text:
W.H. climate weakness: Senate Dems
More than a dozen Senate Democrats have a message for President Barack Obama: If he wants to take dramatic action on climate change, he's on his own.
The latest evidence came from this weekend's marathon series of budget votes, in which moderate and conservative Democrats sided with the GOP on the Keystone XL oil pipeline and against any prospects for a tax on carbon.
Story Continued Below
In the two Keystone votes, the Democrats helped the Republicans prevail by filibuster-proof majorities — a clear sign that Obama will have little political cover from his party's middle if he chooses to reject the Canada-to-Texas pipeline, as climate advocates are urging him to.
The nonbinding budget votes were the first action on climate change in the new Congress, and they underscore a status quo that has held in the upper chamber since Obama's first term, when Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the plug on cap and trade shortly before the midterm elections.
Since then, the caucus of climate-weary Democrats has grown after the 2012 election, which ushered in a new class of moderates — like North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp — who often side with Republicans on energy policy. Several more red-state Democrats are facing tough reelection battles next year, giving Reid ample reason to protect them from casting votes that could hurt them at the ballot box.
"Sen. Reid will go out of his way to protect vulnerable members if he can from such votes," said former Clinton White House climate aide Paul Bledsoe, a senior energy fellow at the German Marshall Fund.
Some other late Friday/early Saturday votes yielded victories for the climate cause — for example, a push by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to block EPA carbon regulations received even less support than it had in the last Congress. But even then, the signal was that senators will let the Obama administration take the lead in tackling what many scientists are calling a global crisis.
In fact, Obama is widely expected to make executive branch actions — such as EPA rules on power plants — the centerpiece of his climate agenda, although there have been some indications that those could be delayed.
Former Reid senior communications adviser Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat knows that any vote on major climate change legislation would be merely symbolic, given the likelihood of a GOP filibuster. "You probably can't rule out a failed cloture vote," he said.
Chris Miller, who was Reid's longtime top climate and energy aide, said he expects big climate votes only if Republicans force symbolic votes.
"The dynamics haven't really changed as far as actual legislating goes on the topic," he said, recalling Reid's decision to forgo a vote on cap and trade in 2010. "The real question is what will the administration do on the regulatory front, when will they be doing it and what kind of campaign and strategy is going to go along with it."
Miller said a defensive posture isn't Democrats' only option. Instead, a "positive, coordinated strategy" could emerge from the White House about how clean-energy investments can help reduce the impacts of climate change.
A vote on climate legislation would play perfectly into Republicans' post-election "Senate first" strategy, which is designed to put pressure on Reid to force vulnerable Democrats to take tough votes.
This dynamic was on full display Friday night. The Senate — including 13 Democrats — soundly rejected an amendment by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that would have steered revenue from a carbon tax back to the American people in the form of deficit reduction or reduced tax rates.


text:
Making up for sh-t on the sidewalk
I want. I die. Oh Ewan.
He brought his quiver to the festival to promote I Love You Philip Morris with Jim Carrey, the true story of a Texas conman who broke out of prison 4 times. Ewan plays the love of his life Philip Morris. Carrey believes so strongly in I Love You Philip Morris that he has already declared that throughout the course of his career, only three scripts have been MUST makes for him: The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind…and this.
Which kinda makes you wonder why he's not more selective.
Anyway, Philip Morris is looking to sell domestic rights at Sundance. Advance buzz sounds promising. Hopefully a deal is in place.
For more on I Love You Philip Morris, including interviews with both Ewan and Jim, click here.
Photos from Wenn.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
WASHINGTON >> The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a startup Internet company has to pay broadcasters when it takes television programs from the airwaves and delivers them to subscribers for a fee.
The justices said by a 6-3 vote that the 2-year-old Aereo Inc. is violating the broadcasters' copyrights by taking the signals for free. The ruling preserves the ability of major television networks to collect from cable and satellite systems that transmit their programming.
Aereo has never been available in the Los Angeles area nor California. In December 2012 a judge granted an injunction against FilmOn, a similar service, from operating in the state. Last September, the 9th Circuit Court held off ruling on it, pending the Supreme Court's judgment in the Aereo case
Had services such as Aereo been allowed to operate without paying for the programming, more people might have been able to ditch their cable services, providing they only wanted over-the-air networks. But customers who want channels such as ESPN or AMC, however, would still have to subscribe through a cable provider.
Aereo, which charges an $8 monthly fee, looks a lot like a cable system, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court in rejecting the company's attempts to distinguish itself from cable and satellite TV.
"Aereo's system is, for all practical purposes, identical to a cable system," he said.
Aereo is available in New York, Boston, Houston and Atlanta among 11 metropolitan areas and uses thousands of dime-size antennas to capture television signals and transmit them to subscribers. Because each subscriber is temporarily assigned an individual antenna, Aereo had made the case that it wasn't like a cable company and wasn't doing anything customers couldn't do on their own at home.
Breyer seemed to suggest the company was too-cute-by-half as he announced the opinion.
He laid out the company's argument that its tiny antennae don't really transmit to the public and were private performances and then said, "Hmmm," followed by a long pause. Then he added: "Well, we think that this argument makes too fine a point." He illustrated by noting that "you can transmit a message to your friends whether you send identical emails to each friend or a single email all at once."
Barry Diller, a major Aereo investor, has said their business model would not survive a defeat in the Supreme Court. "It's not a big (financial) loss for us, but I do believe blocking this technology is a big loss for consumers, and beyond that I only salute Chet Kanojia and his band of Aereo'lers for fighting the good fight," Diller told CNBC.
Aereo chief executive Chet Kanojia called the decision "a massive setback for the American consumer" and said the company would continue to fight, without being specific. "We've said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today's decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry," Kanojia said in a statement.
The National Association of Broadcasters praised the court for rejecting Aereo's argument that the lawsuit was an attack on innovation. "Broadcasters embrace innovation every day, as evidenced by our leadership in HDTV, social media, mobile apps, user-generated content, along with network TV backed ventures like Hulu," NAB president Gordon Smith said.
Others who cheered the ruling were SAG-AFTRA, who represent actors and other on-air talent, and BMI, who ensure songwriters receive royalties.
Some justices worried during arguments in April that a ruling for the broadcasters could also harm the burgeoning world of cloud computing, which gives users access to a vast online computer network that stores and processes information. But Breyer said the court did not intend to call cloud computing into question.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Scalia said he shares the majority's feeling that what Aereo is doing "ought not to be allowed." But he said the court has distorted federal copyright law to forbid it. "Congress should decide whether the law "needs an upgrade," Scalia said.
Broadcasters including ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS sued Aereo for copyright infringement, saying Aereo should pay for redistributing the programming in the same way cable and satellite systems must or risk high-profile blackouts of channels that anger their subscribers.
The broadcasters and professional sports leagues also feared that nothing in the case would limit Aereo to local service. Major League Baseball and the National Football League have lucrative contracts with the television networks and closely guard the airing of their games. Aereo's model would pose a threat if, say, a consumer in New York could watch NFL games from anywhere through his Aereo subscription.
The federal appeals court in New York ruled that Aereo did not violate the copyrights of broadcasters with its service, but a similar service has been blocked by judges in Washington, D.C., as well as Los Angeles.
Staff Writer Rob Lowman contributed to this report.


text:
PAUL D. HAMILTON and DEBORAH HAMILTON,
1. The method of computation of the statute of limitations contained in Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(a) and in K.S.A. 60-206(a), the anniversary date method, is inapplicable to actions brought pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). The 6-year FIRREA statute of limitations begins to run on the date the claim accrues. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A)(i)(I) (1994).
2. The FIRREA 6-year statute of limitations provided for in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) (1994), begins to run on the later of either the date of the appointment of a conservator or receiver or on the date the cause of action accrues. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(B). The statute of limitations does not begin to run anew when the conservator is converted into a receiver.
Appeal from Linn District Court; RICHARD M. SMITH, judge. Opinion filed August 7, 1998. Affirmed.
David M. Fey and Jeffrey Stowman, of Anderson, Byrd, Richeson & Flaherty, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Darrell Smith, of Overland Park, for appellees.
