Yeah, I was about to post a picture of him, but I couldn't find one in the same pose. I know I've seen a good comparison picture before, though. It's definitely the deeply sunken eyes.
GARLAND, Texas (AP) -- An essay that won a 6-year-old girl four tickets to a Hannah Montana concert began with the powerful line: "My daddy died this year in Iraq."
A false essay won a 6-year-old girl four tickets to a sold-out Hannah Montana concert.
While gripping, it wasn't true -- and now the girl may lose her tickets after her mom acknowledged to contest organizers it was all a lie.
The sponsor of the contest was Club Libby Lu, a Chicago-based store that sells clothes, accessories and games intended for young girls.
The saga began Friday with company officials surprising the girl at a Club Libby Lu at a mall in suburban Garland, northeast of Dallas. The girl won a makeover that included a blonde Hannah Montana wig, as well as the grand prize: airfare for four to Albany, New York, and four tickets to the sold-out Hannah Montana concert on January 9.
The mother had told company officials that the girl's father died April 17 in a roadside bombing in Iraq, company spokeswoman Robyn Caulfield said.
"We did the essay and that's what we did to win," Priscilla Ceballos, the mother, said in an interview with Dallas TV station KDFW. "We did whatever we could do to win."
She had identified the soldier as Sgt. Jonathon Menjivar, but the Department of Defense has no record of anyone with that name dying in Iraq. Caulfield said the mother has admitted to the deception.
"We regret that the original intent of the contest, which was to make a little girl's holiday extra special, has not been realized in the way we anticipated," said Mary Drolet, the CEO of Club Libby Lu.
Drolet said the company is reviewing the matter, and is considering taking away the girl's tickets.
Who the fuck is this Hannah Montana, anyway? Everyone's going apeshit over her concerts.
COCOA, Fla. -- A yard sale featuring children's toys at a home where a convicted sex predator and his brother, who has also served time for harming a child, live has prompted outrage in the community.
For the last several months, the merchandise has been set outside a home on Green Hill Street in Cocoa where Donald Muncey lives.
Muncey was convicted nearly four years ago of molesting a girl under the age of 12, Local 6's Kimberly Houk reported.
Muncey and his brother, Steven, who also served time for a lewd and lascivious act on a girl under the age of 16, are both living with their mother in the house.
Some neighbors said they are concerned that the sale of the items in their yard is just a lure for more potential victims, Local 6 reported.
"It is scary to even see their kids up there with them to buy stuff," neighbor Jim Youngman said.
"It is not a real comforting thing knowing a kid is within so many feet of a predator like that," a resident told Houk.
Local 6 reported that Muncey is forbidden to be near children. However, neighbors said Muncey had been selling the toys in his front yard in recent weeks.
The mother of the men said a Brevard County probation officer who stopped by Friday said she is allowed to sell toys in her front yard as long as her sons stay inside.
A deputy has been driving by the home to make sure the Muncey brothers do not venture outside.
Haha, I didn't hear about that fake essay story in Garland, but then I also haven't been watching the local news lately. I wonder why little girls have to find such an obsession over something or someone? For me it was the Spice Girls. But I think I might have been pushed into it, because every singe one of my friends was obsessed with the group too.
Jeez... I've listened to the Spice Girls' music again in the past few years, and I'm horrified I had that kind of influence when I was around 5 years old. At least Hannah Montana isn't talking about putting on condoms to have sex. (Don't believe me? The song's called Two Become One.. no wonder I've known so many girls to become sluts)
Jeez... I've listened to the Spice Girls' music again in the past few years, and I'm horrified I had that kind of influence when I was around 5 years old. At least Hannah Montana isn't talking about putting on condoms to have sex. (Don't believe me? The song's called Two Become One.. no wonder I've known so many girls to become sluts)
That seems like a better message than not using a condom to have sex.
Well, I for one say that the company should allow the little girl to keep her tickets. I mean, she did write the essay, right? Who cares if it wasn't autobiographical? Fiction can win stuff too!
