Alfred, New York



Weather in:
Alfred
Current Conditions
Fair
Temperature: 36.5 °F

Humidity: 51 %
Wind Speed: 7 mph SW
Pressure: 29.95 "

Dew Point: 20 °F
Gusts: 24 mph SSW
Rain Today: 0.00 "






link to this page from your site or blog!:

  • Alfred News
    Local news for Alfred, NY continually updated from thousands of sources on the web.

  • Alfred Classifieds
    Local classifieds for Alfred, NY

    • Source: Freebase – The World's Database
    Freely licensed under CC-BY.

    Questions Possibly Related to Alfred, New York

    Provided By Y! Answers

    Hornell/Alfred New York?
    Question:
    Can someone tell me what malls are around the alfred/hornell areas of new york. I'm looking for the name of a mall about an hour away from alfred. Its about an hour away when your coming up from new york city. Or if you could tell me the name of the town or city its in that would be good too. I remember seeing a sign or exit for a mall on 17 on my way to alfred and traveling about an hour after seeing that sign. thanks veryyy much to anyone who can help.

    Answer:
    http://oleancentermall.com/

    information on riot at york county jail, alfred, maine, 2001?

    Answer:
    http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/yorkweekly/yw8_1f.htm

    I am looking for information about an English artist called Alfred Gill. He is probably from the York area.?

    Answer:
    Alfred Gill is a hack and a disgrace to the crown.

    How can I find out if two editions of the same book are identical?
    Question:
    The book "My name is Red", by Orhan Pamuk, was first published in paperback in the UK, by Faber and Faber. It was also published in the USA, by Alfred A. Knopf Inc, New York, 2001, in hardcover. As I want it for a gift, I would prefer to buy the hardcover, but only, if it is identical to the Faber and Faber (UK) edition. How can I find that information? I appreciate your help. L.

    Answer:
    Turkish and English are very different in word order and sentence structure, and a few readers have found the word order in the English translation difficult. However, Erdağ M. Göknar's translation of My Name is Red received very high praise from John Updike in The New Yorker: "Erdağ M. Goknar deserves praise for the cool, smooth English in which he has rendered Pamuk's finespun sentences, passionate art appreciations, sly pedantic debates, [and] eerie urban scenes." Many readers and critics consider My Name is Red to be Pamuk's best work in English translation. It has won more international awards than any of his other novels. The translator was present on Pamuk's behalf to accept the IMPAC award at Dublin, and, as is customary with this award, received a one-fourth share of the prize. Both the Faber & Faber and Alfred A Knopf versions are translated by the same translator and there is no difference. The different publishers have to do with copyright reasons.

    Do you belong to the "new Church of Global Warming"?

    Answer:
    Nope!!!!!

    Which one are we in: Recession, Depression and/or Inflation economy?
    Question:
    INFLATION: Inflation is the loss in purchasing power of a currency unit such as the dollar, usually expressed as a general rise in the prices of goods and services. A classic example is the Great Inflation of the Roman Empire. In modern times inflation continues to be blamed on private greed, and governments still seek to restrain it by decree, sometimes even devaluing their currencies as they do so. The United States has experienced much inflation during the twentieth century, especially since official efforts to maintain the gold price at thirty-five dollars an ounce ceased during the presidency of Richard Nixon (through the "gold window" open only to foreign central banks). An annual inflation rate of 4 to 5 percent, once thought to be calamity, has become routine. OR TO PUT IT SIMPLY: A CHARGE TO THE UNITS (SMALLER UNITS)! Depression: The depression had devastating effects both in the industrialized countries and in those which exported raw materials. International trade declined sharply, as did personal incomes, tax revenues, prices, and profits. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries The even larger question is whether it was largely a failure on the part of free markets or largely a failure on the part of governments to not exacerbate widespread bank failures and the resulting panics and reduction in the money supply. Those who believe in a large role for governments in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem. Inequality of wealth & income: Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[22]: RECESSION: A recession is a contraction phase of the business cycle. A common rule of thumb is that a recession occurs when real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is negative for two or more consecutive quarters. In the USA, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines it more broadly as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."[1] A sustained recession may become a depression.

    Answer:
    Is there such a word as inflassion?

    I have alfred hitchcock spellbinders book. need to know if first edition, it only says copyright 1967 no other
    Question:
    It is illustrated by Harold Isen - two tone color, published by Random House - has 206 pages of different suspense stories. I know that it is before 1970 for sure because of receipt used for page marker. States that copright is 1967 , published in New York by Random House and simultaneously in Toronto, Canada, by Random House of Canada Limited. LibrarY Of Congress Catalog Card number : 67-20703.

