A Brief account of the Causes of the American Civil War

The American Civil War was a brutal friction which took place in the United States of America in the middle of 1861 and 1865 and still has serious repercussions to this day.

To understand why this break up of the Union occurred and how it led to a bloody struggle for four years that pitted house member against house member, here follows a brief summery of the polarised opinions that divided the economic and political attitudes in the Usa as the 1850's drew to a close.

About The Civil War For Kids

The Southern States of America, who are often referred to as Dixie were monopolised by grand plantation owners whose feudal and archaic views were predominant throughout the society. The source of their wealth came from the tobacco and cotton crops which were the mainstay of the Southern citizens.

A Brief account of the Causes of the American Civil War

Woman of Valor: Clara Barton and the Civil War Best

Rate This Product :

Woman of Valor: Clara Barton and the Civil War Feature

• ISBN13: 9780028740126
• Condition: New
• Notes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Tracking provided on most orders. Buy with Confidence! Millions of books sold!

Woman of Valor: Clara Barton and the Civil War Overview

When the Civil War broke out, Clara Barton wanted more than anything to be a Union soldier, an impossible dream for a thirty-nine-year-old woman, who stood a slender five feet tall. Determined to serve, she became a veritable soldier, a nurse, and a one-woman relief agency operating in the heart of the conflict. Now, award-winning author Stephen B. Oates, drawing on archival materials not used by her previous biographers, has written the first complete account of Clara Barton's active engagement in the Civil War.

By the summer of 1862, with no institutional affiliation or official government appointment, but impelled by a sense of duty and a need to heal, she made her way to the front lines and the heat of battle. Oates tells the dramatic story of this woman who gave the world a new definition of courage, supplying medical relief to the wounded at some of the most famous battles of the war -- including Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Battery Wagner, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Petersburg. Under fire with only her will as a shield, she worked while ankle deep in gore, in hellish makeshift battlefield hospitals -- a bullet-riddled farmhouse, a crumbling mansion, a windblown tent. Committed to healing soldiers' spirits as well as their bodies, she served not only as nurse and relief worker, but as surrogate mother, sister, wife, or sweetheart to thousands of sick, wounded, and dying men.

Her contribution to the Union was incalculable and unique. It also became the defining event in Barton's life, giving her the opportunity as a woman to reach out for a new role and to define a new profession. Nursing, regarded as a menial service before the war, became a trained, paid occupation after the conflict. Although Barton went on to become the founder and first president of the Red Cross, the accomplishment for which she is best known, A Woman of Valor convinces us that her experience on the killing fields of the Civil War was her most extraordinary achievement.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Mar 01, 2012 08:50:21

At that time, the ask for cotton and lint throughout the world was heavy and guaranteed the Southern States prosperity, as long as the crops could be farmed economically. In order to do this, the plantation owners relied heavily on 'free labour' that was provided by the slaves who worked the fields. The South's riches were deeply rooted in slavery.

By the 1850's slavery was only practised in the South. It had been prohibited in the North which carefully it morally nasty and uncivilised.

This issue however, was not the only variation in the middle of the North and South. Because of it's agricultural success and wealth, the South had no motivation to fabricate any manufactures other than the output of cotton and tobacco. On the other hand, the North was industrially developed and was attracting vast numbers of European immigrants who added enriched the North with their array of skills, talent and knowledge. Population in the North were developing rapidly and were keen to advance into the New Territories.

The animosity in the middle of the North and South could be seen in the dispute over the New Territories. As the soil was being exhausted by the unrelenting cotton farming, Southern plantation owners were planning on spreading into the newly discovered Western Territories taking cotton and slavery with them. While most Northerners, except a handful of extremists, were ready to tolerate slavery in the Southern States, they were highly carefully to prevent it from being introduced in the Western Territories that would ultimately be admitted into the Union.

In 1860, the selection of Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, as the President of the United States of America, strengthened the Southern States' anxieties, particularly as Lincoln had been elected on a anti-slavery ticket. Now, not only the banning of slavery in the Western Territories seemed on the cards, but also the outlawing of this institution throughout the Us.

The South became worried for its time to come and began listening to extremists who advocated succession from the United States and the establishment of an independent nation. These fanatics asked, why should the Southern States pay tax and duty to the North, when her produce and wealth was thoroughly independent? If the South was allowed to keep hold of its earnings instead of enriching the North then, the radicals argued, the South would come to be highly prosperous. They stressed that the abolition of slavery would paralyse cotton output and threaten white supremacy throughout the South.

These views became beloved with Southerners who were convinced that the North's bulging economy and anti-slavery attitudes would ultimately threaten their way of life. They believed that if they did not act soon, then they would come to be the 'poor relations' to the North.

Southern moderates urged caution and were convinced that any move to independence from the Union would not be tolerated by the North and seen as unconstitutional. The moderates urged the South to wait and see what the implications would bring and just how the Federal government would move against slavery.

Much to the revulsion of Northern politicians, South Carolina was not ready to wait and on the 20th December 1860, she declared herself independent from the Union. South Carolina was speedily followed by Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. Together they formed the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis as their President in February 1861.

The Confederates States started to put together an army and when the newly inaugurated Lincoln attempted to supply the Union Fort Sumter in South Carolina the Confederates bombarded it. Lincoln's response was to call for a 75,000 man army in order to put down the rebellion and blockade Southern ports. This was interrupted as an act of war against the seceded states and Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina split from the Union in pity and joined the Confederacy.

The Confederates believed that they could repel all attempts by the North to rejoin the Union and had confidence that their superiority as horsemen and gunmen would be sufficient to counter their market foes. The South also had faith that they could count on the sustain of England, who they believed would be keen to declare their mutual market interests.

Unfortunately, for the South, England had no desire to go to war with the North and had accumulated a large surplus of cotton for themselves over the preceding years. In expanding to this, England was not sympathetic to the slavery cause.

The South soon realised that she would have to proudly stand alone and fight to safe her lifestyle.

The Confederacy demonstrated ultimate bravery and a spirit for their fight, but, as ever their archaic outlook thwarted them. To be victorious in this war, they would need to adopt contemporary fighting methods and a company like arrival to administration. The communications, transportation, equipment, rations and curative supplies all required excellent co-ordination and administration and the armies would wish a strong backbone of highly skilled workers and modern, efficient factories to sustain them.

A Brief account of the Causes of the American Civil WarSophia Grace & Rosie Do Tea with Taylor Swift! Video Clips. Duration : 4.92 Mins.

The British dynamos had a sit-down for tea with superstar Taylor Swift! They talked about boys, red carpets, and of course, cookies.

Keywords: ellen degeneres, sophia grace and rosie, taylor swift, tea time, The Ellen Show, theellenshow, fun, funny, hilarious, hysterical, season, nine, daytime, talkshow, degeneres, comedy, laugh, Ellen, humor, The Ellen degeneres Show, Humour, Joke, Television Show, The Lorax, talk, chat, boyfriend, boys, boyfriends

Should Your Child Watch Tv News? Surprising Opinions of Top Anchors

Kids And The News

More than ever, children recognize innumerable, sometimes traumatizing,
news events on Tv. It seems that violent crime and bad news is unabating.
Foreign wars, natural disasters, terrorism, murders, incidents of child abuse,
and curative epidemics flood our newscasts daily. Not to mention the grim
wave of new school shootings.

About The Civil War For Kids

All of this intrudes on the innocent world of children. If, as psychologists
say, kids are like sponges and digest all that goes on nearby them,
how profoundly does watching Tv news indeed sway them? How just do
parents need to be in monitoring the flow of news into the home, and how can
they find an approach that works?

Should Your Child Watch Tv News? Surprising Opinions of Top Anchors

Civil War Days: Discover the Past with Exciting Projects, Games, Activities, and Recipes Best

Rate This Product :

Civil War Days: Discover the Past with Exciting Projects, Games, Activities, and Recipes Overview

American Kids in History?(TM) Dozens of projects and activities that will take you back to the days of the American Civil War Travel back to 1862 and spend a year with the Wheelers, an African American family in New York City, and the Parkhursts, a white family in Charleston, South Carolina, Eleven-year-old Emily Parkhurst and twelve-year-old Timothy Wheeler are eager to share the fun, adventure, and hard work of their daily lives. Along the way, they'll show you how to play the games they play and make the toys and crafts they make. Make your own apple pandowdy and whip up a batch of tasty gingerbread. Send top-secret messages in Morse code, gather materials for crafting evergreen wreaths and pinecone turkeys,and sculpt a miniature sheep out of homemade clay dough. Play the exciting African game of mankala--that is, if you have time after making your own potato-print wrapping paper, papier-mache bowl, and marzipan decorations. Civil War Days is filled with interesting historical information and facts about growing up in days gone by. Discover how different--and how similar--life was for American kids in history. Watch for Victorian Days, the next exciting book in the American Kids in History?(TM) series! Also available: Pioneer Days, Colonial Days, and Wild West Days For Children Ages 8 to 1 2

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 26, 2012 13:01:02

To retort these questions, we turned to a panel of seasoned anchors, Peter
Jennings, Maria Shriver, Linda Ellerbee, and Jane Pauley--each having faced the
complexities of raising their own vulnerable children in a news-saturated
world.

Picture this: 6:30 p.m. After an exhausting day at the office, Mom is busy
making dinner. She parks her 9-year-old daughter and 5-year-old son in front
of the Tv.

"Play Nintendo until dinner's ready," she instructs the minuscule ones, who,
instead, start flipping channels.

Tom Brokaw on "Nbc News Tonight," announces that an Atlanta gunman
has killed his wife, daughter and son, all three with a hammer, before going on
a shooting rampage that leaves nine dead.

On "World News Tonight," Peter Jennings reports that a jumbo jetliner with
more than 300 passengers crashed in a spinning metal fireball at a Hong Kong
airport.

On Cnn, there's a narrative about the earthquake in Turkey, with 2,000
people killed.

