Im 17 and 7 months. i was cited for driving with only a permit with no adult. what are the concecquences? I have a court date and I am unsure if i should follow through with doing my behind the wheel. I live in California

Is Your Current Realtionships Relevant In A Custody Battle With Your Ex Spouse? My ex husband does not like my current boyfriend. When i told him that it wasn't my problem since we are divorced, he is now trying to drag our kids in to the mix. He tells the kids to monitor my boyfriend and keep notes of his behavior towards me and them. He also wants a document saying he can take the kids away if he dosent like my behavior or the behavior my boyfriend. He cites the fact that my boyfriend has alcohol in his fridge, and that his friends drink also. But i make sure that when the kids are at my house that they know that those drinks are for adults only. My ex also wants to challange if my boyfriend is fit to be around children. Well my boyfriend has kids of his own and they are very well adjusted from what i can see. In fact he even has full custody of one of them and he lives with us with no problems. I try to keep my exes out of my current realtionships as i don't care who he dates as long as they don't hurt my kids. The thing is my boyfriend has been nothing but nice to my kids and treats them well. I don't think it's fair that my boyfriend should have to be subjected to this. Whats my ex's deal? Does he have the right to question my relationships in a custody battle?

i dont like my english teacher and im writing a reflection on a bad paper i wrote...? i really cant stand my english teacher, i dont think she is very good at teaching, if u ask her a question she either wont answer it or she will get smart then tell u to asx a class mate well i wrote this research paper for her ( with @least 1-2 weeks less time then the rest of the class) and now we have to reflect on the paper with her comments now i dont exactly want to be ignorant but i want to tell her about herself you know what i mean? how do you think this sounds? are there any other things i can say to get at her and still sound like i am "reflecting" ? any and every suggestion will probably be used ty I forgot about an outline of the paper until the day it was due. Yet I still do not understand the point of having one. Citing information is also quite confusing; I don’t understand that very well either. I will most likely go to Ms.Bernhofer for some additional help with citing information in my papers. Yes there is a correlation between the time I had to do this paper and my grade. I had less time in the computer lab because I missed a lot of class when we began working on the paper. I also missed a class or two prior to the due date, therefore I was not there to hear a lot of the suggestions you may have given about the paper. Next time I write another research paper I will definitely have an adult proof read my paper to make sure it is correct because the corrections I received from my classmates were quite inaccurate and didn’t really do much for my paper. I did not know that we were not allowed to refer to WW I as “The First World War”. I have seen many adults refer to it just like that numerous times. I did not know that all those people were incorrect. I will definitely work on organizing my papers better next time. I have always had problems with that. I also seem to have a problem with repeating the same words over and over again. I will use a thesaurus next time to find different words to explain myself. What exactly is the correct format for a bibliography? I have never heard of a correct or incorrect format, so I do not understand that very well either. I will also find help from an adult with the bibliography. I found the entire paper to be somewhat confusing because everything I had been taught in the past was incorrect. It took me out of my comfort zone and really challenged me. The example paper and my paper cannot be compared in any way. The example paper is obviously better than mine so there is really no point of comparing them. i have gone to her for help with the paper when i missed class n she told me that many on the things were correct when in actuality they were wrong and marked my down for it

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

fact of this case?

