i think plead and its past tense are spelled the same. am i wrong?

oh yea, and fox news, grr, angry, yea the same old song and dance.

The following dissertation on the eye is lifted from Chapter VI, Volume 2 of The Quest for Right, a 7-book series on origins based on physical science:

Difficulties of the Theory. Although the eye is chosen as the category to be entertained, the investigation could have chosen any one of a hundred other theories promoted in On the Origin of Species. The relative point is that, if the eye had evolved through fine graduations or modifications, the proof must lie with numerous intermediate fossilized specimens which could be laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Nothing else will suffice, as the fossil record is all inclusive.

Darwin penned: “LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.” In other words, if one is to believe in evolution, he/she has to disregard the facts; specifically, the indisputable assertion that all species are well defined in the fossil record.

Darwin continued: “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads [that is, distinct topics or categories]: …why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms [in the fossil record]? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? …In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected [for example, the eye], we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors [found only in the fossil record]; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral [parallel] descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition.”

Unable to find a transitional species; for instance, discovering a tiny break in the skull of any one of the several thousand species, which transitioned through minute variations to a full blown socket for the eye, Darwin looked to parallel descendents: a horse descending from a tapir, etc.

By Darwin’s own admission, geologists had not been unable to uncover a transitional species: “Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head [the subject of the evolution of the eye]. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous [containing fossils] stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected…

He [the reader] who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades [as supported by the fossil record]. His reason ought to conquer his imagination [that is, belief in a Creator]; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...”

It is a fact that Darwin attempted to overcome legitimate objections to his theory by doing a song and dance; that is, an elaborate explanation intended to mislead the reader and throw him/her off the path of the truth. For instance, instead of Darwin elaborating on how the eye could have been perfected while leaving no trace in the fossil record, he immediately began rambling about: the larva of the dragon-fly, the fish Cobites, fish with gills, swimbladder in fishes, branchiae and dorsal scales of Annelids, wings and wing-covers of insects, Pedunculated cirripedes, Balanidae or sessile cirripedes, neuter insects, rays, electric organs in fish, tail of the giraffe, the tail as the organ of locomotion in most aquatic animals, green woodpeckers, trailing bamboo, naked head on the skin of a vulture, savages, webbed feet of the upland goose, seal, sting of the bee, etc. The introduction of trivia, thrown up to block a difficult question, was a familiar song and dance routine throughout The Origin.

Darwin depended on the fact that, after taking two dozen or so detours of unrelated, yet, interesting tidbits of information the reader will have forgotten the head or category at hand. Said tidbits were also introduced in an attempt to prove that his wisdom could be trusted even above that of the Creator. And lest you have forgotten the head category at hand, it is mainly this: numerous intermediate fossil specimens must be discovered and laid down in a gradual continuum so as to show the development of the eye from its first appearance as a tiny break or opening in the bones of the skull to the development of a full blown socket or orbit. Anything less would be unacceptable.

In Chapter X: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings, Darwin attempted to justify the lack of “numberless transitional links” found in the “same great formation.” The naturalist lamented that the lack of missing links to prove his theory was owing to an “extremely imperfect” fossil record:

1. that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care;
2. that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state;
3. that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation.”

Not desiring to be outmaneuvered by the Creator, Darwin attempted to interplay other theories to shore up his theory of evolution. For example, he called upon the important part that migration must have played as the various species escaped supposedly "oscillating continents" which arose from the depths of the sea only to sink again. In Darwin’s mind, vast continents bobbed up in down in the oceans, sinking and, thus, causing mass migrations and covering any transitional links with sediment. The drowned continents then bobbed back to the top to start the process all over again. In a final attempt at one-upmanship, Darwin supposed that the damaging missing links, which must number in the billions, may "lie buried under the ocean." Why else could they not be found in the fossil record to support his theory?

An arrogant Darwin showed his true colors when he suggested that the reader ought to strive to cast down a belief in a Creator and accept his theory even if there was no proof. Darwin had done just that; he had cast God and religion from his mind, stating that “it was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

In summary, Darwin conceded that the fossil record of the time, the ultimate guide by which the theory of protracted graduation was to be judged, was adverse to his concept, but not without just cause: it was simply the result of an "imperfect," or incomplete, record. Darwin used the term “imperfect” as a crutch over a dozen times—one grows weary of reading it. Darwin's only hope of vindication was that one day intermediate links would be discovered.

Note: Every fossilized skull that has ever been unearthed possessed sockets for the eyes; there is no exception. Any trip to a museum proves the point.

Having grown up with many sisters myself, I guarantee you this wasn't the first time, as it's the same song and dance every time. It's troubling the first few times, but seeing it over and over again you just have to laugh. And being a little brother you have an obligation to be kinda a douche.

