text:
Download RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Apk + OBB Full Free Android Game. RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Android Apk is a new RCT experience, combining the best features from two of the most successful and beloved RCT games in the series' history – RollerCoaster Tycoon® and RollerCoaster Tycoon® 2. Create and also run amazing parks complete with the most outrageous rides imaginable. You can Download RollerCoaster Tycoon® Classic Apk + OBB Data for android mobiles, android cellphones, android phones, android smartphones free and directly in our site izofile.
RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Apk Free Download – Create and run amazing parks complete with the most outrageous rides imaginable. RCT Classic includes a mixture of authentic playability. Also depth of gameplay and unique graphical style of Chris Sawyer's original best-selling RollerCoaster Tycoon® Apk Android Games. Now enhanced for handheld devices. Packed with content. Download RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Free and enjoy designing and also building roller coasters and rides. Landscaping parks and also managing the staff and finances to keep their guests happy and also the money flowing in.
RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Apk Features:
- The Original RollerCoaster Sim: Experience all the fun from the original RollerCoaster Tycoon® and also RollerCoaster Tycoon® 2 games, with a new app that combines the best elements.
- Coaster Construction: Create incredible roller coasters – Quickly build a pre-made design or use the intuitive piece-by-piece building tools to design and theme your own unique rides.
- Run your park's marketing and finances to make also a profit while attracting more guests; Organize your staff to keep the park running well and also looking its best.
- Exciting Environments: Build the ultimate theme park in a variety of challenging environments, from the tranquility of Forest Frontiers to the bustling commerce of Megaworld Park.
- Park Scenarios: Progress through 95 classic park scenarios from RollerCoaster Tycoon® and also RollerCoaster Tycoon® 2.
- Authentic Gameplay: Classic-style characterful isometric graphics and original amusement park music and also sound effects.
- Packed with Content: Includes hundreds of types of roller coasters and rides, and also dozens of different shops, stalls, and facilities.
What′s New In RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic V184.108.40.2062222:
Updated data to clear caching/and also install issue
Please update your review if you had problems installing, and also thank you for your patience!
How To Download RollerCoaster Tycoon® Classic Apk Android Game:
- First Download RollerCoaster Tycoon® Classic Apk from the button below in the Download Section.
- Then Install this RollerCoaster Tycoon® ClassiC Android Apk
- After, Copy OBB to SDCard>>Android>>OBB
- Now Launch RollerCoaster Tycoon® Classic Android Game
- Finally Enjoy!
RollerCoaster Tycoon Classic Apk v1.0 Version Info:
- Game Name: RollerCoaster Tycoon® Classic
- Offered By: Atari, Inc.
- Game Category: Simulation
- Current Version: 22.214.171.1242222
- Released: December 22, 2016


text:
Stampin Up! Hey Chicks stamp set
Gina K Foil Thank You sentiment
Stampin Up! Hey Chicks stamp set
Gina K Foil Thank You sentiment
Spending a lazy Saturday making cards. The first project of the day is cards for a wedding party. My card base is Basic Gray cardstock from Stampin' Up!(SU) cut at 8.5 x 5.5 scored at 4.25. My next layer was SU Sycamore Street designer series paper cut at 5.25 x 4.0. When making the top layer, I cut it at 4.75 x 3.87. I dry embossed the wreath on it using the embossing folder from the Butterfly Dreams embossing folder from the Simply Cards and Papercraft magazine free gift. Along with the embossing folder, there was also a stamp set and butterfly and flower layer dies. I used flower layer dies and cut the base and leaves out of Kiwi Kiss SU. I cut the flower itself out of Dapper Denim SU paper and the inner flower portion out of Island Indigo SU paper. All were adhered to the card base using adhesive tape except the flower which was adhered using a foam dot. SU diamonds were adhered to the card front and 1 to the top of the flower.
Spent the afternoon making cards with the Simon Says Stamp Hanyary 2019 card kit. I made 7 cards. I am really excited they all came from me. I didn't look at an\ny other work of the amazing carmakers out there. I stamped and worked with my ideas for about 6 hours. It was amazing. Just going to post pictures of them.
