Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust ETF - Business Insider

winkleevoss

REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Cameron (L) and Tyler Winklevoss, co-founders of ConnectU Inc., leave the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts July 25, 2007 following a court hearing on ConnectU's lawsuit against Facebook Inc.

Bitcoin, the obscure digital crypto-currency, has been out of the headlines for a little while.

But this hasn't stopped Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss from moving forward with their effort to make it more mainstream.

According to a new filing with the SEC, a trust sponsored by Winklevoss Capital Management has registered to offer shares that will give buyers exposure to Bitcoin.

"The Trust holds ?Bitcoins,? a digital commodity based on an open source cryptographic protocol existing on the online, end-user-to-end-user network hosting the public transaction ledger, known as the ?Blockchain,? and the source code comprising the basis for the cryptographic and algorithmic protocols governing the issuance of and transactions in Bitcoins," reads the filing.

"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of a weighted average price of Bitcoins, less the Trust?s expenses. The Sponsor believes that, for many investors, the Shares will represent a cost-effective and convenient means to access exposure to Bitcoins."

It appears that this will operate like an exchange-traded fund (ETF), a security that basically trades like a stock.

The ticker symbol for the fund has yet to be determined.

The Winklevosses became famous when they sued Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for allegedly taking an idea that was theirs.

Before you even consider trading Bitcoin, you should consider the risks. Like this one from the filing:

If a malicious actor or botnet obtains control in excess of 50 percent of the processing power active on the Bitcoin Network, such actor or botnet could manipulate the source code of the Bitcoin Network or the Blockchain in a manner that adversely affects an investment in the Shares or the ability of the Trust to operate.

If this is incomprehensible to you, then maybe Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust isn't for you.

Read the whole filing at SEC.gov.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/winklevoss-bitcoin-etf-2013-7

Psalm 91 Super Bowl 2013 Commercials Evasi0n Superdome Iron Man 3 Trailer Super Bowl 2013 Ray Rice

Dior, Valli, Versace, Schiaparelli energize Paris

PARIS (AP) ? Naomi Campbell not only owns the clothes she wears, but by her sheer magnetic presence commands the entire runway when she walks it. Donatella Versace knows this well, casting the age-defying 43-year-old to start Paris haute couture week with a bang of indomitable energy.

It was a hard act to follow.

Monday, the first of three full days of collections, showcased a universe of divergent and notable styles: From Dutch wunderkind Iris Van Herpen's organic musings, the diaphanous display by Giambattista Valli in top form, to the supreme elegance of Christian Lacroix's one-off ode to the late, great designer Elsa Schiaparelli.

Meanwhile, Christian Dior's Raf Simons broke through the walls of Avenue Montaigne to send the fashion house on a journey across the four corners of the globe: Encompassing the purity of Asia, the bold Americas, the bright stripes and patterns of Africa's Masai, with a dash of Europe's dainty-waisted "Parisienne."

CHRISTIAN DIOR

Images projected on the make-shift show walls inside Paris' Invalides summed up the show's message: A carpeted salon of Dior's Right Bank headquarters fused into scenes of exotic red flowers and images of black and Asian models. In other words, with one full year as creative director under his belt, Simons has found the confidence to go beyond the weighty heritage of the 70-year-old house codes and explore his own visions.

While the iconic bar jacket popped up in one belted gray wool outfit, its several peplum flaps mirrored the layers of a Japanese kimono.

Elsewhere, looks fully embracing the East were pulled off with panache, such as one off-white silk coat with stiff upturned collar, long front flaps and an incredible jutting back piece. All the looks were supremely feminine.

But while all of the globe-trotting turned this show into one of Simons' most creative, the 53 looks were so diverse that it also was his hardest to make sense of. The brightly-colored Masai looks, for example, were sometimes so vivid they jarred.

Still, there were plenty of bold new explorations. Next season, a more focused vision might help sharpen these great fashion ideas.

VERSACE

There were awed gasps from A-lister Uma Thurman on Sunday night when the panther-like Campbell steamed past to open the Atelier Versace show in strong-shouldered micro-sequin black jacket held together revealingly just by hooks and eyes covered in Swarovski crystals.

The rest of the fall-winter 2013 show was equally extreme.