On the Discovery channel, there's a timely extra on hurricanes and the
terror they create in children. Hurricane Dennis has already struck, Floyd is
coming.

Finally, they see a local news narrative about a roller coaster urgency at a New
Jersey amusement park that kills a mother and her eight-year-old daughter.

Nintendo was never this riveting.

"Dinner's ready!" shouts Mom, unaware that her children may be terrified
by this menacing potpourri of Tv news.

What's wrong with this picture?

"There's a Lot wrong with it, but it's not that indeed fixable," notes Linda
Ellerbee, the originator and host of "Nick News," the award-winning news
program geared for kids ages 8-13, airing on Nickelodeon.

"Watching blood and gore on Tv is Not good for kids and it doesn't do
much to enhance the lives of adults either," says the anchor, who strives to
inform children about world events without terrorizing them. "We're into
stretching kids' brains and there's nothing we wouldn't cover," including
recent programs on euthanasia, the Kosovo crisis, prayer in schools, book-
banning, the death penalty, and Sudan slaves.

But Ellerbee emphasizes the necessity of parental supervision, shielding
children from unfounded fears. "During the Oklahoma City bombing, there
were terrible images of children being hurt and killed," Ellerbee recalls. "Kids
wanted to know if they were safe in their beds. In studies conducted by
Nickelodeon, we found out that kids find the news the most frightening thing
on Tv.

"Whether it's the Gulf War, the Clinton scandal, a downed jetliner, or what
happened in Littleton, you have to reassure your children, over and over again,
that they're going to be Ok--that the presume this story is news is that It
Almost Never Happens. News is the exception...nobody goes on the air
happily and reports how many planes landed safely!

"My job is to put the information into an age-appropriate context and lower
anxieties. Then it's indeed up to the parents to monitor what their kids watch
and discuss it with them"

Yet a new study of the role of media in the lives of children conducted by
the Henry J. Kaiser house Foundation reveals that 95% of the nation's children
ages 8-18 are watching Tv without their parents present.

How does Ellerbee view the typical scenario of the harried mother above?

"Mom's taking a beating here. Where's Dad?" Ellerbee asks.Perhaps at work,
or living separately from Mom, or absent altogether.

"Right. Most Moms and Dads are working as hard as they can because we
live in a community where one earnings just doesn't cut it anymore,"

Nbc News correspondent Maria Shriver, the mother of four--Katherine,
13, Christina, 12, Patrick, 10, and Christopher, 6--agrees with Ellerbee: "But
Moms
aren't using the Tv as a babysitter because they're out getting manicures!"
says the 48-year-old anchor.

"Those mothers are struggling to make ends meet and they do it because
they need help. I don't think kids would be watching [as much Tv] if their
parents were home organizing a touch football game.

"When I need the Tv as a babysitter," says Shriver, who leaves detailed Tv-
viewing instructions behind when traveling, "I put on a safe video. I don't mind
that my kids have watched "Pretty Woman" or "My Best Friend's Wedding"
3,000 times. I'd be more fearful if they watched an hour of local news.That
would scare them. They might feel: 'Oh, my God, is somebody going to come
in and shoot me in my bedroom?'"

In a move to supervise her own children more closely since her husband,
Arnold Schwarzenegger, became Governor, Shriver
scaled back her workload as Contributing Anchor to Dateline Nbc and set up
her office at home: "You can never be vigilant adequate with your kids," she
says, "because watching violence on Tv clearly has a huge impact on
children--whether it's Tv news, movies, or cartoons."

This view is shared by the American Academy of Child and juvenile
Psychiatry, which states: ""Tv is a excellent sway in developing value
systems and shaping behavior...studies find that children may become immune
to the bad dream of violence; gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems;
and resort to anti-social and aggressive behavior, imitating the violence they
observe."

Although there are no rules about watching Tv in 49% of the nation's
households, Tv-watching at the Schwarzenegger home is almost totally
verboten:

"We have a blanket rule that my kids do not watch any Tv at all during the
week," she notes, "and having a Tv in their bedrooms has never been an
option. I have adequate trouble getting them to do their homework!" she states
with a laugh. "Plus the half hour of reading they have to do every night.

According to the Kaiser survey, Shriver's household is a glaring irregularity to
the rule. "Many kids have their own Tv's, Vcr's and video games in their
bedroom," the study notes. Moreover, children ages 8-18 indeed spend an
average of three hours and 16 minutes watching Tv daily; only 44 minutes
reading; 31 minutes using the computer; 27 minutes playing video games;
and a mere 13 minutes using the Internet.

"My kids," Shriver explains, "get home at 4 p.m., have a 20-minute break,
then go right into homework or after-school sports. Then, I'm a big believer in
having house evening meal time. Some of my fondest memories are of sitting at the
dinner table and listening to my parents, four brothers, and my grandmother,
Rose. We didn't watch the news.

"After evening meal nowadays, we play a game, then my kids are in bed, reading
their books. There's no time in that day for any Tv, except on weekends, when
they're allowed to watch a Disney video, Sesame Street, Barney, The Brady
Bunch, or Pokemon."

Beyond safe entertainment, Shriver has eliminated entirely the selection of her
children watching news events unfolding live on Tv: "My kids," she notes, "do
not watch any Tv news, other than Nick News," instead providing her children
with Time for Kids, [Teen Newsweek is also available], Highlights, and
newspaper clippings discussed over dinner.

"No field should be off-limits," Shriver concludes, "but you must filter
the news to your kids."

Abc's Peter Jennings, who reigns over "World News Tonight," the nation's
most-watched evening newscast, emphatically disagrees with a censored
approach to news-watching: "I have two kids--Elizabeth is now 24 and
Christopher is 21-- and they were allowed to watch as much Tv news and
information anytime they wanted," says the anchor. A firm believer in
kids understanding the world nearby them, he adapted his bestselling book,
The Century, for children ages 10 and older in The Century for Young People.

No downside to kids watching news? "I don't know of any downside and I've
thought about it many times. I used to worry about my kids' exposure to
violence and overt sex in the movies. Like most parents, I found that although
they were exposed to violence sooner than I would have liked, I don't feel
they've been affected by it. The jury's still out on the sex.

"I have exposed my kids to the violence of the world--to the bestiality of
man--from the very beginning, at age 6 or 7. I didn't try to hide it. I never
worried about putting a curtain between them and reality, because I never felt
my children would be damaged by being exposed to violence If they
understood the context in which it occurred. I would talk to my kids about the
vulnerability of children in wartime--the fact that they are innocent pawns--
and about what we could do as a house to make the world a more peaceful
place.

Jennings firmly believes that coddling children is a mistake: "I've never
talked down to my children, or to children period. I always talk Up to them and
my newscast is accepted for children of any age."

Yet the 65-year-old anchor often gets letters from irate parents: "They'll
say: 'How dare you put that on at 6:30 when my children are watching?' My
answer is: 'Madam, that's not my problem. That's Your problem. It's
absolutely up to the parent to monitor the flow of news into the home."

Part of directing this flow is turning it off altogether at meal-time, says
Jennings, who believes house dinners are sacrosanct. He is appalled that the
Tv is turned on during meals in 58% of the nation's households, this according
to the Kaiser study.

"Watching Tv during evening meal is unforgivable," he exclaims, explaining that
he always insisted that his house wait until he arrived home from anchoring
the news. "You're darn right they waited...even when my kids were tiny, they
never ate until 7:30 or 8 pm. Then we would sit with no music, no Tv. Why
waste such a golden opportunity? Watching Tv at mealtime robs the house of
the essence of the dinner, which is communion and exchange of ideas. I mean,
God, if the evening meal table is anything, it's a place to learn manners and
appreciation for two of the most things in life--food and drink."

Jennings is likewise unequivocal in his view of junk Tv and believes parking
kids at the tube creates dull minds: "I think using Tv as a babysitter is a
terrible idea because the damn television is very narcotic, drug-like. Mindless
Tv makes for passive human beings--and it's a distraction from homework!

"My two children were allowed to watch only a half an hour of entertainment
Tv per night--and they never had Tv's in their bedrooms.It's a conscious
choice I made as a parent not to tempt them...too seductive..."

Adds Ellerbee: "Tv is seductive and is meant to be. The hard, clear fact is
that when kids are watching Tv, they're not doing anyone else!"

Indeed, according to the National create on Out-of-School Time and the
Office of study schooling buyer Guide, Tv plays a bigger role in
children's lives now than ever before. Kids watch Tv an mean of14 to 22
hours per week, which accounts for at least 25 percent of their free time.

"Dateline Nbc" Anchor Jane Pauley, intensely private, declined an interview
to discuss how she and her husband, cartoonist Garry Trudeau ("Doonesbury")
handle Tv-watching with their three teens, two of whom are fraternal twins.
But in a written response, she agreed that kids need to be good protected
from the onslaught of violence: "I was a visitor at a public elementary school
not long ago, and was invited to peek in on a fourth-grade class on 'current
events.' The assignment had been to watch the news and write about one of
the stories. Two kids picked the fatal charge on a child by a pit bull and the
other wrote about a child who'd hanged herself with a belt! They'd all watched
the worst blood and gore 'News at 11' center in town. The trainer gave no
hint that she was as appalled as I was. My response was to help the school get
subscriptions to "Time for Kids" and "My Weekly Reader." population need to be
better news consumers. And tabloid Tv is very unhealthy for kids."

On this point, Ellerbee facilely agrees:"I indeed do believe the first
amendment Stops at your front door. You are the boss at home and parents
have every right to monitor what their kids watch. What's even good is
watching with them and initiating conversations about what they see.If your
child is watching something terribly violent, sit down and Defuse it. Talking
makes the ghosts run...and kids can break through their scared feelings."

Adds Pauly:

"Kids," she maintains, "know about bad news--they're the ones trying to
spare us the bad news sometimes. But kids should be able to see that their
parents are both human adequate to be deeply affected by a tragedy like
Columbine, but also sturdy adequate to get through it...and on with life. That is
the underpinning of their security."