Did you know that illegals are costing every taxpayer $11,000 EVERY year?? Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Arizona Posts: 254 Secure the southern border -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060802.htm From the August 2006 Idaho Observer: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secure the southern border The U.S. population is almost 300 million now. Since the Bush administration announced its intent to grant amnesty to the estimated 7 million undocumented primarily Mexican aliens living illegally in the U.S., the numbers have swelled. Estimates of the numbers of illegals range from 11 million to 40 million. That fact alone—that estimates vary by 29 million—should be of some concern to the Bush administration and its department of Homeland Security. But instead, American airline passengers can no longer travel with their own water or toothpaste. Thousands pour in every day. While we must show compassion for many of those attempting to flee the country of their birth for better lives in America, we must realize that Bush administration immigration "policy" will play a huge role in whatever horrible scenario is planned for all of us. The evidence shows that politicians on both sides of the border have created this problem because they know the inevitable outcome of resultant cultural tensions is violence. Take a look at the story on pages 16-17. Those who are pulling our strings believe that wars are for poor people to die in so that rich people can get richer. Both Mexicans and Americans are being used.2006 The Minuteman Project JIM GILCHRIST, FOUNDER, MINUTEMAN PROJECT: I’m not interested in words, rhetoric, promises, intentions. I want results and I’m speaking for tens of millions of Americans. CONGRESSMAN TOM TANCREDO [R-CO]: I know that we can secure our borders. I am positive of it. Whether or not the president has the willpower or whether the Congress has the will to force him to do so... this is the question Go to www.minutemanproject.com for the latest news on the campaign to secure the southern border. Also available: Books, DVDs, photographs and links to live border region camera feeds that show the unmistakable truth: Our nation is being invaded (our national security is being compromised)—with the full consent and approval of the Bush administration. 2006 (lst Qtr) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigration 62% of all "undocumented immigrants" in the United States are working for cash and not paying taxes, predominantly illegal aliens, working without a green card. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal aliens. More than 380,000 "anchor babies" born in the United States in 2005 were to parents who are illegal aliens; making those 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayer. More than 66% of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers. 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. 29% (630,000) of convicted illegal aliens in state and federal prisons—at a cost of $1.6 billion annually. More than 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages. More than 53% of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens. More than half of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border. More than 43% of all Food Stamps issued are to illegal aliens. More than 41% of all unemployment checks issued in the United States are to illegal aliens. 58% of all welfare payments in the United States are issued to illegal aliens. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties in the United States are illegal aliens. 14 out of 31 TV stations in L.A. are Spanish-only. 16 out of 28 TV stations in Phoenix are Spanish only. 15 out of 24 TV stations in Albuquerque are Spanish-only. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish only. 17 radio stations in Phoenix are Spanish only. 17 radio stations in Albuquerque are Spanish only. More than 34% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens. More than 24% of Arizona students in grades 1-12 are non-English speaking. More than 39% of California students in grades 1-12 are illegal aliens. More than 42% of California students in grades 1-12 are non-English speaking. In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English and 3.9 million speak Spanish. More than 71% of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California were stolen by illegal aliens or transport "coyotes." 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens. 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens. 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66%, 98% are illegal aliens. Less than 2% of illegal aliens in the United States are picking crops, but 41% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) was a net $70 billion a year! [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University] Can you imagine what it must be in 2006? The estimated profit to U.S. corporations and businesses employing illegal aliens in 2005 was more than $2.36 trillion dollars! The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican illegal alien on the average American taxpayer is $55,000 over a five-year span. You personally are giving $11,000 every year to illegal aliens. __________________ THANKS "Leif Erickson" you brought out some good points!!

S.E. Hinton, biographer help please!!!!!? ok so we just read the outsiders in class and we split into groups and each person in the group has a task. i'm the biography. S.E. Hinton, and my worksheet says Name: Education: Hobbies outside of writing: family: travel favorites: best loved books as youngster best advice given to the author best advice given by the author future plans (on bak) earlylife & education young adult writing career/books written/awards present status i have a few done but cannot find like anything!! its soo annoying! i really need help, and could u tell me where u got it i need to keep the work cited like do it like this please (mag, book, internet article, encyclopedia, etc) mag= last name, first name, "article", what mag date: pages book= last name, first name book city:publisher, copyright internet article= last name, first name. "article" source date <url> encyclo= last name, first name. "article" enyclopedia year ed. please help me!!

What do you think about Saturday or Sunday being the Sabbath? The Sabbath is Saturday?