Versace made some provocative statements with front panels of dresses flapping down with white crystals to expose the bustier, as if the "Glamazon" model had been interrupted midway through her strip-tease. One dress embroidered with blue and black sequins was so long it had a six-foot woman hobbling and nearly tripping all the way down the catwalk.

But among all the wanton razzmatazz, several of the looks were highly wearable and combined Versace's exuberance with some fine tailoring.

GIAMBATTISTA VALLI

With bold and refreshing sense of femininity, Giambattista Valli produced what could well be one of his strongest haute couture shows to date for fall-winter.

Thirty-nine diaphanous creations ? in off-white, pale gray, mid red and soft Renaissance blue ? stunned revellers Monday evening with their finely balanced play of texture, layering and transparency.

A series of truncated full silk shirts, that flared from the waist, softly blossomed thanks to myriad ruffles cut ? in a masterly touch ? on the bias. While myriad floral embroiderings added a delicacy.

One black and white bustier dress with tulle sported an exquisite satin in lilac blue gathered silk section that flowed over the model's hip, and billowed like a loose flower.

SCHIAPARELLI

Shoe hats, lobster dresses, and spiraling goggle glasses could easily be part of a closet inventory belonging to Lady Gaga. But these objects were all spawned from the mind of another woman, one born? incredibly ? in 1890: the avant-garde Elsa Schiaparelli.

The house of the influential fashion designer is being revived this year, and Monday saw famed couturier Christian Lacroix rise to the challenge of creating 18 dresses for a presentation entitled "Homage to Elsa."

It was a sumptuous display.

One dress called "Signature," in luxuriant navy wool crepe and satin piping, sported large pockets in midnight blue faille that formed an imaginative peplum. Elsewhere, a timeless black chiffon gown featured a feathered front with a straight white satin bow and queenly gold collar.

In a great touch, the lobster dress was reimagined as a clutch bag.

Lacroix was chosen as a one-off designer, and the house is still to name an artistic director.

IRIS VAN HERPEN

Wild nature was in the spotlight for Dutch wunderkind Iris Van Herpen, who produced a typically organic-infused couture display for fall-winter.

The show venue -- among the pillared architecture of the neoclassical science museum - lent itself well to explorations of organisms and exoskeletons that ran through the 11 creations.

The twist this season was a neat fusion with Japanese styles. That featured nicely, for example, on a bronze kimono dress with round, large arms in the shape of a moth. Here, scratched detailing evoked the feeling of a perforated cocoon.

The piece de resistance had to be an incredible oval dark gray mini dress that, in its intricate hard ruffles, teaming sinews and un-human shape, looked like a work of abstract sculpture.

There was a feeling, however, that Van Herpen is having trouble moving forward creatively from her organic themes ? though finely executed, two exoskeletal sheath dresses felt a little like a rehash of old-styles.

____

Thomas Adamson can be followed at Twitter.com/ThomasAdamsonAP

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/dior-valli-versace-schiaparelli-energize-paris-231250975.html

Tropical Storm Sandy W S B H c mitt romney

Slow Computer? Learn How to Speed Up Your PC ~ Free Tips and ...

Does your computer seem to be slower than normal? Has your PC crashed recently? Have you had the misfortune of experiencing the blue screen of death or a similar error?

There are a plethora of things that can cause your computer to crash or perform at an unreasonably slow level. You might have too many programs loading at startup.

The general rule is this: If you don't need it and it isn't vital to your computer, delete it. By following this rule, you will enable your computer to boot up faster and perform better.

Another thing that can cause your computer to run slower is a corrupted or bloated registry. If you have a Windows computer, then you have a registry.

The registry, like a meticulous bookkeeper, stores a record of everything you do on your computer. It keeps tabs on what programs you use on your computer, what websites you look at, what you download from the Internet. It stores all of this info on your computer?s hard drive and is notorious for producing corrupted or fragmented files.

Cleaning out your registry every now and then will help speed up your PC.

Erin Walsh is a technology junky and the Director of Public Relations at Boost Software. She enjoys blogging about topics in technology and occasionally guest posts on popular blogs about some of the most recent tech gadgets, windows installer errors, and other slow computer issues.

Source: http://dailytipsndtricks.blogspot.com/2013/06/slow-computer-learn-how-to-speed-up.html

aaron smith wilt chamberlain joe arpaio cat in the hat green eggs and ham wiz khalifa and amber rose oh the places you ll go

Mark Munoz shows off slimmed down physique for UFC 162 after ?turning to food for comfort?

