautifully restored Cattle Bank, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Exhibits showcase more than 150 years of Champaign County's people, events, architecture and lifestyles. A feature of the museum is the 19th century dry goods store and businesses. The museum has a gift shop and publishes the Champaign County Historical Quarterly.
University of Illinois Library
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is the proud home of one of the largest and richest public research library collections in North America. Their 24 million items, the vast majority of which are paper and book-based, include Medieval manuscripts, large collections of incunabula and early printed books, literary manuscripts, maps and atlases, prints, and all sizes and types of printed books and other paper objects. The University Library is committed to sustaining and enhancing its capacity to treat and protect its important paper-based collections, with the majority of conservation and preservation-related investments focused on the care of its rare, unique, and otherwise valuable objects.
Foellinger Auditorium is a unique facility situated at the Southern end of the U of I Quadrangle. Since its construction in 1907, Foellinger Auditorium has been a cultural and entertainment center for the campus by serving two distinctly different functions: classroom and performance.
An atmosphere of innovation at Illinois is based on a history of interdisciplinary exploration. Faculty and students pursue projects with other top scholars from around the world and across disciplines. Campus resources include the world's largest public university library, outstanding centers for the arts, and many world-class research facilities, including the National Center for Supercomputing Applications. In 2003, Illinois' faculty members won national and international awards including two Nobel Prizes, the Crafoord Prize in Biosciences, and two Guggenheim Fellowships. Students choose from more than 150 majors and 1100 clubs and organizations.
Located in historic Lincoln Square Mall next to the Framer's Market, this store features all sorts of arts from paintings, sculptures, and pottery works. Stop in and just browse, or perhaps purchase one of these fine pieces of art.
Olympic Tribute & Laborer's Memorial
Honoring the extraordinary achievements of Champaign County residents who have participated in the Olympic and Paralympic Games, this granite platform inscribed with the names of the athletes and the Olympic symbol is surrounded by playing fields, gardens and a community college campus. Tribute to Olympic Athletes rises from an ordinary prairie landscape transformed by playing fields, gardens and a community college campus.
University of Illinois Champaign Urbana
The University of Illinois is a world leader in research, teaching and public engagement. It's distinguished by the breadth of their programs, broad academic excellence and internationally renowned faculty. This Big Ten school offers rich experiences beyond the classroom from the best in performing arts to world-class sports. Discover the scenic campus through tours of the historic buildings and those that are pushing the envelope in technology.
Krannert Art Museum and Kinkead Pavilion
Located on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus, Krannert Art Museum is the second-largest fine art museum in Illinois—placing it among the top tier of university art museums nationwide. The museum's diverse permanent collection contains over 10,000 works of art, and represents the cultures of African, Asia, Europe and the Americas. In addition to its permanent collection, the museum features outstanding temporary exhibitions throughout the year.
University of Illinois Arboretum
The University of Illinois Arboretum is a living laboratory, including plant collections and facilities that support the teaching, research and public service programs of several units throughout campus. Central to the Arboretum was the development of the "All American Selection Trial Gardens" established by a bequest from Miles C. Hartley in the early 90s. Other highlights of the Arboretum include the Welcome Garden, Hosta Garden, Kari Walkway and native ponds plantings, the Idea Garden, sponsored by Champaign County Master Gardeners, and the Japanese Tea and Dry Gardens at the Japan House.
- <
- 1
- >


text:
Forgot Password? | Not a User? Sign up
Your browser does not support iframes.
Blue mold continues to be an issue in Connecticut, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania as of July 12, with new reports coming in from western NC during this past week. Current forecasts from North Carolina State University indicate a low threat to Kentucky and surrounding areas from the known sources of disease. This information can be accessed at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/pp/bluemold/ and then selecting 'Current Forecast'. It seems that blue mold is beginning to creep westward, and may eventually reach the Commonwealth.
The summer continues to be a busy time for Washington County 4-H members. From horse shows, cattle shows to shooting sports competitions and rabbit and poultry shows, our 4-H members continue to excel and receive many honors. Over the next several weeks, especially leading up to the Kentucky State Fair (August 19-29) as many pictures and results will be included as possible. A special thanks goes to The Springfield Sun for all they do to promote our youth and their achievements in our community!
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) announced that it has certified a petition for asparagus and catfish under the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program. Beginning June 25, 2010, U.S. asparagus and catfish producers nationwide will have 90 days to apply for training and benefits.
There are a few problems that have been showing up in gardens lately, specifically cucurbits. This includes cucumber, squash, and melons. Bacterial wilt is showing up sporadically, and I am sure it's going to hit many of you who have cucurbits in the next few weeks. Bacterial wilt causes plants to wilt slowly over a few days; they freshen up at night and then wilt during the day, and eventually wilt and die. The problem is a bacteria that enters the plant and blocks the flow of water and nutrients.
Continued hot and dry weather should help keep blue mold out of Kentucky. Forecasters at North Carolina State University project a low risk to our area from the currently known sources of disease in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. Even though the threat of blue mold is low now, keeping an eye out is never a bad idea when it comes to this disease. Historically, the first cases of blue mold have been reported in late June through mid-July, and our status could change should cool and wet conditions occur later on.
Consumers may be in the driver's seat when it comes to higher meat prices. Indications are that retail meat prices may rise to record highs later this year, according to a University of Kentucky agricultural economist, and it all rests on that bedrock of free market economics — supply and demand.
Many farmers across the state have just made or will soon make their first hay of the season. While making hay, it is important for growers to notice and remove any poison hemlock from their hay or pasture fields.
Native to Europe, poison hemlock is an invasive weed that was introduced as an ornamental in the United States during the 1800s. It is potentially poisonous if ingested by livestock or humans in both its vegetative growth stages and when dry.
John W. McCauley, executive director of USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Kentucky, encourages producers who suffered crop production losses during the 2008 crop year to contact their local FSA office before a deadline is announced to see if they are eligible to participate in the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program (SURE). This program provides financial assistance to producers who have suffered crop losses due to natural disasters.
As extension forage specialists we have been asked to comment on factors that have contributed to the abundance of clover in 2010.
We have been in regular contact with livestock producers and industry throughout the state, and we have heard about and seen an overabundance of white clover in many pastures this year.
This has raised concerns about bloat, and a number of farmers have experienced death losses due to bloat. There are several reasons for the high percentage of white clover this year.
I am in the process of determining whether or not a Master Gardener Program is needed this year. This means I need to find out how many of you are interested. This will be a day class, meaning we will either meet from 9 a.m. until noon or 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. The days of the week will be determined based on interest. So, if you are interested call me or email me at the Washington County Extension Office at 859-336-7741 or email@example.com.
I will send you an information packet to help you determine if it is something you would like to participate in.
Copyright © 2017
The Springfield Sun is your source for local news, sports, events and information in Springfield, KY, and the surrounding area.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paris Hilton Allison Bootie
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 237451
The Allison from Paris Hilton is a hot bootie this season! This suede look is perfect for a night out on the town!
- Suede upper with metal bits detail
- Inside zipper
- 4" covered stiletto heel
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
- Online Exclusive!
By: Mattysgirl1
Location: Fishkill, NY
September 08, 2012
"These shoes are really cute and comfortable. They're just slippery when walking on carpet. Other than that, I love them."
By: LAShoeLover58
Location: Pasadena, CA
March 02, 2012
PH Booties cute
"Love everything about the look of this bootie. The suede with the detailing takes them from ordinary to special. Heel height is perfect! A bit narrow in the front so not as comfy as I like but as long as you're not running around in them all day, they are great."
By: LoveSMadden
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
January 10, 2012
Wonderful Shoe!
"I got my pair in black. They are comfy and are easy to wear (I had to use the Sure Step pads for some grip action) and I had to wear socks over my tights to keep my foot from sliding while walking. They fit well and are super cute. I LOVE how paris Hilton sends extra heel caps with each pair. Wish the other brands would follow suit. I would buy them again."
By: MsDiggs
Location: Frederick, MD
December 15, 2011
"These boots are so cute. I love them!"
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
A priori justification ain't what it used to be. There was a time when philosophers and mathematicians perhaps thought that when we engaged in deductive, a priori constructions of proofs for claims from propositions that we know to be true a priori, then those conclusions are as justified as anything can be. That is, when we reason deductively and without error from truths that we know without any appeal to the empirical world, then we acquire new knowledge of a broader world. Science and empirical reasoning are one thing, but conceptual analysis and a priori reasoning are another.
And traditionally, for obvious reasons, many people who believe in God have placed their hopes for justifying proof of the being on this sort of reasoning. God's existence is not the sort of things that can be known or revealed through empirical experience, they have conceded. But we can infer God through reasoning as a perfect being who cannot fail to exist, or perhaps as the necessary first cause of it all where the only empirical premise is that there exists a universe (that needs to be explained by a first cause.)
These attempts to justify belief in God a priori have been on the wane. Plantinga's version of the ontological argument in the 70s was probably the last, best hope for this camp. But in the end, even Plantinga conceded that he couldn't prove the existence of God with his argument. What he had done, he said, was establish the rational acceptability of believing that God exists. Careful readers will not in God, Freedom, and Evil that what he really seemed to do was assert the rational acceptability of believing in God's existence without much argument. And even if we grant the point, showing the rational acceptability of believing in God's existence is a far cry from showing God's existence. Many claims have been rationally acceptable, of course, while being far from the truth.