Unless of course the contest rules said that it had to be non-fiction or something like that.
"where we can help Christian schools"
"To engage Christian schools to"
I think this is geared towards schools that are already teaching Creationism. It would be pretty fucked up if he were trying to trick public schools into participating.
I watched the trailer. I don't know how I feel exactly.
I have no problem with him promoting these articles that lend credence to intelligent design. If they point toward intelligent design, and they are well-performed experiments, what's the big deal? But I think that he's probably exaggerating the negativity those articles received. I'm pretty sure that most scientists realize that science is science and religion is religion. I hope that most scientists realize that, because from the excerpts presented of the "Darwinist" scientists, it seems that they've turned Darwinism into a belief structure.
But of course, they might have been taken out of context. I mean, Jesus, what scientist talks about a theory as "doctrine"? If new evidence points toward a more active role in the creation of life, shouldn't it be considered seriously? I think most scientists think that way. But I'd be really interested in reading these controversial studies, and why he says that they discredit Darwinism. They might just be criticized because they suck ass and don't really say anything substantial.
I used to like Ben Stein. This just goes to show that anyone can go crazy and earn my ire. I just cannot understand this self-righteous shill majority-seeing-itself-as-an-oppressed-minority thing.
I just watched the trailers. I really have lost all respect for Ben Stein. Not because He's a creationist, but because he's spouting out the same crap as all other religious leaders. The bit at the end of The Big Trailer where watching this movie could cause you to lose your job, etc. is all total bullshit. I know there are a few of you who must remember their youth in the church where the youth leaders or pastors/priests/ministers would always say how you have to be brave and stand up for your faith. As if mentioning that you're Christian would cause others to ridicule you. He's trying to pull the same shit now. It's people like this that cause people to be so defensive and ready for criticism that they can't hear what you say, they only assume you're saying it to undermine their beliefs. I still feel anyone should have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, but this is oppressing thought through fear-mongering.
But, that's just how I feel about Mr. Stein, now. I'm pretty sure that this film will only help to strengthen the resolve of those who already believe, and at worst, annoy those who do not.
I have no problem with him promoting these articles that lend credence to intelligent design. If they point toward intelligent design, and they are well-performed experiments, what's the big deal?
That's the thing: Intelligent Design isn't a theory that can be tested. It makes no claims that can be experimented on or otherwise confirmed or denied. It's simply the act of looking at how things currently are and rationalising it away by saying that the "Intelligent Designer" (whose motives and methods are never mentioned) planned it that way.
Intelligent Design isn't science, it's just a way of dressing Creationism up in scientific-sounding language to sneak it into schools.
That's the thing: Intelligent Design isn't a theory that can be tested. It makes no claims that can be experimented on or otherwise confirmed or denied. It's simply the act of looking at how things currently are and rationalising it away by saying that the "Intelligent Designer" (whose motives and methods are never mentioned) planned it that way.
Intelligent Design isn't science, it's just a way of dressing Creationism up in scientific-sounding language to sneak it into schools.
I know that's probably the case, thus my ending remark. But still, I'm loathe to automatically dismiss any scientific study that claims to lend evidence toward some sort of intelligent design. All I'm saying is that I'd like to read the publications he's talking about so I can have an informed opinion. But if he never mentions those articles specifically in the movie and never gives his audience a chance to check up on their claims, then I will automatically dismiss this movie as propaganda based more on wishful thinking than scientific research.
EDIT: After looking around a little bit more, I wonder if I'm trying to be a little bit too open minded. I always like to be open to new suggestions and ideas, and I hate to shut things out. But there's a 99% chance that this movie is just puffery and misleading statements, and that these "scientific articles" are really just attempts to put creationism into a scientific context without any scientific basis. Ben Stein says that there's tons of evidence for intelligent design in the movie. We shall see.
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)).