Before BRAZIL, C.J., ELLIOTT and MARQUARDT, JJ.
BRAZIL, C.J.: Federal Financial Company (Federal Financial), plaintiff/appellant and assignee of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), filed this action against Paul D. Hamilton and Deborah Hamilton, defendants/appellees, to collect amounts owing on a promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage securing the promissory note. The court held that Federal Financial's action against the Hamiltons was barred by the 6-year statute of limitations for contract actions brought by the RTC or its assignees as provided in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) (1994). Federal Financial appeals the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Hamiltons.
We affirm.
"Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and our review is unlimited." In re Tax Appeal of Boeing Co., 261 Kan. 508, Syl. ¶ 1, 930 P.2d 1366 (1997).
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) sets forth a 6-year statute of limitations for contract actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A). That statute of limitations applies to actions brought by the RTC. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. International Ins. Co., 770 F. Supp. 300, 303 (E.D. La. 1991).
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) provides:
"Notwithstanding any provision of any contract, the applicable statute of limitations with regard to any action brought by the Corporation as conservator or receiver shall be -- (i) in the case of any contract claim, the longer of -- (I) the 6-year period beginning on the date the claim accrues; or (II) the period applicable under State law." (Emphasis supplied.)
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(B) provides:
"For the purposes of subparagraph (A), the date on which the statute of
limitations begins to run on any claim described in such subparagraph shall be the later of -- (i) the date of the appointment of the Corporation as conservator or receiver; or (ii) the date on which the cause of action accrues."
Both parties agree that as an assignee of RTC, Federal Financial acquired its ownership interest in the note and that the 6-year FIRREA statute of limitations applies rather than the 5-year Kansas statute of limitations. See Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Lewis, 254 Kan. 158, 166, 864 P.2d 718 (1993), cert. denied 511 U.S. 1053 (1994). The note matured on March 25, 1990. Federal Financial's cause of action accrued the following day, March 26, 1990. See Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Copple, 190 Kan. 170, 174, 373 P.2d 219 (1962); National Bank v. Paper Mfg. Co., 58 Kan. 207, 209, 48 Pac. 863 (1897).
Both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) and K.S.A. 60-206(a) provide that in computing any period of time, "the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included [and] [t]he last day of the period so computed is to be included. This is generally known as the anniversary date method of computation. See State v. Johnson, 19 Kan. App. 2d 315, 320-21, 868 P.2d 555 (1994). Federal Financial contends that since its cause of action accrued on March 26, 1990, that day is excluded from the calculation of the limitations period. By filing on the anniversary date of the accrual of the action, March 26, 1996, Federal Financial contends that its suit is within the 6-year statute of limitations period contained in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A). The trial court disagreed, relying on F.D.I.C. v. Enventure V., 77 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 1996). In Enventure V., the court addressed this same issue and determined that a claim filed on the 6-year anniversary date of the appointment of the FDIC as receiver was filed one day too late. 77 F.3d at 125-26. The court held that the method of computing the length of the statute of limitations contained in Rule 6(a) did not apply to that case because the language contained in the statute of limitations in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) was a more specific statute than was Rule 6(a). 77 F.3d at 126. The court reasoned that "Rule 6(a) is a general statutory rule concerning the computation of time" and that the phrase "'beginning on the date' which provides a specific reference to the beginning of the limitations period" overrides the application of Rule 6(a). 77 F.3d. at 125.
Federal Financial contends that the reasoning of the Enventure V. court is flawed and draws our attention to State v. Johnson, 19 Kan. App. 2d 315, in support of its argument that Rule 6(a) should apply. The Johnson court held that the provisions of K.S.A. 60-206(a) should apply to the statute of limitations contained in K.S.A. 60-513(a), which provided that certain noncontract actions "shall be brought within two years." 19 Kan. App. 2d at 316. The Johnson court stated that "the time provisions of K.S.A. 60-206(a) should be used to compute any time requirement found elsewhere in the statutes, including the statute of limitations, unless a statute expressly provides otherwise." 19 Kan. App. 2d 315, Syl. ¶ 1.
Federal Financial also relies upon Union National Bank v. Lamb, 337 U.S. 38, 93 L. Ed. 1190, 69 S. Ct. 911, reh. denied 337 U.S. 928 (1949), for the proposition that Rule 6(a) should apply to the present case.
However, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) and (B) expressly provide that the statute of limitations is to begin running on the date the cause of action accrues. Its wording is more specific than that contained in K.S.A. 60-513(a) or in 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) (1994). Under the anniversary date method of determining the starting date of the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the next day, giving the defendant a full day to fix the problem and giving the plaintiff a full day at the end of the year to file. See Johnson, 19 Kan. App. 2d at 319. Using this method, the last day to file would have been March 26, 1996. However, if we begin counting on the date the claim accrues, as is clearly mandated by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A), the last day to file would be March 25, 1996. Thus, the two statutes are in conflict. "General and special statutes should be read together and harmonized whenever possible, but to the extent a conflict between them exists, the special statute will prevail unless it appears the legislature intended to make the general statute controlling." State v. Le, 260 Kan. 845, Syl. ¶ 2, 926 P.2d 638 (1996); see State v. LaMunyon, 259 Kan. 54, Syl. ¶ 1, 911 P.2d 151 (1996). The provisions defining the start date of the statute of limitations contained in 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) and (B) deal specifically with this subject. Therefore, the court did not err in applying the reasoning of Enventure V. to the case at bar and finding that March 25, 1996, was the last day to file the case.
Next, Federal Financial contends that the statute of limitations should begin to run upon the conversion of the RTC's status from conservator to receiver. The FIRREA statute provides that the statute of limitations begins to run on "the later of -- (i) the date of the appointment of the Corporation as conservator or receiver; or (ii) the date on which the cause of action accrues." (Emphasis supplied.) 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(B). The RTC was appointed the conservator on February 15, 1990. The OTS converted the RTC into the receiver on July 16, 1992. Federal Financial urges us to interpret the statute so that the date the RTC was converted to a receiver should count as the date the statute of limitations began to run.
"In interpreting a statute, we must give effect to its plain and unambiguous language, without determining what, in our view, the law should be." State v. Reed, 23 Kan. App. 2d 661, 663, 934 P.2d 157, rev. denied 262 Kan. ___ (1997). Viewing the disjunctive "or" as used in subparagraph (i) as an indication that Congress intended us to treat the conversion of the RTC into the receiver as a starting over date for the running of the statute of limitations would not be in keeping with a plain reading of the statute. It appears that the legislature intended to make a distinction between the dates the RTC is appointed to a conservatorship or receivership and the date the cause of action accrued by placing these events in separate subparagraphs. Furthermore, the statute does not mention anything about the date of a conversion from conservatorship to receivership. "'[I]n construing statutes, "[s]tatutory words are presumed to have been and should be treated as consciously chosen and, with understanding of the ordinary and common meaning, intentionally used with the legislature having meant what it said." [Citation omitted.]'" State v. Crank, 262 Kan. 449, 451, 939 P.2d 890 (1997). Moreover, "[w]hen a statute is plain and unambiguous, the appellate courts will not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read such a statute so as to add something not readily found in the statute. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Lawson, 261 Kan. 964, 966, 933 P.2d 684 (1997). There is nothing to indicate that the intent behind this statute was to restart the time on the statute of limitations upon the conversion of the RTC to a receiver.


text:
Somewhere in her rural home on Roberts Island, Delta activist Rogene Reynolds keeps a storage bin filled with mementoes from decades past.
Somewhere in her rural home on Roberts Island, Delta activist Rogene Reynolds keeps a storage bin filled with mementoes from decades past.
But they're not cherished family photos or letters.
Reynolds' keepsakes include dog-eared reports by water wonks who have long since retired, and maps of California's immense water distribution system.
But the artifacts of which Reynolds is the fondest, perhaps, are the six fat folders containing the signatures of more than 14,000 people in protest of the notorious, the legendary, the dare-we-say dreaded peripheral canal.