But what's interesting here is that there is a large literature now devoted to showing that God is impossible on more or less conceptual, a priori grounds. There are problems individually with omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, omnipresence, and there are countless more problems that arise when you try to mix and match these properties and the others that have been traditionally attributed to God. See Ted Drange's: http://www.philoonline.org/library/drange_1_2.htm For several good examples. Also see my atheism bibliography http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/philosophical-atheism-bibliography.html for many more articles and books in these categories. And see my atheism encyclopedia entry for more details about the families of arguments in the literature:
There are some philosophers who continued to plug away at the a priori, natural theology project, but for the most part, it appears that they have given up that pursuit. Attention has shifted in recent decades to giving empirical evidence for God with fine tuning arguments or first cause arguments with appeal to modern astronomy and cosmology.
So what attitude should we take about the host of deductive disproofs for God's existence. Have those arguments really settled it once and for all? It would see, and many of those authors have argued that if God is logically, conceptually impossible, then God doesn't exist.
I think that if we are going to learn some lessons from history here about what a priori and deductive justifications are in general, we have to proceed a bit carefully.
Here's the problem. Especially since the developments in math, geometry, logic, and epistemology in the 19th and 20th century, proof in the old, strong a priori sense of the word just isn't what it used to be. There's a huge amount of detailed back story here, but the issue with a priori justification comes down to this. It looks like there are no indefeasible, non-revisable grounds of truth upon which to base proving. It looks the best way for us to proceed is to acknowledge that even for the kinds of reasoning and rules of inference that we thought were most removed from any sort of empirical consideration or revision are defeasible and empirical. Logic itself, deductive reasoning, and conceptual analysis should be subject to revision depending on the state of our empirical observations, our broad theories about what is real, and the vast web of other propositions that we think describe the world. Humans are engaged in a large model making enterprise where they seek to get the ideas they have to line up as closely as possible to the observations they make, their predictions, and their needs. They should also be trying to construct this flotilla of world ideas so that it achieves the highest level of logical and probabilistic coherence possible, and it should have the highest degree of integration and fewest anomalies possible. We have learned from history that our description of what's real in the world works best—makes the best predictions, explains the most data—when we more and better observations and we make it conform to those observations. As we improve the integrated justification between the claims in the system to reduce anomalies, and as we move towards a more and more comprehensive system, it is able to give us better descriptions of the world we are observing.
In that context then, what would it mean to give a priori disproof of God's existence? We should take those disproofs as adding serious questions to the overall viability of the God hypothesis as an accurate description of ultimate reality. Let's treat the God hypothesis as one story among many that attempts to describe what is real. And we should accept it, just like we should for any other account, to the extent that it fits with the rest of what we think we know about the world. It should not only fit with, but give us clear, robust predictions about the behavior and nature of objects in the physical world. It should not have implications that conflict directly with what we can observe to be true. At some point, if the God hypothesis is being presented as a description of reality, then there should be some sort of empirical implications. It should make a difference somehow in the way things are. That is, there must be some distinguishable way in which we would be able to tell the difference between the hypothesis being false and its being true. These real manifestations can be indirect and far removed from God himself—our observations of muons and gamma radiation are far from direct—but if we are going to take the hypothesis seriously as a description of real things (and that includes numerous claims about what is not real) then it's got to make some real difference or other.
What disproofs for God's existence do is contribute significantly to the long list of puzzles, paradoxes, and unanswered questions we have about the God hypothesis. If there is a God, then whatever he is, it's going to have be something that helps make sense of all of these forceful arguments that God doesn't make any sense. What disproofs of God do is make it harder and harder to sustain belief in a host of the versions of the God hypothesis that have been put before us. As the problems mount with the geocentric theory of the universe, or with a theory of the aether, or with the elan vital theory of life, their descriptions of reality show more and more strain until they collapse under the weight of observation, theory, and other evidence and we jettison them. We've got ample grounds for rejecting lots and lots of the versions of the God hypothesis that people have believed. The Earth and all plant and animal life were not created in their present form 6,000-10,000 years ago. God can't have the power to do logically impossible acts because that creates untenable paradoxes.
Given the various problems with different God hypotheses that have been articulated in the deductive atheology literature and elsewhere, the questions for any person who wants to be reasonable and who cares about the evidence are, 1) what sorts of viable God hypotheses are left? 2) how many ad hoc patch jobs does a thoughtful person have to do on their idea of God to get something they can sign on for? 3) what are the real grounds that I have that are leading me to think that this new patched up version of God is the one that I thought existed all along? or what is the connection between this God and the one that I used to believe in? (You could similarly patch up your idea of Santa after your parents tell you that they put the presents under the tree.) 4) Is the patched up version of God that I am left with really worthy of the name "God," and worth all of this fuss? And finally, I've got to ask about your motivations. If you find yourself answering objections to God hypotheses from the skeptic with otherwise unmotivated or arbitrary special provisions ("Well, it's virtuous for humans to show compassion for natural disaster victims, but God's virtue requires that he allow the suffering."), what's really motivating you? Is it that if you were to take a completely impartial look at the evidence and the situation, the reasonableness of this God hypothesis would be obvious? It's not to the rest of us.
Some of the theistically inclined may protest here and insist that empirical requirements that are being imposed here are the ones that science and naturalism employ, but it is by no means obvious that their success in that realm insures that they must be the global criterion for all truth or all knowledge. They will acknowledge that humanity has acquired a great deal of knowledge by means of this route, but they balk at the imposition of the criteria as the only arbiter of what is known or real. Science is fine for what it does, but we should understand its proper domain. Invariably, this sort of criticism of empiricism and naturalism is followed by the refrain: There are other routes to knowledge.
Ok fine, let's follow this out. First, a lot more work needs to be done here before someone can claim that there are other routes to knowledge. "Science's success doesn't prove it's totality." Ok, but neither does the domain point here imply that there is another non-empirical realm or any non-empirical, non-natural means of acquiring knowledge of it. The critics of naturalism here can't simply announce that THERE ARE OTHER ROUTES TO KNOWLEDGE and take it to be justified to believe that claim simply by its assertion. What are the grounds upon which this claim is built? Is it reasonable to believe it? Is it justified? Do we have an abundance of other cases where some other ultimately non-natural method has succeeded that we can point to for an analog? Math? Philosophy? But that's the problem—no one thinks that those sort of proofs for God work, not even God's most enthusiastic believers in those fields. At most, what the critic might be entitled to say (and I'd want to see some careful reasoning up to this point) is that IT IS POSSIBLE that there are other routes to knowledge. And under the right circumstances with the rights sorts of justifications and conditions stipulated, I might concur. But it is possible that monkeys will fly out of my butt and monkeys WILL fly out of my butt are two entirely different matters, requiring very different sorts of justification. (I have found that a persistence confusion between something's being possible and it's being reasonable to believe is one of the most serious and common mistakes in philosophical theology.)
Suppose that we grant that it is possible that there are other routes to knowledge. Then what? We need to know exactly what that route is first. Then we need to have some sort of criteria by which to judge whether it is actually a route to knowledge of reality or whether it's just more metaphysical bullshit. If you're going to defend this route to God, be forewarned: you are casting yourself in with every kook, new ager, spiritualist, medium, psychic, palm reader, con artist, witch doctor, witch, Wiccan, and hippy that has ever walked the earth and who thought they had tapped into some other ultimate reality. And you've got to separate yourself from the pack. You need to give some plausible, non-ad hoc account of how it is that your special, magical, transcendent method for allegedly knowing the truth works and theirs doesn't. If there's no error checking, or no way to separate the true from the false, then the sailboats are all just adrift. And there are too many examples of human judgment being unfettered from the empirical world and taking off for the jungles of crazy land for us to just take your word for it. Besides, as I suggested before, we're beginning to question your motives. It's starting to look like no matter what sort of question, paradox, or objection comes up, you're going to engineer a way to salvage the God idea. It's starting to look like the God belief in your head is calling all the shots and your reason, your passions, and all of your arguments have been enslaved to it. The question that I frequently come back to here is, just hypothetically, what WOULD you acknowledge as reasonable grounds for rejecting the God idea? And if the answer is "nothing," then you've already left on the bus to crazy land and the rest of us are giving up hope being able bring you back with reason.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Is God Impossible or Kind of Impossible?
A priori justification ain't what it used to be. There was a time when philosophers and mathematicians perhaps thought that when we engaged in deductive, a priori constructions of proofs for claims from propositions that we know to be true a priori, then those conclusions are as justified as anything can be. That is, when we reason deductively and without error from truths that we know without any appeal to the empirical world, then we acquire new knowledge of a broader world. Science and empirical reasoning are one thing, but conceptual analysis and a priori reasoning are another.
50 comments:
- Richard said...
You hit it out of the park with this one. Well done.
- August 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM
- akakiwibear said...
St Augustine proposed that there were only two arguments for atheism that presented a challenge to theists – the problem of evil and that everything could be explained without a need for God.
I congratulate you on presenting a refreshing take on the latter with It [the God hypothesis] should make a difference somehow in the way things are. That is, there must be some distinguishable way in which we would be able to tell the difference between the hypothesis being false and its being true.
But, if the 'God' or 'No God' states are indistinguishable does that prove there is no God? … or does it simply prove that we have not recognised the distinction between the two states … or that we do not have the ability to compare. A problem your argument faces is that whichever state exists we have no certain knowledge of the other state i.e. what it would be like in the other state. We can't get round this problem for the staes are of course mutually exclusive.
Assume for the sake of argument a starting position that there is no God. Observe the world around us and ask how would it be different if there were a God? Certainly we can attribute theoretical qualities to God that would make it different – perhaps even choose some that suit our purpose - but do we have any evidence that those are the appropriate qualities (or effects) to be looking for? If there is indeed no God then there will be no conclusive qualities that we should be looking for.
OK now turn it around – start off with the assumption there is a God. The same problem exists. We have no experience of a world without a God so we cannot conclusively establish the characteristics of such a world to seek confirmation of our view.