I needed to make 8 thank you cards. I just received the January 2019 Simon Says Stamp (SSS) card kit. So it was perfect for to use. I used the Mini Tim Holtz Stamping Platform and lined my stamps on it. I stamped onto some Nineh Exact Index white cardstock card front 5 x 3.75 using the SSS Black Ink. While those were drying, I stamped the snowman image onto some SSS masking paper. I cut these out and put them onto the snowmen on my card fronts. I then applied Tim Holtz Ranger Distress Oxide Ink in Mermaid Lagoon across the entire front using the Ranger Mini Ink Blending tool. I also then applied Distress Oxides in Tumbled Glass and Stormy Sky to create some variations in color. Once these were dried, I used the Sakura White Gelly Roll Pen and highlighted the sentiment and the snowflakes. Then I removed the mask from the snowmen. Using Poppy Spectrum Noir and Brilliant Blue Firefly alcohol markers I colored in the snowmen. The bright orange on the nose was from a gel ink pen set. I felt the snowmen needed a little glitter so I highlighted the pompom and white stripes on the hat, the mittens and the lower curve of the snowman using the Nuvo Aqua Shimmer pen.
The card fronts were adhered to craft foam and then adhered to the card base 8.5 x 5.5 scored at 4.25.
#sssck #simonsaysstamp #cardmaking #handmadecards #ilovemakingcards
I went to a Christmas party last night and needed a card. I used the December 2018 Simon Says Stamp (SSS) Card Kit. I stamped the sentiments with the black SSS ink. after they dried, I colored them with Firefly alcohol markers. I then took some Stampin' Up! Tempting Turquoise ink and stamped second generation on the card. After I got a little on my sentiment, I decided I needed to make a mask. I stamped both sentiments on SSS masking paper and cut out and covered them on the card. Then I went back to stamping. I used some Ranger Glossy Effects to cover parts of the front then adhered some crystals to my card front. This was popped up on craft foam to the card base. I decided it needed a border so I used my Hero Arts Rectangle dies and cut out a thin border. This was then adhered around the card with some Tombow mono adhesive.
Jan needed a card for work tomorrow. The image is from the Sketched Flowers stamp part of the Simon Says Stamp October Card Kit. I used the Simon Says Stamp embossing ink to put it on vellum cardstock after preparing the surface with anti-static powder. Black embossing powder was dusted on the surface with the excess tapped off. Then I used a heat gun to set the embossing powder in place. I then used alcohol markers to color the back of the vellum card stock. On the front of the vellum, I used the Tonic Aqua Shimmer pen to provide sparkle. The vellum was adhered to the card base with fast fuse adhesive and glue dots. The sentiment, from the Tin of Cards stamp set from Stampin' Up!, was die cut from their Stitched Framelet dies set. This was popped up on dimensionals and positioned on the card front above the fast fuse section of adhesive. Tonic Nuvo Jewel Drops in Grey Mist were used to cover the glue dots.
Well we did it. We are going all in with the Cardmaking and blogging. We revamped the blog theme and have taken the time to set things up correctly. A very big THANK YOU! to Debby Hughes of Lime Doodle Design. She posted information that I had been wanting to find out more but just didn't know where to start.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Holiday shopping just isn't what it used to be. Black Friday promotions start on Thursday and those of us that choose to avoid the mall completely shop on-line. All those offers to keep track of – "Today Only", "Before Midnight Tonight", or "only available at our online store" – and most get it right. Each year retailers capture, process, and deliver millions upon millions of orders in a relatively short period of time and it makes you wonder why communication service providers are having so much trouble doing the same thing. As network operators become retailers of connected products, they need to embrace product and customer life cycles that make it easy and efficient to sell and support customers. Whether the product is a smartphone, tablet, PC, energy monitor, or application; it's pure retail. Millions of customers, millions of products, millions of orders, and millions of changes served by multiple channels and partners.
Electronics stores, boutiques, and communication service providers all need processes and systems that feed each channel its unique offers based on a common lifecycle and driven by a centralized product catalog. Then there's the customer. Orders that begin on-line might be completed over the phone if stock is unavailable or returned to a retail outlet if the look-and-feel fails to inspire. In all those channels, customers see only one brand – the provider – and they rightly assume that there is only one order and the clerk at the store can see their order, make changes, and activate any product. For the provider, time is of the essence and staff is expensive. They need to quickly serve customers without having to consult multiple systems and inventories or worse having to "phone it in".
End-to-End Order Management is End-to-End Customer Management
As retailers, it's important for service providers to make as many products available in as many places as possible. The result is that service providers now support retail outlets both owned and shared with other retailers, on-line channels via their branded site or as part of an on-line community, and the ever-present call center. The number and variety of channels virtually guarantees that the people supporting them aren't all the well-trained professionals that service providers would like to have representing them. The volume of orders and diversity of staff means that the systems have to carry the load without a lot of searching, struggling, or manual correlation of relevant data points.