"I'm no scholar on the nation's children," adds Jennings, " but I'd have to say
no, it wasn't traumatic. Troubling, shocking, even devastating to some,
confusing to others, but traumatizing in that great sense, no.

"Would I justify to my kids that there are young, upset, angry, depressed
kids in the world? Yes. I hear the most horrendous stories about what's going
on in high schools from my kids. And because of the shootings, parents are
now on edge--pressuring educators to 'do something.' They have to be
reminded that the vast majority of all schools in America are overwhelmingly
safe," a fact borne out by The National School protection Center, which reports that
in l998 there were just 25 violent deaths in schools compared to an mean of
50 in the early 90's.

Ellerbee adds that a parent's ability to listen is more important than
lobbying school principals for more metal detectors and armed guards: "If
there was ever a case where grown-ups weren't listening to kids, it was
Littleton. First, don't interrupt your child...let them get the whole understanding out.
Next, if you sit silently for a join of seconds after they're finished, they'll
start talking again, getting to a second level of honesty. Third, try to be honest
with your kid. To very small children, it's permissible to say: 'This is never going to
happen to you...' But you don't say that to a 10-year-old."

Moreover, Ellerbee believes that media literacy begins the day parents stop
pretending that if you ignore Tv, it will go away. "Let your kid know from the
very beginning that he or she is Smarter than Tv: 'I am in operate of this box,
it is not in operate of me. I will use this box as a useful, excellent Tool, but will
not be used by it.' Kids know the difference.

"Watching Tv," Ellerbee maintains, "can makes kids more civilized. I grew
up in the south of Texas in a house of bigoted people. Watching Tv made me
question my own family's beliefs in the natural inferiority of population of color.
For me, Tv was a real window that broadened my world."

Ironically, for Shriver, watching Tv news is incredibly painful when the
broadcast is about you. Being a Kennedy, Shriver has lived a lifetime in the
glare of rumors and
televised venture about her own family. Presenting the news to her children
has therefore included explaining the tragedies and controversies the
Kennedys have endured. She was just eight years old when her uncle, President
John F. Kennedy, was assassinated: "I grew up in a very big shadow...and I
couldn't avoid it," she admits. "It wasn't a choker, but it was a big
responsibility that I don't want my own children to feel." Yet doesn't her 15-
year marriage to megastar Schwarzenegger add yet other layer of public
curiosity close to home? "My kids are not watching Entertainment Tonight--no,
no, never! And I don't bring them to movie openings or Planet Hollywood. I
think it's fine for them to be proud of their father, but not show off about him."

How does she emotionally deal with news when her family's in it? "That's a line
I've been walking since my own childhood, and it's indeed effected the kind
of reporter I've become. It's made me less aggressive. I'm not [in the news
business] to glorify myself at person else's expense, but rather to narrative a
story without destroying person in the process. A producer might say: 'Call
this person who's in a disastrous situation and book them right way.' And I'm
like: 'Ahhhh. I can't even bring myself to do it,' because I've been on the
other side and know the house is in such pain."

A few years ago, of course, the Kennedys experienced profound pain, yet
again, when Shriver's favorite cousin, John F. Kennedy, Jr., was killed in a plane
crash, with his wife, Carolyn, and sister-in-law, Lauren Bessette. A blizzard of
news coverage ensued, unremitting for weeks. "I didn't watch any of it...I was
busy, " Shriver says quietly. "And my children didn't watch any of it either."

Shriver was, however, somewhat prepared to discuss the tragedy with her
children. She is the author of the best-selling "What's Heaven?" [Golden Books],
a book geared for children ages 4-8, which explains death and the loss of a
loved one. "My children knew John well because he spent Christmases with us. I
explained what happened to John as the news unfolded...walked them through
it as best I could. I reminded them that Mommy wrote the book and said:
'We're not going to see John anymore. He has gone to God...to heaven...and we
have to pray for him and for his sister [Caroline] and her children."

Like Shriver, Jennings is personally uncomfortable in the role of covering
private tragedies in a public forum: "In my shop, I'm regarded as one of those
people who drags their feet a lot at the understanding of covering those things," he
explains. "During the O.J. Simpson trial, I decided not to go crazy in our
coverage--and we took quite a smack and dropped from first to second in the
ratings. Tv is a business, so when a real corker of a story like Princess Diana's
death comes along, we cover it. I think we're afraid not to do it. We're guilty of
overkill, and with Diana, we ended up celebrating something that was largely
ephemeral, development Diana more than she was. But audiences leap up!

"I was totally opposed to covering John F. Kennedy, Jr.'s funeral, because I
saw no need to do it. He wasn't a public figure, though others would say I was
wrong. On-air, I said: 'I don't think the young Mr. Kennedy would approve of
all this excess...' But we did three hours on the funeral and it turned out to be
a fantastic long history chapter about American politics and the Kennedy
dynasty's place in our national life.

"Sometimes," Jennings muses, "Tv is like a chapel in which we, as a nation,
can secure to have a public contact of loss.We did it with the
Challenger, more recently with Jfk Jr.'s death and we will do it shortly, I
suspect, though I hope not, with Ronald Reagan. It's not much different than
what population did when they went West in covered wagons in the last century.
When tragedy struck, they gathered the wagons around, lit the fire, and talked
about their losses of the day. And then went on. Television can be very
comforting."

In closing, Ellerbee contends that you can't blame Tv news producers for
the human appetite for sensational news coverage that often drags on for days
at a time:

"As a reporter," she muses, "I have never been to a war, traffic accident, or
murder site that didn't draw a crowd. There is a minuscule trash in all of us. But the
same population who stop to gawk at a traffic accident, may also climb down a well
to save a child's life, or cry at a sunset, or grin and tap their feet when the
parade goes by.

"We are Not just one thing. Kids can understand these grays...just as
there's more than one retort to a question, there is indeed more than one
part to you!"

Should Your Child Watch Tv News? Surprising Opinions of Top AnchorsLMFAO - Sorry For Party Rocking Tube. Duration : 7.33 Mins.

Sorry For Party Rocking - Buy the album now! smarturl.it

Keywords: LMFAO, new, video, music, sorry, for, party, rockin, sfpr, tock, anthem, sky, blue, skyblu, red, foo, redfoo

Check Out The Civil Rights Movement for Kids: A History with 21 Activities (For Kids series) for $11.53

The Civil Rights Movement for Kids: A History with 21 Activities (For Kids series) Best

Rate This Product :

The Civil Rights Movement for Kids: A History with 21 Activities (For Kids series) Overview

Surprisingly, kids were some of the key instigators in the Civil Rights Movement, like Barbara Johns, who held a rally in her elementary school gym that eventually led to the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court school desegregation decision, and six-year-old Ruby Bridges, who was the first black student to desegregate elementary schools in New Orleans. In The Civil Rights Movement for Kids, children will discover how students and religious leaders worked together to demand the protection of civil rights for black Americans. They will relive the fear and uncertainty of Freedom Summer and learn how northern white college students helped bring national attention to atrocities committed in the name of segregation, and they’ll be inspired by the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X. Activities include: reenacting a lunch counter sit-in; organizing a workshop on nonviolence; holding a freedom film festival followed by a discussion; and organizing a choral group to sing the songs that motivated the foot soldiers in this war for rights.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 24, 2012 16:59:25

Civil War Relic Treasures - Bullets and Cannon Balls

Living in the Southwest we don't get to many opportunities to hunt for Civil War relics.

While visiting relatives in the East, I took my metal detector with us.

About The Civil War For Kids

This record will again highlight how prominent study is in treasure hunting.

Civil War Relic Treasures - Bullets and Cannon Balls

Magic Tree House Fact Tracker #11: American Revolution: A Nonfiction Companion to Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday Best

Rate This Product :

Magic Tree House Fact Tracker #11: American Revolution: A Nonfiction Companion to Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday Overview

Magic Tree House Research Guides are now Magic Tree House Fact Trackers! Track the facts with Jack and Annie!
 
When Jack and Annie got back from their adventure in Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday, they had lots of questions. What was it like to live in colonial times? Why did the stamp Act make the colonists so angry? Who were the Minutemen? What happened at the Boston Tea Party? Find out the answers to these questions and more as Jack and Annie track the facts. Filled with up-to-date information, photos, illustrations, and fun tidbits from Jack and Annie, the Magic Tree House Fact Trackers are the perfect way for kids to find out more about the topics they discovered in their favorite Magic Tree House adventures.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 23, 2012 09:01:18

I knew the home my relatives were living in was quite old. It was placed in Eastern Pennsylvania . The main structure was built nearby 1840's. The main house was three stories and it had 15 Bedrooms. Each bedroom had a Fireplace. I didn't quantum the house but I would evaluation it at 8,000 square feet. The current structure and land included a tennis court, large pool, and very large 3-story barn. All of this was setting on approximately 20 acres. The primary land and structures included 25 coke ovens, and a lead casting foundry.

One of my relatives said he understanding the whole doing made cannon balls and musket bullets for the North while the Civil War. After that criticism I started looking for ways to study the area.

Fortunately the house had some very old pictures mounted on the walls, which depicted how the structures looked many years ago. It helped pinpoint where primary structure were located.

I continued to study the location. I was able to acquired added information on the history of the old house at the local grocery store. Working at the check out counter was a gentleman in his mid 70's. Vern had lived in the area all his life. His Father, mom and Grand parents lived in the area all their lives. Vern validated the property I was researching was a
Canon Ball and Bullet foundry while the Civil War.

It was time to break out my metal detector.

Prior to searching nearby the house, barn and foundry, I wanted to test my detector on soil conditions. I was passing the detector over the gravel drive when it sounded off. The target
appeared large. I dug down about 6 inches. It turned out to be a melted piece of lead. The item weight about 2 lbs.