    Answer:
    Here's what the listing was like for a first edition of the book you mention: Hitchcock, Alfred (Editor) & Various Contributors. ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S SPELLBINDERS IN SUSPENSE. New York City, NY: Random House, 1967. Hardcover. First Edition/First Printing. 206 pages. Very Good+/Very Good+. Signed. Price-clipped. A few more: First ed Hardcover 10x7 color illustrated dustjacket/endpapers&insideHarold ISen illustrator206pgs light soil on foredges and flap of dj text as new Comments: Publisher: Random House Children's Books Date of Publication: 1967 Binding: Hard Cover Condition: Very Good/Very Good Description: 039481665x 206 pp., light binding wear, bottom spine corner worn. Jacket corners creased, top spine jacket tattered, plastic starting to peel on back cover. Good+ / illustrated glossy boards Cornors bumped with wear / text clean I saw one that said dust jacket, hard to find, and some just say pictorial hardback. Did it have one or not? Seems like yes. One also has an ISBN. I've had some beautiful books that I learned were book club editions, though it didn't say so. The giveaway was no price on the jacket. I didn't see a website with Hitchcock first edition info, but sounds like you have the right one. I did see a few other dates on Amazon (1972 being one and a paperback edition.)

    Do Creationists lie about there not being a missing link to evolution? Ever hear of homo erectus?
    Question:
    Creationist Arguments: Homo erectus Exciting new evidence about Homo erectus, see below! The only Homo erectus fossils mentioned by many creationists (Huse 1983; Morris and Parker 1982; Taylor 1992) are the Java Man and Peking Man fossils. Many creationists traditionally considered both to be apes, but Lubenow (1992) considers both human, and that is becoming the accepted opinion in creationist circles. There are even a few creationists who consider Java Man an ape and Peking Man a human, despite the fact that many books stress their very close similarity. A few authors do mention other erectus fossils in passing. Morris suggests, although it is not clear which specimens he is referring to, that they are degenerate humans: "It may well be that Homo erectus was a true man, but somewhat degenerate in size and culture, possibly because of inbreeding, poor diet and a hostile environment" (Morris 1974). Gish (1985) suggests that many erectus fossils would have been attributed to Neandertal Man were it not for their supposed age, and hence probably also considers the erectus morphology, like that of the Neandertals, to be caused by disease. There is no explanation of why these adverse conditions would cause H. erectus to be so physically powerful, and in fact many erectus may have been of average human size (see the entry on the Turkana Boy fossil). Nor is it explained why all human skulls over 500,000 years old are erectus, and why, given the number of modern people who face a poor diet and a hostile environment, no erectus specimens are found nowadays. Bowden (1981) briefly discusses ER 3733, but so vaguely that it is difficult to determine whether he thinks it is an ape or a human! This fossil, despite massive brow ridges and other primitive features, is so complete and looks so human that it seems unlikely anyone would call it an ape (and no other creationists have done so). It seems equally unlikely that Bowden would call it a human, since he acknowledges its similarity to the Peking Man skulls which he claims are apes, and all of which are larger than 3733. Bowden escapes this dilemma by instead casting aspersions on the accuracy of ER 3733's reconstruction (almost all other creationists solve it by not mentioning ER 3733). Bowden's even briefer mention of OH 9 is just as cryptic. He notes its similarities to both Pithecanthropus [ape] and a Neandertal [human] skull. In one sentence he refers to it as "surprisingly advanced", but the next paragraph starts: "Reviewing all these fossil apes, ...". Bowden's description of OH 9 makes it sound so intermediate in nature between apes and humans that, once again, it is difficult to decide what he thinks it is. One Homo erectus specimen, the Turkana Boy, is recognized by Gish as human. Unavoidably, since it is an erectus skull attached to a body that is almost completely modern. Gish (1985), writing soon after it was discovered, cautiously suggests that except for the brain size, all major aspects of the skeleton are within the limits of Homo sapiens, and that were it not for the estimated age of 1.6 million years it would be assigned to that species. In a later assessment (1995) Gish says that the size and shape of the braincase and a few characteristics of the body were the only differences from a modern human. Menton (1988) similarly states that WT 15000 was classified as H. erectus only because of its age. That is incorrect; the Turkana Boy has a typical erectus skull, differing from modern humans in many aspects other than brain size. It is more similar to 1470 (H. habilis), or to other erectus specimens such as the Peking Man braincases, than it is to modern humans. It is strikingly similar to the Peking Man reconstruction made by Weidenreich, which even Gish agrees looks to be "intermediate between the Anthropoid Apes and Man". The skeletal differences are less obvious, but in combination they show a skeleton with small but significant differences from modern humans. The length of the neck and the neck-shaft angle in the femur are respectively "well over 3" and 5 standard deviations from the modern human norm (Brown et al. 1985). The boy was extraordinarily strong, and his spinal cord had less than half the cross-sectional area of ours (Walker and Shipman 1996). According to Richard Leakey, "practically every piece of bone shows minute but unquestionable differences from modern man" (Angela 1993). Gish stresses the skeletal similarities but ignores these differences. Menton (1988) states that the Turkana Boy was like a modern human "except for certain details of the skull", and then adds that: "He had a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges not unlike some races of modern man. Richard Leaky [sic] said that this boy would go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Menton 1988) Menton has taken this quote out of context, omitting some text that significantly changes its meaning: "Suitably clothed and with a cap to obscure his low forehead and beetle brow, he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today." (Leakey and Walker 1985) Are erectus and sapiens the same species? Lubenow (1992) and Mehlert (1994) have argued that Homo erectus is similar enough to H. sapiens that it should be merged into it. For example, Lubenow quotes Wolpoff et al. (1984): "In our view, there are two alternatives. We should either admit that the Homo