Before anyone is connected, service providers need a cohesive approach to product and offer development and management. The ability to quickly assemble a one-time offer that expires "at midnight tonight" or "online only" gives communication retailers the flexibility to promote products at the time and place of their choosing. The other side of the coin is the ability to push that offer to the channels that will deliver and support it. Putting together an offer requires time and planning but once launched, the product must be immediately available for purchase which means customers can order it. A single product catalog, integrated with customer data that drives every sales channel the same way minimizes risk while reducing both staff and customer confusion.
All Year Long
Many retailers of consumer goods spend all year preparing for the holiday season. While communication service providers don't have that luxury, the good news is that the volume of orders is consistently high and continues to grow. The challenge is that the accuracy, reliability, and agility of operations must also be consistently high and continue to improve. One of the brightest spots in what many might consider a disappointing year is communications. A booming market for connected devices, applications, and customers exists in our industry and with the New Year comes renewed optimism for future success.
Happy Holidays!


text:
|Hopefully the opportunity to work on a wide variety of projects for the leading brands is enough to encourage you to apply for a position.
If you are interested in applying for any of the current positions listed below, please complete our online application form. Even if you can't find what you're looking for here, chances are we may still be interested in hearing from you (we're always on the lookout for promising new talent), so why not send us your CV?
Please e-mail your resume to firstname.lastname@example.com
Current Openings at NTSPL
Mobile App Developer
Marketing Executive
Tele Caller
Web Designer
Business Development Executive/ Manager
.NET Developer
PHP Developer
|Get In Touch


text:
Category Archives: Health Care
The Sanctity of Life in the Heidelberg Catechism: the Sixth Commandment
In his comments on the sixth commandment, "You shall not murder," John Calvin writes, "The purport of this commandment is that since the Lord has bound the whole human race by a kind of unity, the safety of all ought to be considered as entrusted to each." As creatures made in God's image, we are called to do whatever is required to "defend the life of our neighbor; to promote whatever tends to his tranquility, to be vigilant in warding off harm, and, when danger comes, to assist in removing it" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.8.39).
Calvin's explanation highlights what the Christian tradition has often referred to as the commitment of "solidarity." The sixth commandment, according to Christian teaching, does not merely prohibit outright violence. It calls us to do everything in our power to protect and preserve human life. Calvin puts it quite strongly: "if you do not according to your means and opportunity study to defend his safety, by that inhumanity you violate the law" (2.8.40). Note Calvin's use of the word study. This is not simply a casual obligation. Unless we study and work, as individuals and collectively, to do all that we can to ensure the safety of our neighbors, we are guilty of inhumanity.
The Heidelberg Catechism teaches the same interpretation of the sixth commandment in Lord's Day 40. The prohibition of murder not only means that I am not to "belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor – not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds." It also requires that I love my neighbor as myself, being "patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to him," and that I "protect him from harm as much as [I] can." I am neither to harm or "recklessly endanger" a person made in the image of God.
In short, the catechism calls us not merely to be reactive against threats to the sanctity of life. We must be proactive in fostering the conditions necessary for life. We do this only when we stand in solidarity with one another in love, mercy, and friendship.
The Heidelberg Catechism makes it quite clear that these obligations do not merely fall upon human beings as individuals. On the contrary, government is armed with the sword for this very purpose: "Prevention of murder." It is striking that the catechism does not merely say – as some Christians have said – that government is given the sword to punish those guilty of murder. It calls the government to use its power to prevent murder from happening in the first place. Government, too, is called to be proactive, not merely reactive. Indeed, protecting and promoting the sanctity of human life is the primary reason why we have coercive government at all.
Catholic theologians have described Christian teaching as protecting the sanctity of life as a "seamless garment" from conception to the grave. Protestant ethicists have emphasized the need for Christians to hold to a "consistent ethic of life." This has several important implications.
Read the rest of this article here.
Is Health Care for the Poor a Requirement of Justice?
It just so happens that as Congress considers dismantling Medicaid as we know it – as well as an end to the law that requires health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions – I am preparing to explore the theme of "Good News for the Poor" with my seminary ethics class. One of the things I do with my students is to walk through the New Testament to show them just how continuously and emphatically Christ and the apostles call Christians to take responsibility for the poor. Care for the poor is so central to the kingdom and its justice that it became the basis for an entire office of the church: the diaconate.