"It seemed to me that maybe someone would be interested in all of this someday," said Reynolds, 64, and that day had come one recent morning as she showed her collection to visitors sitting at her kitchen table.
This week, the state is expected to release a draft of Gov. Jerry Brown's twin tunnels plan for the Delta. It is the first time since the old peripheral canal wars of the 1970s and early '80s that a comparable proposal will have been formally introduced.
Not that the tunnels are new. They've been under discussion for several years. More money has been spent preparing the tunnel plan on paper, in fact, than would have been spent building the canal itself in the 1960s (ignoring inflation, for the moment).
Officials call this week's unveiling a "major milestone." After dozens of public meetings and endless letters and correspondence between interest groups, citizens and government agencies, there will finally be an official proposal on paper.
And that means: Game on.
Tunnels opponents will try to link this new project to the peripheral canal, whose very mention invokes feelings of bitterness and division.
And tunnel supporters will point out significant differences between the two.
But the fundamental purpose of the tunnels remains the same: diverting water around the Delta rather than through it. And that idea remains just as unpopular around Stockton as it was 30 years ago - perhaps even more so.
"I never thought this would end, and I still don't think it will end. As long as we have water, they're going to be trying to take it," said Dante Nomellini, an attorney for Delta farmers and a grizzled veteran of the peripheral canal fight.
Keep an open mind, the state asks, as the 20,000-plus page plan hits the streets Monday. "We are one state," said the governor's point man on water, Jerry Meral, who was deputy director of the Department of Water Resources during the canal days.
"What the governor is clearly trying to do is look at the whole economy, the whole environment of the state," Meral said in an interview Thursday. "While I understand people's minds probably aren't going to change, it'd be helpful to put themselves in the shoes in people of other parts of the state and say, 'How do they feel about this?'
"The idea that this is a project that serves the whole state is the best plea I can make," Meral said.
After 30 years, we could all use a refresher course on what this is about.
Most of California's precipitation falls in the northern part of the state, while most of its people live in the south.
To rectify this, officials built the federal and then the state water projects to convey water from reservoirs in the north to farms and cities as far south as San Diego.
Today, that water flows down the Sacramento River into the Delta. Instead of remaining in the Delta and flowing out toward San Francisco Bay, it is sucked toward giant pumps near Tracy and fed into large aqueducts.
This system has forced the Delta to function in an unnatural way. The water flows from north to south instead of east to west. Threatened and endangered fish species are drawn down toward the giant pumps, an almost certain death.
Concern over the ever-declining fish populations sometimes forces officials to ratchet down the amount of water that can be delivered from the Delta. So as the environment has declined, so too has the state's water supply, particularly during dry years.
The old canal was supposed to divert water out of the Sacramento before it ever reached the Delta and whisk it around the estuary past Stockton to the pumps. This would boost supplies down south and eliminate the "reverse flow" that harmed fish.
But opponents believed it would also eliminate Delta agriculture, robbing the estuary of much-needed fresh water and allowing it to revert to a saltwater marsh.
Charles Weber III — the grandson of Stockton's founding father and one of the earliest critics of the canal — perhaps spoke for the community as a whole when in 1966 he proclaimed the concept as simply "stupid."
While similar, the canal and the tunnels are not exactly the same.
� Water exports: State officials made no bones that the canal would send more water south. The tunnels proposal is more modest, aiming to preserve water supplies at current levels.
� Size: The canal would have been enormous - up to 400 feet wide, and large enough to carry 22,000 cubic feet of water per second,. That's enough to supply a couple of families with a year's worth of water in the time it took to read this sentence.
The canal also would have cut right across 43 miles of rich farmland.
The new plan calls for pumping only 9,000 cfs from the river into two 40-foot-wide tunnels.
But in the end, the difference in capacity is not as significant as it seems. A good portion of the original 22,000 cfs would have been released from the canal into the various streams and sloughs which it passed on its trip around the Delta. The idea was to freshen up those waterways, a benefit that is not an option for underground tunnels.
� Habitat: While what was then known as the state Department of Fish and Game supported the canal for its perceived environmental benefits, the tunnels plan claims to offer even more protections under the Endangered Species Act.
To receive permits to build the project, wildlife officials must agree that it will benefit - even lead to the recovery - of dozens of separate species.
"I know everyone thinks this is all about water conveyance, and that's an important piece of it, but the whole approach this time I think is pretty unique," said Roger Patterson, assistant general manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. "It isn't just, 'Can you get the permits to build a facility?' It's a broader package."
One that brings about a whole new source of controversy, however. To help wildlife, the plan calls for converting 100,000 acres of Delta farmland into wetland habitat, an impact that opponents say makes the tunnel plan even more disruptive than the canal.
Habitat restoration has never been done at this scale in the Delta before, raising questions among experts how likely it will be to help species rebound as promised.
� Cost: In what should surprise no one, fixing the Delta would cost more in 2013 than it would have in 1977. Then, the canal was projected to cost $605 million; today, the tunnels are pegged at $14.5 billion (which doesn't include other aspects of the governor's plan). Even after inflation is taken into consideration, that's six-fold increase in cost.
It is more expensive to drill beneath the Delta, but also less disruptive to landowners, Meral said.
Those who would benefit from the tunnels would be on the hook to pay for them, and it remains to be seen whether those water users will want to proceed with the project.
� Recreation: The canal was pitched as a new playground for boaters and fishermen. Tunnels, obviously, are not.
� Water rights: The canal was authorized specifically by the state Legislature in a bill that also included certain protections for the Delta. Tunnel opponents say such protections are lacking today.
� Climate change, earthquakes: Neither appears to have been often cited as a reason for building the original canal, but both have become a big part of the push toward tunnels. State officials say they worry that an earthquake could topple Delta levees and disrupt the delivery of water, a notion hotly disputed by opponents who argue the levees are stronger than advertised and could be bolstered to prevent such a disaster at far less cost than drilling tunnels.
Where there is little difference between the canal and the tunnels is the question of trust.
Dan Odenweller of Stockton, who once worked as a marine biologist, supported the canal and says he still likes the idea of isolating the Delta's flows - provided the new systems are operated in a responsible way.
When he was with Fish and Game, Odenweller's job was to travel around the state and talk to people about why the canal was a good idea.
But afterward, as the years passed, he saw water quality standards in the Delta routinely violated even as water continued to be exported south.
He has now changed his mind.
"If you can't trust them," he said, "then don't give them the tools that allow them to do these things."
Tom Zuckerman, an attorney for Delta farmers, was heavily involved in the first fight alongside Nomellini. Canal opponents used three basic messages to defeat the project in a 1982 referendum, Zuckerman said: One, it cost too much; two, it was going to ruin the Delta; and three, they were stealing the water.
"If you look at those three messages, nothing has really changed," Zuckerman said.
"From my perspective, the biggest problem was and is that (the canal or tunnels) doesn't develop any new water," he said. "It simply redistributes an existing supply," one that is lacking because the State Water Project was never expanded to take water from North Coast rivers that have now been deemed wild and scenic and are off-limits.
The Delta pays the price for this shortcoming, Zuckerman and others believe.
Few seem surprised that the canal has resurrected in another form. These things tend to happen in cycles.
Not long after the first project was defeated by voters in 1982, Odenweller was in a meeting with a pollster. "He said it was their estimate that it would be 20 years before the canal would be mentioned again by a politician," Odenweller recalled. "It would take that long for the stigma to go away.
"By God," he said, "they were right on."
Contact reporter Alex Breitler at (209) 546-8295 or firstname.lastname@example.com. Visit his blog at recordnet.com/breitlerblog.


text:
April 2002
Prepared by Richard Milner & Vittorio Maestro, senior editors of Natural History
Darwin exhibit in 2005-6 at the American Museum of Natural History. Screenshot from exhibit web site.
The idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was advanced centuries before Charles Darwin was born. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "I cannot possibly believe," wrote Darwin in 1868, "that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts."
In some circles, however, opposition to the concept of evolution has persisted to the present. The argument from design has recently been revived by a number of academics with scientific credentials, who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley's) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics. These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept—known as intelligent design—included in the science curriculum of schools.
Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. Yet their proposals are getting a hearing in some political and educational circles and are currently the subject of a debate within the Ohio Board of Education. Although Natural History does not fully present and analyze the intelligent-design phenomenon in the pages that follow, we offer, for the reader's information, brief position statements by three leading proponents of the theory, along with three responses. The section concludes with an overview of the intelligent-design movement by a philosopher and cultural historian who has monitored its history for more than a decade.
The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
Intelligent Design position statement
By Michael J. Behe
Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.**
The Flaw in the Mousetrap: Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.
Evolution response to Michael J. Behe
By Kenneth R. Miller
To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design.
Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different — but still useful — functions.
Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.
He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine — it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.
The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.
And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems — they see evolution.
If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons — because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.
Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
Intelligent Design position statement
By William A. Dembski
In ordinary life, explanations that invoke chance, necessity, or design cover every eventuality. Nevertheless, in the natural sciences one of these modes of explanation is considered superfluous — namely, design. From the perspective of the natural sciences, design, as the action of an intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature. Rather, blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature's creating. Darwin's theory is a case in point.
But how do we know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence? Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable. What's more, within these sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying intelligence. Essential to all these techniques is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity.
For instance, how do the radio astronomers in Contact (the Jodie Foster movie based on Carl Sagan's novel of the same name) infer the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence in the beeps and pauses they monitor from space? The researchers run signals through computers that are programmed to recognize many preset patterns. Signals that do not match any of the patterns pass through the "sieve" and are classified as random. After years of receiving apparently meaningless "random" signals, the researchers discover a pattern of beats and pauses that corresponds to the sequence of all the prime numbers between 2 and 101. (Prime numbers, of course, are those that are divisible only by themselves and by one.) When a sequence begins with 2 beats, then a pause, 3 beats, then a pause… and continues all the way to 101 beats, the researchers must infer the presence of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
Here's why. There's nothing in the laws of physics that requires radio signals to take one form or another. The sequence is therefore contingent rather than necessary. Also, it is a long sequence and therefore complex. Note that if the sequence lacked complexity, it could easily have happened by chance. Finally, it was not just complex but also exhibited an independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one — the prime numbers).
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature — what I call "specified complexity." An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you'll witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, you'll have no reason not to attribute it to chance.
The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not just imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer shoots arrows into a wall and we then paint bull's-eyes around them, we impose a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance ("specified") and then the archer hits them accurately, we know it was by design.
In my book The Design Inference, I argue that specified complexity reliably detects design. In that book, however, I focus largely on examples from the human rather than the natural sciences. The main criticism of that work to date concerns whether the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation is not in fact fully capable of generating specified complexity. More recently, in No Free Lunch, I show that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms. It follows that chance and necessity are insufficient for the natural sciences and that the natural sciences need to leave room for design.
Mystery Science Theater: The case of the secret agent.
Evolution response to William A. Dembski
By Robert T. Pennock
William A. Dembski claims to detect "specified complexity" in living things and argues that it is proof that species have been designed by an intelligent agent. One flaw in his argument is that he wants to define intelligent design negatively, as anything that is not chance or necessity. But the definition is rigged: necessity, chance, and design are not mutually exclusive categories, nor do they exhaust the possibilities. Thus, one cannot detect an intelligent agent by the process of elimination he suggests. Science requires positive evidence. This is so even when attempting to detect the imprint of human intelligence, but it is especially true when assessing the extraordinary claim that biological complexity is intentionally designed.
In this regard, Dembski's archery and SETI analogies are red herrings, for they tacitly depend on prior understanding of human intellect and motivation, as well as of relevant causal processes. A design inference like that in the movie Contact, for instance, would rely on background knowledge about the nature of radio signals and other natural processes, together with the assumption that a sequence of prime numbers is the kind of pattern another scientist might choose to send as a signal. But the odd sequences found within DNA are quite unlike a series of prime numbers. Dembski has no way to show that the genetic patterns are "set up in advance" or "independently given."
Dembski has been promoted as "the Isaac Newton of information theory," and in his writings, which include the books he cites in the essay here, he insists that his "law of conservation of information" proves that natural processes cannot increase biological complexity. He doesn't lay out his case here, and a refutation would require too much space. Suffice it to say that a connection exists between the technical notion of information and that of entropy, so Dembski's argument boils down to a recasting of an old creationist claim that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that in the universe, there is a tendency for complexity to decrease. How then, ask the creationists, can evolutionary processes produce more complex life-forms from more primitive ones? But we have long known why this type of argument fails: the second law applies only to closed systems, and biological systems are not closed.
In the evolutionary process, an increase in biological complexity does not represent a "free lunch" — it is bought and paid for, because random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment, which itself is already structured. In fact, researchers are beginning to use Darwinian processes, implemented in computers or in vitro, to evolve complex systems and to provide solutions to design problems in ways that are beyond the power of mere intelligent agents.
If we really thought that genetic information was like the signal in Contact, shouldn't we infer we were designed by extraterrestrials? Intelligent-design theorists do sometimes mention extraterrestrials as possible suspects, but most seem to have their eyes on a designer more highly placed in the heavens. The problem is, science requires a specific model that can be tested. What exactly did the designer do, and when did he do it? Dembski's nebulous hypothesis of design, even if restricted to natural processes, provides precious little that is testable, and once supernatural processes are wedged in, it loses any chance of testability.
Newton found himself stymied by the complex orbits of the planets. He could not think of a natural way to fully account for their order and concluded that God must nudge the planets into place to make the system work. (So perhaps in this one sense, Dembski is the Newton of information theory.) The origin of species once seemed equally mysterious, but Darwin followed the clues given in nature to solve that mystery. One may, of course, retain religious faith in a designer who transcends natural processes, but there is no way to dust for his fingerprints.
Elusive Icons of Evolution: What do Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly really tell us?
Intelligent Design position statement
By Jonathan Wells
Charles Darwin wrote in 1860 that "there seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows." Although many features of living things appear to be designed, Darwin's theory was that they are actually the result of undirected processes such as natural selection and random variation.
Scientific theories, however, must fit the evidence. Two examples of the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution — so widely used that I have called them "icons of evolution" — are Darwin's finches and the four-winged fruit fly. Yet both of these, it seems to me, show that Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things.
Darwin's finches consist of several species on the Galápagos Islands that differ mainly in the size and shape of their beaks. Beak differences are correlated with what the birds eat, suggesting that the various species might have descended from a common ancestor by adapting to different foods through natural selection. In the 1970s, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant went to the Galápagos to observe this process in the wild.
In 1977 the Grants watched as a severe drought wiped out 85 percent of a particular species on one island. The survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks that enabled them to crack the tough seeds that had endured the drought. This was natural selection in action. The Grants estimated that twenty such episodes could increase average beak size enough to produce a new species.
When the rains returned, however, average beak size returned to normal. Ever since, beak size has oscillated around a mean as the food supply has fluctuated with the climate. There has been no net change, and no new species have emerged. In fact, the opposite may be happening, as several species of Galápagos finches now appear to be merging through hybridization.
Darwin's finches and many other organisms provide evidence that natural selection can modify existing features — but only within established species. Breeders of domestic plants and animals have been doing the same thing with artificial selection for centuries. But where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species?
New features require new variations. In the modern version of Darwin's theory, these come from DNA mutations. Most DNA mutations are harmful and are thus eliminated by natural selection. A few, however, are advantageous — such as mutations that increase antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide resistance in plants and animals. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance are often cited as evidence that DNA mutations provide the raw materials for evolution, but they affect only chemical processes. Major evolutionary changes would require mutations that produce advantageous anatomical changes as well.
Normal fruit flies have two wings and two "balancers" — tiny structures behind the wings that help stabilize the insect in flight. In the 1970s, geneticists discovered that a combination of three mutations in a single gene produces flies in which the balancers develop into normal-looking wings. The resulting four-winged fruit fly is sometimes used to illustrate how mutations can produce the sorts of anatomical changes that Darwin's theory needs.