erectus/Homo sapiens boundary is arbitrary and use nonmorphological (i.e. temporal) criteria for determining it, or Homo erectus should be sunk [into H. sapiens]." Wolpoff and his colleagues support what is known as the multiregional theory, which holds that populations of H. erectus throughout the world evolved together towards H. sapiens (as opposed to the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that one population of H. erectus gave rise to all modern humans). Wolpoff et al. are not saying that H. erectus cannot be distinguished from modern humans; in fact they point out that it "on the average shows clear morphological distinctions from Homo sapiens". Nor do they dispute that H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus. Wolpoff and his colleagues explain clearly why they propose that H. erectus should not be a separate species: We regard the species distinction between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens as being problematic. The issue we address stems from the difficult in clearly distinguishing an actual boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. ... From a purely cladistic outlook, Homo erectus should be sunk, since species originating through anagenesis (ie, without branching) are not recognized as separate species according to the criteria of phylogenetic systematics. (Wolpoff et al. 1984) In other words, they propose sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens only because there are so many intermediate fossils that it is difficult to define a boundary between them, and because there are theoretical reasons for calling them the same species (no matter how much anatomical difference there is) if, as the multiregionalists believe, H. sapiens did not branch off from a subset of the H. erectus population. Wolpoff and his colleagues are not saying that the two species should be merged because there is insufficient difference between them, and Wolpoff has confirmed to me (in an email) that the amount of difference is not the issue. Most scientists disagree with the idea of sinking H. erectus into H. sapiens, believing that the differences are clearly enough to merit a species distinction. A growing number would go further, and argue that there is room for another species between them, Homo heidelbergensis, which would contain many of the fossils often called "archaic" Homo sapiens (Tattersall 1995). It is also far from certain that the multiregional theory is correct, in which case even the theoretical reasons for sinking H. erectus would disappear. Scientists who propose sinking H. erectus therefore provide no comfort for creationists, since their reasons totally contradict creationists who would claim that the H. erectus morphology is caused by diseases of, or racial variation in, H. sapiens. One occasionally sees creationists claiming that many scientists now believe that H. erectus is no longer a valid species. This was never true. Shipman (2003) discusses a conference in 1991 at which a proposal by Wolpoff, Thorne and their colleagues to abandon H. erectus as a species was a contentious topic. Even then, the proposal did not get far and since then it has faded away. As Shipman says, "The move to eliminate Homo erectus is largely defunct...". New evidence Both Lubenow and Mehlert have stated, in support of the claim that erectus fossils should be classified as H. sapiens, that H. erectus brain sizes fall within the modern human range. Although this ignored the huge difference in statistical distribution of brain size between the two species (see my brain sizes page for more details), and the clear anatomical differences (see here), it was, strictly speaking, true, in that an extremely small percentage of living humans did overlap the brain sizes of erectus. Now, however, even that slender rationale has disappeared. In 2002, Vekua et al. announced the discovery of D2700, a new hominid skull from Georgia (in the ex-USSR), following the discovery of two earlier skulls (Gabunia et al. 2000). These three skulls are most similar to those of early African H. erectus specimens, but are quite primitive and also share a number of characteristics with H. habilis skulls. Their brain sizes range from 780 cc (previously the lower end of the erectus range) down to 600 cc, which is in the middle of the H. habilis range. Taken as a group, these three skulls extend the anatomical range of erectus beyond anything that could conceivably be attributed to Homo sapiens. Both in anatomy and brain size, they bridge the gap between H. erectus and H. habilis. See the D2700 page for more information about these fossils. References Angela P. & P. (1993): The extraordinary story of human origins. Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books. Bowden M. (1981): Ape-men: fact or fallacy? Ed. 2. Bromley,Kent: Sovereign. Brown F., Harris J., Leakey R.E., and Walker A.C. (1985): Early Homo erectus skeleton from west lake Turkana, Kenya. Nature, 316:788-92. (announcement of the discovery of the Turkana Boy skeleton) Gabunia L., Vekua A., Swisher C.C., III, Ferring R., Justus A., Nioradze M. et al. (2000): Earliest Pleistocene hominid cranial remains from Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia: taxonomy, geological setting, and age. Science, 288:1019-25. Gish D.T. (1985): Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record. El Cajon, CA: Creation-Life Publishers. Huse S.M. (1983): The collapse of evolution. Baker Book House Company. Lubenow M.L. (1992): Bones of contention: a creationist assessment of human fossils. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Books. Mehlert A.W. (1994): Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or variability? Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):105-16. Menton D.N. (1988): The scientific evidence for the origin of man. (a creationist article) Morris H.M. (1974): Scientific creationism. Santee,California: Master Books. Morris H.M. and Parker G.E. (1982): What is creation science? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers. Shipman P. (2000): Doubting Dmanisi. American Scientist, Nov-Dec 2000 Taylor P.S. (1992): The illustrated origins answer book. Ed. 4. Mesa,Arizona: Eden Productions. Vekua A., Lordkipanidze D., Rightmire G.P., Agusti J., Ferring R., Maisuradze G. et al. (2002): A new skull of early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Science, 297:85-9. (D2700) Walker A.C. and Shipman P. (1996): The wisdom of the bones. New York: Alfred E. Knopf. (a popular history of Homo erectus and the discovery and analysis of the Turkana Boy skeleton) Wolpoff M.H., Wu X.Z., and Thorne A.G. (1984): Modern Homo sapiens origins: a general theory of hominid evolution involving the fossil evidence from east Asia. In F.H. Smith & F. Spencer (Eds.), The origins of modern humans. (pp. 465-7). New York: Alan R. Liss.