This is from a court decision that states that Intelligent Design is not science. The biggest thing for me is that they have not generated peer-reviewed publications. Kiss of Death. I'm still interested in seeing the movie, but not in the theater. I don't want to support this financially.
SCIENCE has its own natural progression throughout the course of humanity. As our knowledge of the world has deepened, so has the vastness of SCIENCE. We use it to explain the world around us when we struggle to understand it. And over time, humanity has modified SCIENCE as it saw fit.
We used to know that the stars and the universe revolved around the planet Earth. We also used to know that the world was flat. But as we have evolved as a race, we have modified what we thought we thought we knew into what we believe we know today.
We know evolution right now to be the best explanation for the current state of life. Whether it is truly the right answer, or just another inane theory that our grandchildren will laugh at, is completely irrelevant. True scientists embrace any information that reveals new knowledge and doorways, and as that information is presented, the theory of evolution too shall evolve.
That is where Intelligent Design shall never succeed. It does not open the doors for debate. It looks at what cannot be currently understood and explains it by declaring that "a wizard did it." And that's it. Knowledge stops. Inquisition and curiosity all stops. SCIENCE stops.
And that is why Intelligent Design in its current form can never be accepted as SCIENCE.
I kind of got the impression from the trailer that Stein would be interviewing scientists who actually have theories on intelligent design, and that the movie isn't just going to be full of comments like "if you believe in darwinism, you're going straight to hell." I mean, I'm sure those comments will end up in there somewhere, even if they aren't so blatant, but... I'm still interested to hear what the scientists would have to say in their defense. If I can go in to watch the movie with the right mindset, I think I'd be able to watch the movie and not end up completely annoyed...
I've always just figured religion is religion and science is science, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread; since it's such a controversial topic, I just kind of dismissed the whole thing and moved on. It might be worth watching, to at least hear the side of the story that you don't hear in public schools (which I've had to endure.) I don't quite agree with the trailer, so far, since I don't feel that anyone has "pressured" me to believe in evolution, and I don't feel that I'd lose any "friends" by telling them I went to see the movie, haha. I have NOT, however, given the religious point of views my fullest attention, and I dont think I really noticed it before.
I think the most appealing factor to me is that they might go into mathematical explanations of evolution, which has always been interesting to me, haha. I'm a math nerd, sooo.... I dunno. I'll consider watching it in theaters, at least. I might have to go alone because I don't know anyone else who might be interested, but I'm okay with that!
Considering the date, you might assume that at least one of the drivers was drunk — and you'd be right. Laura Varker was 17 years old, and she'd been tubing down the Salt River all day with her eight best girlfriends. Their T-shirts all read "Cinco de Drinko." Even an hour after the accident, Varker's blood-alcohol level was 0.09, over the legal limit for adults. And, as an underage driver, she was in violation of the law by having any amount of alcohol in her system.
One of Varker's girlfriends, 15-year-old Felicia Edwards, didn't drink a drop. But it was Edwards who died when Varker's Yukon Denali hit another car and flipped over and over like a tumbleweed before coming to a horrifying stop on the Bush Highway north of Mesa. Edwards was thrown from the SUV and pronounced dead at the scene.
When sheriff's deputies called Felicia's mother that terrible day, her first question was, "Was she wearing a seat belt?" She wasn't. Instead, Felicia had been in the back of the SUV holding down the tubes — a decision she paid for with her life.
That's a tragedy.
But only in its aftermath did the collision become a travesty. That's because, even after blood tests showed that Varker was legally drunk, and even after sheriff's investigators learned that it was she and another girl who'd flashed a fake ID and bought Coors Light and malt liquor for the group, Varker hasn't been charged with anything.
Not underage consumption.
Not drunken driving.
And certainly not manslaughter.
Instead of charging the affluent white girl, the sheriff's officers arrested the other driver, a black man, a guy who wasn't even legally drunk.