And when my parents said 'when you live on your own, you do what you want', I took it to heart, got an apartment and a job, and suddenly it's a non-issue. My siblings followed suit, and everyone lived happily ever after.

If you're 18 or older, just get out of the house. You're not doing yourself or your parents any favors.

...that said, upvote for Myspace in the Butt...

Im enjoying this whole Anonymous v. Scientology thing, but this vid is boring...
Put cruise on stage and have him do a "song and dance" again... thatll be entertaining. Stupid. But entertaining.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Those-nutty-Belgians-the-farting-pig-song-and-dance-extravaganza

I had to backtrack my bookmarks to find it. Even searching for Belgian or Betsy didn't bring anything up.

I too, have had to do the "sorry it didn't make it here in time" song and dance for one (or more) of myboys.

If your son is old enough, you might consider typing out the story and include copies of emails and bind it all up and give him that for xmas. If you tell it right, he might get a chuckle?

I like her reaction to the "business investment" suggestion. Clever.

Full video: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Hot-For-Hillary-song-and-dance-full-version

Until I posted my clip, I was amused by how two of the related videos also showed up as "more posts by: joedirt"

from the simpsons? nein. avenue q's song and dance about it as already stated.

Jason Alexander . . .song and dance man.

Bring on higher taxes, regardless of the savings to come, from
the hobbled military... oh yeah, farhad, this is technically, not, a break with the rules, but slipped it into the sift like cocaine mixed in with cake flour-

But, it iiiss the first black man who may run for high office.....*Visions of spin, of
stepinfetchit and Armstrong, of the same old song and dance....

You must understand, this sifter has lost faith in politics as usual, in the pep rally mentality, the duality, of m"my side against your side"....The process needs a revamp, not the players...But...

Hope
Faith
Unification, with the collective heads out of asses, may do it....I admire your faith, theo47

She's a Bollywood actor, lets not make a song and dance about it!

Verify sources and consider them. Ye'll find a LOT of sources on this interview here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092506/content/clinton_interview_overview.guest.html

Just go to the bottom of the page for links to over a dozen articles and analysis.

All I really got from this was that Clinton can't take tough questions. He's used to having interviews like on Larry King et. al where the toughest questions asked of him are "do you agree that Bush is bad for America?" Can anyone say 'softball'?

Bush is repeatedly and regulary excoriated in the most disrespectful and insolent manner possible by almost everyone he is interviewed by and 'hostile' questions/comments come up repeatedly by the snarky interviewers who almost always suffix it with 'why won't you admit your mistakes and confess that this war/your presidency is illegal/illegitimate?'

But let one interviewer ask the crowned King-William Jefferson-Blyyyyyyythe-Clinton-III if HE did anything wrong and he blows up. Note he was not asked to 'admit his mistakes'. But he responded as if he had been.

Always the same song and dance. Wagging his finger in our faces and saying "I did NOT have sex with that woman. I never lied - I never told anyone to lie." Chewing on his bottom lip as if he were the one who had been horribly wronged. Furiously attacking everyone who disagrees with him, but if he is ever criticized it's: "Hey - no attack.... ever fed... a hungry child."

The wagging finger is almost a sure sign that he's lying. He lied right there in that interview. He said Richard Clark was removed before 9/11 from his post - hinting that this 'led' to the attacks and that if only he had remained there, they might have been prevented. He even cited Clark's book as proof of it. But if you actually read his book, Clark says himself that he REMIANED the terrorism 'czar' until AFTER 9/11 and that he changed posts not at the insistence of the Bush admin, but because he wanted to be in charge of the new department.

So who was lying? Clinton, or Clark? Because if Clinton was lying, that's no surprise. But if Clark was lying in his book, then Clinton is doubly at fault, because he lied in citing it as the truth.

This is not a man who is quick on his feet or a great stateman. He's an immature beaurocrat who's used to having the media covering for him, and was flabbergasted that they didn't. If any of these other 'news' networks had any salt in them at all, they'd be asking him tough questions like this. Remember, this is the guy who fought to stomp on the ever-beloved 1st amendment by threatening Disney and ABC to cancel "The Path to 9/11". For once, thankfully, they didn't pay any attention to him.

Slyrr

Your favorites all suck. My favorites are better:

Challenge scene from Tap - old school battle style
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=4416

Hellzapoppin' - the gold standard of swing dancing
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5530

Progenitorivox - the drugs I need
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=3698

Duhduhdihduh DUH DUHDUHDUH - Venture Brothers
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=5706

And finally, the all time greatest video ever posted, anywhere, ever: the farting pig song and dance extravaganza
http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=7039

PS Yo momma dressed me funny