    Answer:
    Good Research. And bunhopsu, you're just mad that your bible is FLAWED.

    Why is it ok for Correctional officer to bring drugs into inmates and give them oral sex but inmates can't?
    Question:
    In york county jail in alfred maine the correctional officers bring drugs and cigarettes into the inmates- they smoke pot with them and there is even one female officer wh is giving oral sex to male inmagtes. Why is this ok for CO's to do this? If an inmate hits a correctional officer with an object they get penalized but it is ok for a CO to hit inmates with objects. I know of an inmate that got hit beside the head with an object a CO tossed at him. What makes it right for the workers in the jail to commit violence?

    Answer:
    I have been a cop for a long time... And I have no use for corruption. If this is happening, and you have personal knowledge of it, you need to inform the State Attorney General of this and better yet, call the press and tell them everything you know and get an investigation going. This is beyond the scope of evil and it needs to be cleaned up.

    How do I place these works in MLA format?
    Question:
    I need to cite a list of works for my composition class and I can't get these two right >.<; I don't know what they exactly are - or how to format them. My instructor placed them in a random order to see if we could arrange it correctly. Lawyers: Photos Clear Duke Players Durham, N.C. April 17, 2006 (CBS/AP) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/17/shtml and "Carame lo" Sandra Cisneros the author of The House on Mango Street, Alfred A. Knopf Publisher New York 2003 ISBN 14000-41503 PAGES 40, 56-63 (I can get the one above, kinda - but the pages and ISBN throws me off)

    Answer:
    Go to this site: ollie.dcccd.edu/library/Module4/M4-V/examples.htm With MLA format, I do not think u put the ISBN in the works cited.