Last summer, Mark Munoz was knocked out by Chris Weidman. Then he had to recover from a foot injury sustained while training for the Weidman bout. It was a rough turn of events for a fighter who had title shot hopes and who had been on a four-bout winning streak.

He turned to what so many turn to for comfort in tough times -- food. Munoz talked about his struggles on his website.

Battled through injury, self-doubt, and depression. I turned to food for comfort and what I found was more heartache. A never ending cycle of ?eating because I was sad and sad because I was eating.? I had to find peace and comfort in my faith in God, He shaped my life.

In the above picture, Munoz showed off how far he has come since January of this year. He went from 261 lbs. to 199 on June 27, which is not far from his fighting weight of 185 lbs. It's an impressive turnaround for a 35-year-old fighter.

This Saturday, he'll fight Tim Boetsch at UFC 162 with a whole new physique. It's his first chance to get back on the winning track after the loss to Weidman, who will fight for the middleweight belt on the same card. Will his newly healthy body make a difference? Make your pick here.

More popular MMA stories on Yahoo! Sports:
? Frankie Edgar not afraid to change weight classes again
? Ronda Rousey: Coaching 'TUF' has been emotionally taxing
? Make your UFC 162 picks today!

Source: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-cagewriter/mark-munoz-shows-off-slimmed-down-physique-ufc-161839097.html

hunger games movie review bats hunger games review jeff saturday jason smith jon corzine austin rivers

Monday, July 1, 2013

Nia Crooks Cops Plea in Jennifer Williams Pimp-Slap Case

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/07/nia-crooks-cops-plea-in-jennifer-williams-bitch-slap-case/

ohio state vs kansas daniel von bargen 8 bit google maps kids choice awards 2012 micah true blood diamond kansas vs ohio state

Kevin Padian discusses common misconceptions about evolution ...

If you teach evolution, or like to read about it, there?s a new paper you should read by Kevin Padian in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach (free download; reference below). It?s a discussion of misrepresentations about evolution that occur not only in popular science writing, but also in textbooks. As president of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), and a respected paleontologist at Berkeley who works on the evolution of birds and flight, Padian carries considerable authority in this area. And indeed, his points are generally good. In fact, I was embarrassed to see that I?ve been guilty of some of these misrepresentations, for which I?m sometimes called to account by readers here.

I do have a couple of disagreements with Padian?s points (more below), but on the whole they?re solid and worth absorbing.? Here are some that I agree with, or at least don?t strongly disagree with:

