Sdrawkcab

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9...toned+professor Full 35 minute lecture here

National League Rookie of the Year Ryan Zimmerman, Nationals Certain things in life are just impossible. Walking across the Atlantic. Singing along in the car with Ashlee Simpson. And trying to figure out who the real Rookie of the Year is in the National League. It's such a great year, we can't even inject impactful players like Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, Josh Willingham, Chris Duncan, Conor Jackson, Anibal Sanchez, Scott Olsen, Russell Martin, Josh Barfield, Cla Meredith and Takashi Saito into the conversation. And guys like Prince Fielder, Josh Johnson and Andre Ethier -- players who would have won this thing a lot of years -- have just about no prayer of finishing in the top three. So with them out of the way, next to be eliminated on our scorecard was the Rule 5 Pick of the Year, Florida's Dan Uggla, even though he has hit more homers (26) than any rookie second baseman in history. And that left us spending hours debating Uggla's dazzling DP partner, Hanley Ramirez, versus the spectacular Zimmerman. On one hand, no player in the expansion era has scored as many runs as Ramirez (119) and not won the Rookie of the Year. On the other hand, no player in that era has driven in as many runs as Zimmerman (110) and not won, either. So there's no rational way to decide this. None. So why Zimmerman? Because there's just something special about him that's hard to define. It might be his polish. It might be his Rolen-esque leatherwork. Or it might be the fact that he has gotten more hits with runners in scoring position (66) than any player -- rookie or 78-year veteran -- in the entire sport. A year ago this time, he'd spent three months as a professional baseball player. Now, you'd think he'd been playing in the big leagues since 1978 -- except that he'd neglected to be born yet back then. Apologies to: Ramirez, Uggla, Fielder and Johnson.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=C8zuEse64k4

Why Tuesday? Something wrong with today or Monday? Jewish holiday?

I don't think the laws are written with the distinction of soliciting an under-age victim who is willing and one who is not. And I also really doubt the laws are written to punish homosexuals worse than hetrosexuals. I also doubt the laws are written to punish those who simply speak of the acts worse than those who actually go through with them. However we have a segment of our population who believes homosexuality is a crime in and of itself, let alone mentioning those ideas to children. However, we can't go around throwing the book at people based on their ideas. No we just have to punish them extra hard when they get the chance. If the male did not want to get e-mails from the congressman anymore he could have blocked them, or just deleted them when they showed up. By corresponding and leaving the avenues of communication open it is welcoming time and again. We just happen to live in a society which has double standards. The reason we have these laws about underage solicitation is because we do not believe children of a certain age are mentally capable of making such decisions. So if they are willing or not is really not the point of the laws, because the point of the laws is that they can't trust their own decisions so the law has to choose it for them, that choice being no sex with people who are that much older than them reguardless of gender.

GOP aims to crack down on Web gambling Posted 9/30/2006 6:12 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this Subscribe to stories like this WASHINGTON (AP) ? Congressional Republicans attached a measure cracking down on Internet gambling to a bill aimed at enhancing port security that passed Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., pushed for the gambling provision to be added to the larger bill. Online gambling is generally illegal in most circumstances, but it is something that is difficult to enforce. The new measure tackles that by prohibiting gamblers from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers. "The enforcement provision provided by this bill will go a long way to stop these illegal online operations," Kyl said late Friday. Kyl and Frist previously tried unsuccessfully to put the measure on a bill authorizing funding for the military, but critics said the Defense Department bill was no place for the gambling measure. Similarly, Democrats complained Friday that Republicans had used the port security bill as a vehicle for other GOP-backed measures. The House passed a version of the Internet gambling bill in July, but the Senate has taken no action on similar legislation. Frist, eyeing a 2008 presidential bid, recently discussed the online gambling provision in the politically important state of Iowa. He also called it a legislative priority in a recent speech on the Senate floor. "Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we've watched this shadow industry explode," Frist said in a statement Friday. "For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal." The measure's supporters include the National Football League as well as conservative and anti-gambling groups. Some banking groups have lobbied against it. Federal officials have made recent arrests involving offshore companies operating Internet gambling sites. The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States although many of its customers live in the U.S. The new gambling provision is not expected to affect gambling at tracks or casinos. The ports security bill is H.R. 4954. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-gambling_x.htm