Bryant Wilkerson was a 28-year-old postal service clerk with nothing on his record worse than a fender-bender. That day, he was merely making a U-turn, in a place where U-turns are permitted, when a 17-year-old party girl in her daddy's SUV tried to speed around him.
Wilkerson's life has been upended. He's been charged with nine felony counts, including manslaughter and aggravated assault. He spent three months in jail because he didn't have the money to post bail, and he lost his job because of that. Now under strict curfew and random alcohol and drug screenings for the past five months, he has to get permission from the court just to attend his daughter's band concerts in the evening.
He's facing 21 years in prison.
Meanwhile, Laura Varker is posing on her MySpace page in a bikini.
That day on the Bush Highway, Bryant Wilkerson did one thing wrong. Admittedly, it was really wrong.
He was making a U-turn — which, again, was legal — when he saw Varker's Denali come out of nowhere on his left side. According to the sheriff's report, witnesses suggest Varker saw his little Hyundai slowing and crossed over the yellow lines into the center lane to pass him. At least one witness, a friend of Varker's who was just behind her on the highway, told deputies that the other car was slowing too dramatically for her to stop; Varker had to lurch into the center lane just to avoid rear-ending him.
(Now, you'd think Varker would allow plenty of distance between herself and other drivers. Just seven months earlier, as a 16-year-old with a brand-new license, Varker had caused another accident. Police records say she failed to stop in time and slammed into another car on Cactus Road, which then hit the car in front of it.)
But back to Cinco de Mayo. As he went into the turn, Wilkerson didn't see the SUV veering into the center lane until it was too late.
Amazingly, Wilkerson's Hyundai was just fine, other than losing its bumper. It grazed the SUV and hung on to finish the U-turn.
In their rear-view window, though, Wilkerson's passengers were horrified to see the Denali flipping over and over, according to the sheriff's report.
And that's when, Wilkerson admits, he made a really big mistake. He panicked and took off.
"I freaked out," he says. "That's no excuse; that's so not me. But I had the people in my car yelling, 'Go, go, go!' and I just freaked out and panicked." Sheriff's deputies caught up with him just 10 minutes later.
Because he fled the scene, it's understandable that the sheriff's deputies assumed that Wilkerson had something to hide. Their reports note that he smelled heavily of alcohol, that he'd admitted to smoking pot that morning, that he seemed drunk.
The problem is, all the tests came back well under the legal limit. Wilkerson blew a 0.049 on the sheriff's Breathalyzer. By the time the sheriff's officers did a blood test, which is widely considered much more accurate, Wilkerson's blood-alcohol content was only 0.01. The presence of marijuana was just as minimal. Wilkerson had only trace amounts in his bloodstream.
Never mind. The sheriff's deputies had made up their minds: Wilkerson was to blame for the crash. They arrested him, charging him with manslaughter, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of a fatal injury accident, unlawful flight from law enforcement, and five counts of endangerment. (A sheriff's spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.)
He would spend the next three months in Maricopa County's Fourth Avenue Jail — in the maximum-security wing. His wife tried her best to raise bail, but $54,000 is a lot of collateral when you're a renter.
Wilkerson learned in jail that the SUV driver had been legally drunk. He'd initially been so shocked by the accident, he says, that he figured he must be to blame.
But when he heard that, he began to wonder just what was going on. He had only a public defender and no money for a lawyer. He questioned whether he was getting a fair shake.
Wilkerson contacted the Reverend Oscar Tillman, president of the NAACP's Maricopa County branch, who had much the same reaction. Tillman couldn't believe what he was hearing.
They were charging the guy who was below the legal limit with manslaughter, and they weren't charging the drunk with anything?
"I've seen numerous cases that have come through here, where people have been charged under very questionable circumstances with DUIs," Tillman says. "In this particular case, within a few days, the sheriff's department had in their hands a report saying she was legally drunk."
And yet they haven't charged her.
"I have a serious problem with that," Tillman says.
No one is saying that Wilkerson should face no penalty. Prosecutors, for example, could have charged him with leaving the scene of an accident, and it's hard to imagine the Reverend Oscar Tillman getting involved.