  • Define evolution properly.? My own definition is ?change in allele frequency over time,? but Padian doesn?t like that: he prefers Darwin?s definition of ?descent with modification?. I?m neutral about this. Padian doesn?t like the gene-frequency change definition because such changes could reverse themselves, nullifying evolution. But so can ?descent with modification?. Further, it?s not clear what, exactly, gets modified? Nevertheless, I?m happy to adopt Padian?s change as a supplementary definition to my own.
  • Avoid the term ?modern? when referring to traits or species. To Padian, this implies progressivism, and we know evolution isn?t really on a one-way march to ever-better organisms.? I?m neutral about this change: I don?t see the harm of referring to ?modern reptiles? as opposed to ?Jurassic reptiles.?
  • Don?t use the term ?many scientists believe.? This is because ?many? implies that science is decided by vote; ?scientists? could refer to those outside the field of expertise (for example, it?s fair to say ?many scientists doubt evolution?, though most of those misguided doubters are chemists, engineers, and the like); and ?belief? is not something scientists have.? ?Confidence based on evidence? is better, and avoids the religious implications of the word ?believe.?
  • Avoid the words ?primitive? and ?advanced.?? Padian sees these as carrying value judgments similar to that of the word ?modern.? He prefers the term ?basal? and ?derived,? which come from cladistic systematics. I?m perfectly happy to adopt those terms, though they may be confusing in popular-evolution texts.
  • Don?t personalize scientific debates.? As Padian notes, ?this example [the argument about the closest living relatives of whales] was not about individual scientists arguing with each other, but about the kinds of evidence that scientists in certain fields are trained to understand and preferentially accept.?? I mildly disagree with this, for it gives the impression that science is not a human enterprise, and that personalities play no role in the progress of science. Ultimately, of course, truth wins out, but the force of certain personalities, or the unwillingness of scientists to admit they?re wrong, does affect progress in some fields. Think about how long the influential Steve Gould, for instance, delayed progress in paleobiology by insisting that punctuated equilibrium was not just a description of a jerky pattern in the fossil record, but was caused by a process that was essentially non-Darwinian (founder-effect speciation combined with species selection, processes that have not won over many evolutionists).
  • ?Use care in characterizing the religious beliefs of historical figures.?? Yes, people often get this wrong, as when implying that Darwin was religious or Cuvier a biblical literalist.? But I?m not sure what real harm is done by this, except by creationists who insist that Darwin was either conventionally religious or recanted his agnosticism on his deathbed.
  • ?Avoid giving the impression that evolution is atheistic, or that evolutionists must be atheists.?? Well, yes, one should not give this impression when teaching, for it?s an intrusion of religion into the classroom. But evolution is atheistic in the sense that all science is atheistic: we don?t assume that divine powers are working through the process. That?s what we mean when we say ?evolution is materialistic and unguided.?? Now people like Genie Scott at the NCSE don?t like that language, either, but it?s no more wrong than saying that chemistry is materialistic and unguided. The objection to the ?unguided? part (an objection Scott made when the evolution statement was adopted by the National Association of Biology Teachers) is a purely political ploy, meant to avoid alienating religious allies. But, as I?ve said repeatedly, theistic evolutionists are not the allies of scientists. As for the impression that ?evolutionists must be atheists,? I don?t really say that, but I think that consistent evolutionists, as with all consistent scientists, should be atheists. Otherwise they are simultaneously adopting two disparate methodologies for finding ?truth.?
  • Do not personify natural selection. A good point, and one I?ve been guilty of violating.? Natural selection is not some force imposed on organisms by the outside, nor does it ?want? anything. It is simply a process of gene sorting?a description of what happens when some forms of genes leave more copies than others.

Likewise, Padian says that we shouldn?t claim that natural selection is ?creative,? for that also personifies a process that is impersonal.? I?m not so sure about this one: is substantial harm done by desribing the ?creativity? of selection if one is clear what one means?selection has produced organisms that are well-adapted to their environments, and appear designed by a creator? Still, Padian is correct to say we should avoid describing natural selection as anything other than differential reproduction of genes, or saying that is has foresight. Another of Padian?s beefs is the term that a feature evolved ?for? something, as ?the flippers of dolphins evolved to help them swim.? That, too, mischaracterizes what really happens during natural selection.

But I disagree strongly with three of Padian?s prescriptions. Two are scientific, and one philosophical.

  • ??Fitness? is not about how many offspring you leave.? Padian doesn?t like this characterization of a fundamental concept in evolutionary genetics, noting that ?It is not about the number of offspring you produce; it?s about their survivability.? But few evolutionists, whether in technical or popular books, think that pure number of offspring is the whole criterion for fitness, and few characterize natural selection as ?survival of the fittest.? Rather, most of us think of fitness as the relative success of an allele or a genotype in reproducing itself?in leaving copies for the next generation. ?n that sense it is about the number of offspring (or gene copies) that you have, if by that you mean ?number of surviving?offspring?. For the offspring that constitute the next generation are the offspring produced, weighted by their probability of surviving to reproduce.
  • ?Sexual selection is not a kind of natural selection.?? To me, this is the biggest problem with Padian?s list of scientific misconceptions, for virtually every biologist recognizes sexual selection as a subset of natural selection?the subset that involves mate choice.? And the boundaries between natural and sexual selection are very fuzzy.? For example, male sage grouse who dance the most vigorously on a lek (a mating arena) are chosen more often by females.? That?s sexual selection.? But males who are able to displace the sperm of previously-mating males (dameselflies, for instance, have ?penis scoops? that remove the sperm from previously males when they inseminate a female) are often regarded as experiencing natural selection.? What about males who produce sperm that swim faster than those of other males, or more sperm? Is that natural or sexual selection? The distinction is not clear cut.