    Did liberals fear John F. Kennedy for his religion?
    Question:
    John F. Kennedy The Protestant immigrants to the New World brought many things in their baggage, including a deep-seated distrust of Roman Catholicism. Although Catholics had been among the early settlers of the New World, they had been a minority in the thirteen colonies that eventually became the United States. Not until significant numbers of Catholics began migrating to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century did anti-Catholicism emerge as a potent, and ugly, political and social phenomenon. Although Irish Catholics began to play a major role in local and state politics in the latter nineteenth century, the first Catholic to seek a national office was the popular governor of New York, Alfred Emanuel Smith, who was the Democratic nominee for president in 1928. Anti-Catholic prejudice, the fear that a Catholic president would "take orders" from the Pope, insured Smith's defeat. Methodist Bishop Adna Leonard declared: "No Governor can kiss the papal ring and get within gunshot of the White House." Even liberal Protestants were concerned. The Christian Century declared it could not "look with unconcern upon the seating of a representative of an alien culture, of a medieval, Latin mentality, of an undemocratic hierarchy and of a foreign potentate in the great office of the President of the United States." Smith's defeat at the polls seemed to foreclose a Catholic from seeking the White House, until John F. Kennedy captured the Democratic nomination in 1960. Much to his dismay, he discovered that many southern Protestant groups still believed in old canards about every Catholic having to obey the Pope's commands unquestioningly. He finally decided to try to defeat the issue by meeting it head-on, and on September 12, 1960, he delivered the following statement before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. There, according to one of his biographers, "he knocked religion out of the campaign as an intellectually respectable issue." Anti-Catholicism, of course, could not be eradicated that easily, but Kennedy's meeting the issue forthrightly limited the damage to those whose prejudices would never respond to reason. And with his election that November, barriers to Catholics in American politics melted away. For further reading: T. H. White, The Making of the President 1960 (1961). ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ADDRESS TO SOUTHERN BAPTIST LEADERS I am grateful for your generous invitation to state my views. While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only ninety miles off the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor's bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier. But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril. Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood. That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it. I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation. This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died." And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there. I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) -- and instead of doing this do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here -- and always omitting of course, that statement of the American bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation. I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts -- why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time, by anyone, in any country. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland -- and the independence of such statesmen as de Gaulle and Adenauer. But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise. But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people. But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add with the oath I have taken for fourteen years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can, and I quote "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution so help me God." Source: New York Times, September 13, 1960.

    Answer:
    No. It was the WASP conservative establishment who did. The evangelical christians merely took the brunt of the blame. Do they teach *nothing* in history and poli sci classes these days?

    Does the very nature of atonement suggest that God, not humanity, was a failure?
    Question:
    Humanity, being a creation of God, sinned (as God knew would happen), and thus required the sacrifice of the only sinless being, Jesus Christ. Even the Gospels failed to attribute atonement to Jesus, and Jesus himself never laid claim to this doctrine explicitly in his teachings. Rather, it was Paul and other early church fathers that implemented it. (Armstrong, Karen. A History of God. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993, page 307.) Perhaps the better question is: Is it the version of Christianity according to Paul, and priestly corruptions of the message of Christ that led to the true fall of man, not God’s ‘Mistake’ of granting free will? I would tend to believe that God did not make a 'mistake'. I do, however, wonder if Christianity has made one. That is, the interpretation of Jesus' teachings. More questions to follow...

    Answer:
    I'm just gonna say here that God didn't make any mistakes. When He put that tree in the garden and told Adam and Eve not to eat from it, He knew what He was doing, and He knew what was gonna happen. He had it planned out then how He was gonna show us His Love Mercy and Grace on the cross, because without sin He couldn't show us that at all. And also still to come, because of what happened then He is still gonna show us how good and Just He is on judgment day. So in the end God's plan is not a failure at all. And those of us who receive His mercy and grace (by repenting of our sins and putting our faith alone in Christ for salvation) will indeed go to Heaven, and those who don't will feel His wrath, simple as that.

    How do I cite these works in MLA format?
    Question:
    I need to cite a list of works for my composition class and I can't get these two right >.<; I don't know what they exactly are - or how to format them. My instructor placed them in a random order to see if we could arrange it correctly. Lawyers: Photos Clear Duke Players Durham, N.C. April 17, 2006 (CBS/AP) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/1... and "Caramelo" Sandra Cisneros the author of The House on Mango Street, Alfred A. Knopf Publisher New York 2003 ISBN 14000-41503 PAGES 40, 56-63 (I can get the one above, kinda - but the pages and ISBN throws me off)

    Answer:

    What do you think of this band?
    Question:
    This is my brothers band called The Vintage Truth they are based out of Alfred, New York where there college is just tell me whatcha think of them and I want peoples honest opinions. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user .viewprofile&friendid=299267492 My brothers Drew the lead singer.

    Answer:
    Not my style of music, but they sound good, to be honest.

    I have a question about two colleges?
    Question:
    Is Alfred University and Alfred State University the same college? There both in New York but I was just wondering if they are the same. Thanks

    Answer:
    I live in upstate NY and applied to both of these schools. No they are not the same school. They are across the street from each other, but one is a state school and the other is private so tuition is significantly different between the two. Alfred State is also a tech school and typically only has programs that last for about 2 years whereas AU has four year programs and graduate programs. Here are their websites http://www.alfred.edu/ (Alfred University) and http://www.alfredstate.edu/ If you're looking to apply to one or the other I would look at the academic programs because they are much different at each school and it will depend greatly on what you're looking to study to decide which school to apply to. Also, these schools are in the middle of nowhere, there are no places to "hang out" outside of the college campus' so be prepared to study alot, drive a ways for entertainment, or find alternatives to amusing yourself.