But the extra wings are not new structures, only duplications of existing ones. Furthermore, the extra wings lack muscles and are therefore worse than useless. The four-winged fruit fly is severely handicapped — like a small plane with extra wings dangling from its tail. As is the case with all other anatomical mutations studied so far, those in the four-winged fruit fly cannot provide raw materials for evolution.
In the absence of evidence that natural selection and random variations can account for the apparently designed features of living things, the entire question of design must be reopened. Alongside Darwin's argument against design, students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.
The Nature of Change: Evolutionary mechanisms give rise to basic structural differences.
Evolution response to Jonathan Wells
By Eugenie C. Scott
Without defining "design," Wells asserts that "many features of living things appear to be designed." Then he contrasts natural selection (undirected) with design (directed), apparently attempting to return to the pre-Darwinian notion that a Designer is directly responsible for the fit of organisms to their environments. Darwin proposed a scientific rather than a religious explanation: the fit between organisms and environments is the result of natural selection. Like all scientific explanations, his relies on natural causation.
Wells contends that "Darwin's theory cannot account for all features of living things," but then, it doesn't have to. Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn't know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine.
Reading Wells, one might not realize the importance of the Grants' careful studies, which demonstrated natural selection in real time. That the drought conditions abated before biologists witnessed the emergence of new species is hardly relevant; beak size does oscillate in the short term, but given a long-term trend in climate change, a major change in average size can be expected. Wells also overstates the importance of finch hybridization: it is extremely rare, and it might even be contributing to new speciation. The Galápagos finches remain a marvelous example of the principle of adaptive radiation. The various species, which differ morphologically, occupy different adaptive niches. Darwin's explanation was that they all evolved from a common ancestral species, and modern genetic analysis provides confirming evidence.
Wells admits that natural selection can operate on a population and correctly looks to genetics to account for the kind of variation that can lead to "new features in new species." But he contends that mutations such as those that yield four-winged fruit flies do not produce the sorts of anatomical changes needed for major evolutionary change. Can't he see past the example to the principle? That the first demonstration of a powerful genetic mechanism happened to be a nonflying fly is irrelevant. Edward Lewis shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the role of these genes, known as the Ubx complex. They are of extraordinary importance because genes of this type help explain body plans — the basic structural differences between a mollusk and a mosquito, a sponge and a spider.
Ubx genes are among the HOX genes, found in animals as different as sponges, fruit flies, and mammals. They turn on or off the genes involved in — among other things — body segmentation and the production of appendages such as antennae, legs, and wings. What specifically gets built depends on other, downstream genes. The diverse body plans of arthropods (insects, crustaceans, arachnids) are variations on segmentation and appendage themes, variations that appear to be the result of changes in HOX genes. Recent research shows that fly Ubx genes suppress leg formation in abdominal segments but that crustacean Ubx genes don't; a very small Ubx change results in a big difference in body plan.
Mutations in these primary on/off switches are involved in such phenomena as the loss of legs in snakes, the change from lobe fins to hands, and the origin of jaws in vertebrates.HOX-initiated segment duplication allows for anatomical experimentation, and natural selection winnows the result. "Evo-Devo" — the study of evolution and development — is a hot new biological research area, but Wells implies that all it has produced is crippled fruit flies.
Wells argues that natural explanations are inadequate and, thus, that "students should also be taught that design remains a possibility." Because in his logic, design implies a Designer, he is in effect recommending that science allow for nonnatural causation. We actually do have solid natural explanations to work with, but even if we didn't, science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation. That's what Darwin did, and that's what we're trying to do today.
The Newest Evolution of Creationism: Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science.
By Barbara Forrest
The infamous August 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to delete references to evolution from Kansas science standards was heavily influenced by advocates of intelligent-design theory. Although William A. Dembski, one of the movement's leading figures, asserts that "the empirical detectability of intelligent causes renders intelligent design a fully scientific theory," its proponents invest most of their efforts in swaying politicians and the public, not the scientific community.
Launched by Phillip E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (1991), the intelligent-design movement crystallized in 1996 as the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Seattle think tank. Johnson, a law professor whose religious conversion catalyzed his antievolution efforts, assembled a group of supporters who promote design theory through their writings, financed by CRSC fellowships. According to an early mission statement, the CRSC seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies."
Johnson refers to the CRSC members and their strategy as the Wedge, analogous to a wedge that splits a log — meaning that intelligent design will liberate science from the grip of "atheistic naturalism." Ten years of Wedge history reveal its most salient features: Wedge scientists have no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims. But they do have an aggressive public relations program, which includes conferences that they or their supporters organize, popular books and articles, recruitment of students through university lectures sponsored by campus ministries, and cultivation of alliances with conservative Christians and influential political figures.
The Wedge aims to "renew" American culture by grounding society's major institutions, especially education, in evangelical religion. In 1996, Johnson declared: "This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." According to Dembski, intelligent design "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wedge strategists seek to unify Christians through a shared belief in "mere" creation, aiming — in Dembski's words — "at defeating naturalism and its consequences." This enables intelligent-design proponents to coexist in a big tent with other creationists who explicitly base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of Genesis.
"As Christians," writes Dembski, "we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient. … Nonetheless neither theology nor philosophy can answer the evidential question whether God's interaction with the world is empirically detectable. To answer this question we must look to science." Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility. Yet neither has actually done research to test the theory, much less produced data that challenges the massive evidence accumulated by biologists, geologists, and other evolutionary scientists. Wells, influenced in part by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, earned Ph.D.'s in religious studies and biology specifically "to devote my life to destroying Darwinism." Behe sees the relevant question as whether "science can make room for religion." At heart, proponents of intelligent design are not motivated to improve science but to transform it into a theistic enterprise that supports religious faith.
Wedge supporters are at present trying to insert intelligent design into Ohio public-school science standards through state legislation. Earlier the CRSC advertised its science education site by assuring teachers that its "Web curriculum can be appropriated without textbook adoption wars" — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around standard procedures. Anticipating a test case, the Wedge published in the Utah Law Review a legal strategy for winning judicial sanction. Recently the group almost succeeded in inserting into the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 a "sense of the Senate" that supported the teaching of intelligent design. So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.
© The American Museum of Natural History, 2002. Reprinted with permission from Natural History magazine and by permission of the authors. See reprint policy.


text:
wamid12's's Gamespot Rank
Level: 2 (23%)
wamid12's Emblems
E3 2012 Connoisseur of the Arts
E3 is about a lot of things (exhaustion, hot dogs, etc.) but if you can boil it down to its absolute purest form, it's a about the art. So that's why this viewer tuned into GameSpot's live stage show--so they could see the art live as it happened.
E3 2012 Literature Enthusiast - Day 2
Taking a break from watching YouTube videos of kittens playing with a ball of yarn, this viewer made the excellent decision to read the fine E3 coverage on GameSpot's official E3 site on day two of E3.


text:
Hypoglycemia on AIs
Dear OncoLink "Ask The Experts,"
I completed taxotere, carboplatin, and Herceptin chemotherapy in October. I started just Herceptin in October and Arimidex in November. I am an insulin-dependent diabetic; I wear an insulin pump. I have been experiencing severe hypoglycemic episodes requiring emergency room treatment since I started the Arimidex. I have spoken with my oncologist and my endocrinologist, and neither one has any helpful information, except, of course, to reduce my basal rates on my pump, which I had already done. Have you or your team had more experience with diabetics and chemo? Can you help me with any further guidance regarding my Arimidex?
Kevin R. Fox, MD, , responds:
Unfortunately, I have never encountered this problem. I would recommend empirically stopping the Arimidex and see if the episodes decrease, then consider an alternative form of hormonal treatment.


text:
Your browser does not support iframes.
Lancaster County Council will hold its final vote Monday, June 27, on the county's 2011-12 budget.
The $33,333,179 budget includes tax hikes of 1.2 mills in the county's general fund, a one-tenth of a mill increase in the University of South Carolina Lancaster fund and an increase of $5 in the county road fee.
Depending on which historical version you believe, the origin of Father's Day was based on the same premise – since there was a special day to honor mothers, father ought to have a day, also.