Clemens, Others Implicated in Banned Drug Case By Lance Pugmire and Tim Brown, Times Staff Writers October 1, 2006 Roger Clemens, 44, one of professional baseball's most durable and successful pitchers, is among six players accused by a former teammate of using performance-enhancing drugs, The Times has learned. The names had been blacked out in an affidavit filed in federal court. Others whose identities had been concealed include Clemens' fellow Houston Astros pitcher, Andy Pettitte, and former American League Most Valuable Player Miguel Tejada of the Baltimore Orioles. The discovery ends four months of speculation surrounding the possible identities of Major League Baseball figures whose names were redacted from a search warrant affidavit filed in Phoenix on May 31. The document was based on statements made to federal agents by pitcher Jason Grimsley. Grimsley, a journeyman relief pitcher who has played on several teams including the New York Yankees, Baltimore Orioles and the Angels, acknowledged using steroids, amphetamines and other drugs, investigators said in the document. He also implicated a number of former teammates, but the names were blacked out in copies of the affidavit that were made public in June after investigators used the warrant to raid Grimsley's house. A source with authorized access to an unredacted affidavit allowed The Times to see it, but retained it to read back what had been blacked out of the public copies. A second source and confidante of Grimsley had previously disclosed player identities and provided additional details about the affidavit. The sources insisted on anonymity. According to the affidavit, Grimsley told investigators that Clemens and Pettitte "used athletic performance-enhancing drugs." He also said Tejada used anabolic steroids. Clemens and Pettitte did not respond to requests for comment made Saturday through their agents and the Astros. Tejada had previously declined to be interviewed. Grimsley was detained after he allegedly received an illegal shipment of human growth hormones. The shipment was tracked to his Scottsdale, Ariz., home by a task force of federal agents investigating drug use in professional baseball, the affidavit said. For a time, Grimsley secretly cooperated with investigators, they said, but stopped after retaining a lawyer. According to the 20-page search warrant affidavit signed by IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, Grimsley told investigators he obtained amphetamines, anabolic steroids and human growth hormones from a source recommended to him by former Yankee trainer Brian McNamee. The former team trainer is a personal strength coach for both Clemens and Pettitte. McNamee did not return multiple messages left with his wife and on his answering machine. The affidavit also alleges that Grimsley told federal agents that his former Oriole teammates -- Tejada, Brian Roberts and Jay Gibbons -- "took anabolic steroids." Roberts was the American League's All-Star second baseman in 2005 when Grimsley was an Oriole. All three Baltimore players declined to be interviewed. Roberts said he had "nothing to talk about" and didn't know why Grimsley named him. A sixth player, retired outfielder David Segui previously came forward to say that his name was among those blacked out in the affidavit provided to the public. Segui told ESPN in June that he used HGH on the advice of his doctor as recently as the 2004 season. He did not obtain approval from the league, he acknowledged. Government officials have declined to comment about either their ongoing investigation of drugs in professional baseball. Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner who came out of retirement to pitch for the Astros in each of the last two years, was a teammate of Grimsley on the Yankees in 1999-2000, as was Pettitte, a two-time All-Star who is nearing 200 career wins. Grimsley, Tejada, Gibbons and Roberts were teammates in Baltimore during the 2005 season. Grimsley started this year with the Arizona Diamondbacks, but requested voluntary retirement in June after his arrest. The National League also suspended him for 50 games. Edward Novak, Grimsley's lawyer, did not return calls. Previously, he publicly disputed the claims investigators made the affidavit, saying that his client did not volunteer the names of any teammates. He said federal agents asked Grimsley to wear a recording device to gather evidence against San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds, but Grimsley refused. Grimsley has not been charged. Since June, he has complained to friends that federal agents credited him with statements and disclosures he didn't make. "Jason is loyal to