Have you really progressed beyond St Augustine (354-430 AD) or have you done no more (and by "no more" I don't mean to diminish your work) than very cleverly restate his position?
Sala kahle - peace
- August 3, 2009 at 9:38 PM
- Russ said...
Is something missing here?
Careful readers will not in God, Freedom, and Evil that what he really seemed to do was assert the rational acceptability of believing in God's existence without much argument.
- August 4, 2009 at 4:57 AM
Careful readers will not in God, Freedom, and Evil...
I caught that too, Russ. Replace "not" with "note."
- August 4, 2009 at 6:19 AM
akakiwibear: Assume for the sake of argument a starting position that there is no God. Observe the world around us and ask how would it be different if there were a God? Certainly we can attribute theoretical qualities to God that would make it different – perhaps even choose some that suit our purpose - but do we have any evidence that those are the appropriate qualities (or effects) to be looking for?
First, you set your definitions. Then you investigate whether something exists which fills your definition. If you say "God exists, but I refuse to define it first," then you might as well substitute any other term for "God," such as "uni."
I had such a frustrating conversation with an agnostic once. He refused to define God, but insisted there could be things out there in the vast universe which we did not yet know about. So I started asking, "Could this pepper shaker on the table between us be God?" No, he said. And yet, he has no basis to so claim. If one has not defined God-ness, then how can one say that X could not be God? That is not rational uncertainty, that is intellectual cowardice.
Also, if some sort of God actually exists, but does not meet certain qualifications (e.g. goodness), then this is not a God whom I would deign to worship.
- August 4, 2009 at 6:27 AM
- akakiwibear said...
Reg, of course we must first set our definitions in place, but you miss the point.
Since we have no experience of an existence different from ours in regard to there being or not being a God we have no reference point from which to conclude that there is or is not evidence of God … and the thrust of your OP is that we should be able to see the difference God makes – OK but without any alternative frame of reference your argument is puffery – see the difference from what?
… which leads to the aspect of setting the definitions, again with no alternative reference they must be arbitrary
... what we would like God to be, how we would have created God, certainly definitions abound that seem to serve as little more than fodder for an atheist straw man.
Sala kahle - peace
- August 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Since we have no experience of an existence different from ours in regard to there being or not being a God we have no reference point from which to conclude that there is or is not evidence of God
Since we have never lived in a world without Santa Claus (so I claim), we have no reference point from which to conclude that there is or is not evidence of Santa Claus...
- August 5, 2009 at 6:44 AM
… which leads to the aspect of setting the definitions, again with no alternative reference they must be arbitrary
Again: no. You set the definition first, then you decide if a candidate fits. Repeating your bad argument doesn't help anything.
Note that the definition does not need to be a complete description down to miniscule detail, it is more like a qualifying standard. We could, for example, decide if a captured animal was a felid, without knowing which species of cat, either existing or new, it belonged to. Likewise, when you define "God-ness," you set a general standard. Failing to set such a standard, yet claiming success, is not intellectually respectable.
- August 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM
- akakiwibear said...
Your Santa analogy does not merit reply!
My point revolves around us not having certainty regarding the nature of God. So those who set a definition of God can and will do so for their own purposes.
In your OP you argue that the existence of God is contingent on being able to distinguish between a God and a no-God world. You have therefore defined God as making a difference that you can recognise … I argue that not to be a valid criteria.
Even if I allow you that definition for which you present no supporting argument - should I allow your baseless assertion that you could know the difference?
Perhaps if you described a world without God and presented conclusive argument to support your position I might have some sympathy for your position.
I suspect if asked to, you would describe the world as it is today - because that suits your assertion that there is no God - but you have less basis for that position than exists for one which says the world is exactly as it should be if God exists.
My point remains that we have no way of knowing as we have no alternative frame of reference.
You argue that we do have the tri-omni model of God as setting an expectation of how the world could be – perhaps the PoE argument restated. But for your argument to work you have selected a particular minority interpretation/version of God ... and so you fell the straw man.
Now you dismiss any who present an alternative concept of God with 2) how many ad hoc patch jobs does a thoughtful person have to do on their idea of God to get something they can sign on for? … interesting that as a scholar you dismiss the concept of a developing theology as patching, while you don't do the same for other disciplines or even atheism.
You say (and I agree) Let's treat the God hypothesis as one story among many that attempts to describe what is real. And we should accept it, just like we should for any other account, to the extent that it fits with the rest of what we think we know about the world. Here we both have to decide what evidence we accept or reject in regard to the quality of fit … and if either of us had a conclusive position we would not be having this discussion – agnostics do have the intellectual high ground, but I suspect we will choose to remain theist and atheist because we have that choice – oops that is part of the definition of God that I use.
Sala kahle – peace
PS I must apologise in advance for not being able to continue this debate as I will be away for a few days – but I thank you for your hospitality and if welcome, would like to return.
- August 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM
- M. Tully said...
I have to agree with Richard, Home run. The money quote, "Then we need to have some sort of criteria by which to judge whether it is actually a route to knowledge of reality or whether it's just more metaphysical bullshit."
I'll never understand why arguments from "uterly failed epistomologies" have ever been seriously considered (that's even taking into account the human propensity for wishful thinking).
You know the sentiments contained in Matt's post are not all that original, they have been alluded to by many authors over the years, but the way it is stated here is without a doubt the clearest most concise statement of those sentiments I have ever seen. It should be in the opening chapter of any book making the case for naturalism. The natualists will always have the evidence on their side, its up to the other person to argue for accepting a hypothesis DESPITE the evidence.
- August 5, 2009 at 5:47 PM
- M. Tully said...
Excuse me for butting in on the conversation (you know I can't help myself sometimes). But, I would like to personally (just me, not speaking for anyone else) like to concede a point to kiwi.
When kiwi wrote, "In your OP you argue that the existence of God is contingent on being able to distinguish between a God and a no-God world. You have therefore defined God as making a difference that you can recognise … I argue that not to be a valid criteria."
Kiwi, I think you make a valid point. If you want to propose a deity that in no way has any detectable interaction with the natural universe, I won't argue against it.
Instead I'll just ask, "Why should anyone on the planet care if it exists or doesn't?"
- August 5, 2009 at 5:55 PM
- akakiwibear said...
sorry to disappoint, but I have not left yet …
Instead I'll just ask, "Why should anyone on the planet care if [a deity that in no way has any detectable interaction with the natural universe] exists or doesn't?" excellent point.
Three responses
1) What I said was You have therefore defined God as making a difference that you can recognise … this is a highly subjective test and on those grounds I dismissed Matt's thesis.
2) How can we assert with any real conviction that we can/can't see the impact God has when we have no alternate frame of reference – the fundamentalist position that everything we see is evidence of God's existence is as in/valid as the atheist counterpoint.
3) I could argue however that there the evidence of the difference God has made and that each item on its own is inconclusive, yet all taken together are persuasive. Note "persuasive" not "conclusive". So we are left having to make a choice – acknowledge the evidence = theist or deny it = atheist … we can argue (the rational basis for either choice, but we cannot deny that we have made a leap of faith, one way or the other!
sala kahle
- August 5, 2009 at 7:01 PM
- M. Tully said...
"Three responses"
Three replies:
"you can recognise "
To me, make the argument to everyone. I take "you" to mean any rational human being. I have read Reginald's comments on this blog and others and have never seen any reason to believe him to be an irrational human being. Reginald makes a rational argument that others can accept. If it wasn't clear, let me be straight forward, "I" am making the same argument. Based on the success of empirical rationality, it is perfectly rational to ask for evidence of an assertion. Lacking that evidence it is, based on the success of empirical rationality, irrational to believe something to be a part of reality.
"How can we assert with any real conviction that we can/can't see the impact God has when we have no alternate frame of reference …"
Exactly the point. We in the reality based community want evidence for an assertion. If you wish to make an argument DESPITE the evidence, please inform the audience of why you feel that ignoring evidence (or the lack there of) would be a successful method of acquiring knowledge of reality.
"I could argue however that there the evidence of the difference God has made and that each item on its own is inconclusive, yet all taken together are persuasive."
Well then, please make that argument (with adherence to the above about either providing evidence for your position or establishing why the requirement for evidence should be ignored).
OK, a fourth response:
"Note "persuasive" not "conclusive".
A naturalist would agree. Only a naturalist would consider it to be a question of highest probability. Yes, everything could (in theory) be falsified, but if you want to falsify gravity, you had better pack a lunch.
So Kiwi, does the god of your hypothesis interact with the natural world? Does he or she intervene in the events of this planet? If you say yes, define the epistemology you use to give that answer and convince a rational person that they should accept both the epistemology and the conclusion. If you say no, then again I'll ask, "Why should anyone on the planet care.
- August 5, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Your Santa analogy does not merit reply!
Your argument which provoked the Santa analogy then stands unsupported, and is shown to be very, very silly.
- August 6, 2009 at 7:26 AM
But for your argument to work you have selected a particular minority interpretation/version of God ... and so you fell the straw man.
akawikibear refuses to define God, then gets all huffy when someone else steps in to do the job, using a rather standard variation.
2) How can we assert with any real conviction that we can/can't see the impact God has when we have no alternate frame of reference – the fundamentalist position that everything we see is evidence of God's existence is as in/valid as the atheist counterpoint.
It is not intellectually respectable to repeat an argument which has been refuted. You refused to respond to the Santa analogy, so your argument fails. We have never lived in a world without Santa Claus (or so I claim), so how could we know what it would be like?
Both philosophical logic and Naturalistic science have been chipping away at the notion that God is the only explanation for what we see in the world around us. Maybe you haven't noticed.