Sonora Smart Dodd is the name most associated with the origin of the special day. Dodd was listening to a Mother's Day sermon in 1909 when she came up with the idea. Her own father was the inspiration behind the idea. He was a Civil War veteran who raised six children on his own after his wife died.
Lancaster County District Superintendent Gene Moore knows a good thing when he sees it and doesn't mind saying so.
He's emphatic about retiring Superintendent Administrative Assistant JoAnne Mosier, noting the 34-year employee as one of the "best things about coming to Lancaster County as superintendent."
In her final 13 years at her job, Mosier also worked with former superintendents John Taylor and Dr. Pat Burns.
No matter who the superintendent was, Mosier worked with the same dedicated approach.
Our economy is chugging along and will continue to do so for a while. That's what a national economist told Lancaster County residents last month.
That bit of information was no real revelation for any of us. The signs of a sluggish economy – a stagnant real estate market with an abundance of homes for sale (many foreclosed), county unemployment rate of about 13.9 percent and an increase in numbers of people who need help with life's basic needs – have been apparent for while. And it doesn't appear to be getting better anytime soon.
Say or hear the initials "C.B." and quite likely the next name to come to mind, or be spoken, is Mathis.
C.B. Mathis became a household name not only in Lancaster, but also across the region and the nation.
"The name 'C.B.' became known, not only throughout our town, but throughout parts of the nation," said Tim Martin, who along with Mathis co-owned the real estate company C.O.R.E. Realty.
Mathis, a Lancaster native, died late last month, leaving a legacy of success in real estate as well as the world of pageantry.
The 2010-11 school term has been an award-winning year for the Indian Land area schools.
Earlier this spring, Indian Land High School earned a pair of Palmetto Gold awards. Those honors were quite a coup for academic success at the Lancaster County Panhandle Class AA high school.
Now Indian Land Middle School is in the spotlight again with its second national award.
Have a fun, but safe summer
It's easy to let your safety guard down right now. After all, it is summer. School's out. The beach, rivers and pools beckon. The longer days allow more time for outdoor activities – like boating, riding motorcycles and pursuing great adventures on all-terrain vehicles.
Take a good look at this week's Graduation 2011 special section. It's full of the graduates from all four county high schools, as well as Carolina Christian Academy.
In each school's section, you'll read about their top scholars, who will address their classmates as valedictorian and salutatorian at graduation ceremonies – today for the four county schools and June 3 for Carolina Christian.
Each May, a week is set aside to say thanks to teachers in our community.
Buford education legend Corbett Carnes, who has been retired some 38 years, still draws plenty of praise even though his days in the classroom have long been completed.
Fittingly enough, Carnes, who died earlier this month, is well-remembered for the impact he had on education in the eastern Lancaster County community.
The Lancaster County School District's recent Celebration of Excellence honored 258 students and 24 retirees and featured the induction of three new members into the LCSD's Education Hall of Fame.
The trio included Atlee Brown, W.C. Lewis and Charlene McGriff. All three were dedicated servants to the district for a number of years.
Copyright © 2019
The Lancaster News is your source for local news, sports, events, and information in Lancaster County and Lancaster, South Carolina, and the surrounding area..


text:
I must admit, that having grown up during the "Beatles boom" and seeing the next generation come up, including my own two daughters, there is less of a "generation gap" between my generation and our children than ever before! This is largely due to the lifestyle of our generation, which has been for the most part, embraced, but even more due to the music! Sure, they have their own music's of choice, such as Rap, Hip-hop and Heavy Metal, all genres that we find a little hard to swallow, but the magic of the guitar is as big, if not even bigger, than ever.
This is also exemplified in how many very young, almost too young students are brought to me by their parents, all of whom would think it would be just the cutest thing to see their kids as "rock stars!" This is not, of course, where I am coming from, and I was lucky enough to have my dad picture and encourage me as a guitarist, simply due to his passion for Flamenco music! He could see that I was picking things up off the record easily at ten years old, and that the violin just didn't "do it" for me!
The difference is that he really saw it for me in an artistic way, and far too many people, who only dabbled in music and want their children to do the same, are trying to vicariously live the "rock star" thing through their kids. And believe me, this is even sometimes when the kids could care less about playing the guitar!
Still, we are a generation that expressed itself perhaps most eloquently through our music, and the kids today (who may be you!) are very much grabbing ahold of what we also held so near and dear to our hearts. I mean there are "Dead Head" kids, 8 year-old Heavy Metal "shredders", 12 year-old Blues phenoms and on and on. What gets passed along in a family is always the strongest, and not only the love of music can be passed on, but also, of course, the taste in music. Some of it, like The Beatles for example, will simply never fall out of favor, simply because of their universal appeal, songs, talent, attitude and general charisma that just simply can't be denied, and which is so infectious! If I listen to any Beatles' recording, I am immediately transported back to what that song meant to me back then, and feel what it still means to me now!
So remember that whether you are aware of it or not, you are "passing it on" to your and other kids when it comes to your love of music. Just don't force them in a damaging way to have to like certain groups or players they may not find appealing just yet, since they also must find their own way, and their own taste. Bottom line…….there really is no "generation gap", especially when it comes to the guitar! Enjoy!
Even though I at times become a bit lax in taking care of my own instruments as the seasons vary and change, I feel it's important to make sure that you get a good head start when it comes to taking good care of your guitars!
Repairs can be very expensive these days, and truly fine luthiers who we can actually trust with our precious instruments are few and far between for sure. So it's best to try to keep these things from happening as much as possible. First, I must say, that most guitars should always be kept in their cases when not being played. I know that can be a drag, when we love to look at these things as much as we love to play them, and I myself, like to sometimes have as many as 11 or 12 of them out for the looking and the grabbing! I always try to wipe my strings down after playing them a lot, to keep the grime from building up on them, but I also use alcohol on a paper towel to really clean them off. You'd be amazed at how long your strings can last by sticking to this cleaning method.
Another thing I've taken to in a very big way lately is trying to preserve and keep my necks from warping, ad my tops from lifting by keeping the guitars always tuned down. Most of my instruments are kept in Eb, and often even down to D. If I need them to be up to normal pitch, I will tune up for that, but when I'm done, I always slacken the strings. This is also a very good habit for you to get into, even on solid body guitars, since it's great to take a bit of tension off the neck.
Humidity control is a big issue, and with me living in a high-humidity area, and it being the cold Northeast, we also have to deal with indoor heating that can truly dry out and crack the guitars. Unfortunately, a guitar seems to sound best "just before it cracks", since dry wood breathes and has a much more "open" sound than wood that is saturated with moisture. Still, it's a good idea to keep a humidifier of some kind in the case, especially provided the case is tight enough to hold the moisture in.
If you wish to humidify a room where you have the guitars stored or on stands, make sure the room is a space small enough in which a humidifier can make a difference. Huge, open and high-ceiling rooms end up dissipating the moisture too much for it to make any real difference for the guitars, so you may as well give up on any big room…too dry, especially if it's heated.
Some of these instances of cracking, etc., can be rather cataclysmic, so you must be very careful to always note just what environment you are introducing a guitar into. The most heartbreaking one for me was when a man who was actually the original owner of an acoustic guitar from 1908 gave me this guitar, along with another which was from 1888! The moment I introduced this flawless '08 beauty into my dry, overly-heated living room, I heard a loud "crack" from across the room! Sure enough, the top, which had survived since 1908 without a problem, got a huge crack in it while the guitar had only been in my possession for about an hour!
So, that experience taught me a lot, and I hope this kind of trauma never befalls you! Remember, these instruments are only in our care for a short time, and we give them life by playing them and caring for them. Keep this in mind as you preserve them for future generations!
I always like to say that when I teach privately, I really like to gear what I teach directly to that particular student. This is true for the most part, and of course, there are many foundational things a pupil must know to really set the record straight. This cannot, however, be introduced to every person at the same point in their development, because everyone learns differently. I find that all students have their own particular pace at which they learn, and of course, certain things appeal to some folks, while other things appeal to others.