the death, a hard-headed guy who would not give up his friends," one of Grimsley's friends said Saturday. "The only names he discussed with those investigators were names ... [the investigators] suggested to him." The Grimsley friend, who talked about the investigation on condition that he was not named, said investigators warned the pitcher "if he didn't continue to cooperate, they would expose him as a rat." Richard Levin, a spokesman for Major League Baseball, said the organization and players association are "doing everything we can to eliminate the use of performance-enhancing substances and amphetamines from the game." Regarding the investigators' affidavit, Levin said baseball officials have "no information [about] how it was obtained or its accuracy." Clemens has surprised many in the baseball world with his late-career success. Of his 348 career wins, 68 have come since the summer he turned 40. In a controversial tell-all book released two winters ago, former major leaguer Jose Canseco speculated that Clemens's late career surge reflected "classic signs" of steroid use. "Roger says it is all nonsense," Clemens' agent Randy Hendricks responded to Newsday at the time. He said the pitcher "takes vitamin B-12 shots ... and will pass every [drug] test." Pettitte, 34, pitched nine seasons and was a part of four World Series championships for the Yankees, then signed with the Astros after the 2003 season, helping Houston advance to the World Series in 2005, and winning 13 more games this year for a career record of 185-104. Tejada, listed at 5-10, 170, hit 30 home runs for the first time in 2000 for the Oakland A's, and has established himself as one of the game's best middle-infield power hitters. He was drawn into baseball's steroids scandal last August, when Rafael Palmeiro, who tested positive for an anabolic steroid and was suspended 10 games, told an appeals panel the test might have resulted from injectable vitamins given to him by Tejada. After investigating, the panel cleared Tejada. Tejada's increasingly sullen demeanor has attracted hometown press coverage in Baltimore where he also has become a target of complaints from fans for not hustling. During the summer, he cancelled an interview with The Times for this story. "I don't want to talk to you," he said. Later, Tejada referred a reporter to his agent, Diego Bentz, who did not return calls. Outfielder Gibbons, a product of Mayfair High in Lakewood and Cal State Los Angeles, spent late June on the disabled list and rehabilitating a knee injury in Scottsdale, Ariz. But at his Lakewood home on July 5, his father, Jim, acknowledged the player was aware of the affidavit. "Is this about Grimsley?" the elder Gibbons asked of a visiting Times reporter. "I'm not saying anything about it. I'll let him know you stopped by." Roberts, listed at 5-foot-9, 170 pounds, hit 18 home runs in 561 at-bats last season, matching his combined total through the previous six years in the major and minor leagues. Grimsley, a right-hander, told investigators he had used anabolic steroids beginning in 2000, tested positive during 2003 survey testing, and switched to human growth hormone, undetectable in a urine test, after that. He admitted also to using amphetamines until the joint drug agreement banned them several months ago, according to the affidavit. In a major-league career that began with four starts for the Philadelphia Phillies in 1989, Grimsley played for seven organizations. He played alongside Clemens and Pettitte with the Yankees in 1999-00, and Tejada, Gibbons, Roberts and Segui with the Orioles in 2004-05. Grimsley told investigators he had tested positive for steroids during baseball's survey testing in 2003 and that he, like others, had switched to HGH as a result, according to the affidavit. Baseball's steroid scandal, which grew from the federal investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative [or BALCO], appears to have broadened. According to the affidavit, Grimsley also told agents about doctors in Florida and Colorado who have provided drugs to ballplayers. The federal task force handling the probe is headed by Novitzky. Major League Baseball has set up a board of inquiry headed by former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell of Maine to investigate steroid use among ballplayers. That investigation has been criticized as slow-moving and weak. Key figures, including retired slugger Mark McGwire, have reportedly declined to participate. The baseball investigators cannot compel testimony. Pugmire reported from Baltimore. Brown reported from San Francisco. http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-clemen...-home-headlines