I proceeded to hunt the area for two days. I found many pieces of Lead, including a integrate of pieces that could have been Cannon Balls. We found a few older coins, but nothing in 1800's. By the barn we uncovered some old tools, parts of older Automobiles. Also found were horseshoes, and nails. The old foundry was gated and locked up so we could not hunt it.

This outing was a fun time. Knowing what era the structure were and confirmation on the Civil War factory made the study fun.

Remember your treasure hunting outings will be more fun and profitable if you do the research.

Please visit our site for more stories and tips. Azmuletreasure

Civil War Relic Treasures - Bullets and Cannon BallsChayanne - Tu Boca Tube. Duration : 3.90 Mins.

Music video by Chayanne performing Tu Boca. (C) 2012 Sony Music Entertainment US Latin LLC

Tags: Chayanne, Tu, Boca, Sony, Music, Latin, Pop

Are Your Managers Ready for Generation Y Employees?

Generation Y or the "Internet Generation" will dramatically convert every aspect of your enterprise in the next five years!

Change will be constant, rapid and revolutionary. Want proof?

About The Civil War For Kids

First, the Massachusetts found of Technology is putting all of their 1,500 courses on the Internet. Mit believes that the "dissemination of knowledge and data can open new doors to the qualified benefits of study for humanity around the world." That means students, educators and self-learners will be able to audit these courses when and where they want.

Are Your Managers Ready for Generation Y Employees?

Great Civil War Projects You Can Build Yourself (Build It Yourself series) Best

Rate This Product :

Great Civil War Projects You Can Build Yourself (Build It Yourself series) Overview

From uniforms and submarines to potato cannons and regimental flags, this interactive book explores the history and inventions of the Civil War through building projects and activities. Finished products include a set of Civil War drums, secret codes, and a Civil War spy glass. Detailed step-by-step instructions, diagrams, and templates for each project are interspersed with historical facts, biographies, anecdotes, and trivia about the real-life models. Most of the building can be done using simple household supplies: construction paper, tape, markers, glue, cardboard tubes, string, yarn, aluminum foil, and cardboard boxes.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 19, 2012 21:17:30

Second, Bob Lutz, normal Motors Vice Chairman, has a blog to enumerate directly with his customers. It is an invaluable way to get prominent data out to the market. It is also a car for timely and literal, feedback. Other Gm executives are setting up blogs to talk directly to and get data from their employees. By comparison, Microsoft has over 1,500 customer and employee blogs.

Third, YouTube is an Internet overnight success story. It allows population to upload and share videos over the Internet. To date they have 100 million videos on their site and receive an additional one 65,000 per day. The enterprise was founded in February 2005, and was never profitable. Yet, Google understood the possible of their technology and purchased the enterprise nineteen months later for .65 billion.

While Gen X employees understand Internet, multitasking and instant communications, Generation Y members excels at use of these three tools, and they will use them to transform business. They will challenge every aspect of the workplace.

How do the dissimilar generational employees look managers?

Boomers: The boss is not all the time right, but the boss is all the time the boss. I will put in long hours to get ahead. If necessary, I will do so at the price of my family.

Generation X: The boss is not all the time right, but I'm not going to be here very long. I watched my parent's jobs be downsized or outsourced so I don't have the same loyalty to a enterprise they did. I'm not married to the company; I value my life covering of work.

Generation Y: The boss is not all the time right, but are they open to new ways to do business? Events like 9/11 and the Columbine High School shooting have taught us that life can be fleeting. The Internet as exposed us to new ways of approaching life and work. I want to flexibility, to be valued for my ideas and my work and I want time off to volunteer.

They are called Generation Y, as in "why," because they are constantly questioning the status quo. They are practically as large as the Boomer generation and are over 65% larger than the Generation X group. In the next twenty-five years 80 million Boomers will be retiring. As the Boomers retire, the Gen X employees will come to be the Gen Y's managers. However, because of their sheer size Generation Y will be the fantastic influence in the workplace for the next fifty years.

Generation Y fully embraces technology. Today's twenty-year-old college graduate was only five years old when the Internet was developed in 1992. They have all the time absolutely had the world at their finger tips. They grew up with instant messaging, text messaging, cell phones, iPods, Pdas, MySpace, YouTube, multitasking and blogging. They think, and act, in terms of instant communications. While Gen X employees understood and used these vehicles, Generation Y is totally immersed in them.

Baby Boomers changed the culture on civil rights, woman's rights, and gay rights. Their world was shaped by the Cold War. The members of Generation Y were born after the Civil possession Act was passed (1964), the gay possession movement started (1969), the first woman sat on the U.S. Supreme Court (1975), and the Berlin Wall came down (1990). The struggles many of us remember are acceptable facts in their world. Generation Y individuals embrace diversity as an acceptable norm and until recently knew nothing about war. Their world has all the time included diversity.

Each of us has memories of some modern tragic events: the Oklahoma bombing, the Columbine High school shootings, the World Trade town bombing, and three wars-Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror. If you were a thirteen to fifteen year old, how would these events shape your thoughts about the future? In a practical way these Generation Y's remain optimistic.

Generation Y members are group-oriented, confident, goal-oriented and civic-minded. They have a more worldly view than Generation X'ers. These new employees have been coddled by their parents. As children they received trophies for simply participating on a team. Parents told them were special and capable of doing anything. Their non-school activities were scheduled (e.g., karate, soccer, etc.), and their parents were not afraid to call a teacher, coach or Boy Scout leader if they did not think their child was being treated fairly.

Generation Y kids have been raised with instant communication, unrealistic feedback and rapid decision manufacture as the norm. They believe they have the world in the palm of their hand. And, with their knowledge of today's technology they do.

So what can your managers do to get ready for Generation Y employees? Generation Y employees want to be heard and valued by their enterprise when they start with your company. They place a high value on house and flexibility and will volunteer their time to causes they feel are important. They are fearless and not intimidated by titles or corporate organizational charts.

They love range and are not afraid of change. If they think they have a good suggestion they will take possession of the idea. And, they will not be afraid to take the idea up the corporate ladder to be heard.

Successful associates must find ways to harness the new employee's talents, join them into the enterprise and turn ideas into a contentious advantage. Progressive associates understand that studying is a two-way street. Generation Y employees will revolutionize internal and external communications. associates have a lot to teach the Gen Y's, but they have a lot to learn from them also. That will be difficult in rigid, very structured companies.

Jack Welsh, former Ceo of normal Electric, stated that "...ebusiness knowledge is regularly inversely proportional to age and rank." Hiring, curious and retaining good employees have all the time been the hallmark of flourishing companies.

Successful associates today must found a culture of learning, sharing and embracing change. They will employ two-way mentoring, blogging, new training platforms, and new ways of hiring and promoting people.

Training Generation Y employees will change. Boring, all-day seminars will come to be less frequent. Generation Y employees will text message their friends while those seminars. They need the data in the seminar, but associates will have the training available in dissimilar platforms and in smaller "bite-sized" portions. These training modules will be downloadable to an employees' Blackberry, iPod or computer. The employee will view the sessions at home, or on a plane or listen to them in the car driving to an appointment.

This is an curious and dynamic time for business! convert will be constant, rapid and revolutionary.

Generation Y employees will convert how we look at hiring, turnover, mentoring, performance reviews, employee orientation, holding issues, and how we enumerate with our employees and customers. Are your managers ready for this new employee?

Questions for Discussion:

1. A new employee takes practically six months to "learn the ropes," and they will probably leave the enterprise within four years. How will your managers take full benefit of the Generation Y employee's creative energies?

1. What systems within your enterprise need to be reviewed to take benefit of these upcoming changes?

1. How can you dramatically convert the way you enumerate with your customers and your employees?

Are Your Managers Ready for Generation Y Employees?Whitney Houston Family Plans Private Funeral for Late Singer Tube. Duration : 2.30 Mins.

Late singer's family will hold a private ceremony; investigation continues. For more, click here: abcnews.go.com

Keywords: whitney houston, whitney houston cause of death, whitney houston news, whitney houston songs, whitney houston net worth, whitney houston lyrics, whitney houston wiki, whitney houston i have nothing, whitney houston sparkle, whitney houston dead, whitney houston bobby brown, houston daughter, whitney houston grammys

separation - What Happens to the Children?

Break up and divorce. Both are painful and difficult. Both partners put all that they had into the relationship, and then it's over. Whatever the reasons are for the divorce, the parting of ways doesn't have to be hateful and bitter. A breakup hurts everyone, not just the two population in the relationship. Friends, relatives, and even acquaintances have feelings about your separation, but children are the ones that suffer the most pain.

One of the worst things that you can do as a divorced parent is to verbally bash your previous spouse to your kids. When a separation takes place, children have their own perceptions of what has occurred, and a perception of both parents. They have a lot of emotions going on, and a lot of confusion. Whatever your previous spouse's faults and shortcomings were or currently are, remember that your kids aren't the source of those inadequacies. Why cause them more anguish in expanding to the hurt they already have?

About The Civil War For Kids

Kids of all ages feel the pain of a parental breakup. While an interview with Melissa Wooldridge,* she recalled that when her parents ultimately divorced after being separated for six years, it was a relief for eighteen year-old Melissa and her sixteen and twenty-six year-old siblings. Her parents had fought ferociously for as long as she could remember. Through their childhood and youthful years, her mum consistently said derogatory and ugly things to Melissa and her brothers about their father. Their dad said some significant things about their mother, but his verbal beating wasn't as disparaging as their mother's. The steady verbal butchering that their parents did to each other ultimately wore heavily on the kids. In time, and prior to his passing, Melissa and her brothers got to know their father as the good person that he actually was. Their father's insulting comments were out of worry about their mother's alcohol addiction. Their mum passed away five months before Melissa's nineteenth birthday, but because her mum vented her bitterness so violently again and again, Melissa doesn't have many good memories of her. At the age of forty-seven, Melissa still feels the pain of her parent's bitter breakup. She still has doubts about herself, and she has issues with trust and self-worth. Her oldest brother felt that he could never quantum up and not disappoint his parents. At the age of 29, he began drinking heavily and was murdered in a drinking making ready While an seminar with a friend. Her younger brother who is 45, is withdrawn and has become a somewhat of a loner.

separation - What Happens to the Children?

Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday (A Stepping Stone Book(TM)) Best

Rate This Product :

Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday (A Stepping Stone Book(TM)) Overview

Jack and Annie are ready for their next fantasy adventure in the bestselling middle-grade series—the Magic Tree House!

It is a dark and snowy night

when the Magic Tree House whisks Jack and Annie back to colonial times. General George Washington is about to lead his army in a sneak attack against their enemy. But now a terrible weather is making the great general question his plans. Can Jack and Annie keep history on track? The fate of the country rests in their hands!

Visit the Magic Tree House website!
MagicTreeHouse.com

Magic Tree House #22: Revolutionary War on Wednesday (A Stepping Stone Book(TM)) Specifications

If it's Wednesday, it must be Revolutionary War day. Jack and Annie, stars of the Magic Tree House series, are in for another adventure in their time- and space-traveling tree house. Mysterious magical librarian Morgan le Fay has set four new tasks for the siblings. Jack and Annie must find four special kinds of writing for Morgan's library in order to save Camelot, the ancient kingdom of King Arthur. In Civil War on Sunday, the pair traveled back to the 1860s to collect a list of rules ("something to follow") from famous nurse Clara Barton. Now they discover they must visit another war era: the Revolutionary War. Jack and Annie set aside their apprehension and soon they're spinning back through time to Christmas Day, 1776, on the banks of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania, where they encounter none other than the man on the dollar bill himself, George Washington! The children accidentally-on-purpose end up embroiled in the famous commander-in-chief's mission, where they not only play a part in convincing Washington to carry on with his patriotic duty, but also find the second kind of writing for Morgan's library: "something to send."

Award-winning author Mary Pope Osborne's young adventure series, The Magic Tree House, is immensely popular among children and teachers alike, promoting a fascination with history--and reading--no textbook can match. (Ages 6 to 9) --Emilie Coulter

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 18, 2012 18:29:18

It can be very tempting to vent your hurt and anger at your previous spouse to your children. Resist the temptation and find a way to express it to other adults or to a retain group for divorced people. Voicing destructive comments about the other parent in the nearnessy of your children is very harsh, and it tears down their confidence and self esteem. Most children love both parents, and they should not be coerced into loving one parent or the other. Actions of this kind approximately always backfire, leaving a trail of deep emotional pain. No matter what happens between you and your previous spouse, your kids should be encouraged to love and respect both parents without fear of hurting whether one.

Many parents aren't aware of the kind of damage that they do to their children by openly and brutally verbalizing their anger against each other. A well adjusted child will be reduced to being fearful and withdrawn. Some children repeat their parent's behavior with their friends, or as adults they repeat it when going Through their own divorce. Others are unable to have happy and fulfilling relationships of any kind with anyone, because the deep and disconcerting injuries that their parents inflicted on them made them doubt themselves as worthwhile and deserving people. Trust is an issue. They sometimes become dysfunctional.

The ages of the children are irrelevant. Kids are population too - very leading people. Their lives are based on being free to love both parents without repercussion. If you are going Through a separation and value your children's emotional well being, don't take that option away from them.

*name changed at the ask of interviewee to protect her privacy.

© Copyright 2007 Patti McMann. All ownership reserved.

separation - What Happens to the Children?Nicki Minaj - Stupid Hoe (Explicit) Video Clips. Duration : 3.50 Mins.

Music video by Nicki Minaj performing Stupid Hoe (Explicit). (C) 2012 Cash Money Records Inc.

Keywords: Nicki, Minaj, Stupid, Hoe, (Explicit), Cash, Money/Republic, Records, Rap/Hip-Hop

Fit To Be a Father

The fairytale marriage comes to an abrupt end. The glass of the framed wedding photo has been broken. The living room furniture, once thought about a place for house meetings and fellowship, has been divided; it will be termed "community property" in legalese and will be fought over in a house court between two parties. The husband and wife will spend hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars arguing over "he said," "she said," "he did this," "she said" - matters that will contribute nothing more than an valid social narrative for future reference by the two parties. When the adolescent behavior of the adults ceases, a judge will bring to the forefront the matter of child custody, more popularly known as the, who gets the kids issue.

If mom and father do not come to an business agreement on the matter of custody, the judge will wield his fine tongue and utter some combination of the words, "it is in the best interests of the child..." and will be the first to reprioritize the significance of the parental roles in the life of the child. "The best interests the child" is a phrase that has been thrown around in house court for decades, but in reality, as it pertains to determining matters of custody nothing could be additional from the truth; the courts today overwhelmingly still favor mothers, and fathers wage war in unfair custody battles every day, often times arrival up empty handed.

About The Civil War For Kids

Certainly over the last century, many a father has sown into the breakdown of the relationships between the father and his children. However, over time our community and the U.S. Court system have tipped the scales of custodial matters, favoring the mom and leaving the fathers in the cold, with the children's security blanket in hand. The American house has not all the time been structured the way it is today. In fact, it was not until the mid 1800s and the rise of the industrial Revolution that the role of the father in the home changed significantly. In her book, Fatherhood Politics In The United States, Anna Gavanas mentions that in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, fathers had important childrearing tasks: they were the primary custodians of the children, and they were generally responsible for their schooling and moral advice (7). It was very common for the children to be at the father's side throughout the day as he carried on the tasks of farming the land, working a trade, such as a blacksmith - often taught to the children, maintaining the home, etc. But, with the rise of the industrial Revolution, many fathers were moved out of the home and into installation jobs. industrial community demanded that middle-class fathering revolve around workplace schedules instead of preindustrial, home-based economic conditions, where fatherhood was part of daily work (7).

Fit To Be a Father

Civil War Uniforms Coloring Book (Dover Fashion Coloring Book) Best

Rate This Product :

Civil War Uniforms Coloring Book (Dover Fashion Coloring Book) Overview

Accurate representations of period apparel depict 21 Confederate uniforms, 24 Union uniforms, different ranks, states, units; historical figures include Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, David G. Farragut, and others — shown in color on covers. Descriptive captions.

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 15, 2012 06:38:10

In time, this evolution would prompt the courts to reverse their course on custody matters. The irony of this chain of events is startling; the working father replaces the at-home father in order to build America. Unbeknownst to the father, while taking part in a societal transition that ultimately builds a nation's workforce and economy, the house buildings begins a slow deterioration, resulting in a demolition that ultimately brings the house unit crashing down.

Domesticity and house involvement became related with femininity in the nineteenth-century market economy, and "masculinity" entailed defining fathers first and important as breadwinners (Gavanas 7). The mom assumed the role in the domestic capacity that the father had previously filled. As time would have it, the role of the father became increasingly less in the home and he became more known as the extreme decision-maker, who had the final say. Most population who grew up in the baby boomer generation can remember mother's weapon of last resort: "you just wait until your father gets home!" But to the child, fathers were seen as a source of entertainment when they returned home from a long day's work; playing with the kids was common past time, but the father's input of moral advice lessened.

There is a misconception that the fathers role can be filled by the stay-at-home mother. Fathers play a pivotal role in the lives of children. Children receive much of their validation from the voice of a caring father. The continual input of a father's advice and counsel, the image of the father as the backbone of impel and durableness that he symbolizes, and the affections and verbal affirmations from the father water the seeds of self-esteem, and weave the thread of moral fiber into the identity of the child. This is not only necessary, but also vital to the growth and maturity of a child, especially while the tender years.

In a 2004 Law & community divulge article, Julie E. Artis summarizes one of the foundational legal philosophies used in custody disputes: the tender years doctrine. Until the late 1960s, courts automatically awarded mothers custody based on the "tender years doctrine" - the understanding that mothers have superior, "natural" nurturing abilities and a biological connection the their infants. Despite current gender-neutral custody laws, the idea that mothers are biologically related to young children and infants (by breastfeeding, for example) may remain among some measure of the judiciary (770).

On the record, most lawyers and judges will say that the tender years doctrine is no longer being used in today's custody disputes. Instead, they insist that the gender-neutral "best interests of the child" standard, which supplanted the tender years doctrine back in the 1970s, is the prevailing doctrine and spoken rule for determining matters of custody. In fact, Oklahoma Law, under Title 43, Statute 109a, states: "In awarding the custody of a minor child or in appointing a normal guardian for said child, the court shall think what appears to be in the best interests of the bodily and mental and moral welfare of the child." It sounds fair, does it not? This law puts the child and the child's best "interests" first. Therefore, the court system ensures that the child will all the time be in the better of the two homes. It ensures that the environment - part of the "best interests," the "physical and mental and moral welfare," and the best setting for the child to have the most opportunities for a great future are taken to the top notice by the court. Of course, the U.S. Court system is fair and just - at least allegedly.

In his article, "Dads Want Their Dad," William C. Smith, a lawyer and legal journalist in Narberth, Pennsylvania, talks about the ongoing struggle of fathers who have to fight the court in what they perceive as an "anti-father bias in custody rulings." The fact remains that, though the legal jargon appears to carry fairness in principle, the reality is that there is still a gender bias in custody matters. Fathers have an uphill battle when it comes to winning the court's concentration long sufficient just to make an thoughprovoking argument. The U.S. Court system is fair and just.

In response to one court case, Artis details the account of a judge who recommend that only a "high negative" could sway him to rule for the father in the case (786). This judge indicated the he has a preference for the mother, "assuming she's not nuts." other judge stated that, "In this situation, I can't think of whatever except a very high negative that would keep the child from being with the mother" Once again, the behind complete doors talk that ensues between judges, or in this case between judges and lawyers, reveals the truth behind what drives many of today's court decisions regarding child custody. With this type of doctrine and science of mind rooted in the minds of our judges, fathers don't stand a chance.