Getting "familiar" with just what a student needs and what makes him or her "tick" is really key, and that takes good "people skills" in general to make it happen right. Many of my private students have established a long-term relationship with me, and the communication that exists between us is extremely sensitive and has been "fine-tuned" to excellent detail.
If you are teaching, or still taking private lessons, it's very important for you to be aware of this process, and be sure that you understand the various "ups and downs" that can be experienced. I know my students are always sure to point out to me when I am "high energy" in a good way, and even though they rarely state it, I can tell when they can see that I am at a low ebb, or not doing so well in general. It's certainly hard when one has given so many thousands of hours of lessons as I have, to always stay in top form, especially when it can be hard to "tune out" some of life's extraneous pressures and happenings! Still, it's important to develop that "rhythm" between student and teacher, so one can truly "read" the situation to the best of his or her ability.
After many years, some of my students really feel so at home, that I feel awful even asking for money from them! Student/teacher relationships can really evolve into other things as well, such as when I used to privately teach Paul Simon guitar for an hour, but it would turn into a 2 to 3 hour song-writing extravaganza! This was certainly illuminating for me as well as Paul, and turned out to be such a rewarding and "one of a kind" experience! All teachers should have such a rewarding experience with their students as I have had, because it certainly results in a constantly ongoing learning experience for all! I mean, it truly was teaching that enabled me to learn as much as I did, so I could pass it on. Being self-taught, it was almost a necessity that I teach others, so I could always be delving more and more into the "really good stuff", so my students can always feel like they're getting the "real thing", which they certainly are!
So get closer and closer with your student or your teacher, and see just how much more it will make things flourish! You'll never know; like me, you may be teaching some of them for as much as twelve years, if not more! Good luck!
It's a very important turning point in one's development when they decide what really turns them on or not when it comes to the kind of guitar music you want to listen to. I had become very opinionated at a very young age, and this of course went hand in hand with the fact that I was absorbing so much and playing at such a high level for a young person. In those days, I had started off on Classical guitar, which gave me an enormous respect for the instrument in general, especially with my little ten year-old fingers doing all that stretching. I quickly fell for The Beatles when they came out, and had to rush out and get an electric guitar the very next day!
This basically meant I was to go on a path that so many other players of that era followed….where we loved the pop music of the time, and quickly got into the roots of it, just the way these bands we loved had done. It was so amazing to think that it took British bands like the Beatles and The Stones, and many more, to show the Americans what we had been missing for as little as five years! It seemed as if the "roots" of Rock n' Roll had vanished, and the Chuck Berrys and even the Elvis's had left our consciousness. But what the phenomenon of The Beatles and others caused was that we all now wanted to play, and have bands of our own, and be cool "like that!" This caused me to start looking into the root of what caused these players to sound the way they sounded, and before I knew it, I was listening to Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Son House, Robert Johnson, Hank Williams and on and on.
But what was also happening was me learning what impressed my ear and what didn't. I was having a simultaneous love affair with Country as well as Blues guitar, and loved the sound of a pedal steel as much as Delta Blues slide! In my opinion, all of these early forms of great American "roots" music are not really all that different from one another, and all you have to do is listen to the great "singing brakeman" Jimmie Rodgers to know just how fine that Country/Blues division line is!
Many youngsters these days are attracted to the players who can shred the fastest, and who have the most showmanship in their acts, which I guess has always been a factor, but eventually the guitar taste buds must start to branch out and become more refined. It's kind of like wanted your first car to be a Corvette, and to immediately go from 0-60 in 3 seconds! Eventually, you have to slow it down, and start to appreciate more of the subtleties in guitar playing, and the players who bring out the many interesting and emotive nuances of this instrument we love so much!
So as you're listening to Randy Rhoads, a great player, also take the time to see the subtleties of a B.B. King, for example. Or while Black Sabbath may turn you on, take a listen to Son House, and hear that same kind of power emitting from one man and his guitar! Fine tune your listening skills, and you'll inevitably be fine-tuning your playing too!
There are many times we find ourselves in jamming situations, often simply with another guitar player, and these can be very rewarding, yet sometimes frustrating times as well. The bottom line about any musical situation such as this is that you want to take away as much that is positive from it!
Far too many players these days are very limited in the rhythm guitar department, so much so that I'd have to say it's become a largely "lost art!" There seems to be no shortage of folks who are happy to play a million notes a minute, but when it comes time for them to back you up, all bets are off! You may have experienced this as a lead player, begging for adequate backup, or you may even be "that" person, who can only shred, but not know a "shred" of rhythm!
Regardless, this can all change, and when you are jamming with someone, it's so important to be able to really "tune in" to what that other player is doing. You should be able to follow his or her musical thought process on the guitar thoroughly, and be able to pick up on subtle melodic, as well as rhythmic shifts and changes. I know that when I am "backing up" somebody, I find myself throwing in little harmonies, rhythm changes and other things that are prompted solely by the other player's actions. This is an incredible learning tool, and that ability to really "tune in" to what another player is doing is what really separates the good players from the great players, in my opinion. Maybe that's why I so like to discuss my old "sideman" days….the times when for me, it was all about "listening" and being creative with it too. The head-cutting jams I used to have with other players in my College for example, were literally mind-blowing, and used to attract crowds of hundreds of student onlookers who seemed to sense they were watching something "important" happening before their eyes.
What was happening was the development of a player, (myself), who was truly developing the fin art of listening and "playing off of" another player at the same time. Words cannot express the importance of this kind of jamming, and the necessity of learning to "listen carefully" to what the other player is doing! In the end, it will make you a better player, sideman, lead as well as rhythm player, and even a better composer. Because after all, when we are coming up out ideas as players, right on the spot, we are unquestionably composing!
By this time, I'm sure you're developing as a player, which also means you're experiencing certain "low points" or even "gaps" within your playing. Don't let this get you too down, because not only do we all experience this, but it's really just another part of your natural development as a guitar player.
Filling in the "gaps" of your playing as a guitarist is really another way of saying you should start opening your ears to more styles, techniques and musical genres. I know that my wonderfully "hybrid-ed" style of Blues, Country, Rock, Jazz and more is all the result of falling in love with many styles of music all at once, and letting it all "assimilate" over time. For example, when I first fell in love with Blues, I was already playing classical, which automatically lent my finger style to it, and then as I fell in love with Country, my string bending took on a whole new meaning. Yet, this was all done in a natural, albeit pretty rapid-fire way, due to the fact that I was learning as I was pursuing my profession as a performing and recording guitarist.
You may feel as if you're stuck in a "rut", but digging out of that rut may be as simple as finding a new little twist or turn at a certain juncture on the fret board that can open up a whole new world to you! It can be as simple as taking a position that is well-known to you, being played by the third finger perhaps, and suddenly playing that same note with the first finger instead! Believe it or not, that alone, which is also often done mistakenly, could turn the entire passage or position into a whole new opening of possibilities for you!
I am firmly convinced that many times the mistakes we make can, if we listen and are "tuned in", turn into new major learning experiences. I can totally attest to this, since I am totally self-taught, and "trial and error" was something I was always forced to learn through!
Also, another thing I did a lot in my learning process was to substitute certain techniques and styles for others! This, as I'm sure you've seen is also something I advocate through my teaching. Let "slides" and "hammer-ons" become "bends", "pull-offs" become bend "releases" and on and on……think double-stops instead of always single-note playing and so much more! All this will open up new doors for you, and most of all, don't shut yourself off from any style just because you don't love the music! Even Heavy Metal players, wish they could play hot and fast clean Country guitar!! Best of luck!
There's no doubt that as we continue to develop as real players, there are many "mysteries" of the fretboard that should keep on Un-raveling for us. In the beginning, we look at a riff for example, and by putting 2 and 2 together, we realize that it can be repeated all over the neck, in identical fashion, just in new key positions. After a while though, we should be able to see beyond this scope of self-teaching, and be able to see the neck and notes in a more "three-dimensional" way, as opposed to "two dimensional." This takes time, and not all of us have the mathematical and logical kinds of minds that can easily grasp all of these things, especially when it's how they relate to the actual sound they make that is the real learning experience!