RON PAUL leads in Polls of people who have heard him ? take a look :? Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak by Jennifer Haman by Jennifer Haman DIGG THIS After the first three debates on National television, three mainstream news channels featured polls asking the American people who won. After the first debate on May 3rd, MSNBC ran a poll obtaining over 72,000 responses showing Ron Paul was the most convincing candidate receiving 45% of the vote. His nearest competitor was Mitt Romney who received 18%. Fox news ran its own poll after the second debates on May 15, and with over 40,000 votes Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote. Watching Sean Hannity's face was priceless as while he was saying that Ron Paul's chances were over in this election, Fox's polling numbers flashed across the screen and had Ron Paul in the lead. He immediately did his best spin to claim the polls had been rigged. MSNBC also ran a poll about that debate and discovered Ron Paul was, again, the most convincing candidate with 64% of the over 25,000 responses. After the third debate on June 5, CNN's poll of over 25,000 respondents showed Ron Paul won with 60% of the vote. One would think with such a strong showing on the online polls for a "second tier" candidate that the mainstream media (MSM) would have discussed this phenomenon at length and on the front page. However, no such stories appeared. In fact, MSM pundits did their best to ignore these figures and instead focused mainly on who they deemed to be the top three choices; effectively, taking control of the election and deciding quite undemocratically who was a "real" candidate. Even though the MSM is largely ignoring him, Ron Paul is taking the Internet by storm. His name leads in searched terms ahead of even Paris Hilton, his YouTube videos have been viewed over one million times and he has more Meetup groups than all other GOP candidates combined. Poll after poll conducted on the Internet shows Ron Paul winning or at least in the top three. Yet, these polls are completely discounted and Ron Paul's tremendous Internet support is sloughed off by the MSM. Occasionally, the MSM will grant some notice of the huge grassroots support online but then discount it by saying "he may be doing well online but he is only polling at 1 or 2 percent." Doesn't anyone see a disconnect between those two clauses? Who do they think is on the Internet? Pet mice running around in tubes? The Internet, for those who seem confused, is a link of people who write things and have ideas and OPINIONS. The 300-plus Meetup groups he has across the country are also attended by people. The MSM is trying to get us to believe that Ron Paul is only polling at 1% because that is what was said on a few polls and the fact that he is polling much higher on the Internet does not count. It is as if they believe that the people on the Internet are not real, their opinions do not count, and the Internet polls could not possibly be correct. The argument is absurd, insulting and designed to keep Ron Paul out of the mainstream public's eye. The MSM ignores his success because of the misguided concept that people do not want to "waste" a vote. It is never a waste to vote for what you want: indeed, nothing could be more wasteful than voting for what you do not want because you think it the lesser of two evils. Voting for evil is always a bad idea. Not only is the MSM staying mum to keep you from seeing Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate but there have been active attempts to hide information about his successes. After the third debate CNN not only ran a poll, but also asked viewers to voice their opinions about the debates. Comments started pouring in supporting Ron Paul, along with all the votes. The next day CNN removed the comments from their webpage. Clever supporters found these lost comments through Google's cache (a technology that takes a virtual picture of a webpage on a certain date, so you can see if it has changed). When silence does not work, biased pundits accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" the votes (that is voting over and over for their candidate) and claim that this huge show of support is really being done by a few campaigners. This claim is specious for several reasons. First, if it was so easy to spam the polls, all the candidates would do it and online polling numbers would look more like an American Idol session with tens of millions of votes cast. Second, anyone, who understands that the Internet is not a series of tubes, knows that it is easy for a web designer to develop a poll that prohibits more than one vote per person. In fact, most of the online polls do restrict you to voting only once and if you attempt to vote again, even weeks later, you get a polite message that your vote will not count. Finally, along with the polls themselves, people leave comments, thousands of individual comments. So let's look at these polls and their methodologies. Many online polls have tens of thousands of responses, especially the ones done by the MSM immediately after the debates, while old-fashioned telephone pollsters only get responses from hundreds. Yet, only the old telephone polls are reported on by the MSM. We are asked to accept that a poll with 600 persons responding is more accurate than a poll with 70,000 respondents. For example, a much-cited Zogby poll admits that they only targeted 500 interviews and