But is not the consequent of this way of mental the very presuppose fathers struggle with winning custody to begin with? Is it not a cycle that perpetuates itself? Today's results are yesterday's decisions to remove the father from the lives of their children. Fathers could not be complex with their children post-divorce, or a wedge was located between the connection of father and child. Visitation schedules did not work because many fathers had to work in order to pay legal fees, alimony, and child support, in increasing to their own monthly obligations. More financial promulgation requires more work, overtime, and sometimes more than one job, and time becomes a useless commodity not gracing the desire of the father to spend the much-needed time with his children.

Time not spent with the child is immediately dubbed "irresponsible" on the part of the father by the court, and it becomes one more weapon of warfare for the mother, who convinces the court that the father "would never be home sufficient for the children." And it works. On one hand, the court system wants the father to design a foundational security in order to meet the monetary and basic welfare needs of the child, but on the other it expects the father to be equally as domestic in nature as a stay-at-home-mother. Gavanas makes an thoughprovoking point, referencing a comment made by former Vice President Al Gore: The fatherhood responsibility movement is a reaction to the grievance that "the family" has become synonymous with mom and child and thus "feminized" (99). Gender bias is not only seen as a question by your average, struggling, and responsible father seeking to gain custody, but also by fathers functioning in fine leadership capacities, who have seen the deteriorating role of the father.

Nick Cohen, in his new article, "Daddy Will Stop at Nothing to See You," points out that "an extreme feminist bias pervades the system" (32). "Best interests" would allow for a child to spend an equal estimate of time with both parents in the even a disjunction occurred. Cohen adds that "break-ups are a crippling shock, both for the parent who is forced out of the child's life and for the child itself." The best interests of the child should inherently contain the input of the two parents who brought the child in to the world - not just one. Still, the fact remains that it is not that way.

Most mothers raising children in single-parent homes, especially where the father has been estranged from the home, believe that they can fill both the role of the mom and father for the child. Jeffrey M. Leving, a fathers' ownership advocate in Chicago, cites jaw-dropping statistics on the results of fatherless children: "...who reportedly make up 72% of adolescent murders and 60% of rapists, and are 11 times more likely to exhibit violent behavior than children from two-parent homes" (gtd. In Smith). Certainly, a father's advice and leadership example to the child is in the best interest of the child. The continual and consistent concentration of the father in the life of his son simply prevents him from seeking out acceptance from neighborhood gangs; beyond doubt the quarterly love and affection from a father to his daughter keeps her from having to seek out acceptance and validation from many boyfriends.

It would make more sense that in the best interests of the child the court would rule in favor of "joint custody" as a standard, unless proven that either parent were not fit to act responsibly in their parental role. Most states have "joint custody" law, but any lawyer specializing in house law would tell one that joint custody is only effective if both parents get along and can remain civil. Even with joint custody, "the court is still more likely to treat the mom like the primary parent," as James L. Wilks asserts in his narrative "Fathers Have Rights, Too." "Too often men walk into the courtroom expecting equality and justice and walk out feeling they've been stripped of their fatherhood," he states.

"Fathers' ownership claim house courts too often discourage divorced or unwed fathers from playing a certain role in their children's lives, thus contributing to a nationwide "crisis of fatherlessness" (Smith). The question is bigger than most population dare admit. Our nation is continually feeding into a cycle of dysfunctional families by keeping the father out of the house unit, post-divorce. The best interests of the child cannot be upheld with integrity until the court deals with both, the mom and father fairly.

Still today, feminist groups and courtroom judges have a sense that a father's primary role is to maintain the child from a monetary standpoint and contribute the basic necessities of life - the very doctrine of the late 1800s that has brought us to where we are today. In Debra Moss's article, "Gender Bias," she reveals the court's looking on a custody case where a father's visitation with his son was restricted because he was not the "breadwinner." When a mom is given sole custody or residential custody of a child and continues to work, she is contributing to what this court thought about would be "socially crippling" to the child in his adult life. Yet, this is the case in most single-parent homes, where the mom is the custodial parent. Why is this conference not upheld equally for the mom and the father? If the mom can go out and work and be a custodial parent, does the best interests of the child system beyond doubt hold up in all fairness?

"The best interests of the child" system is weak and has become one of the grossest lies that has ever been sold in the American judicial system as a basis for determining custody matters. The best interests of the child should contain both parents equally; the best interests of the child includes the involvement of a mom and a father. The best interests of the child means: children do not have to be ripped away from one parent or the other because of unfair and gender-biased character assessments made inside of a courtroom. The best interests of the child should inflict and encourage the ownership of both parents to have an equal interest in the child. The best interests of the child is not about the fundamental interests and ulterior motives of the parent; it is not about an opportunity for one parent to avenge their broken heart by using the child as a trophy to be won by them and lost by the other parent. The best interests of the child is about...the child's best interest.

©Phillip Anthony, 2006, All ownership Reserved.

Works Cited

Artis, Julie E. "Judging The Best Interests Of The Child: Judges' Accounts Of The Tender Years Doctrine." Law & community divulge 2004: 769-807. Scholastic search Elite. Ebscohost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, Ok. 25 Mar. 2005 . Cohen, Nick. "Daddy Will Stop At Nothing To See You." New Statesmen 15 Nov. 2004: 31-32. Scholastic search Elite. Ebscohost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, Ok. 22 Mar. 2005 2005. Gavanas, Anna. Fatherhood Politics In The United States. Urbana: University of Illinois, 2004. Moss, Debra C. "Gender Bias?" Aba Journal Sept. 1987: 21. Scholastic search Elite. Ebscohost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, Ok. 22 Mar. 2005 http://search.epnet.com/ Smith, William C. "Dads Want Their Day." Aba Journal Feb. 2003: 38-44. Scholastic search Elite. Ebscohost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, Ok. 22 Mar. 2005 http://search.epnet.com Wilks, James L. "Fathers Have Rights, Too." Essence Jun 1995: 134. Scholastic search Elite. Ebscohost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, Ok. 22 Mar. 2005 http://search.epnet.com

Fit To Be a FatherKaty Perry - Part Of Me (Lyric Video) Tube. Duration : 3.67 Mins.

Official lyric video for Katy Perry's "Part of Me" debuted at the 2012 GRAMMY Awards and available on her upcoming March 26, 2012 album 'Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection'. Download "Part of Me" in the US, Canada and Latin America on iTunes: goo.gl Video Produced by Emilio Martinez (P) (C) 2012 Capitol Records, LLC. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is a violation of applicable laws. Manufactured by Capitol Records, LLC, 1750 North Vine Street, Hollywood, CA 90028.

Keywords: Katy, Perry, Part, of, Me, Dr., Luke, Bonnie, mckee, Max, Martin, grammys, Lyrics, Lyric, video, Teenage, Dream, The, Complete, Confection, Official, HD, VEVO

How Old is the Earth Really?

From time to time I like to make it very clear that nothing I ever say is original. None of us are clever adequate for that. Solomon was right when he said that "there is nothing new under the sun". Anything I say has probably been said before and in many instances more eloquently and with greater conviction.

However, wherever I can, I give acknowledgment for the thoughts of others. On many occasions, though, I simply can't remember where I heard or read things and then only hope that after I've researched the thoughts and wide on them (as is my custom), that someone (who knows nothing about or has no regard for the wisdom of Solomon) will come after me with guns blazing and suddenly claim originality for something I dare to say. You see, when I first took an interest in these things, I never dreamed I would ever be sharing them with others, let alone writing about them and speaking about them either. For many years I gathered material on the field of 'Creation as opposed to Evolution and Chance' for my own personal information. From time to time I then worked on and added to those notes, to such an extent that I can't always remember where some of the thoughts and ideas came from because they've often changed beyond recognition. Not the essence, but the words, because I like to put thoughts in words that I can personally understand and retell to immediately. That in turn makes it easy for one of median intelligence to also understand.

About The Civil War For Kids

Although I believe that Anything should feel flattered if someone uses their words (I know I am), I'm aware of the fact that some do insist on originality and feel extremely indignant if Anything says what they've said before them. Perhaps they should read the poem "these fabulous creatures" on this very website (which just happens to be so un-original in that God gave me the potential to put verse together and actually thousands of others have schooled me in the English language). Anything is therefore welcome to say Anything they find beneficial in any of my articles or books. I know instinctively that Solomon was right about that "under the sun" thing, and as for me, I will try to stay humble adequate to remember it.

How Old is the Earth Really?

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Best

Rate This Product :

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Overview

• This newly revised edition includes annotations and content about another child kidnapped by Indians who went on to give birth to the last Comanche chief.

• It also includes 12 dynamic historical photographs from the National Archives depicting the numerous tribes Mathew Brayton lived among and fought with.

This first-hand narrative of the life of Matthew Brayton, a seven-and-a-half year old white child of a settler who was kidnapped and sold many times by Native Americans in the beginning of the 19th century, probably doesn’t share all the gory details of his abuse when initially captured, but you can read between the lines. Still, this first-hand account does shed much light on what it was really like to come under the charge of many different Indian tribes.

Although Brayton’s treatment was not entirely negative or positive, his frank and blunt story does much to dispel the romantic stories that have been perpetuated about young settlers’ children who became Indian chattel. It does much to tell true history and dispel any deliberate or accidental revisions.

In many cases the Indians treated Brayton well, but there can be no doubt that they stole from him and his family a life that would end up confused and stuck between two worlds. Although Brayton did finally unite with many of his natural family, he never stopped identifying with Native Americans, and he was forced to leave an Indian wife and child behind. In fact, when the War of Rebellion or Civil War broke out, Brayton enlisted and served in an American Indian brigade.

Chet Dembeck

Publisher of One

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Specifications

• This newly revised edition includes annotations and content about another child kidnapped by Indians who went on to give birth to the last Comanche chief.