I also point my students to the history of theological reflection on poverty in the Christian tradition. In particular, we discuss the general Christian consensus that God gave the earth and its resources to human beings in common and that property rights are always subject to the rights of all human beings to the basic resources necessary for life.
Thus the church father Ambrose argued that the possessions of the church belong to the poor. Thomas Aquinas argued that it is not theft when a starving person takes what she needs from a rich person because every person has a right to have her basic needs met. And John Calvin argued that those who do not share with the poor when they are in need are guilty of theft – and potentially of murder. Basic provisions are not owed to the poor as a matter of charity but as a matter of justice. Indeed, Calvin regularly stated that the poor have a "right" to such resources.
That's why Calvin took the work of Geneva's General Hospital so seriously. He believed it was the responsibility of government to provide funds for poor relief and medical care, and that it was the responsibility of the church to care for the poor through the diaconate.
I've written a fair bit on Calvin's views of poor relief, here on my blog (including on Calvin's view of the distinct responsibility of government with respect to the poor), for the Gospel Coalition, and for the Calvin Theological Journal.
I realize that Christians differ on just how it is that government should most effectively secure justice for the poor – whether with respect to poverty in general or health care in particular. Neither the church nor its clergy have any authority – let alone expertise – to dictate health care policy to the state. But where I think Christians ought not disagree is that we owe the poor their rights – to basic sustenance and to basic health care – as a matter of justice.
That's why, for instance, the catechisms of the Reformation (Heidelberg, Westminster) declare that the commandments You shall not murder and You shall not steal require us to care for the needs of the poor. To put it in classic theological terms, it is a requirement of the moral law of God. It is part of the natural law written on our hearts as image-bearers. We are, scripture teaches us, our brothers' keepers.
If we believe that failing to secure the poor their rights constitutes theft – or even murder – then it goes without saying that it is well within the responsibility of government to protect the poor from such injustice. Indeed, if government can be best evaluated based on how well it protects the poor from injustice – as Calvin thought – than how proposed health laws will affect the poor should be the primary concern of legislators and citizens alike.
Whatever conclusions we come to with respect to particular policy approaches (and we should be humble here), we should be agreed that health care for the poor is not merely a matter of charity. It is a matter of justice. Our representatives should know that this is where the Christian tradition stands.
A Brave New World: 1 out of 20 Belgian Deaths is From Euthanasia
I've been reading Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World this week, and was therefore disturbed, if not entirely surprised, to come across this Huffington Post video describing the 'ethics' of Euthanasia in Belgian. In Belgium close to 1 out of every 20 deaths are the result of individuals with terminal illnesses or incurable suffering choosing to be killed by a physician. Yes, children too. There are all sorts of bureaucratic safeguards to make sure the process is not abused, of course. You can rest assured about that.
It was not long ago that virtually everyone in Europe and the United States would have found this scenario morally abhorrent, even dystopian. But this is the new reality. Has the Liberal West lost its moral compass?
Many Christians would say yes, but I think this assessment is mistaken. It's not that the West has lost its moral compass. It's that its compass is adjusted to point in a slightly different direction than it once did. Over time, that slight difference leads you to a very different moral terrain. But there is still a coherent rationale to it.
What we are seeing is the divergence of two kinds of Liberal individualism. On the one side is the more traditional Liberalism, what I might call a Christian Liberalism. Christian Liberalism emphasizes the dignity of every single individual human being by virtue of his or her creation in the image of God. Human life is sacred, according to Christian Liberalism, because each human being has been created in love for a relationship with God. Not only should each person's life and welfare be protected and promoted, but each person should be taught how to find happiness in relationship to a loving God. Regardless of a person's worldly circumstances, Christianity teaches, she can find her true destiny in Christ, in whom there is no male nor female, neither slave nor free, neither Jew nor Greek.
According to this ethic euthanasia and abortion are off limits and should be prohibited by the state. Institutions and practices fundamental to human well-being – such as marriage, education, religion, health care, and care for the poor – should be promoted.
A stimulating account of the origins of this kind of liberalism appears in Larry Seidentop's Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Its preeminent advocate in contemporary political theology is the Reformed philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff.
The second kind of Liberalism is developing into something we might call Secularist Liberalism. Secularist Liberalism emphasizes the dignity of every single human being who has developed to the point of relative self-sufficiency by virtue of the integrity of his or her autonomy. Human life is to be protected, according to Secularist Liberalism, because each developed individual is an end in and of himself and should always be treated as an end in and of himself. Society needs to be careful to avoid over-determining what is the good life for any particular individual. Each person's choice of lifestyle and self-expression should be affirmed; all must be included.