drew their samples randomly from telephone CD's of a national listed sample. (In that poll Ron Paul has a 3% lead). A recent Washington Post article cited its own telephone poll that only reached 1205 adults, and that was used to say Ron Paul is only receiving 1% support. Instead of citing polls that have 70 to 100 times more respondents, the MSM still sticks to old-fashioned telephone-polling methods. The world has changed. We no longer need to depend on poor polls that only call a few hundred people, nor should we be relying on them to tell the whole story. Some say random telephone sampling is more effective just because of its randomness and therefore there is no self-selection bias as in the online polls in which one chooses to partake. However, elections are also based on self-selection and are only won and lost by those who choose to go to the polls: so shouldn't the self-selected polling methods be more accurate? The good news is that of those who have heard Ron Paul speak (if only for the 5 minutes or so he gets in the debates) he is leading by a landslide; unfortunately, not enough people are getting to hear about him. This race would look much different if the leading headlines the days following the GOP debates were (in order of the debates): 1. Ron Paul takes GOP by surprise and WINS the debate. 2. Ron Paul once again a leading contender in second debate, comes in second. 3. Ron Paul wins third debate hands down: other candidates struggling to keep up. If the people were told Ron Paul won the debates, more would learn about him and his support would grow exponentially. In all fairness, the polls that show that Ron Paul is ahead with 98% of the vote are just as inaccurate as the polls that show he is only polling at 1% and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But the largest online polls, the ones taken after the debates, have him receiving somewhere between 45% and 60% of the votes. So, why the big disparity in polling numbers? Some have suggested that Ron Paul has a lot of young supporters who do not own landlines and thus are not being polled. Other explanations come to mind as well: 1. Typical polls will only call a certain type of voter e.g. people who voted Republican in the last election and this will leave out a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom reaches across the aisle and a lot of previously registered Democrats are switching parties to vote for him in this election. For the same reason, many Libertarians and Independents are also going to be voting as Republicans this election. Much of his support also comes from young people who are voting in their first Presidential election and thus would have no previous voting record. 2. Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty is so exciting that people who have decided not to vote in past elections have decided that finally they have someone for whom to vote. 3. Some polls are so biased they do not even list Ron Paul as a choice (coincidentally, in a few of those "other" is leading the pack): Hard to win a poll when your name is not on the list. 4. Ron Paul fights for the individual, not the government, and his message appeals to those who like to be left alone. During this election many individuals have caller ID and often choose to avoid telemarketers and callers they do not know. 5. Some of these polls begin with intrusive questions about a person's gender, religious affiliation, annual income, and other information some see as none of anyone's business. If you refuse to answer the initial questions they will not continue with the questions. The type of person that likes Ron Paul, also tends to like privacy. 6. Sadly, not enough people are getting to hear about his policies. Once they hear him, Ron Paul's supporters are very passionate about his message. A search of Internet "blogs" shows people writing zealously about him. Nothing could be more thrilling than to see an 18-year-old excited about the election process, shouting out support for Ron Paul, begging to hear more information about the Federal Reserve and its implications for the country. Through his campaign, Ron Paul is teaching many the benefits of limited government. There should be no surprise that his message is so well received; it is the one taught to us by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other founding fathers. It is the message of liberty, freedom, with the basis of a republic, not a democracy. We have been lied to so often, and our Constitution ripped apart at the seams, that when a person comes along speaking basic truths and principles, it awakens a part of us buried for so long. When ignoring Ron Paul does not work, and removing messages about him receives backlash, the next stage is to call his supporters rabid, nuts, crazy, unstable. If you cannot attack the man, attack his supporters. Yet who can blame people who get upset when a life-saving message comes along and the MSM tries to keep it from the public. Ron Paul's message is life-saving. He wants to end the war, he wants to help ease poverty by eliminating the Federal Reserve and its ability to steal through monetary inflation. He wants to end the Income Tax and give those who need it most their entire salaries. The anger you hear is frustration by his supporters at being marginalized, just as they are by so many government actions these days, and fury when all this support is discounted. Of course people are getting