• It also includes 12 dynamic historical photographs from the National Archives depicting the numerous tribes Mathew Brayton lived among and fought with.

This first-hand narrative of the life of Matthew Brayton, a seven-and-a-half year old white child of a settler who was kidnapped and sold many times by Native Americans in the beginning of the 19th century, probably doesn’t share all the gory details of his abuse when initially captured, but you can read between the lines. Still, this first-hand account does shed much light on what it was really like to come under the charge of many different Indian tribes.

Although Brayton’s treatment was not entirely negative or positive, his frank and blunt story does much to dispel the romantic stories that have been perpetuated about young settlers’ children who became Indian chattel. It does much to tell true history and dispel any deliberate or accidental revisions.

In many cases the Indians treated Brayton well, but there can be no doubt that they stole from him and his family a life that would end up confused and stuck between two worlds. Although Brayton did finally unite with many of his natural family, he never stopped identifying with Native Americans, and he was forced to leave an Indian wife and child behind. In fact, when the War of Rebellion or Civil War broke out, Brayton enlisted and served in an American Indian brigade.

Chet Dembeck

Publisher of One

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 13, 2012 07:58:19

Why is the age of the earth important? Because if we can make a clear case for a very young earth, not more than about 6000 years (which we can, and do), then evolution stands on its head because it is based on all things "happening" and by "very beneficial mistakes" and also "very, very slowly," over "billions" of years. And all by the most fabulous and miraculous and dumbfounding "chance," I must add too.

How old is the earth? That is a very exciting question. Bishop Usher did some laborious academic spadework on the field and the consensus of conception among those of his school is that according to the records that can be traced back in the customary Manuscripts from which our Bibles were compiled, the earth came into being about 4000 years before Christ. From my own uncomplicated calculations and mental as I read the same data in my Bible, I concur basically with his findings. In this year of our Lord, namely, 2008, the earth is a petite over 6000 years old.

But what do others say? I simply have to point out that bigotry is very much alive and extremely wholesome on planet earth today, and despite all irrefutable "proof" of the total lunacy of the evolution hypothesis, Creationism is given virtually no airtime or script on major media stations and publications. In schools today children are told that the earth is "billions" of years old, and in many countries, teachers are instructed - yes, instructed to "stress that the earth is conception to be at least 4,5 billions of years old." (Holt normal Science Teacher's Edition, 1985, p.381). These kids are then coming home from school and are "educating" their "uninformed" parents about the merits of believing in "science" rather than all that "outdated" and "archaic" and draconian "religious stuff" found in the Bible. They, of course, still don't have a clue about the "circular reasoning" of evolutionists. You see, those believing in evolution tell the children actually that fossils can be dated by the strata they are found in. But guess what? The very same so-called "scientific" habitancy then tell the children that the strata in turn are dated by the fossils that are found in them! I can show you dozens of examples of this weird and illogical and totally dishonest "circular reasoning" of theirs. But you see, they feel so gather in the fact that they can hide behind school "science" text books wherein they masquerade as "scientists," that they make these monumental blunders with impunity in their staggering arrogance. They think, of course, that all habitancy are slow-witted adequate to believe them. News flash: Not all of us are that stupid! And sadly, most parents don't have the knowledge to counter the evil mental their children are coming home with. Consequently, because knowledge is strength, in that habitancy respect those that have it, the children unfortunately loose all respect for their "backward" parents when these have no answers for their children's cleverly "mentored" questions.

Evolutionists have been industriously brainwashing the naïve and unschooled into believing their lies, and to such an extent, that a large division of humanity today believes that so-called "science" has it right and "religion" needs to be relegated to the file marked "obsolete." petite do they know that there is nothing remotely scientific about evolution at all! It's all a pack of fabrications, assumptions, notions, guesses and in most cases, pure obscurantism that refuses to look at the abundant proof of its lunacy. The fact of the matter is that it is nothing short of a pack of deliberate lies!! Now no one is going to argue that the Church has been out-maneuvered in this age we're living in. The lazy and indifferent Church leaders have not kept abreast of what the world is telling their habitancy and in many instances have not bothered to find out if and why they are wrong. They've come to be complacent actually and have neglected to do their homework. The result is that the "lie" is rampant among unbelievers and believers alike, and in the latter case, the gullible sheep have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Stressed "pastors" and "reverends" and "priests" and "bishops" and all the other religious titled and ranked gurus are now wondering why there is rank skepticism and disillusionment and cynicism staring back at them from their pews.

Okay then, for the second time: How old is the earth?
1. The not-so-popping seams of the Earth's Population

Let's firstly request for retrial to coarse logic for a moment. Today there are roughly 8 billion habitancy on this earth. according to the census published on June 24th 1999 there were 6 billion. In 1985 there were 5 billion. In 1810 there were 1 billion and in the time of Jesus, there were roughly ¼ billion. Quite a sharp curve in a mere 2000 years! You say, "so what?" Here's "what": Has Anything Perhaps noticed that the earth is not terribly overcrowded right now? Is it popping at the seams? No. But very strange things come to light when you do a petite math. Dr Hovind says that even after taking into catalogue all the local wars and all the world wars and all the diseases and plagues in living memory and every other event and disaster that decimated entire populations, civilizations and nations; if the world was over 20 billion years old (as the evolutionists claim), and if man has been around for the past 3 billion years (as they claim too), then this old world would have been pretty crowded right now. Something like "150,000 habitancy per quadrate inch" he says! I'd like to point out that if that were the case (the 3 billion year thing) then one would scarcely be able to dig in the orchad without seeing some human bones. How many have you found? How many have your neighbors and friends and relatives and acquaintances found? I rest my case. This earth is not That old...

2. Those "fickle" yearly Ice Rings

The phenomenon of "annual rings" in packed ice has traditionally been one of the aces that evolutionists play when they supposedly "prove" that the earth is at least (as they say) 135,000 years old and not a mere 6,000 odd as Christians believe. You see, they say that those alternating darker and lighter coloured rings that are found where they've drilled very deep holes in the ice in Greenland and the South Pole are formed once each year. Very impressive and roughly convincing (to the uninformed) if one knows nothing about the packing of yearly ice. Not so impressive though if one reads the newspapers regularly and studies history occasionally. You see, these obstinate and dishonest evolutionists refuse to refer to and reply confident "little problems" they are faced with when they have to be entirely honest (not that they ever can be, but remember, we're speaking hypothetically here). You ask, like what? I'll tell you 'like what': They most actually won't tell you about the "Lost Squadron" for instance...

During the Second World War, some allied airplanes landed in Greenland because they did not have adequate gas to get them home. When they were unable get them refueled, they simply left them there and the war raged on without them. In 1990, though, some exciting spark recommend that they go back and fetch them. All and sundry agreed. However, the same "all and sundry" believed that all they had to do was to simply brush some snow off the wings, fuel them up, prime a petite here and there, pump up or replace a tire or two and then fast fly them home again. What an over-simplification of a not-so-simple affair! So what happened? Patience and I'll tell you: When they got there, they had disappeared. The whole squadron! Because they knew that no one could have taken them all, they assumed that they must be right there under the ice. They got sophisticated ground penetrating radar and discovered to their horror that they were not simply right there under the ice at all, but that after the mere 48 years, they were in fact right there alright, but 263 feet under the ice! Would our clever evolutionists now please take out their most sophisticated calculators and divide the 263 feet by the 48 years. They'll get 5,5 feet per year, not so? Okay, okay, 5,479166666 feet per year if they insist on splitting hairs. Now the deepest hole ever drilled on earth was just over 10,000 feet (this is told to us by the evolutionists themselves when they try to sell us that "earth is at least 135,000 years old" fairy tale of theirs). Now those overkill calculators again: Please divide10, 000 feet by your 5,479166666 and what do you get? Right, you get 1825 (rounded off to the nearest foot). So their 10,000 foot hole would be telling us (if we lowered ourselves to use that ridiculous "proof" of theirs) that the earth is 1825 years old and not 135,000 years, like they say! You see, they sucked their so-called data (that suddenly transformed into their irrefutable "proof") out of their thumbs again. So what's new? (besides all the garbage they dish up to brainwash our kids with). So we see that they're again talking tripe! (and again; what's new?)

But that's not all. The men that dug that hole down to the airplanes were questioned and asked how many yearly rings they saw down there. "Many hundreds" they said and proceeded to show photographs of the rings. But then one of them said something that made all the lights come on at once. He said (contrary to all evolutionary so-called "science" and approved norms) that those are not in fact "annual" rings at all. Being in the firm for a lifetime already, he obviously knew far more about the packing of ice than the "know all" evolutionists think they know. He was aware of what the generally "accepted" scenario was all about - that faulty scenario the evolutionists use so cleverly to try and "prove" their lies about what they glibly call "annual" ice rings. If Anything was inclined to sit out there in the cold and observe, they'd see that when the ice melts in summer, one has a layer of water which then freezes as clear ice. In the winter (if that die-hard "anyone" was still sitting there) he'd observation that the snow packs, and because it does not get a opening to melt, it turns into white coloured ice. This forms the dark-light, dark-light rings they then wrongfully call "annual" rings.

But wait: He then shattered the evolutionist's "trump card" lie in one fell swoop and without much ado by telling that these are not "annual" rings at all, but they are "temperature" rings! And to crown it all, you can have ten of them in one day if the temperature fluctuates dramatically! And that's what must have happened to the Lost Squadron. But listen; judging by the "rings" alone, the evolutionists, if they could ever be consistent (which they can't, by the way) would have to tell everybody in general, and our gullible kids in particular, that those aircraft had been down there for many hundreds of years. They will of course, true to nature and contrary to all proof and logic and all things else we could throw at them, stick to their guns and insist that they are right (like always). All obscurantists are that pig-headed, didn't you know? And that includes All evolutionists. And know what? The kids at school would believe them and not us! They always do, haven't you noticed? Why? Because they're the "scientists," remember. But sadly for them, according to records and documented facts, everybody knew that those airplanes had only been down there for the 48 years! You see, many of those planes only came off the assembly lines less than ten years before the end of the war, so how could they have been down there for many hundreds of years? Were there even airplanes "many hundreds of years" before the war? I know this probably sounds ridiculous, but we're simply playing the game after their own rules for a change to show their flaws and dishonesty. Check-mate and so much for their flimsy "proof" of so-called "annual" rings!