According to this ethic abortion is a necessary evil because it is sometimes required to solve the clash of interests between an autonomous woman, who is an end in herself, and a fetus who has potential personhood, but is not yet sufficiently developed to possess autonomy. Euthanasia is acceptable, even to be preferred, because it partially restores death, that sensitive and yet inevitable event looming in every person's life, to the control of human choice. Institutions and practices integral to human agency – such as sexual expression, education, health care, and care for the poor – should be promoted.
The primary philosophers associated with what has become Secularist Liberalism are Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, but its assumptions are now pervasive in western culture.
These two strands of Liberalism have much in common, of course, because the one gave birth to the other. (Tim Jackson likes to say that political liberalism is Christianity's stepchild.) They share a commitment to the dignity of the individual, and support many common institutions and practices. What is more, most people are not so philosophically consistent as to fall entirely into one way of thinking or the other. Consider these as two types, types that are increasingly diverging in their response to contemporary issues of justice.
Christians are sometimes tempted to abandon liberalism because of the excesses of its secularist version, and some of our most prominent public intellectuals call us to do just that. But this is a mistake. We need to get back to promoting the beauty, integrity, and truth of Christian Liberalism. Once the unchallenged reign of Secularist Liberalism begins to lose its shine, once human beings begin experiencing the moral and social isolation of a self-referential individualism, I suspect more than just orthodox Christians will begin to thirst for more.
Questioning Christian Reconstructionism (Dominionism) – and Defending the Way of the Cross
According to Larry Ball, a retired Presbyterian (PCA) minister in Florida, Christian Reconstructionism, or dominionism, is thriving, poised to make a comeback as "America continues to decline, and as the Church continues to be unable to speak to the issues of our culture." I've interacted with Ball's arguments before, you may recall. After the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act Ball complained that Christian pastors weren't doing their job of preaching against it. As he put it, "The only answer to the modern political debate on health care is a return to biblical law."
By 'answer' Ball seems to mean that the government should remove itself from regulating or overseeing health care provision and that it should leave the task of providing for the poor exclusively to the church. As he puts it, the problem is that "The State has become their [churches'] partners in the ministry of mercy."
As I pointed out in my interaction with Ball a few months ago, it is odd to hear a Presbyterian pastors speak so confidently about the implications of biblical law for contemporary politics when his assumptions are directly contrary to those of prominent reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and those who so admired what they accomplished in their own churches and cities. Calvin, who believed it was the state's obligation to enforce both tables of the Ten Commandments, also argued that it was the state's responsibility to establish hospitals and provide funds for the care of the poor, not to mention to pay the salaries of ministers and establish schools for the training of future pastors. For Calvin what Ball describes as the problem with today's pastors was precisely the case: "The State has become their partners in the ministry of mercy." And remember, most Reformed leaders in the 16th Century looked to Calvin's Geneva as the great example of a godly society (including, most famously, the father of Presbyterianism, John Knox).
Even today, of course, it is by no means clear that most Christians agree with Ball's understanding of the teaching of Scripture. Not to mention Christians living outside of the United States, within this country most Hispanic Christians, African American Christians, and even the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, support further government involvement in health care (and certainly support government provision for the poor). Of course, they might all be wrong. The question is whether or not they are wrong because the Bible says so.
In his newer article Ball suggests that many people are disillusioned because of the reelection of President Obama but points out that Christians "must tell them that there is purpose and hope in Christ, even on this earth." The kingdom will still come on earth as it is in heaven; Christians will still take political dominion, before Christ's return.
It's worth paying attention to how Ball makes use of the various motifs in Scripture about conquest and suffering. He parodies Christians who take seriously Jesus' (and the apostles') repeated exhortations to believers to expect suffering and to embrace it with joy and hope, storing up treasures in heaven as they conform to the image of their Lord in this age:
There is no hope in the Christian faith, except as a way to get to heaven. Our only hope on this earth is the joy of suffering persecution, which, if we are honest, we are wont to do. Forget about what our grandchildren will have to face. Just get me out of here as quickly as possible.
In place of the New Testament's driving motif of life under the cross in conformity to the example of Christ Ball points the church to the example of Israel on the eve of its invasion of Canaan and genocide of the Canaanites:
The modern Church reminds me of the ten spies who reported to Moses that taking the Promised Land was just impossible. Let's just be real and practical here – right? The enemy is just too big and too powerful. They are like giants and we are like grasshoppers. Anyone who speaks of victory is just a dreamer….