    It's 3 AM: Twice?
    Question:
    Obama slams Clinton for a fear tactic ad. Tells the Voters that she is playing on Americans fears. The ad asked a valid question- Who DO you want in the White House? The next day Obama releases the identical ad, with a different voice, and a few different words. How does this relate to 'Change'? How does it relate to Originality? How does it relate to his ability to 'think for himself'? This is not my opinion, just questions for YOU to answer, intellligently, responsibly. Thanks! "After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all over." ~Alfred Edward Perlman, New York Times, 3 July 1958 First, let me say I actually did not mention my candidate of choice in this question. That's an assumption made by responders. Second, Im not considering this a 'Fear Tactic' ad, but, in fact, a rational question is being asked. That is the point here. One opinion I do have is I don't believe readers actually READ and UNDERSTAND the questions put to them. If that just happened to be true, then its no wonder Obama has so many duped!! Why are we making it so easy for the candidates...?

    Answer:
    It is rather amazing to see all of this discussion about Hillary vs. Obama. Just as it is with “whatever” democrat vs. “whatever” republican. Please folks, nothing says you have to believe this, however; you owe it to yourselves, your forefathers and your children/future children to stop and ask yourselves some important questions which are fundamental and go beyond the trivial. 1. Do you really feel the two political parties are giving you a reasonable choice in who will be the next president? 2. Have you ever read and UNDERSTOOD the U.S. Constitution? 3. Do you REALLY think the so called wars on drugs, terrorism and poverty are doing ANYTHING worth what they have/are costing in the way of personal freedoms and your tax dollars? 4. Do you think that an inexperienced two term rookie senator is qualified to be president? 5. Do you think that a person that cannot even keep her husband from running around is fit for the White House after being elected mostly because of her name recognition? 6. Do you view the “politics” of this country logically or do you just “feel” good about the candidate you favor? 7. Do you actually believe you are still in a free country? 8. Do you believe that the news media tells it like it is? 9. Do you believe John McCain is a war hero as described? If you can say yes to number two, 1 – 8 of the answers are a given. If you want to better understand what the founding fathers were thinking, read the “Federalist Papers.” It was a series of newspaper essays written by three of the framers describing the proposed Constitution in detail, giving reasons for each point. Remember, the Constitution was written to limit government, specifically the federal government. It clearly states that the federal government is limited to the hand full of things itemized in that document and that it will have no say in ANY other political matter. What we have now does not resemble limited government nor freedom. The power has migrated from the people to the highest offices in the federal government. Citizens used to have the power. Not anymore. Follow the money. As intended, the STATES were supposed to collect the taxes and then based upon percentages of the overall population, send some to the federal government. This was designed to keep the use of the money as close to the people as possible and thus the POWER to control how that money was used. This principle limited government because citizens could better police their local governments. No we have the opposite. We have a dictatorial, spoiled rich kid at the helm who likely has never understood the principles of limited government and personal freedom. Trying to take his place are three people not worthy of selling you a used car. They are part of the problem, not the solution. The republican president and the people he works to please do not have our best interest nor our rights in mind. They want to take away any remnants of what used to be a free people. The democratic candidates are no different. They promise to “provide” such things as affordable health care and a “change.” That is the kind of thing that got us in this mess to begin with. How? When you relinquish responsibility you should bear as a citizen, you give up your power to control your own destiny. If you want the government to provide for your retirement, health care, keep you educated and safe, you have to give up the money and control. In essemce, you give up your power. When the government has the power…the people don’t. Would you buy a car from a smooth talking, well dressed salesman that did not show you the car first, tell you how much it costs and what the interest rate would be on any loan you might want? If you said no to that, then why would you even consider having Osama as your president? He makes nice speeches that appeal to the “feelings” of those that would rather feel than to think. He promises “CHANGE” without defining what that entails and how it will be paid for. For her part, Hillary actually comes right out and says that she want’s to give you socialized medicine…EXCUSE me…knock, knock..Hillary…that has been tried in the Soviet Union, Cuba, England and Canada just to mention a few significant failures! Are you aware that if the Canadians want health care NOW they come to the U.S. ? Do you know how many months you must wait to get an X-ray in England? Now as far as believing what we are told by the news media. I know we have been told all of our lives that the news media is free to say what it wants and that we have freedom of the press. If you believe that, then I know an aging senator that would like to sell you some beach front property in Arizona. It would not be the first thing he has sold America. I know a former resident of the “Hanoi Hilton.” He has few kind words for the senator from Arizona. What he really did and said while a POW will not be said on the news. After all, he’s a hero and his daddy was a big time admiral. Never mind what he did while a POW, the wife that struggled and stood by him and welcomed him home after his release…got dumped for the rich girl. Never mind that…it’s his personal life…OK. What about the fact that John M. was on the Senate Select Committee on POWs and MIA’s with his good friend and associate John “Swift Boat” Kerry? Not only did those two ignore testimony proving there were still live Americans being held by Vietnam in the hundreds, but Kerry had the evidence destroyed. Why do such a thing you ask? Follow the money….er oil. Have you ever wondered why the health care costs have gone out of sight in this country? Well, it's because of yet another thing you won't hear on the evening news. Illegal immigration. The law says that if anyone goes to an emergency room in our country, they must be treated even if uninsured. Now that is the humanitarian thing to do, however; if you give your neighbor a helping hand when he is in need, that's good. If you ignore the fact that he finds it much more conventient to come to you every time than provide for himself, that makes you a fool. Then, if you want to elect the person that keeps telling you to help feed that neighbor and that candidate is also counting on the votes from your neighbor's relatives, then that makes you an idiot!