Has Bush pardoned anyone during his 6 years in office? I can't think of one person. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122301460.html The newest number I can find is 69 as of December 2005.

First ladies for the win!

Stone also said that people cut off limbs of the dead at ground zero and used them as jewelry. Source? A few months later, he claimed there'd been a coverup of Ground Zero workers cutting limbs "off bodies for jewelry [and] a man walking off with $132 million." http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/441449p-371772c.html I missed where it said he claimed they used the limbs as jewlery. However I did read the part that said people were charged for looting jewlery from the dead. I hate courts when they buy into half-cooked lies of Oliver Stone.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor. [Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? Did you say this or not? kthnxbi Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar. So you have proof that all the troops there were just a handful of computer specialists hiding in some tent in Qatar? No? Does this mean you are going on a rant again because you can't clarify? :lol :lol You are such a joke. One would think if you meant "massive invasion force" one would say it. But then again that would be me reading into your now revisionist history of what you meant, and I wouldn't want to make you think. Gee, when someone says TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS, logic would not make one automatically think: "900 troops in the UAE!" Instead of addressing the topic at hand by having an intelligent debate, you start playing games and arguing semantics resulting in the thread being locked. The thread was fine until you started playing word games over absolutely nothing at all. You and everyone else reading the thread knew exactly what I was saying and referring to - it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The fact of the matter is you're just trying to play games rather than address the topic at hand. Quit being a little bitch. So you went the way of the rant. I commend you for staying the course and not giving into the pressure of logic. And as it comes to logic, you are the only one in the thread who ever said anything about TENS of Thousands of troops, as I pointed out in my initial post about those you were replying to, they mentioned an American presence of thousands of troops in the Middle-East. And somewhere along the line your logic tells you what they meant by that was an invasion force of tens of thousands of troops, not just in the Middle-East, but specifically inside non-ally countries. How you made that leap only your false logic could explain. So how should we know what you are referring to or replying to when no one made such claims? And as far as intelligent debate you haven't shown proof of anything I asked you of, most recently your claim of America's presence in the Middle East at the time of the USS Cole attack being nothing but a handful of computer specialists inside a tent in Qatar. If you don't want people to qibble over your semantics perhaps you should be more clear and say what you mean and not revise the meaning of what you said later on because you were proven wrong. Just some advice. PS: If you thought I was wrong about mis-quoting you, in your first response to me could have simply been, "what I meant was.... and you misunderstood me" but no you just called me "lame" and later on decided I misunderstood you.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor. [Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? Did you say this or not? kthnxbi Tens of thousands - as in a massive invasion force like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that's what I was referring to, not a handful of computer specialists in some tent in Qatar. So you have proof that all the troops there were just a handful of computer specialists hiding in some tent in Qatar? No? Does this mean you are going on a rant again because you can't clarify? :lol :lol You are such a joke. One would think if you meant "massive invasion force" one would say it. But then again that would be me reading into your now revisionist history of what you meant, and I wouldn't want to make you think.

If you don't foresee yourself ever using the Atlanta D then go for it. The Jags have had a solid D for the last few years and have shown the same effort so far this year, so it is a safe gamble to say they should finish as a top 10 D. And will the #10 D be outscored that much by the #4,5,6th D? I figure at some point Oak will find a way to get Moss the ball but that might be hopeful.

I never said there were no troops in the middle east when we were attacked, now you're just twisting my words in your favor. [Do you not realize that w]e didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? Did you say this or not? kthnxbi

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time? So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security. I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true. All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame. You are the one who made the claim: We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? So back it up. Oh you can't. Lame. Instead of being a dumbass who knows nothing and just makes blanket statements and doesn't know facts, how about you actual go spend time to learn things before just shooting generalities and lies from the hip? You knew what I was f***ing talking about, an invasion force with tens of thousands of troops like we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not a handful of troops scattered about our bases in countries who are our allies. And secondly, the countries are our allies and allow us to be there, yet somehow it's AMERICA'S fault we were attacked by terrorists all those times. WTF is wrong with you and the blame America first crowd? You're actually arguing with me that we were attacked because we had troops in our allied countries in the middle east. Do you know how absurd the notion of that is? You are a sick piece of crap if you think it's America's fault we were attacked all those times by Al Qaeda over the past decade. Like I said, you have a lame argument and anyone not named Jimmy or FutureGM will agree. Who said any of those things? All I said was you are wrong in saying that there was no troops in the middle east at the times we were attacked. Should I have let you have lied? I even asked you and gave you a chance to retort with evidence I may have missed, but no you get angry that you were caught in a lie. There was not a handful of troops in the middle east there was over 14,000. And you were trying to say there was not even thousands. I like how after you are proven wrong all you can do is change the subject and just attack viciously instead of actually trying to prove what you said. No you just make up lies and deductions about someone just because they try to correct and clarify a lie that you made and tried to pass off. From this thread I can deduce a few things. You are an embarressment to those who can think, who can do research, and most importantly to yourself.

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time? So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security. I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true. All of those countries are our allies who allow us to be there. Your argument is incredibly lame. You are the one who made the claim: [Do you not realize] that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? So back it up. Oh you can't. Lame. Instead of acting like a dumbass who knows nothing and just makes blanket statements and doesn't know facts, how about you actually go spend time to learn things instead of just shooting generalities and lies from the hip.