upset. They do not like being manipulated and they especially do not like it when a Presidential campaign is being hijacked. The worst part about the MSM treatment of Ron Paul, is that finally the people have a candidate they really love, and a man who would get this country back on the proper course. They have a man who will follow the Constitutional course that served this country so well for so long. Instead of rejoicing and helping the country and the people find their way, corporate media giants are trying to silence his message by ignoring him completely or reporting on only the most obscure, misleading and slanderous articles (could this be because Ron Paul is also against corporate welfare?). Most recently, even the Associated Press got into the "let's lead with misleading statements" game. In reporting on how Dr. Paul decided to hold his own rally after being the only candidate in the debates to not be invited to a Presidential Forum in Iowa, the AP's first line in the article was that Ron Paul has added "party crashing" to his debate tactics. As any ten-year-old knows, to crash a party you have to attend the party. Ron Paul had not announced he would attend the Presidential forum. Instead, he decided to hold a completely separate event immediately following the forum in the same venue. That is not party crashing, that is called campaigning. The article went on to tell the truth about the situation, but that catch phrase was repeated as a headline across the country impugning Dr. Paul's character. See for example this ABC News headline: Republican Ron Paul to Crash Iowa Forum. Just as Ron Paul spoke of blowback in the context of military interference in foreign affairs, unless the mainstream media ends the Ron Paul blackout and misinformation drive, they will lose the next generation who is seeing it as a biased, manipulating, election-fixing force not to be trusted. When Ron Paul gets heard or seen, he is liked. As soon as people who do not own computers are able to see him or read his message his numbers in the national polls will rise just as they have done on the Internet. In general, the American people are saying they want liberty and freedom: Now, if only the MSM would listen. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John Quincy Adams July 16, 2007 Jennifer Haman

Please read it to the last word? Long Life May Be Your Cup of (Green) Tea By Kathleen Doheny HealthDay Reporter Adults who drank at least five cups of the brew daily had a lower risk of cardiovascular death and death from all other causes, except cancer, than those who drank less than one cup a day, according to a research team from Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan. They published their findings in the Sept. 13 Journal of the American Medical Association. While many laboratory and animal studies have suggested that green tea protects against illness, its effect in humans has been less clear. "Only four epidemiological studies [in people] have been conducted to date," said lead researcher Dr. Shinichi Kuriyama. And those studies "included small sample sizes, and the results were inconsistent," he added. However, "our study includes far more participants -- 40,350 -- than the previous studies," Kuriyama said. "I think our study would provide strong evidence regarding the benefits of drinking green tea in humans on cardiovascular disease." "To be more definitive, we need a randomized trial," said Chyu. He said his lab's animal studies have found that green tea does have cardio-protective effects, especially if consumption commences before the onset of hardening of the arteries. For those who might want to "go green" for health, "I'd probably take a neutral position right now," Chyu said. "Tea is not harmful, that we know," he said. If you're a tea drinker, continue, Chyu said. If not, be aware that the habit probably needs to be long-term before you reap any real health benefit. "I don't think I'd recommend people drink large quantities of green tea," added Dr. Robert Vogel, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland Medical School in College Park. Like Chyu, he stressed that the study only showed an association, not any direct cause-and-effect. However, he said green tea consumption is certainly preferable to drinking beverages such as non-diet sodas, which are loaded with sugar. U.S. government health agencies have so far backed away from recommending green tea as a health aid. Earlier this year, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration review of the available data found no evidence to support companies' claims that green tea eases cardiovascular risk. The agency released a similar statement in 2005, noting a lack of evidence that green tea fights cancer. Experts at the U.S. National Cancer Institute have also reviewed data from human trials focused on tea's cancer-preventing effects but said the studies offered conflicting results. The NCI is funding its own rigorous studies on the subject, however. The study's lead author was much more enthusiastic. "I personally drink green tea, two or three cups per day," Kuriyama said. "On the basis of our study results, I would like to recommend the drinking of green tea at least one cup per day." But Kuriyama added that the tea should not be steaming hot. "Drinking green tea at high temperature may be associated with increased risk of esophageal cancer and mortality," he said, citing two published studies.