- August 6, 2009 at 7:34 AM
… which leads to the aspect of setting the definitions, again with no alternative reference they must be arbitrary
All definitions are arbitrary. The idea is that definitions must conform to observation and any other definitions you consider. I don't see God, so I have to define him. But since I don't see him my definition is useless because I have to verify it with what I see. Since I don't see him and I can't verify my definition of God there must not be one. If there is, I've got no reason to believe; it's irrational to believe. You said, "If there is indeed no God then there will be no conclusive qualities that we should be looking for," and I agree.
- August 6, 2009 at 8:53 AM
I should clarify: although definitions are arbitrary, some are better than others, and some are nonsense. Any definition of God will be nonsense since there is no way to check and see if it's true and the properties of God are impossible anyway.
To the lack of reference point idea you keep bringing up I would say that I've never been in an it's-five-minutes-from-now-and-my-soyburger-is-ready-state, but I can tell you with certainty that when those five minutes are up, Allah willing or not, I will be eating my soyburger. And I can say stuff about it despite the fact I've never had this kind of soyburger before. I've lived my whole life in a world without hickory-smoked soy, but I know the properties of hickory smoke flavor, and soy flavor, and bread flavor, and soy cheese flavor, and I can safely say that I will be tasting them in five minutes despite having never lived in a world where all of them are together at last in my mouth. I have no clue what you are trying to say.
- August 7, 2009 at 4:28 AM
If it doesn't taste like hickory then I can safely say I must have grabbed the original flavor on accident and that the hickory flavor, in my taste-world, doesn't exist. We know what power is, and good, and knowledge, and we know what its like to have somewhat good, knowledgeable, and powerful people around, so we can infer what the world would be like to have God around.
- August 7, 2009 at 4:43 AM
I am a creationist. Actually, God should not really be that far from your senses. Afterall, we make the claim that He created you and thus, your senses as well. Maybe He is not really that hard to prove. Have you tried approaching Him on His grounds? I am being dead serious here. All of us have been around and around on this issue. We won't give in and you won't give in. Nobody is moving outside of their circle. So what is left to do with you? Are you a serious investigator of truth or just another guilt-ridden product of creation who can't leave the issue alone? Why do you care at all? Depending on how you honestly answer that question, you can then move on to my challenge above. Have you tried approaching Him on His grounds? There is a methodology to this. He must be approached properly. Afterall, He does hide Himself on purpose and requires that one seek Him out. There are steps to this thing. Proper steps. If you make a misstep, like approaching Him in pride, for instance, He is very clear that He will avoid you. Are we going to go on and on around in circles with this issue, or will one or you (some of you?) try actually approaching Him on His terms? What will you discover? Are you afraid that He might meet you at your senses - the ones He created? What if you discovered that after you approached Him (in humility as He requires), you noticed that He was able to 'touch you' very deeply in a secret, spiritual place in your make-up that you did not know existed? What if a deep sense of anguish and feeling of guilt came over you that you were not expecting? What if an awful dread of who He 'is' and who you are 'not' overwhelmed you and you, by your senses, began to weep? What would do with that? What if you actually met this God at a contact point somewhere inside you and you emerged from the meeting changed? Now you are in trouble because now you have to try and explain to your friends and family what happened (that is, if you even last beyond your own intellectual homicide of the event). If several of you do what I am proposing, you should get together and compare notes. One will have approached Him correctly and actually found Him. Another will have done so improperly and rant and rave (as is your style) about how foolish the whole venture was. Still another will swear before creation that he approached this God properly, yet discovered nothing of value. Of course, most of you will just post more garbage and never have tried in the first place. People, my point is 'nothing is left to say in this debate' - it's all been said a hundred times over. Where do we go from here? We creationists don't have the corner market on this God. Somebody challenged us one day to seek Him out. We did. And we found Him. We have full rights to try the same.
- August 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM
I said, we have full rights to try the same. I meant, YOU have full rights to try the same.
Just breezing by your forum. Hope all goes well.
- August 9, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Have you tried approaching Him on His grounds?
Mount Olympus?
- August 10, 2009 at 5:54 AM
If you make a misstep, like approaching Him in pride, for instance, He is very clear that He will avoid you...
Oh yes, you are so bleeping humble, and the Creator of the entire universe is your personal buddy who is watching over everything you do.
- August 10, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Mt. Olympus... lol.
- August 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM
If there was a god, there wouldn't be much discussion, would there?
Gods/goddesses are created by humans. There isn't just ONE god. And, why "HE"? How does one know the sex of a god? And what does a male god do with his penis? Masturbate?
We are all created by our biological parents!
- August 23, 2009 at 4:42 AM
- ydgmdlu said...
rspeir: You make a big deal about how God hides himself on purpose and avoids those who don't take the "right steps" to find him. However, when you read the Bible, you find that God can't help but show himself to others. He's not very hidden at all! In fact, he even incarnated himself as a human called "Jesus" and traveled far and wide to preach the Gospel, to ordinary people, hardly demonstrating the "hiddenness" of God. The "hiddenness" of God is merely a extra-Biblical invention by Christians to explain away an obvious and (in many non-believers' eyes) insurmountable problem with the belief system.
- August 23, 2009 at 4:54 AM
"But what's interesting here is that there is a large literature now devoted to showing that God is impossible on more or less conceptual, a priori grounds. There are problems individually with omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, omnipresence, and there are countless more problems that arise when you try to mix and match these properties and the others that have been traditionally attributed to God. See Ted Drange's: "
These so called arguments are intellectually dishonest professor. It doesnt take much to show a contradiction with properties when you dont have a context. Try making God a human for a day ( like jesus) and none of the attributes contradict.
For example God could have come down via his angel and have been the judge in the lesser crimes courtroom showing mercy yet in the afternoon sat as a judge on the felony court being harsh (well call this just since mercy seems to denote lax). Thus God can both be merciful and just...you just need a context like earlier and later, here and then there, incident X then Y....
Otherwise your just shooting in the dark by claming God is impossible because two attributes are inconsistent.
Matt Mccormick cannot be a professor because he was once a student.. this is the kind of reasoning that is going on and it presumes God can do the impossibile to begin with.
Think for example the analogy between man and his organs or shall we say his cells. Is the man culpable for his internal parts actions? We dont so red blood cell X failed me and thus the man of that cell is a failure. How then can you atheist say this about God when he minute components fail?
- August 26, 2009 at 8:54 PM
- Matt McCormick said...
I don't think you're in a position to accuse these arguments of being "intellectually dishonest", anonymous, until you've actually read them and thought about them a bit. Your attack on these paper thin representations has little to do with the 150 or so references in the bibliography I posted a few weeks back, for instance.
- August 26, 2009 at 9:14 PM
I cannot see how you would know whether I have thought about the aformentioed arguments or not. Perhaps you assumed this? That I have no formal philosophy training? I am quite familiar with the attribute arguments against God. They are very simplistic and borderline ridicule, leaving out any context or shall we say scope to honestly qualify the inconsistency in question.
So do you really think it is logically impossible that God can be both a merciful and just judge? Dont you think we could conjure up countless defeaters for these attribute arguments against God? Yes, in logical possibly worlds angels can come down and represent God's will - you cannot deny the antecedent there...
- August 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM
- M. Tully said...
"For example God could have come down via his angel and have been the judge in the lesser crimes courtroom showing mercy yet in the afternoon sat as a judge on the felony court being harsh"
Seems to me - and full disclosure, I'm not in anyway philosophically inclined - that the above example shows consistent justice, but no mercy (punishments fitting the crimes).
But the real question isn't, as I understand it, can some being be just in one instant and merciful in another. Any human can do that. But, rather can any being be simultaneously ALL just and at the same time ALL merciful? I think the courtroom analogy fails miserably at demonstrating this.
- August 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM
- M. Tully said...
"Think for example the analogy between man and his organs or shall we say his cells."
I'll go with organs. What about a man's brain? Can a man be culpable for actions his brain causes? As a naturalist, I say absolutely.
Anyone care to absolve mankind for all actions caused by their brains?
- August 28, 2009 at 7:05 PM
- M. Tully said...
"Dont you think we could conjure up countless defeaters for these attribute arguments against God?"
Well, if what I have seen here is indicative of the class, I would really suggest you guys go back to the drawing room and start over (although I did appreciate the use of the word "conjure").
- August 28, 2009 at 7:09 PM
re: tully
comment 1
You cannot apply nor consider the all v all context of an attribute - it isn't within our scope. we can only judge that an attribute is applied to a certain case. Why?Becasue we are cognitively limted.
Essentially tully if a human can be deemed a good person and have conducted deviating attributes, whether throughout his life or even in a day, then why is this so difficult for God? Why is he inconsistent and john doe not?
I dont know its kind of hard to articulate what I am saying but it shouldnt be hard to plug in scenerios where God is consistent despite conducting different attributes given a context. If this is even possible then every attribute argument for the impossibility of God fails.
- August 30, 2009 at 10:43 PM
A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just verses ALL merciful in regards to God is itself an impossible task.
If we consider that God cannot be ALL just and ALL merciful at the same time then we also must deny that both attributes can coexits or that one or the other is nonexistant).
Because to consider the If-then operation of such a dauntful task we must assign the essence of God as the ALL to even consider such. In other words, we must assign God an attribute of ALL things, regardless if you believe in God or his powers.
So an argument against an ALL God is also an argument against there being both the attribute of mercy and just - since God as the all must encompass such things.
Does anybody really believe that mercy or justice does not exists?
Profesor, what is your take on this?
- August 30, 2009 at 10:52 PM
- M. Tully said...
"Essentially tully if a human can be deemed a good person and have conducted deviating attributes, whether throughout his life or even in a day, then why is this so difficult for God?"