Want to know some actually sad news? Scientific America is still calling them "annual" rings!

3. Those "naughty" Not-so-old Stalactites and Stalagmites

Let's look at someone else so-called "proof" they use for their hypothesis that the earth is "billions" of years old. They point all who would listen to the age of stalactites and stalagmites.

Now Stalactites are the beautiful limestone and water formations that grow down from the ceiling of damp or moist caves, and the stalagmites are those that grow upward from the floor.

When visitors enter these antique caves, the guides regularly tell everyone, "Please don't touch any of these stalactites or stalagmites. It takes more than 1000 years for them to grow one single inch. They're actually irreplaceable, since they took millions of years to form. "

Quite frankly, that is not true. They do grow very slowly, yes, but not that slow! How do I know that? Listen and you will personally be able to unravel someone else evolutionist lie:

The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922. We all know that. Not so many years ago by any standard. But guess what? There are already 60 inch stalactites under it right now! Go look for yourself and you'd good be quick before they deceitfully have them removed. I'll give you one hundred to one that no evolution description or book has ever mentioned that! Did I say "If they are honest" a occasion ago? Must have been a slip. They are never honest!

A lead mine was concluded down in Mt. Isa, Australia a amount of decades ago. Guess what they found when they re-opened it just 55 years later? Believe it or not, but they found stalactites down in level 5 that are already five times as tall as the median man! Now we have to ask; were these stalactites on steroids? Or did these "naughty" stalactites somehow "forget" to grow as slowly as the evolutionists prescription they should grow? I don't think so. In fact I'll go as far as giving you my word and also laying my head on a block that they don't ever "forget" anything!

In 1903 a man in Wyoming jammed a pipe into a spring in his backyard. Today the Flowstone that formed on it is roughly as big as his house and has come to be somewhat of an attraction. Same principle as stalactites and stalagmites, you see. Millions of years old, my eye! someone else lie by those who are of their father, who himself is the father of lies! someone else "proof" hits the dust and I sincerely hope some kids get to hear and read these things one day.
4. Our "Shrinking" Sun

Very few habitancy know that our sun is shrinking. Since 1836, direct optical measurements have been made and there is substantiated evidence that our sun is shrinking at the rate of 1% per century. I think everybody can understand that something that is being consumed by fire is permanently being reduced. That 1% per century translates to 5 feet per hour, believe it or not! And this again means that if one works backwards, then a mere 50,000 years ago our sun would have been so big, and consequently so much hotter than it is today, that our oceans would have been boiling, day and night. One wonders how the habitancy who were "supposedly" here, according to "you-know-who" lived straight through that! But the very same "you-know-who's" insist that the earth is 4,6 billion years old. Oh really? Perhaps we should point out to said "you-know-who" & Co. That all the land together with all the water on dear old planet earth would then have been one perpetual boiling cauldron all those "supposed" years ago. So much then for those (fire-proof) dinosaurs of theirs that lived all those millions of years ago. Sadly, the so-called "proofs" they use regularly go unchallenged because they're hardly ever questioned when they appear in "scientific" journals and school "science" text books. The fact of the matter is that they are not even worth the paper they're written on because in many cases basic logic can tear holes straight through them. But what boggles the mind is how so-called "scientific" folk tolerate this blatant dishonesty. Beats me too...

5. The Very gift Existence of Comets

The amount and the size of comets are declining. No one disputes this. But what are comets? They're primarily chunks of rocky substance that are held together by freezing gases and ice. Like all the planets in our solar system, these comets are also in orbit around our sun. Now each time they pass close to the sun, gas explodes inside the comets and some of the ice starts melting. In the process, some of the particles break free and these are then the spectacular streams in the wake of the comet that can be seen in the night sky. It is very easy to portion the size of these comets and it is normal knowledge that they are all diminishing in size as they are eroding away. Subsequently, many that have already disintegrated and that were witnessed by man on this earth, are only found today in history and science books. Now the point: If (notice the word is "if") the universe is 4,6 billion years old (as some ambitious habitancy try to tell our kids), two things: Firstly, How come there are still comets up there today? actually they should have burned out actually "billions" of years ago. And secondly, working backwards once again; 4,6 billion years ago, these comets would have been so big that our sun would have been orbiting them! Absurd you say? I agree...

Creation study community Quarterly, December, 1973, p.174 says, "The destruction and the loss of comets puts a specific upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4,5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to any thousand years old."

6. That Loony Myth about Lunar Dust

Before they sent men to the moon, Nasa was implicated about one of the so-called "proofs" the evolutionists use for their "4,6 billion year old universe." These evolutionists believed (and of course insisted on informing our scholars and students) that the dust on the moon was "several miles" deep because of the erosion of the moon outside "over billions of years" due to the ultra-violet light and X-rays from the sun. They said that this dust had been accumulating at a rate of 2 to 5 thousandth of an inch per year. according to them, there were now dangerous drifts of soft dust accumulated in any place on the moon's surface.

Isaac Asimov believed that the dust could be "dozens of feet deep" and in places "50 feet deep or more." The following words frightened the men at Nasa when he said, "I get a picture, therefore, of the first space ship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight" (Asimov's own essay - 1958).

In the Monthly observation of the Royal immense community of London, V115, pp 585-644, Lyttleton (an evolutionist) speaks about the X-rays and Uv light remarkable the exposed moon rocks. He believed that they "could while the age of the moon (which he obviously believed to be 'millions' of years old) be adequate to form a layer over it any miles deep."

Oh really? Well, let's see what they found on Apollo's first moon landing: Surprise of all surprises; there was only one half inch of dust on median on the moon's surface! Now listen carefully: They in fact left stainless steel plates there and on their return they measured the amount of dust that had collected on them. Nassa's calculations showed that at the rate they found, they would gather only 2,7 inches of dust per million years! Unfortunately, and sadly (and of course to the total embarrassment of our evolution friends) that works out to be 1033 feet of dust in 4,6 billion years and not the one half inch they actually found! And more importantly (and of course to be noted with smug satisfaction) this data points to the fact that the age of the moon cannot be more than 4000 to 6000 years at most! And pssst: according to the Genesis description (which is in your Bible too) the moon is only three days younger than the earth.

7. Our Departing Moon

The moon is slowly exciting away from the earth. Did you know that? I actually don't think it's leaving because Anything has offended it, but rather that there are scientific reasons for this phenomenon. They've calculated that the rate of departure is a few inches per year. Now we all know that the moon causes the tides, not so? Well, if you didn't know it, you know it now. What on earth were you doing in the class when they were handling the subject? So, what does that tell us? A thing called coarse logic tells us that if the moon were closer, then the tides would be higher. Obviously. But how high could they go? according the "Inverse quadrate Law" if you halve the distance, you quadruple the attraction. "So, 4,6 billion years ago," Dr. Kent Hovind says, "...the tides would have been so high that all things and everybody on earth would have drowned twice a day. And..." he adds, "...one can only drown comfortably once a day."

Besides, if the moon were so much closer so long ago, then it would have fallen into the earth's atmosphere, and I personally believe that our exquisite global earth would then have been stuck with one terribly unwelcome and unsightly pimple to declare with.

Billions of years old? Hardly!

8. Old mum Earth is Slowing Down

The phenomenon of the slowing of the earth's spin around its own axis was discovered already by 1992. The Astronomy Magazine of that year, p. 24, says "Earth's rotation is slowing down." The subsequent calculations showed 1/1,000th of a second per day. That means that we have a "leap second" every 1 ½ years. At this rate, If the world was 4,6 billion years old (as some not-so-clever habitancy try to convince us), then uncomplicated calculations tell us that it should already have stopped turning on its axis long ago. On the other hand, if we work backwards, then all those billions of years ago, this earth, in its "supposed" prime, would have been one heck of a spinning dude. In fact, it would have taken on the shape of a pancake at that speed at that time and the winds would have been over 5000 miles per hour from the correolis result alone and the centrifugal force would have been unimaginable. Dr. Hovind says (with tongue in cheek, of course) that because of this (supposed) immense speed of the spinning earth, the dinosaurs were probably flung into space 200 million years ago and that's why there are none here today. We must note, that whichever way one wants to look at these two scenarios (either backward or forward) our earth just cannot be more than a few thousand years old. However, evolutionists just won't see it that way and will not accept the logic either. Proof that goes against their hypothesis is always ignored. Believe that if you don't believe Anything else I say.

Hope that has helped some to bring a petite perspective again.

How Old is the Earth Really?Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen. Video Clips. Duration : 8.38 Mins.

Warning: Since this video seems to have gone crazy, I figure I'll post this notice. I'm going to read a letter my 15 year old daughter wrote. There ARE some curse words in it. None of them are incredibly bad, but they are definitely things a little kid shouldn't hear... not to mention things MY KID shouldn't say! If you want to see the original Facebook thread, it's located at: www.facebook.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My daughter thought it would be funny/rebellious/cool to post on her Facebook wall just how upset she was and how unfair her life here is; how we work her too hard with chores, never pay her for chores, and just in general make her life difficult. She chose to share this with the entire world on Facebook and block her parent's from seeing it. Well, umm... she failed. As of the end of this video, she won't have to worry anymore about posting inappropriate things on Facebook... Maybe a few kids can take something away from this... If you're so disrespectful to your parents and yourself as to post this kind of thing on Facebook, you're deserving of some tough love. Today, my daughter is getting a dose of tough love. © Copyright 2012, by Tommy Jordan. All rights reserved. Duplication without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Keywords: Facebook, Teens, Parenting, disrespect