Is the media anti Christian? Why or why not? By Father John Flynn ROME, MAY 28, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Sexual abuses mixed with allegations of Church abuse make for an explosive media formula, as Italians can testify. The state-owned television broadcaster, RAI, sparked a debate after it announced that it wanted to buy the rights to transmit a BBC program, "Sex Crimes and the Vatican." Last Tuesday the RAI announced its purchase of the documentary. But owing to strong protests over the program's credibility, RAI director general Claudio Cappon stipulated that the talk show that will host the transmission, "Year Zero," also has to give time to Church representatives for a rebuttal. Along with presenting an account of child abuse, the BBC program makes accusations concerning a supposed Vatican-ordered cover-up. The documentary also accuses Benedict XVI of complicity in covering up sexual abuses in the past when he was a cardinal. The tendentious nature of the BBC program was exposed in a declaration made last year by English Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is chair of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults. In an Oct. 2 press release, which came the day after the BBC broadcast the program in England, the archbishop acknowledged the distressing fact of child abuse. He clarified, however, that the part of the program that attacks the Vatican and the Pope "is false and entirely misleading." The prelate said it was false because the BBC program misrepresents two Vatican documents. The program refers to a 1962 document, "Crimen Sollicitationis," which Archbishop Nichols explained, was not directly concerned with child abuse, but with the misuse of the confessional. A second document, "Ad Exequendam," dated 2001, does not, he argued, hinder investigation of child abuse, but is rather "a measure of the seriousness with which the Vatican views these offenses." BBC bias This isn't the first time BBC programs have taken on the Catholic Church. After strong criticism the BBC eventually decided not to transmit its 2004 cartoon series, "Popetown." The cartoon ridiculed Pope John Paul II and the Church. The cartoon resurfaced last year in Germany, where MTV bought the rights with a view to transmitting it just before Good Friday, reported Deutsche Welle on April 12, 2006. Protests failed to block the program, with MTV deciding to broadcast the entire 10-part cartoon, after a test transmission of the first part, reported Reuters on May 9, 2006. The BBC's attitude toward religion was examined by the English newspaper Daily Mail in an article published Oct. 23. Following what was termed an "impartiality" summit convened by BBC Chairman Michael Grade, the paper cited "senior figures" as admitting that the broadcasting corporation was guilty of an anti-Christian bias. Moreover, the Daily Mail reported, during the meeting, BBC executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away -- but would not do the same for the Koran. Attacking Mary The BBC is not alone in its hostility to religion and the Catholic Church. Another recycled show, this time an American cartoon, "South Park," recently came under fire in New Zealand. A May 23 press release by the New Zealand group Family Life International detailed a complaint made by Catholic bishops about an episode insulting the Virgin Mary, broadcast last year. The bishops presented evidence in an appeal against the decision last year by the country's Broadcasting Standards Authority, which refused to uphold their complaint about the insult to Mary, along with complaints about other episodes. A lawyer for the bishops, Richard Laurenson, told the High Court in Wellington on Wednesday that the program breached the broadcaster's obligation to maintain good taste, decency and fairness. A decision has been reserved in the case. Another recent case comes from Canada, where a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pilot program that portrays altar boys as drug addicts and the communion host as snack food has sparked protests, reported the Ottawa Citizen newspaper on May 16. The program, "The Altar Boy Gang," was denounced by the Catholic Civil Rights League. "With this program, the CBC has moved into the area of blasphemy of sacred rituals," the organization declared. It also accused the CBC of double standards, noting that the insults toward the Catholic Church came after it hired a Muslim consultant last year to ensure that Islamic practices were respected in the program "Little Mosque on the Prairie." Earlier this year, it was a