A human, an all natural, evolved in the Pleistocene human, can certainly be both social and selfish in different circumstances. Heck, he or she could be inconsistent in the same circumstances at different times. Our inconsistencies are a part of our humanity, our less than perfect humanity. As for an omnigod, well the common definitions of that entity call for perfection. It is an entity above, beyond and deserving the worship of humanity. That entity has never been demonstrated. Now if you want to define god as an entity with the same human imperfection of inconsistency as you or I, you're welcome to (of course there are still other omni-properties that don't add up that you're going to eventually have to deal with). But, to quote (purportedly) Epicurius, "Then why call him god?"
- August 31, 2009 at 8:44 PM
- M. Tully said...
"A rebuttal to why weighing the ALL just verses ALL merciful in regards to God is itself an impossible task."
I think you're catching on. That thing you're probably feeling is called cognitive dissonance. It's not a bad thing. Once you understand why it arises, it leads to some pretty incredible stuff.
- August 31, 2009 at 8:51 PM
- M. Tully said...
"If we consider that God cannot be ALL just and ALL merciful at the same time then we also must deny that both attributes can coexits or that one or the other is nonexistant"
Consider for a moment black, white and gray.
- August 31, 2009 at 8:54 PM
tully you completely missed the boat. Maybe your lack of logic is due to this but you cannot attribute God the property of "All things" and then still believe in black and white - since black and white, mercy and justice are a part of the all
My arg was in a reductio form and this somehow confused you into thinking I agree with the attribute arg...
But I am resating the arg to show how unreasonable it is since it must deny opposites, which are needed to define each other...
- September 2, 2009 at 6:48 PM
attacking God's imperfection doesnt get you anywhere tully since it is a red herring to the arg at hand
Of course a response to the red herring you made is seen in Liebeniz "the best of all worlds" notion...but this is a digress and another topic
- September 2, 2009 at 6:51 PM
- M. Tully said...
"tully you completely missed the boat..."
Anon, rereading the comments, I must agree with you. You were not arguing that a deity could violate those things that we in humanity have found to be absolutely mutually exclusive (although, by definition, that makes the deity less than omnipotent). My black-white argument is, most certainly, a failure.
However, going back to the original post, I can conceive of a universe where absolute justice and absolute mercy were compatible. It is a universe where every sentient being's greatest desire was for perfectly consistent justice. Or, alternately, every sentient being's greatest desire is for perfectly magnanimous forgiveness.
I seem to inhabit a world where neither one of those two conditions exist. Yet, either one of those two worlds could have been created.
- September 14, 2009 at 8:10 PM
- M. Tully said...
"Of course a response to the red herring you made is seen in Liebeniz 'the best of all worlds' notion... "
Well, the "best of all worlds" argument is one that I would enjoy having, however, it is well beyond the scope of the original post.
Maybe Matt will make a post concerning that philosophical position.
- September 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM
- GeorgeRic said...
Christianity is the reasonable choice.
Seekers of Truth: Using the logic of science, we check phenomena to see if they are explained by theory. If many phenomena can be explained, we then hold that theory to be true.
Edwin Abbott, writing his book 'Flatland' to humorously explain contiguous dimensional worlds, shows us a logical explanation for worlds superior to ours. 'Techie Worlds' uses the Flatland Concept to examine far-out Christian teachings such as Trinity, soul, Resurrection, Judgment, etc. While quite ridiculous from a 'material world only' view, these teachings make rational good sense in the Flatland context.
Mankind has long been plagued with reports of the spirit world: miracles, ghosts, possession, pagan gods, witchcraft, occult, devil worship, black masses. Materialists classify all such as superstition and overactive imaginings. Christians shy from such, holding them unnatural as Jesus taught. But the materialist position involves an act of faith that 'the material world is all that there is'. Their act of faith cannot be proved. Certainly, science cannot possibly experiment with the spirit world. Techie Worlds' (available from www.amazon.com) shows the belief in higher worlds, also an act of faith, is logical and considered, and shows these strange Christian concepts to be logically possible.
Pascal's Wager points out that the Christian act of faith urges us to a better life in this world and can result in great rewards in the next. The unbelieving view permits selfish misanthropic behavior now and denies all future eternal rewards. Clearly, rational self-interest makes belief in a logical, rational, rewarding Christianity to be the wise and intelligent choice.
- October 8, 2009 at 7:55 PM
- Leroytherabit said...
Three words. Electromagnetism.
- October 8, 2010 at 2:27 PM
- Miss E. Rawr said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- November 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM
- Miss E. Rawr said...
In light of what you've just said, What do you know and how do you know it?
- November 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM
- Asno Mudo said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- August 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM
- Asno Mudo said...
If God transcends this universe then we have problems. Sure, the Biblical God may well be fictitious ... but there is nothing to suggest, apart from a sceptical urge to disbelieve, that we aren't stuck inside a 'simulation'.
On one reading of the Bible it really does make sense to accept that 'God' exists and that the nature of his existence is external to our universe ... that 'our' universe is in fact nothing more than a advanced game of 'minecraft'.
The conflict comes in trying to square the 'originator' with the lists of outrageous demands and actions as seen in the Bible ... that's fine though because it's perfectly normal to expect self interest etc to distort, embellish or even create the work that we know as the Bible. The problem is not the Bible, but the central idea that a creator is responsible for this universe.
Interestingly using this idea we can escape the problem of evil. Sure you and I may not like to think of ourselves merely as bits of information and we'd like to think that pain and suffering are 'real'. Though how many people refuse to play fps computer games on the basis that they don't want to hurt pixels.
Which of course leads to another issue.
In the none too distant future computers will undoubtedly manage at least a minimal form of self awareness - at least on the grounds that certain humans manage it. Considering the range of what society considers human, I've always found the Turing test to be somewhat bizarre as a significant number of real people would fail.
So what will be the situation when we can create advanced simulations filled with AI's?
Will we have to take care not to allow 'evil' to befall them, or will we simply accept that it's part of the whole process?
- August 21, 2012 at 4:15 AM
- Bob H said...
Sorry Matt, Just testing.
This code works on Blogger: Atheism proving the negative:
This is BOLD
This is ITALICS
- January 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM
- brmckay said...
How could any one actually tell what the original post is saying?
Jumping to the last paragraph helped a bit. There, the author makes it clear that he thinks anyone thinking in terms of "God" is a fool.
I, however do not accept that definition. It lacks merit, by my standards.
For me, conceiving of "God" as the emergent characteristic arising from infinite potential, works pretty good. Might even be "A priori" Though, I had to look the term up and I'm sure this guy will quibble with it.
- May 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM
- Starchild646 said...
The only true proof for the existence of God can be made by pointing an extended middle finger at the atheist. There can be no naturalistic explanation of what that gesture means (or any gesture for that matter).
- June 22, 2013 at 9:09 PM
- Brad O'Donnell said...
What about the recent medical evidence that there is life after death?
There's no question that religions were created out of a psychological need to establish a justification for our existence in an intimidatingly infinite universe. Christianity definitely got out of control... as Thomas Jefferson said, the church "perverted the purest religion ever preached to mankind for the purpose of gaining wealth and power." But I've got a question that you still need to reconcile.
You have to concede there are many occurrences that can't be explained by either religion or science. Just watch a few episodes of "Long Island Medium." There are many like her. She can tell you things about your deceased parents, friends and relatives that no one can know but you.
Watch this YouTube on the new "post death experience" phenomenon. Google: "Look at profound evidence" (long video; jump ahead to mid-video)
Near Death Experiences (Raymond Moody, 1975) did not prove life after death because frontal lobe stimulation can simulate the experience. But recently "post" death experiences have proved life after death. "Post" death experiences are reported in patients who've been clinically dead for 1,2 or even 3 hours!
These "corpses" have gone hours without heart or brainwave function. They are absolutely dead, but after unexplainable resuscitations, doctors are witnessing, respecting and documenting these patients' accurate accounts of things that happened during their "brain dead" hours in the ER or morgue. Understand...there's a substantially escalating curve on these scientific investigations now.
They note that long after death, patients recall verbatim conversations and activities of the doctors, nurses and even family members in and outside the hospital. It's like angry Scrooge seeing his valuables being sold after he died. Consistent with NDE's, patients still say it's better on the other side and they'll never fear dying again.
Notably, many of the ER doctors witnessing "post death experiences" have been atheists whom now concede that life absolutely goes on after death. These scientific atheists are accepting the irrefutable evidence that patients experience life hours after they die...
And by extension...if there is life experience beyond death, there has to be a god... How do you square this burgeoning life after death phenomenon with your atheism? What if you were in a morgue, and a corpse sat up and commented on your recent conversations? Don't be afraid to check this out. Surf it up! Don't dig in and defend atheism just because you've centered your life around it... Be honest! And please... don't say this is a bio-chemical, nervous reaction!
Brad O'Donnell; Author, "Where to Now Saint Paul?"
video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVyZ74HmiA
- February 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM


text:
- Buy 5 each and save 5%
- Buy 25 each and save 15%
- Description
- Reviews
- Product Q&A
Bloodroot root (Sanguinaria canadensis)Latin Name: Sanguinaria canadensis
Common Names: Bloodroot root
Bloodroot is actually an herb; despite its name. That is to say, it is a perennial that grows above the ground with a non-woody stem. However, it is the Bloodroot Root that is the most useful; also known as Sanguinaria canadensis, it is one of the many natural herbs and other botanical products available through Starwest Botanicals, one of the leading bulk herbs suppliers int the US.
The flowering part of Bloodroot Root is native to central and eastern North America from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, it is unique in that it is pollinated not by bees or even birds, but by ants, which carry home the seeds to their nests, where they germinate. Because of its color, Sanguinaria canadensis has been used as dye clothing.