But manslaughter? Twenty-one years in prison?
Tillman began contacting the Sheriff's Office in August. He says he hasn't asked them to drop charges against Wilkerson, but he wants to know when they're going to charge Varker.
In early December, he says, he was finally informed that the Sheriff's Office had filed a supplemental report suggesting that charges be filed against Varker. Barnett Lotstein, a top aide to County Attorney Andrew Thomas, promised Tillman he'd see where things stood. Tillman is still waiting. (Lotstein did not respond to e-mails seeking comment.)
Tillman's confident that, ultimately, justice will be done.
"They can't hide this one," he says. "I'm not going to let this man be railroaded when [Varker] may have caused the entire accident."
Varker's father works at Dial, the German-owned Scottsdale-based soap company, records show. The family has hired a host of lawyers for their daughter, including a pair at the highly respected firm of Quarles & Brady, to handle any potential criminal charges.
When sheriff's deputies went back a few months after the accident to press Laura Varker's friends about whether she'd been the one to purchase the booze, all but one refused to cooperate, including a few girls who'd initially agreed to interviews. They'd given Varker's parents their word, they said, that they wouldn't talk.
Varker's lawyers have also hired a retired Phoenix cop, who surveyed the scene and concluded that Wilkerson erred when he slowed down to make the U-turn. By doing so, the former police officer wrote, Wilkerson impeded the flow of traffic, forcing Varker into the center lane.
"He could have completely exited the westbound lane into the bus stop cutout and attempted to execute a safer U-turn," the report suggested.
John Sandweg, one of Laura Varker's lawyers, said Laura and her family would decline all comment.
"This is a tragedy, this was a horrific accident, but it was not Miss Varker's fault," Sandweg says.
Bryant Wilkerson is tormented by what happened to Felicia Edwards. When deputies first told him that someone died in the accident, he broke down.
"It was a hard pill to swallow," he says. Even today, eight months later, his eyes fill with tears. "Looking back, I know I wasn't really at fault. But it's still something that's hard to think about."
Wilkerson is a soft-spoken guy. He grew up in California. His father is black and American Indian, he says, while his mother is white. He and his wife live in an apartment complex in Fountain Hills, and he's now working at the Chevron station across the street.
"That way I don't have to drive," he says. He still has driving privileges, but he knows what can happen on the road. It's safer to walk.
A few years ago, Wilkerson and his wife formally adopted a pair of sisters whose mother had decided she was more interested in drugs than raising children. The girls are both in middle school now, and so when Wilkerson thinks about Felicia Edwards dying, he thinks about his daughters. He's seen Edwards' mom, Jennifer Bither, in court. Under the law, he's not allowed to approach her; she's the victim, and he's officially the suspect.
But he thinks about her, often.
Through her lawyer, Bither declined comment. She is suing both Wilkerson and Varker for her daughter's death, court records show.
"She's the real victim here," Wilkerson says. "As hard as it may be for me, it's nothing; it's not even one-tenth the thickness of a hair, compared to what it is for her. I can't comprehend that. If I were to lose one of my daughters, it would just tear me up."
But he still can't understand why he's the only one being held responsible, why he's the one looking at 21 years, while Laura Varker continues on her way.
"I need to get the story out," he says. "Because it really seems like they're trying to railroad me."
Comments
He's like Darth Sideous.
Girl's false essay wins Hannah Montana tickets
Who the fuck is this Hannah Montana, anyway? Everyone's going apeshit over her concerts.
Also,
Toy Sale At Sex Predator's Home Outrages Neighbors
Jeez... I've listened to the Spice Girls' music again in the past few years, and I'm horrified I had that kind of influence when I was around 5 years old. At least Hannah Montana isn't talking about putting on condoms to have sex. (Don't believe me? The song's called Two Become One.. no wonder I've known so many girls to become sluts)
Not yet.