recycled Italian export that took on the Church, this time in the United States. The University of Minnesota decided to perform a play, "The Pope and the Witch," by Italian author Dario Fo. A Feb. 22 article in the Catholic Spirit, the diocesan newspaper of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, reported that Minnesota's bishops and several Catholic organizations objected to the play. The article explained that the play, among other matters, depicts a "delusional, unnamed pontiff." It also depicts the Vatican as being involved in the drug trade, and finishes with the Pope's assassination. An editorial in the same issue of the Catholic Spirit argued that allowing the performance of such a work "pollutes the atmosphere of mutual respect and that promotes the kind of prejudice and intolerance the university says it opposes." Infested The increasing number of programs hostile to Christianity was commented on by Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, England, in his pastoral letter for the New Year. In his text, dated Dec. 31, Bishop Roche decried the spreading abuse of Jesus' name in television shows. "It was if my television set had been infested with anti-Christian and deeply disrespectful and derogatory sentiments," he declared, speaking of his experience in turning on the television recently and switching from channel to channel. "There is an ease and a carelessness today in which it is possible, without any resistance, to ridicule Jesus, his Church and his followers," noted Bishop Roche. He then went on to urge believers not to become infected by this tendency and to respect the name of Jesus in everyday conversations. Hostility toward religion was also one of the topics that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor addressed during a March 28 lecture, at Westminster Cathedral Hall in London. The archbishop of Westminster declared that he feared contemporary society is increasingly marked by "secular dogmatism or cynicism" toward Christians. He stated: "So when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are right-wing reactionaries." Secularist intolerance The lecture took place in the context of a fierce debate over government legislation which imposed on Catholic adoption agencies the obligation to hand children over for adoption to same-sex couples. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor argued that it was no accident that the state's increasing anti-religious tendency takes place at a time of a "new secularist intolerance of religion," which increasingly marks society. The question of how the media treat religion was dealt with by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, in its 2000 document "Ethics in Communications." The council acknowledged the many positive contributions of the media to everyday life, and also how people benefit through the transmission of religious news and ideas. Nevertheless, the ethics document also noted how sometimes religion unfairly suffers at the hand of the media due to incomprehension or even contempt. Often, religious fads are lauded, while legitimate religious groups are treated with hostility, the council explained in No. 18 of the document. The council called for a greater application of ethical principles in the world of communications. "Communication must always be truthful, since truth is essential to individual liberty and to authentic community among persons," the document exhorted (No. 20). A truthfulness sometimes sorely lacking in some media reports on religion. Please read the above article and then answer the question as to whether you think the media is anti-Christian. I guess the joke's on me... I thought one could have an intelligent discussion on Yahoo! Answers. Best answer is going to go to someone who actually answers the question and gives a reasoned argument, whether I agree or not. Not someone who uses insults or sarcasm.

How do I cite the following sources in MLA format? Margolin JF, Steuber CP, Poplack DG. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. In: Pizzo PA, Poplack DG, eds. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002: 489-544. Gokbuget N, Hoelzer D. Recent approaches in acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults. Rev Clin Exp Hematol. 2002; 6(2):114-141. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?genre=article&sid= nlm:pubmed&issn=1127-0020&date=2002&volume=6&issue=2 &spage=114 Pui C-H, Relling MV, Downing JR. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(15):1535-1548. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/350/15/1535