Organic herbs may be very helpful and conducive to good health; however, used carelessly, many dried herbs and roots can be harmful and even toxic.
Starwest Botanicals strongly recommends that people planning to use any herbal or root extract consult with a licensed naturopathic doctor before using such a product; in addition, we will be happy top answer questions you may have regarding any product we sell.
Warning: Not to be used during pregnancy. May cause nausea and vomiting.
Clean, but very dried out.
by JRG on November 6, 2015
Product: Bloodroot Root
Write Your Own Review
Questions & Answers for Bloodroot Root
You may also like
Please enter your email address and we will notify you as soon as is back in-stock.
Your request has been submitted successfully.As soon as
the item is back in-stock we will notify you via email.
Thank you for your patience.


text:
|Found 443 Recipes
|Revise this Search New Search
Raw Vegan Fruity Green Smoothieby theblendergirl I try to include as many raw fruits and vegetables in my daily diet as..
Raw Vegan Virgin Pina Colada Shakeby theblendergirl I am a huge fan of virgin pina colada recipes, and the best thing abou..
Raw Vegan Avocado Smoothieby theblendergirl I LOVE avocados. They are my absolute favourite raw food and I simply ..
Raw Vegan Brazil Nut Berry Blast Smoothieby theblendergirl I make this Brazil nut mixed berry smoothie every week because it is l..
Vegan Green Tea Ice Cream Smoothieby theblendergirl I love a hot cup of green tea, and I LOVE a generous helping of green ..
Vegan Sweet Potato Pie Smoothieby theblendergirl I LOVE vegetable and fruit pies. But on the days when I am not incline..
Raw Vegan Tropical Green Smoothieby theblendergirl There are not enough hours in the day to extoll the virtues of green s..
Strawberry Blissby gaillynnegoodwin This quick smoothie is simply delicious on a hot summer day!
Flank Steak with Chimichurri Sauceby RickBakas Flank steak is a great cut of beef for not very much money. Local sto..
Seattle Smoothieby gaillynnegoodwin I made this bright green smoothie for my nephew on a recent trip to Se..
Thursday Morning Smoothieby gaillynnegoodwin Getting creative with miscellaneous ingredients can lead to delicious,..
Sunday Morning Almond Joyby gaillynnegoodwin One morning we had a bunch of ripe bananas and this is the amazing con..
Summertime Splash Smoothieby gaillynnegoodwin Looking to make a splash with your family on a hot day? Serve this!
Orange Pineapple Delightby gaillynnegoodwin Summer has finally arrived in Montana so we created this yummy, refres..
Orange Pineapple Delightby gaillynnegoodwin Summer has finally arrived in Montana so we created this yummy, refres..
Saturday Morning Magicby gaillynnegoodwin After a crazy, busy week, it's time to refresh - from the inside out..


text:
Time for Wreckum?
July 18 2010 01:13PM
The Edmonton Oilers signed D Theo Peckham this week. Capgeek has the numbers ($550,000 salary and cap hit at the big league level, $65,000 in the AHL).
With a very reasonable end-of-the roster contract, the risk of being lost on waivers, and a less than formidable depth chart one would assume Peckham can win the day with a solid training camp.
While he was still head coach, Pat Quinn said "when I first saw him (in an Oilers uniform), the scouting report was that he was a tough kid who didn't really know how to play. When he came back (on his most recent call-up), he showed us that he had a little bit more than just being a tough guy. As he played and gained our confidence, he was gaining his own as well. They were really good minutes for him."
Tom Renney (in an interview after being bumped to the head job) said much the same, implying Peckham impressed and they were looking forward to seeing him healthy and ready in the fall at training camp. This would be a reasonable depth chart (with the top 8D's making the lineup):
- Tom Gilbert
- Ryan Whitney
- Sheldon Souray (trade block)
- Ladislav Smid
- Kurtis Foster
- Jim Vandermeer
- Jason Strudwick
- Theo Peckham (waiver eligible)
- Shawn Belle
- Taylor Chorney
- Richard Petiot
- Alex Plante
- Jeff Petry
- Johan Motin
- Jordan Bendfeld
Your list may vary, but that seems reasonable to me. Peckham has all kinds of room to move up on this list: Strudwick could be moved up front if he loses the competition, or he could retire and enter the coaching ranks; Vandermeer cleared waivers in June and can do it in the fall; Smid could falter when he takes on tougher minutes beginning in 10-11 (likely replaced by Foster) and Souray could be traded which may open up a slot in the top 6D depending on the return. Lots of room to maneuver for "Wreckum."
There is some competition below him on the depth chart, but Peckham has a strong case over the following: Belle isn't the same waiver concern so could be sent down with less worry; Chorney proved he needs more time to work on the defensive aspects of the game; Petry is a wild card who could jump the group but the organization has stated they want their prospects to progress along very specific check points (one being the AHL). The same could apply for Plante and Motin.
A prospect like Theo Peckham may never get another chance this good: he's impressed the incoming coach who is looking for exactly what he brings and the organization believes he may be able to handle a larger role based on the most recent viewing. If he shows up at TC ready to kick out the jams, Theo Peckham's NHL career might be well established one year from now.
I really hope Johnson is in the plans somewhere. I was really impressed with what he brought to the table last year after the trade, and a Johnson/Peckham pairing would be just fine with me.
Plus, with the low-cost contracts of Pecks, Struds, and probably Johnson... who cares if we sit one or two for a few games and trade in/out as needed? IMHO Struds should only be a temporary (one or two games) injury fill-in anyways. Anything longer and we should be calling someone up.
I think Johnson could easily fill 5/6 minutes, and if something happens and we need him to fill in 3/4 minutes with Smid or Foster, he might be able to handle that too. He showed up-side, potential, and all-around ability that was great.
In fact, the only reason I can think of that we haven't re-signed him so far is that maybe he had a bad attitude in the room near the end of the season, with all the losing and such. Otherwise, why wouldn't they try and get him back?
Heck, a bottom pairing that swaps Struds/Vandermeer (so they don't get tired) on one side, and Peckham/Johnson on the other (depending who's playing better) would be just fine.
Considering the past few years, I really can't believe that the organization wouldn't like to have an extra defender stashed away to replace a long injury. I see Struds and Vandermeer simply as vets for the room, and fillins when required. Surely they have enough hockey sense to see these guys are not 60+ game players anymore.
This entire thread was Nate's idea! Don't worry buddy, I lit a candle for you...
I'd love to know what really went wrong with Nash - I don't feel that we're getting the whole story here.
If Peckham can be a less-grabby Matt Greene that would be huge...
July 18 2010, 01:32PM
Woot I love Theo! My THEOry is that he cracks the bottom pairing, he will make the occational annoying error ala Matt Greene but will flourish as the man who's smile I want to punch/defensive player.
I heard the story that Peckham during the combine testing he was ranked to go in the 5th round. But, because he went so hard that he puked at the end of his test. The Oilers noticed and picked him in the third round.
Peckham was one of the first guys to push himself to the point of getting sick. He pushed himself from round 5 up to round 3. During the combine all the agents started telling their guys to at least fake getting sick. Now every prospect who goes through the combine gets sick. It started with Peckham.
He's a guy who never takes a shift off, and I hope he makes the team this year.
He's definitely a work in progress, but he's one of my fave Oilers, just for his physical play alone.
My main concern is @ his overall skating level.
If he's nimble enough, the rest falls into the category of learning on the job.
Overall circumstances allowing, a young player always develops better/faster if he plays at the highest level he can keep his head above water at.
Much has been said @ the Oilers rushing kids too quickly, and these comments are certainly valid, particularly with repect to Chorney and others force-fed NHL minutes because of injuries and lack of suitable organizational depth. BUT, as well, the Oilers have often been guilty -- in past years -- of letting those kids that were ready to step up, stagnate and lose all forward momentum, by leaving them on the farm too long.
Possibly the single most important aspect of re-building is being willing to "prune the tree". The Oilers' recent practice of having one foot in each of the "rebuild" and "try to contend now" camps has effectively precluded this. If we are to be optimistic about anything going into this season, its that Tambellini has shown much more willingness to cut players loose. The specific decisions he has made to date are matters for a separate discussion.
This is the perfect time for Peckham.
He fights. He hits. He clears the net. He has the potential to be that nasty to play against defender. And the depth chart above of him, is downright laughable. Neither Vandemeer or Strudwick can be in the long term plans of the club. He should be coming in this year, perfecting how to put the puck off the glass, working on the PK and figuring out what he can get away with in front of the net. If the club is truly trying to re-build, they're not planning on making the playoffs this year. So, an occassional screw-up isn't going to have the same sting to it. Giving Peckham some on-job-training should pay off in the long-term, even if his ceiling is #5.
July 18 2010, 10:57PM
This may be a stupid question, but wouldn't Belle have to clear waivers too?
I am assuming he would. At this point, isn't Belle clearly a better player than Peckham? Since he is still only 25, and possibly only now getting into his prime, wouldn't it make more sense to keep Belle and give Peckham another year in the minors until he is clearly good enough to be in the NHL? If we have to choose between Belle and Peckham, and Belle is more ready now, I take Belle.
If I'm another team, I am more likely to take Belle over Peckham, too.
It would be awesome for this team if Peckham and Plante could fill the 4-6 dmen role. Big, physical, maybe a shutdown in Plante? Kind of like the Twin Towers days. Except we will need new nicks then. "Wreckum and Plantem" ?
Mr. Lowetide,
Are you a real person or have you become a team or group? Over on the orig site you state that you just got back from holidays. Are you telling me that you have been posting on 2 sites while on vacation? Whoever or whatever you are, you are the best thing on the 'net... ever. You have made the last few years of being an Oiler fan bearable and have brought excitement and passion back to the present and future. May you and yours live long and prosper.