That seems like a better message than not using a condom to have sex.
Way to go, Disney.
Unless of course the contest rules said that it had to be non-fiction or something like that.
"To engage Christian schools to"
I think this is geared towards schools that are already teaching Creationism. It would be pretty fucked up if he were trying to trick public schools into participating.
I watched the trailer. I don't know how I feel exactly.
I have no problem with him promoting these articles that lend credence to intelligent design. If they point toward intelligent design, and they are well-performed experiments, what's the big deal? But I think that he's probably exaggerating the negativity those articles received. I'm pretty sure that most scientists realize that science is science and religion is religion. I hope that most scientists realize that, because from the excerpts presented of the "Darwinist" scientists, it seems that they've turned Darwinism into a belief structure.
But of course, they might have been taken out of context. I mean, Jesus, what scientist talks about a theory as "doctrine"? If new evidence points toward a more active role in the creation of life, shouldn't it be considered seriously? I think most scientists think that way. But I'd be really interested in reading these controversial studies, and why he says that they discredit Darwinism. They might just be criticized because they suck ass and don't really say anything substantial.
But, that's just how I feel about Mr. Stein, now. I'm pretty sure that this film will only help to strengthen the resolve of those who already believe, and at worst, annoy those who do not.
Intelligent Design isn't science, it's just a way of dressing Creationism up in scientific-sounding language to sneak it into schools.
I know that's probably the case, thus my ending remark. But still, I'm loathe to automatically dismiss any scientific study that claims to lend evidence toward some sort of intelligent design. All I'm saying is that I'd like to read the publications he's talking about so I can have an informed opinion. But if he never mentions those articles specifically in the movie and never gives his audience a chance to check up on their claims, then I will automatically dismiss this movie as propaganda based more on wishful thinking than scientific research.
EDIT: After looking around a little bit more, I wonder if I'm trying to be a little bit too open minded. I always like to be open to new suggestions and ideas, and I hate to shut things out. But there's a 99% chance that this movie is just puffery and misleading statements, and that these "scientific articles" are really just attempts to put creationism into a scientific context without any scientific basis. Ben Stein says that there's tons of evidence for intelligent design in the movie. We shall see.
This is from a court decision that states that Intelligent Design is not science. The biggest thing for me is that they have not generated peer-reviewed publications. Kiss of Death. I'm still interested in seeing the movie, but not in the theater. I don't want to support this financially.
We used to know that the stars and the universe revolved around the planet Earth. We also used to know that the world was flat. But as we have evolved as a race, we have modified what we thought we thought we knew into what we believe we know today.
We know evolution right now to be the best explanation for the current state of life. Whether it is truly the right answer, or just another inane theory that our grandchildren will laugh at, is completely irrelevant. True scientists embrace any information that reveals new knowledge and doorways, and as that information is presented, the theory of evolution too shall evolve.
That is where Intelligent Design shall never succeed. It does not open the doors for debate. It looks at what cannot be currently understood and explains it by declaring that "a wizard did it." And that's it. Knowledge stops. Inquisition and curiosity all stops. SCIENCE stops.
And that is why Intelligent Design in its current form can never be accepted as SCIENCE.
I've always just figured religion is religion and science is science, as it was mentioned earlier in the thread; since it's such a controversial topic, I just kind of dismissed the whole thing and moved on. It might be worth watching, to at least hear the side of the story that you don't hear in public schools (which I've had to endure.) I don't quite agree with the trailer, so far, since I don't feel that anyone has "pressured" me to believe in evolution, and I don't feel that I'd lose any "friends" by telling them I went to see the movie, haha. I have NOT, however, given the religious point of views my fullest attention, and I dont think I really noticed it before.
I think the most appealing factor to me is that they might go into mathematical explanations of evolution, which has always been interesting to me, haha. I'm a math nerd, sooo.... I dunno. I'll consider watching it in theaters, at least. I might have to go alone because I don't know anyone else who might be interested, but I'm okay with that!