    Is evolution really scientific?- Reasoning from the Scriptures?
    Question:
    The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19. Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199. According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828. Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138. Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach? The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada. “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19. The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88. What view does the fossil record support? Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds? Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion? Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48. What does the fossil record actually show? The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23. A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649. Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467. Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12. Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

    Answer:
    This "question" is copied in its entirety from pages 121-124 of "Reasoning from the Scriptures", a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, true science harmonizes with the bible. Learn more: http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/ http://watchtower.org/e /20020608/article_01.htm http://watchtower.org/e/20040622/articl e_03.htm http://watchtower.org/e/20000922/article_02.htm http:/ /watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm http://watchtower.org /e/t13/ http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03.htm http:// watchtower.org/e/20000122/article_02.htm http://watchtower.org/e /20001008/article_02.htm http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_04. htm http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/ http://watchtower.org/e/j t/

    What Broadway show should we see?
    Question:
    My 21 year old daughter and I are going to New York next week and we are going to TKTS to buy Broadway tickets. This is what they offered last week. Has anyone seen any of these? What would you suggest? A CHORUS LINE ALFRED HITCHCOCK'S THE 39 STEPS AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY AVENUE Q BOEING-BOEING CHICAGO CIRQUE DREAMS GREASE GYPSY HAIRSPRAY LEGALLY BLONDE MAMMA MIA! MARY POPPINS MONTY PYTHON'S SPAMALOT RENT SPRING AWAKENING THE LITTLE MERMAID THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA THURGOOD XANADU YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN

    Answer:
    My daughter, age 28 and I were in NY last month and we saw Wicked, 39 Steps and Avenue Q. I thought Wicked was good, my daughter thought it was great. Neither of us liked 39 Steps. We both thought Avenue Q was terrific. It's an adult theme, but not raunchy. It's so funny that at one point the cast had to wait till the audience stopped laughing so they could be heard. We wanted to see Mama Mia but tickets had sold out.