All signs point to yes when it comes to Theo Peckham having a job to lose, at least based on his waiver eligibility. Not certain he's fully ready, yet... I would think he could use a tad more seasoning, but its also possible he can get that here.
Anyone have wreckum's draft-day scouting report? Would be interested to see what was thought of him then and if he's progressed along the right track...
Like what this guy brings. Hope he can gain confidence and hold it together back there. There is a chance that he struggles...then we're in a pickle, as sending him down is presumably the loss of a decent player/prospect to another team. However, with the chart as you drew it up, LT, he's in there...and with an injury or two, he's in there for good.
Muchos grazias LT. I've long been looking forward for Peckham to make the team full time and I hope this is the year. From the moment he played his first game in an Oil jersey and bowled over Jared Boll everyone knew he had something the team has sorely lacked in recent years.
July 18 2010, 02:15PM
If Peckham can put in a decent amount of effort and come to camp in shape I can see him taking up the mantel Matt Greene wore
July 18 2010, 03:05PM
Don't have a report, but I was watching clips on the combine from that year and they did mention at the end that Theo Peckham had made a good impression on scouts with his impressive output.
It says a lot about an impression a player made when the wrap up is all about the top 5 prospects (Kessel, Staal, Johnson, Brassard, Toews) and a mention of someone who's supposed to go in the 5th (or wherever he was ranked).
July 18 2010, 03:09PM
Man, what a difference one game can make. I was high on this guy too, until i seen him live in a pre-season game last year. Boy was he outclassed. Since seeing him that one time I've been trying to find reasons as to why he should stay in the bigs, but I haven't. The only positives of this guy I've seen (lately) has been on paper. I wonder about his puck skills. I guess I "saw him bad".
I'm really hoping for a good year from this guy cause I wanna like him.
@Max Powers
Yeh that seems to say a lot about his work ethic and desire to do well, which is why I was surprised with the reports about his conditioning this year. Now whether that was just the coaches saying he had trouble getting back in to shape because of his injury or just generally not trying to get back in to shape I don't know.
Either way, with him, Whitney, Smid and Plante (down the line) manning the blue, we should hopefully have a tough, if not the most offensively gifted D corps (although Whitney and Gilbert are pretty good options, with Foster not looking too shabby if he can keep up with his current form).
Talking about Plante, I hear many conflicting reports about whether he tends to be a defensive or an offensive D-man, or is he a 2-way guy? Being from the UK, I only know about these guys mostly from highlight reels and various blogs! Doesn't help that ESPN UK hardly ever shows the Oilers, although I'm sure that Hall and company should help our cause!
@Max Powers - Team HME Evans
Which is why we remember that unless you are talking the Drew Doughty class of defenders, teams need to give a quality prospect many, many games to develop. Defence seems the most difficult position to translate from minors to the pro leagues (AHL or NHL) and it takes even good defenders a few years to 'get it'.
Go get 'em Peckham. I look forward to a good year (relatively speaking).
July 18 2010, 03:26PM
I'm with you on being surprised to hear about Peckham showing up out of shape last year. Especially someone who seems to have a good attitude. It couldn't be too bad if the coaches are still high on him this year, which would mean it was probably just an immature mistake from an immature player. Maybe he waited too long to start getting into camp shape or didn't work on cardio when he could have or something. Regardless, it seems as if the organization likes him and sees him in the future.
July 18 2010, 03:39PM
@Max Powers - Team HME Evans
In his defense he was hurt, however he did have conditioning problems in the past
If he performs well enough in camp by all means keep him. I wouldn't want to see him make the team just because of waiver eligibility though.
He hasn't been very good in the NHL to date, and there is no reason to believe he will have figured it out over the last off season.
I think there is a pretty good chance of him clearing waivers even if he is sent down. Pretty much every NHL team now has 5-7 Dmen already on their big roster, and they all have their own prospects to look at, as well as the fact that there are a bunch of UFAs still floating around to be signing.
Peckham is just another guy in the herd of waiver eligible defenders this season. Even if someone did grab him off the wire, the Oilers could always just go out and pick a comparable player right back. Calgary for example has 8 defencemen on one-ways, and have Pelech and Baldwin that need to clear waivers.
July 18 2010, 05:05PM
In regard to the conditioning, it was Rob Daum who mentioned it.
Did Daum ever actually say his conditioning was a problem and it was because of his injury, or did he just say he was under conditioned and the rest of the world assumed it was due to injury?
I'd hope that with him being waiver eligible, that he will automatically be above Strudwick and Vandermeer on the depth chart. If we lose Peckam to waivers so that Strudwick can stay on the roster, I will puke all over my own puke.
If Souray is cast away, I'd hope Peckam can hold on to #5, and be paired with Vandermeer.
Whitney-Gilbert Smid-Foster Peckam-Vandermeer Strudwick
I must admit I actually quite like those pairings, not quite the offensive flash or skill that we perhaps had with the likes of vis, souray, grebs (gilbert being the only remnant of that group of talented puckmovers and Whitney and Foster being new additions), but a group that looks gritty and hard to play against. A peckham-vandermeer pairing might make me nervous, perhaps a bit slow-footed for my liking, but its gotta be better than peckham being paired with struds.
It's interesting how post-SCF it was painfully clear that we didn't have nearly enough puckmoving d-men (save for MAB and maybe Tjarnqvist?!) and too many stay at home types, so management decided to go totally opposite to that by adding Pitkanen, Grebs, Souray and Gilbert, meaning that we could get the puck up the ice but couldn't keep it out of our net... Not helped by adding Vis, although Souray and Vis did demonstrate more defensive qualities than initially expected...
I'm cautiously optimistic that this year's blue-line is more balanced than we've seen in the last 4 years, although one more true NHL-calibre d-man would be handy.
While we're on the topic of d-men, anyone else wished we'd drafted a quality d prospect this year?
I though Marincin was a good pick, but Blaine and Davidson could turn out to be adequately good or very bad, same goes for Hesketh and Bigos from last year. This would make Marincin our only quality D prospect of Junior age, and that worries me for the future...
Here's hoping for a lottery pick and a shot at Adam Larsson next year!
Ya, I like Peckam alot. He brings that physical edge, hope he has a great camp.
July 18 2010, 10:22PM
on a slightly different note, has there been any noise about a potential veteran to shore up RW? Since he's still unsigned I wonder if a 1 or 2 year pitch to Stempniak would bring some value. If he reverts to 15-20 goals so be it. If he lights it up he can showcase himself for a big payday (a la Hossa). He brings at least some scoring, or maybe a lot, and is a legitimate NHL player. Could be though that there will be no more moves until Souray's situation is settled.
We're in a rebuild... the guy we should be keeping is the guy who has the most potential. Right now it's difficult to say how Peckham will turn out, but his potential is to be a stable, punishing d-man. With any luck, he'll develop stronger skating as well as defensive skills to go with his already rock solid physical game.
As for Belle, one way to look at it is he's 25 and has struggled up to this point. I don't really want to lose either guy, but I think we have to lean towards protecting the guy who's travelling nicely along their target path (Peckham) over the guy who has dropped off of it (Belle)... not to mention the guy was picked up as a UFA (seemingly showing that he didn't have that much value to other teams he played for).
But really though, again, we shouldn't be risking a guy who has potential in the future. I think Peckham has shown a lot of potential. If Belle shows that potential too in the future, then they should be risking Vandermeer via waivers (since they won't move Strudwick).
July 19 2010, 12:26AM
Theo Peckham has the number 6 spot for sure. Oilers got to be out of their mind or Strudwick or Vandermeer got to pull a miracle out of their ass to get it. Strudwick and Vandermeer careers arent going anywhere. Why risk losing the potential in Theo for either one of them two?
July 19 2010, 03:47AM
on a slightly different note, has there been any noise about a potential veteran to shore up RW? Since he's still unsigned I wonder if a 1 or 2 year pitch to Stempniak would bring some value. If he reverts to 15-20 goals so be it. If he lights it up he can showcase himself for a big payday (a la Hossa). He brings at least some scoring, or maybe a lot, and is a legitimate NHL player. Could be though that there will be no more moves until Souray's situation is settled.
No offence, but I think picking up a forward who can actually SKATE or play solid defensively would be waaaaaay brighter. "I-can't-skate-niak" would be a bad call IMO.
It would be awesome for this team if Peckham and Plante could fill the 4-6 dmen role. Big, physical, maybe a shutdown in Plante? Kind of like the Twin Towers days. Except we will need new nicks then. "Wreckum and Plantem" ?
They would have to be REALLY big for the two of them to fill three spots. ;)
They would have to be REALLY big for the two of them to fill three spots. ;)
4-6 meant any 2 of those 3 spots. Oh,I get it.Duh. Monday. Save the oil paying for 1 dman.{}
July 19 2010, 09:01AM
Any chance that Theo could make a transition to forward? Or is his skating and speed holding him back? With his size and edge he would have a strong presence in front of the net.
As for the conditioning wasn't Theo the top guy in the TC physicals last year?
Peckham as a career tough guy perhaps , but i doubt he'll ever become a regular on defence . Looks to be a career AHL'er at best of times . Should clear waivers unless someone needs to add a relatively cheap fighter that can play limited minutes . Most of others on the list below him are better than him already defensively and moving the puck .
July 19 2010, 10:07AM
Off-topic, when does training camp officially start. Starting to drool here in the Bronx...
July 19 2010, 10:25AM
Also off topic, Kovalchuk signed with the Devils. Thank God that is over... so now what?
@I'm a Scientist!
So now the Kings still have some cap room to play with.
Also off topic, Kovalchuk signed with the Devils. Thank God that is over... so now what?
