Wow. My coworker's husband is a regional manager for an EMS company here. He's now coordinating their efforts for NOLA - they sent 50 of their people down last night, and another 40 plus 20 ambulances this morning. The folks who went down last night were slated to relieve the people working the Superdome, and they at least initially weren't able to make that happen because of the gunfire, etc. She hasn't been able to reach him to find out what the situation is now. But something I hadn't thought of - Labor Day weekend is about the worst time something like this could have happened as far as emergency services go. They're normally strapped this weekend as is, and going into it down by a hundred or more people? Yikes. I'll be really interested to hear from her what he has to say about the situation - assuming she talks to him anytime soon. He only made it home for a couple of hours' sleep last night.
William ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Natter .38 Special
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Allyson has the prettiest hair, too.
Yeah, see, I don't know that the looting is being overstated:
*************
Looters set fire to Oakwood Shopping Center in Terrytown today.
The fire was reported at 12:56 p.m., and firefighters fought the blaze for more than an hour before giving up, said Bryan Adams of the Terrytown Volunteer Fire Department.
"There's just no water and the fire was out of hand,'' an emotional Adams said, adding that crews had to fight the blaze with one hose and water from a canal. "I've lived in this communitiy all my life --45 years. It's tough.''
Adams said the fire was intentionally set in multiple locations by people who apparently went in to loot the mall. Authorities found a ladder on the side of a building and a vent ripped off the roof allowed suspects to gain access, he said.
Cute boys with hearts as black as pitch?
Yes. Even cute DJ boys with hearts as black as pitch, who are still very sweet.
Allyson does have incredible hair, is very pretty, and by all rights should be GA(lot).
I want to get on Jilli's list too.
In these authors' defence, two out of four of these theories were once, and for a long time, considered legitimate science, before science became more rigorous in its "oh yeah? Prove it!" hard-headedness.
That's a good point, Nutty, but two out of four of those theories were strictly scientific theories, even if they are now considered archaic. ID is not. And lots of people, who aren't trying to cram ID into a science book, actually believe in it right now, and don't take kindly to others comparing said ideas to medieval "sciences" or origin myths.
And of course the Holocaust revisionist thing is a shock tactic, but isn't that the point of Godwin's?
Yes, ID is a religious argument, and belongs firmly in church and not in science class. But minimizing ID by calling it, sequentially, a historical idea, a popular logical fallacy, and an origin myth; and then ridiculing ID by comparing it to alchemy, phlogiston, stork theory, and (in the classic application of Godwin's Law) holocaust revisionism? It's offensive, and only hurts their otherwise well-written article.
I don't know. The tone of the article can be criticized, but surely Intelligent Design is an origin myth. It is a belief about origins that is based on a shared world view rather than on data. And alchemy and phlogiston were unsupported beliefs tarted up to ride on the coat tails of science. The were "designed" as pseudoscience, so that they resembled science in superficial ways and would be confused with science by people who respected but did not understand science. The same is true of Intelligent Design.
Storks and the holocaust? I agree that these were unfortunate choices and did not advance the argument.
And lots of people, who aren't trying to cram ID into a science book, actually believe in it right now, and don't take kindly to others comparing said ideas to medieval "sciences" or origin myths.
But, but, irreducible complexity-- which is what ID is based on-- has been pretty soundly refuted, as here [link] If people "believe" in it, it's not because of the unimpeachable science of it. It does seem like various self-serving and unproven theories to me.
Jilli's list makes me feel like strawberry jelly.