You and your f*** buddy FutureGM keep bringing this up. Do you not realize that we didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when we were attacked on 9/11? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the USS Cole was attacked? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when our embassies were bombed? We didn't have tens of thousands of troops in the middle east when the WTC was bombed for the first time? So sorry to have to break this to you, but pulling out will do nothing for our relations or our security. I believe they said thousands not ten thousands. Besides the point US Troop levels at the time of the USS Cole attack source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/988026.stm Common sense would also tell me troop level did not decrease between the USS Cole attacks and 9/11. Do you have any proof of troop level being as you said it is? Just because you can make declarative statements on a message board doesn't make what you say true.

Lions' Roy Williams says 'score means nothing' ESPN.com news services The Lions' Roy Williams apparently doesn't play to win the game. He'd rather strike a pose. "The way the organization is going under [coach Rod] Marinelli, it's going to need a poster boy for what's wrong," Williams told The Detroit Free Press. "Every new beginning needs a poster boy for why the other way didn't work." Williams' celebration after his first catch of Sunday's game against the Bears drew ire from the Chicago crowd and had Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom scratching his head. When Albom asked Williams why he celebrated a reception with his team already trailing by two scores, Williams responded, "I celebrate first downs all the time. I'm not gonna stop that. I'm an exciting player. If I do something exciting, I'm gonna show my actions." Albom responded, "But you were losing, 10-0." "What does that mean? ... That means nothing to me. The score means nothing," Williams told Albom. Williams had angered the Bears by guaranteeing a Lions victory during the week. Detroit, however, was no match for Chicago in a lopsided 34-7 defeat. Afterward, Williams said he didn't regret making the guarantee. "No, because everyone believes what I said," he told Albom. Williams caught six passes for 71 yards in the loss -- and he issued another guarantee afterward. "You can all run with this: We will win the [next] game," he told reporters. "I don't care who it's against. We will win the game as long as we do what we're supposed to do. That's my comment for the whole week." Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Not even Michael Moore thinks guns should be taken away in Bowling for Columbine. What he says is education is the key. Canada has the lowest amount of crimes around comparitively to other countries even though guns are legal there. It is the culture not the fact there are guns around.

apparently the meeting got pushed back until tuesday.. and rumors are that coker didnt fly back with the team. no idea if that is entirely true, but thats what i read at grassy. Well if he didn't fly back with the team he got back to Coral Gables some how. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14881780/

http://www.addletters.com/warning-sign-generator.htm

The Jets have a chance. That is all they could have asked for an hour ago.

ABC NEWS FILM SHOWS YOUTHS TRAINING TO FIGHT FOR JESUS By DAN HARRIS Sept. 17, 2006 ? An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people. Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush ? these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp." "I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth." "A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid." "We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way." The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film. "I never felt at any point that I was exploited," Fischer said. "I think there is a push right now in a lot of evangelical churches to definitely keep the teenagers and keep the children in the faith," said Heidi Ewing, co-director of "Jesus Camp." "And this is one version of that attempt." A Growing Movement This camp is, by many accounts, a small ? and perhaps extreme ? slice of what some say is a growing, intensifying evangelical youth movement. Over the past decade and a half, enrollment at Christian colleges is up 70 percent. Sales of Christian music are up 300 percent. Tens of thousands of youth pastors have been trained. Young people are targeted through Christian music festivals, skateboard competitions and rodeos. "This is an enormous youth movement," said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, "Righteous." Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country's future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. "It's an absolute, straight-up us-against-them," Sandler said. "It's, you're either with us or you're against us. ? Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy ? the enemy being Satan." Chap Clark, an associate professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary who's trained youth pastors for decades, said people who see "Jesus Camp" should not come away with the idea that evangelizing to youth consists mainly of political indoctrination. Clark said youth pastors focus much more on providing meaning to kids who can't find it in a materialistic culture or in their family lives ? "which is going to translate into much healthier adults who are more able to be into respectful dialogue and come alongside people who disagree with them. "I think this is a very hopeful time because of the youth ministry movement," he added. There's disagreement about whether this movement is good for the country and whether the movie is an accurate portrayal of the movement. But there's growing agreement that these children will have a real impact. One child in "Jesus Camp" goes so far as to say, "We're a key generation to bringing Jesus back."

Congratulate the players for just buying themselves a nice long winter because they seemed to want it real bad.