Padian sees sexual selection as different from natural selection because sexual selection produces differences between males and females: sexual dimorphisms like male ornaments, the bowers of bowerbirds, and male calling behavior, as in frogs. Padian notes correctly that it was Darwin who came up with the idea of sexual selection?and gave it its name?because he observed male traits that were deleterious for survival (e.g., the long tails of male widowbirds). His explanation was that the survival disadvantage was more than compensated for by the mating advantage (females like long tails).

Padian?s basis for saying that sexual selection isn?t natural selection rests on this statement: ?Because Darwin invented sexual selection, and because he based it on observations that have never been falsified, his definition cannot be wrong.? I find that very strange. The inventor of a term doesn?t enjoy lifelong propriety over its correctness.? Besides, sexual selection operates in precisely the same way as natural selection: the differential reproduction of genes for behavior and morphology. To say that they are different processes is to perpetuate a misunderstanding.

Finally, natural selection can also lead to sexual dimorphism, as with raptors of different sizes that are ecologically specialized: males and females are different because they catch different-sized prey. Female Drosophila may be larger than males because large body size enables you to lay more eggs. Dimorphisms can result from natural and sexual selection.? Too, there are forms of sexual selection that don?t lead to dimorphisms.? There is mutual sexual selection, for example.? If both males and females have evolved to find the color red attractive?perhaps because they need to find nutritious red berries?it?s possible that both sexes would prefer, as a sensory byproduct, red plumage in the other sex.? That would be sexual selection, but would lead to identical coloration of males and females, not dimorphism. This may, for example, explain bright colors in male and female parrots or reef fish.

  • ?Avoid pitting science against religion, even though sometimes there are real conflicts.? As president of the NCSE, which is explicitly an accommodationist organization, I see this advice as not only self-contradictory (?don?t say there are conflicts even though there are?), but a purely tactical ploy to win friends for evolution among the faithful. True, I don?t talk about religion in my undergraduate science classes, but I surely mention the conflict in my popular writing, as in my Evolution paper about American rejection of evolution.? It?s impossible, in fact, to understand the rejection of evolution in any nation without mentioning religion. Creationism is explictly the pitting of science against religion.

In trying to keep religion and science in separate magisteria, Padian is forced to make dubious or insupportable statements, including the deeply misguided notion that science can?t deal with the supernatural. How many times do I have to correct this elementary mistake? Science can test claims about rain dances, intercessory prayer, spiritual healing, ESP, astrology, and all kinds of supernatural claims. Padian also claims that science cannot disprove supernatural beings. Well, yes, but we don?t ?prove? or ?disprove? anything in science. But we surely can render suppositions about the supernatural unlikely. Here?s a bit of Padian?s discussion:

?Oddly, perhaps, the very openness of science is what attracts scorn from religious fundamentalists, who build their lives on what they accept as immutable truths of
faith. The principal act of faith of a scientist is accepting that the natural world is knowable, and that we can use our (however imperfect) faculties and judgment to learn about natural phenomena and trust our results, wherever our investigations lead. After that, the rules of scientific inquiry are not about faith, but about posing and testing hypotheses. But science has its limits, and the supernatural is one of them. In short, science does not deal with the supernatural. Religion has its limits too, and one of them is in making statements about the natural world. There is only conflict between science and religion if people want it; or rather, there is conflict when people want it.

. . . All science is non-theistic, by which is meant that it does not entail or require any concept of a god or other supernatural being or force. In fact, science is completely independent of any ideas about gods or other supernatural beliefs. But science is not anti-theistic: it does not deny such beings or forces, any more than it accepts them (or leprechauns or unicorns), because these things are not within the purview of science.?

Let me first dispel the notion that we scientists have ?principal acts of faith? that the world is knowable. We don?t begin with that a priori presumption. Rather, the comprehensibility of the natural world is the result of experience, first tentative and now entrenched. ?Science now proceeds as if the world is knowable because all our experience confirms it. ?That isn?t faith, but confidence born of time and tribulation.