    Wich of these stores do you reccomend to shop at?
    Question:
    Abercrombie & Fitch adidas Aeropostale Alfred Dunner American Eagle Outfitters Ann Taylor Factory Store Anne Klein Outlet Stores Apparel Warehouse, The Ashworth Banana Republic Factory Store Barneys New York Bass BCBGMaxAzria Big Dogs Bon Worth Brooks Brothers Factory Store Brooks Brothers Woman Burlington Brands California Sunshine Calvin Klein Calvin Klein Underwear Casual Collections Casual Male XL Outlet Cato Cavender's Boot City Charlotte Russe Chico's Outlet Claiborne Menswear Outlet Coldwater Creek Outlet Columbia Sportswear Company Crabtree & Evelyn Dana Buchman Danskin Dickies Dilemma For Her Disney Store Outlet Dixie Divas DKNY Jeans Dockers Outlet dressbarn dressbarn Woman Echo Design ecko unltd. Eddie Bauer Outlet Ellen Tracy / Dana Buchman Epic Jeans Outlet Esprit Fancy That! Fusion Jewelry & Fashion Boutique G&G Retail Gap Clearance Store Gap Outlet Geoffrey Beene Giorgio Armani General Store Golf 4 Less Goody's Great Outdoor Clothing Co. Greg Norman Outlet Store GUESS Factory Store Haggar Harley-Davidson Hibbett Sports Hilton Head Shirt Company Hollister Hot Topic Hugo Boss Factory Store Izod J.Crew Jockey Jones New York Jones New York Clearance Jones New York Sport Juicy Couture Justice for Girls Kasper Kenneth Cole Koret L'eggs Hanes Bali Playtex L'eggs Hanes Bali Playtex Express L.L.Bean Factory Store Lacoste Outlet Lane Bryant Outlet Levi's Outlet Levi's Outlet by Designs Levi's Outlet By Most Liz Claiborne Outlet Liz Claiborne Woman Lucky Brand Jeans Maidenform Outlet Stores Mansour Resort Cabana Maternity Works maurices Michael Kors Motherhood Maternity Outlet Nautica New York, New York Nike Factory Store Old Navy Old Navy Outlet Orvis Outlet PacSun Perry Ellis Petite Sophisticate Outlet Polo Jeans Co. Factory Store Polo Ralph Lauren Factory Store Puma Quiksilver Factory Stores Rave Girl Reebok Outlet Store rue21 S&K Men's Stores Sag Harbor Sigrid Olsen Super Fan Swim Mart Tahari Tiger Lili Timberland Outlet Stores Tommy Hilfiger Company Stores Treza Under Armour Uniform Outlet Uniform Source, The Urban Fashion Van Heusen VF Outlet White House Black Market Wilsons Leather Outlet Woolrich Zumiez All I want is opinions. I don't care if your poor or not. Please do not list any stores that are not on this list. Oh and cross Hollister of the list plz! Thx I will also choose best answer but not for anyone who asks for it.

    Answer:
    Wow haha well it depends which ones you like the clothes at. If you find the clothes cute wear them. Most people don't care what your wearing, although I do understand there are certain places that do. In that case, just wear any pricey designer brands! Haha. My favoirte stores are Abercrombie, Zumiez, and Hollister for clothes not TOO pricey and stuff... But like Guess, and Juicy Couture seem kind of popular at the moment. I've been seeing them everywhere. And Chanel...

    So the world really doesn't know?????
    Question:
    http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu9w81RZI_SYB0upXNyoA?p=al fred+bowman+dr+sebi+released+new+york+supreme+court&fr=b1ie7&ei=U TF-8 In the spirit of all the aids questions I just thought you would all like to know that a doctor was arrested for curing aids and then released by the new york supreme court becuse he could prove his claim. So who cares who invented it Mr. Wright. Dr. Sebias has the cure for it. (As well as almost every other disease) Now they can't release him from prison when he was arrested for making the claim....unless he was telling the truth and could prove it. Why wasn't that on FOX. They probably scheduled him to go on right after Ron Paul. Lol. Wake up America you do know you re being lied to everyday from people like "the most trusted nme in news." What a joke. Anyways who knew this? Yeah this one is real. Not hype. The problem is that there was no hype about this case. Seriously people are so funny. They think that since it wasn't on the news it must be true. Yet your candidates lie to you to your face and the news plays like it's no big deal. It's a soap opera. I'm sure the other scams that you are talking about have convictions connected to them. This one has a release and an official apology. I'm sure that they do that constantly and still allow them to practice medicine like this guy does to this day. Closed minded people really get to me sometimes. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/251811/electr ic_foods_can_cure_aids_asthma.html Plus the fact that he was arrested for running an ad (for an entire year) claiming to cure aids. They just arrested him, let him go, and let him continue to practice medicine. That means he is quack right? Seriously, go to his myspace, he practices in the US. This is like telling someone the earth is round when they know it's flat. This is rediculous. How do I know because of mathmatics that proves it's round. Hang him he claims the earth isn't flat and I bet he believes that the earth isn't the center of the universe either. The government told us it was flat. (they also told us that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, then they had WMD, then it was to liberate them from Sadam and his bio weapons we gave him and told him where to use them. Yeah they lie alot. Wake up. It's easy ask yourself one question. If you believe me what do I have to gain? Nothing. Then why wouldn't I tell people if it's what I see as truth? You can be skeptical just don't dismiss what isn't mainstream. And this NEVER was mainstream. I wonder who would gin from that? FDA? BIG PHARMA? Think about that then.

    Answer:
    Did you miss the swine flu theory the advanced syphilis theory, the HIV does not cause AIDS or the 10 other absolutely certain cures for AIDS in the last 20 years?? And... Don't Believe the Hype!


  • Surrounding Cities
    •
    Design by: Spohn Systems

    2008 us-city-home.com All Rights Reserved.