Maybe now we can start talking about "Shootem", "Scorem", and "Savem". You know, the NHL players we still need to fill out our roster.
Maybe now we can start talking about "Shootem", "Scorem", and "Savem". You know, the NHL players we still need to fill out our roster.
Shootem can go to the Flamers. I'm only interested in Scorem and Savem.
July 19 2010, 11:12AM
Any chance that Theo could make a transition to forward? Or is his skating and speed holding him back? With his size and edge he would have a strong presence in front of the net.
As for the conditioning wasn't Theo the top guy in the TC physicals last year?
Pretty sure Eberle was tops in physicals last year.
Also off topic, Kovalchuk signed with the Devils. Thank God that is over... so now what?
Rumoured deal with Philli & LA revolving around Simon Gagne. Jon Quick & Justin Williams' names have come up.
Also, Riley Nash signed with Carolina... http://twitter.com/angus_j/status/18930026790
July 19 2010, 11:15AM
In other news, Riley Nash signs an entry level deal with the Canes. Clearly the kid had no interest in playing for the Oilers. He didn't like how he was treated, or in his eyes, sometimes ignored. It will be interesting to see how he and Martin Marincin (pick they traded him for) pan out. Nash will make $550,000 this year, $600,000 next year and $700,000 in his final year if he plays in the NHL. He'll make $62,500 in the AHL.
With Kovi now signed with NJ, any legs to the rumors regarding Souray to LA? Or possibly NYI to meet the cap minimum? It will certainly change the depth chart on D for the Oil depending on who they may get for Souray.
July 19 2010, 11:21AM
Maybe now we can start talking about "Shootem", "Scorem", and "Savem". You know, the NHL players we still need to fill out our roster.
I heard Savem went to the KHL for big money and a hot russian wife.
Shootem is still available. There are some questions about his attitude in the dressing room. Some team willing to take a risk might capitalize.
Scorem is highly sought after and is just biding his time until he gets the right offer. I sure hope the Oilers offer up Breakem and Missem for Scorem.
EDIT: Wow... re-reading my news about Scorem. Seems like he is the first UFA that can be bought with a trade. Interesting development. *facepalm*
DISCLAIMER: Don't normally pass on Eklund stuff unless its for humor purposes or he has an e5 with it. He's put a few others out this summer with an e5 & beat other iniders on a couple scoops. Also, he does have some Flyer connects, so here goes...
Simon Gagne to Tampa e5
I heard Savem went to the KHL for big money and a hot russian wife.
Shootem is still available. There are some questions about his attitude in the dressing room. Some team willing to take a risk might capitalize.
Scorem is highly sought after and is just biding his time until he gets the right offer. I sure hope the Oilers offer up Breakem and Missem for Scorem.
EDIT: Wow... re-reading my news about Scorem. Seems like he is the first UFA that can be bought with a trade. Interesting development. *facepalm*
Damn you scientist! Damn you.
July 19 2010, 12:24PM
RDS is reporting that Simon Gagne has been traded to Tampa Bay. No word on which players involved. Lightning will have a pretty good offence.


text:
Spotted the odd Christmas tree in the stores here and there, but other than that, not much yet.
Spotted the odd Christmas tree in the stores here and there, but other than that, not much yet.
Me going through boxes of christmas things in the loft,changing the backgrounds on my laptop and computer to another christmas theme,and spraying the house with mulled wine and cinnamonnot really a sign of christmas but...you know
Just been to the garden center and they have some Christmas tree's and decorations out...
Merry Christmas to all...
I was in a shop this evening and they had mince pies, Christmas cake and chocolate Yule log on the shelves.
Last edited by Christmas Angel; 09-13-2012 at 09:08 PM.
Christmas Angels are watching over you
nothing here yet
When it seems the magic slipped away...
We find it all again on Christmas Day.
*Seeing isn't believing.Believing is seeing.*
In the shop today there were tubes of sweets and chocolates as well as the tins of Celebrations and Quality Street on the shelves.
Christmas Angels are watching over you
Lots of stuff at Walmart on upper shelves - trees, garland, lights, cards, village pieces, wreaths, etc.
I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas
Kohls has their christmas displays and items out - practically the whole collection. seems a *tad* early but around here we all know how time flies. still...
My Christmas Blogs:
- My most popular Christmas blog: KrisKringleForSingles dot blogspot dot com
- HolidaySingleGirldot blogspot dot com
- SilverandGoldChristmas dot blogspot dot com
A local gardening center has sent us an invitation to view their Christmas Display this year on the 27th of this month...
Before anyone else...
Merry Christmas to all...


text:
George Wilbur PeckHumorist / State Governor
Born: 27 September 1840
Died: 16 April 1916
Birthplace: Henderson, New York
Best known as: Author of the "Peck's Bad Boy" stories
George Wilbur Peck created Peck's Bad Boy, a popular character of newspaper stories, books and early movies. A printer and newspaperman by trade, Peck hit his stride when he began his own humorous paper, the Sun, in 1874. His whimsical observations (somewhat in the style of his contemporary Mark Twain) attracted a wide following, and he built the Sun into a financial success while also becoming active in Wisconsin politics: he was elected mayor of Milwaukee in 1890 and then served as governor of Wisconsin from 1891-95. Despite his political successes, Peck remains best known for his ongoing series of "Peck's Bad Boy" yarns, featuring a naughty little tyke who plays pranks on others for the simple love of mischief. Collections of his stories include Peck's Fun (1879) and Peck's Bad Boy and His Pa (1883).
Copyright © 1998-2017 by Who2?, LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
|Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services
U.S. Department of Justice
DEFINITION: For the purpose of COPS grants, supplanting means using COPS grant funds to replace state or local funds which otherwise would have been spent on the specific law enforcement purpose of the COPS grant awards. COPS officer and civilian positions must be in addition to any locally-funded positions, and COPS technology must be in addition to any locally-budgeted equipment or technology expenditures.
COMPLIANCE: To be in compliance with the nonsupplanting requirement, COPS grant funds are to be used to supplement the budget of the law enforcement agency, not replace any currently, historically, or future appropriated funds for the grant purposes. An analysis of supplanting is a two-step process. The first step is to examine the facts that occurred during the life of the grant in order to determine if a supplanting violation might have transpired because a reduction in local or state funding for the grant-funded purpose occurred after the grantee received funding. The second step is to review the reason for the reduction, including supporting documentation, to determine why the reduction occurred. Examples of relevant documentation include both historic and current copies of the grantee's budget, local government policies and meeting minutes, and other documentation reflecting the reasons for the reduction in the department's budget. The key to whether a supplanting violation has occurred is whether the reduction of local or state funding, a fact that might "look like" supplanting, would have occurred regardless of the receipt of COPS grant funds for reasons unrelated to the COPS grants.
Additionally, to comply with the nonsupplanting requirement, officers or civilians hired under a grant must be newly hired on or after the grant award start date, and equipment or technology funded with grant funds must be purchased on or after the grant award start date. Grantees may not fill a position with an individual who was hired prior to the award start date, and may not expend funds on equipment or technology purchased prior to the award start date, unless an exception is authorized in writing by the COPS Office. Exceptions are authorized only in rare circumstances and upon clear proof that local law enforcement funds were not already budgeted or committed for the hire or purchase. Examples of relevant documentation include budget documents, staffing levels, offer letters provided to individuals, and contracts of purchase. If a grantee receives authorization to expend funds on an officer or civilian hired pre-award, funds may only be spent on the allowable salary and benefits as of the award start date.


text:
Mike Brown Traded to Oilers
Steve Dangle
March 04 2013 09:46AM
Mike Brown has been traded to the Edmonton Oilers.
It looks like TSN's Aaron Ward had it first.
Leafs Mike Brown has been traded to the Edmonton Oilers for picks.— Aaron Ward (@aaronward_nhl) March 4, 2013
The most intriguing part about that tweet was the "s" part. Sounds like the Leafs are getting multiple draft picks, which ended up not being the case.
TRADE: #Oilers have acquired forward Mike Brown from the @mapleleafs in exchange for a 4th round selection in the 2014 #NHLDraft— Edmonton Oilers (@EdmontonOilers) March 4, 2013
The Leafs acquire a fourth-round draft pick in 2014, which isn't bad, considering the Leafs originally acquired Brown from the Anaheim Ducks for a fifth-rounder in 2010. Even better, according to Pierre LeBrun, the draft pick turns into a third-rounder if the Oilers make the playoffs...so it's probably a fourth. We can dream though.
Also noteworthy, is this frees up a roster spot. The Leafs were at the 23-man roster limit. With Mike Brown's departure, it would seem to indicate the return of Matt Frattin. We'll have more on that later.
In 112 games with Toronto, Brown had 5 goals and 8 assists for 13 points. Keep in mind though, scoring isn't why the Leafs acquired Brown in the first place. His biggest offensive highligt however, has to be this beauty with Joffrey Lupul.
Brown had 213 PIMs and 27 fights in two seasons with the Leafs, including preseason. In Brown's most recent fight, he opened up the Flyers' Tye McGinn, which is impressive, because Tye McGinn is a really good 1920's boxing name.
Perhaps most importantly, I once called Mike Brown a Honey Badger in one of my postgame LFR videos, causing someone to make this video that you'll never ever unsee.
Good luck, Mike.
Here is the Edmonton perspective on the trade from Jonathan Willis at the Oilers Nation.
Really sad to see him go, a real great character guy. But on the other hand I kind of saw this coming, out of our tough guys he was probably playing the worst, plus he was somewhat injury prone, but that was just because he played such a tough and energized game. All that plus the fact that they had to clear a roster spot for Frattin didn't bode well for him. The Oilers fans are gonna love him, all the best Brownie!