Further, Padian surely doesn?t think that science is independent of any ideas about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, ESP, and astrology because ?these things are not within the purview of science.? Of course they are! Theistic gods, like fairies and astrology, predict certain phenomena about the world that aren?t observed, thereby diminishing the likelihood that such things exist.? The only kind of God immune to empirical study is a deistic God who doesn?t interact with the world?the kind of god that most believers don?t accept. So again Padian, like all of those who claim a disjunction of science and the supernatural, is making a theological rather than a scientific statement.? If God is powerful, good and interactive, there should not be natural evils in the world, and we should have evidence for God?s existence.? We don?t.? Therefore God is unlikely?at least a theistic God who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. If you are a Native American and perform rain dances during droughts, that notion can be tested, too. Just use a control group that doesn?t dance. Likewise for Christian Science and its idea of spiritual healing.

I?ve dwelt on my differences with Padian?s piece not because the piece is bad, for it isn?t; in fact, it?s quite good. But it takes longer to correct errors than to praise good stuff. I recommend Padian?s article to everyone who teaches or discusses evolution, but do be aware of the three potential problems I?ve just discussed.

____________

Padian, K. 2013. Correction some common misrepresentations of evolution in the textbooks and the media. Evolution: Education and Outreach 6:11.

h/t: Gabe

Like this:

Like Loading...

Source: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/kevin-padian-discusses-common-misconceptions-about-evolution-in-textbooks-and-popular-writing/

lil wayne Lolo Jones Steve Gleason blake shelton sofia vergara LIRR nhl

Washington area religion events

Saturday, 7 p.m.: U.S. Army Brass Quintet performs ?God Bless America,? ?Songs of the Soldier,? ?Grand Old Flag? and other favorites. U.S. Army Band (?Pershing?s Own?) will perform the third movement of the Haydn Trumpet Concerto. Free. 7 p.m. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Washington D.C. Temple Visitors? Center, 9900 Stoneybrook Dr., Kensington. Free. 301-588-0650.

Saturday, 8 p.m.: ?Cathedral, Court & Countryside,? an early music festival. Performances by Arco Voce, Armonia Nova, BHB, Ensemble Gaudior, Illuminaire, Modern Musick, the Suspicious Cheese Lords and the Vivaldi Project. Everyone gets a door prize. St. Mark?s Episcopal Church on Capitol Hill, Third and A streets SE. $40; students, $20. 202-543-0053 or www.stmarks.net.

Sunday, 10 a.m.: The annual ?Blessing of the Dogs,? will be held. Take your leashed dog. Front steps of National City Christian Church, 5 Thomas Cir. NW. Free. 202-232-0323.

Sunday, 10:10 a.m.: Cathedral Dean Gary Hall leads a discussion, ?Connecting Mission to Vision.? Questions and suggestions from the congregation are welcome. Washington National Cathedral, South Transept, Wisconsin and Massachusetts avenues NW. Free. 202-537-6200 or www.nationalcathedral.org.

Sunday, 11 a.m.: The Rev. Peter Storey, a prominent South African Methodist, will preach on the topic, ?Journeying Together to Healing.? Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church, 900 Massachusetts Ave. NW. 202-347-9620 or www.mvpumc.org.

Sunday, 11 a.m.-noon: An art show reception. Show includes photography, monotypes, multimedia works, pastels, oils and acrylics. Works by seasoned artists and beginners. River Road Unitarian Universalist Congregation, 6301 River Rd., Bethesda. Free. 301-229-0400 or www.rruuc.org.

Sunday, 11 a.m.: Service of song. Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, 5301 North Capitol St. NE. Free-will offering. 202-723-5330.

Sunday, 2 p.m.: Cathedral docents lead an in-depth tour for ages 10 and older to view windows and carvings that recall the American Civil War and its influence on the nation. Washington National Cathedral, West End Docent Station, Wisconsin and Massachusetts avenues NW. Free. 202-537-6200 or www.nationalcathedral.org.

Sunday, 7 p.m.: Luzerner antorei, a 55-voice youth choir from Switzerland, performs European sacred music from the Renaissance to the present. Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land, 1400 Quincy St. NE. Free. 202-526-6800, Ext. 374, or www.myfranciscan.com.

Source: http://feeds.washingtonpost.com/c/34656/f/647677/s/2df49395/l/0L0Swashingtonpost0N0Clocal0Cwashington0Earea0Ereligion0Eevents0C20A130C0A60C280Cd429b7de0Ede30A0E11e20Eb7970Ecbd4cb13f9c60Istory0Bhtml0Dwprss0Frss0Ifairfax/story01.htm

crystal renn matilda cab calloway melissa gilbert deadliest catch dwts sean hannity