I've also had way too many pupils come to me who have been given a textbook's worth of knowledge about scales, modes and all other kinds of mind-numbing theatrics, all to no avail, and who are still just as confused as ever! (If not more so!) This is because rather than take a direct one-on-one approach and give the student what they really need, their previous teacher was just "going through the motions" by giving them a ton of info to absorb, with no real music or purpose behind it! This can be a more serious problem than you think, because if it's done at an age when the student is extremely motivated to learn and is very impressionable, a lot of this "useless" information could leave them searching like "babes in the woods!"
When I teach privately, and as you can probably also notice from my Gibson.com lessons, I have a much more "hands on" approach that insists on whatever I'm showing you, make musical sense, and that it becomes instantly useful and enjoyable to the student. This is how I taught myself, and of course I had the double good fortune of being able to really trust my ear, and to, at the same time be a young professional who was really "out there" in the world of music, putting it all to use right on the spot!
When you're onstage, in front of an audience, it's "do or die", and whatever you play will either communicate with those people out there, or it will leave them flat and un-interested. Again, as I was going through this period, I was certainly still unlocking the "mysteries" of the guitar, but I was being very careful to not try too much too soon, but also to know when the time was right to expand and experiment beyond what I did already know!
So much is "trial and error" as you keep developing that ear along with your guitar skills, and believe me, when those "errors" occur, it's a great way of learning what not to do in the future!
So, feel totally free to experiment and improvise, but do it in an intelligent and thoughtful way; always keep your music at the forefront, and always play what feels and sounds like music! Don't just settle for scales and modes, it's a frustrating and "backdoor" way for many people to learn, and it's certainly no "shortcut" for those of us who really want to truly know the fretboard!
The move one must often make from acoustic to electric playing can be a real eye AND ear opener! First, you really must understand that after being relatively comfortable on the acoustic guitar, it's going to take you awhile to get accustomed to the many changes and adaptations this can mean! I had a very unusual path in my guitar playing, where I started with Classical guitar, then switched to electric, (never totally leaving the Classical behind!), and then adding steel-string acoustic to my arsenal in 1975.
What this did for me, and I think also as a result of the kind of music I was playing, was to almost force me to adapt to and create a new kind of acoustic style that was a true merger of my electric as well as acoustic techniques. I felt no reason why the steel-string acoustic should hold me back from the wonderful and expressive things I did on the electric guitar, such as string bending and vibrato. Most folks automatically think they can't bend on an acoustic…of course you can, you just can't bend as much! Yes, the high E and B strings can do an admirable job of half and whole-step bends, as well as the low E and A, but the D and G strings, even in light gauge format, can really only manage half-step bends, which are just fine with me! And in general, you'll find half-step bends much more user friendly on an acoustic, and I do not recommend doing any serious acoustic bending unless you have light gauge strings at the most!
Also remember, if going from acoustic to electric, now you are amplified, and even the simple act of strumming must change if it's to fit into the context of being so much louder. I always tell students that they should understand that the acoustic must have the sound really wrenched and projected out of it with literally hard labor, while an electric must be controlled. And it takes a lot to learn to create that control for sure…when players like Jimi Hendrix are bashing and thrashing, and Pete Townshend is doing windmills, those guys have total control of their instruments! Only when using proper blocking and dampening skills, can they do such a good job of isolating strings at such a high volume. That's why I have always found it kind of comical when some of the many acoustic Folk artists I've worked with take an electric and start strumming like it was some big, fat acoustic guitar, only to be shocked by how "out of control" and out of their element they felt and sounded!
Of course "control" is critical for all guitar playing, bot acoustic and electric, but the subtleties are quite variable, and each instrument has its own set of characteristics to bring to the table.
So there's no doubt that when you do make the switch, you'll find that the new instrument will bring forth new challenges, and that there is no doubt that your own stylistic "stamp" will be created as a result of the blend. There's no doubt about it, and I sure hope you enjoy exploring the possibilities!
I know it may sound a bit harsh, but you can really serve yourself well by being your own worst critic! By this I mean that you should be highly critical of your own playing, and in essence, never be truly satisfied with what it is you're doing. This applies in my opinion, especially to the creative side of things. After all, this is a creative process we are going through as guitarists, and we must always be learning and growing. If we stop that, we might as well give up! The worst thing is for anyone to get themselves into a little "box" where they feel so secure with the small amount they actually do know, that they are literally "afraid" to step out over the boundaries!
Breaking the very rules we think are there to make music is what music is all about. Science is always being re-defined, and music is certainly a very "scientific" endeavor. It involves sound, time and space, and many other "intangibles" such as emotion and your own personal level of expression. These are things that cannot be pre-prescribed, nor understood by even a teacher….it's really in the end, totally up to you!
I know that when I am onstage, for example, if I start to fall into a musical "rut", or play something that to me, is way too predictable, I feel as if I've let myself down! Sure, there are songs with riffs we have to include and "get to", but it's learning to play "outside" of those comfortable realms that we should really always be striving for! The audience is actually tuning in to your thought process as you play, and they are hearing your pure expression. If you break that train of thought, or lose your focus, so will the audience, and odds are, they'll start to talk or ignore you. This is of course, a rather extreme occurrence I am referring to, but it does happen, and even though most people listening to you won't nearly have your musical knowledge, you will still be "losing" them on a very gut level, where they're not sure what's wrong, but they'll at least know they don't like it!
That being said, it's critical for you as a growing musician to always remember that it's you who must first be pleased with your own playing, then all else will grow and flourish from there! I have always been my own worst critic, but at the same time, I realize how important it is to take note of the strides I have made, when I make them. The recognition of the good progress is extremely important for you to hone, and it's those little steps ad giant leaps that will keep you coming back, and hungering for more!
So stay hungry, stay creative, and most of all, stay critical of your playing; in the long run, it'll always help you to improve!
Well, this is basically what I am doing these days, and it takes a lot to "juggle" so much at one time! I have been working on a terrific new personal album, as well as working on my daughter Lexie Roth's second solo album. I have been doing sessions on the new Lou Pallo Les Paul tribute album, along with major artists such as Steve Miller, Jose Feliciano, Bucky Pizzarelli, Billy Gibbons and Keith Richards! It's a very exciting project I am honored to be a part of, and my daughter even got to sing "Via Con Dios" on the album as well! My contribution is a lightning fast version of "Mr. Sandman"! On top of this, I've been recording solo acoustic pieces for a Burt Bacharach Tribute album, as well as a Lieber and Stoller Tribute!
There's certainly nothing like being busy as a musician, and especially in the very creative realm I've been occupying these days. There's no question that making a living as a guitar player can be a daunting task, and you certainly may have to work at what will feel like several jobs, while putting it all under the one heading of being a "guitar player!" This means you can be teaching, touring, recording, writing, songwriting and Lord knows what else! Regardless of how much you may have to do, as long as it fits under the basic heading of "guitar", you can at least feel like you're progressing in your career. Many folks in other artistic fields such as acting, etc., may have to do more of your typical "other" kinds of jobs, such as waiting tables or whatever, while as guitarists, we actually have many options of what we can do to support ourselves and our families.
I can vividly recall just what it was like when I decided that with the phone not ringing for any work on the road or the studio, and my money down to basically nothing, it was time to start that taped instruction business that ended up being called "Hot Licks"! This enabled me to teach literally millions of people worldwide, and to keep on coming out with new product for the voracious appetite musicians have for more knowledge! Sure enough, I was able to do something that was an entirely new thing within the music industry, while turning people onto my playing and my music. I was also able to keep writing books, doing Guitar Player Magazine columns, occasional tours such as Simon and Garfunkel, the "Crossroads" film and so much more. Most importantly, I was able to continue in music ad guitar, while being able to be there for my two daughters, and to watch them grow up.
So remember that as you pursue the inevitable "juggling act" one must do to remain in music, you have to weigh everything, and how each move you make affects your overall career "profile." Thanks to the internet, there are many more possibilities for spreading the word about your music much more quickly than in the old days, so take advantage of that for sure! As long as it all adds up to a better, fuller reputation as a player, you'll be doing the right thing for sure!