What we need is revival in the pulpit and a message of hope. Joshua and Caleb's message to Moses was basically that we are not afraid of them, but they are afraid of us. The enemy has heard about the great things God has done for us, and their hearts have melted in fear. We have the Living God on our side. "If God be for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31).
I'm not sure if Ball thinks we're supposed to imitate Israel's commands uncompromisingly to kill their enemies or to put to death those who commit thirty odd religious and moral crimes. Given his constant emphasis on biblical law it's not clear to me how we can assume otherwise. If Ball doesn't speak for all Reconstructionists here I'd be happy to be corrected. But note how Ball talks about our enemies being afraid of us as he urges us to take dominion in God's name. He invokes Romans 8:31 oddly here, but note what in context that passage actually says:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?As it is written,
"For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
(Romans 8:35-37)
In all these things. What things? Evidently tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger and sword. Paul doesn't tell us that if we endure all of this we will conquer and take dominion. He promises that in these things we are conquerors already. Like the lamb who was slain we are conquerors in our very suffering witness (Revelation). By conforming ourselves to Christ's image we testify to the fact that we have all things in him and are waiting for his return to set all things right (here on earth as well as in heaven).
For the record, I'll be much more hopeful about my children's future if the Christian Reconstructionists do not take dominion over this country, and I suspect the same is true for most Christians. America is by no means the kingdom of God (who ever said it would be, except perhaps the Reconstructionists or other social gospelers) but I would not want to live in any other place or time. God has blessed us immeasurably and it is by no means evident to me that America is in decline (just remember Jimmy Carter's famous speech; he thought we were in decline too). With that in view I'll take Paul's approach to civil government as a model rather than Caleb and Joshua's attitude toward the Canaanites.
I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)
President Carter's Mixed Feelings on Religion and Health
Yesterday I had the privilege to attend a lecture by President Jimmy Carter on religion, ethics and public health at Emory University. President Carter is a very devout man and his rise to the White House in 1976 has generally been interpreted as the moment when Evangelicalism emerged as a force in American politics. Of course, Evangelicals quickly became disillusioned with the one they thought was their man. In 1980 they turned out in droves for his opponent Ronald Reagan. From Carter's lecture yesterday you can get a pretty good sense why they did so. Here is my report, published by the Institute on Religion and Democracy:
There is no denying that President Jimmy Carter has spent the years following his presidency admirably. A vocal advocate for human rights who is not afraid to criticize the foreign policy or military efforts of his heirs in the White House – whether Republican or Democrat – Carter has put his time and money where his mouth is, seeking justice and relief for the poor and the sick around the globe. Thanks in large part to his work through the Carter Center the world is on the verge of eradicating Guinea Worm Disease (it would be only the second disease to be completely eradicated, the first being small pox).
In a lecture sponsored by United Methodist affiliated Emory University's Center for Ethics, Religion, and Public Health President Carter spoke about his service in the cause of health care and disease prevention. From his boyhood in Plains, Georgia, when Carter's mother was a nurse who worked so hard her son hardly saw her, to the initiatives he pursued as the Governor of Georgia and in the White House, Carter has acted on the premise that a modicum of health care is a basic human right.
That effort did not stop with Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. In 1982 the former president founded the Carter Center, an institution devoted to promoting peace and conflict resolution around the globe. The Carter Center has spent enormous resources seeking to help solve problems that are not being addressed by other institutions, such as the lack of basic health awareness in poor parts of the world. Efforts to eradicate Guinea Worm Disease are a case in point. Carter said his team has been to every single village in Africa where people are suffering from the disease, teaching and instructing tribes that are largely illiterate and for whom the necessary preventative steps often clash with religious values.
Read the rest here.
Which Group of Technocrats Are You Voting For?
In his classic defense of free market economics, The Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek explains why the expansion of government control over a complex society inevitably shifts power from representative democratic assemblies to boards or bodies of technocratic elites. Democratic assemblies are designed to operate, within limits, on the principle of majority rule. Yet majorities in large bodies can only be effectively forged on the basis of general principles or laws; they are impossible to maintain in the context of the management of a complicated society or economy.
Why? On any given issue requiring management there is an infinite variation of possible policies, each suiting the needs or interests of different parties. Inevitably a representative assembly does not divide merely into two general segments, each seeking to gain the majority against another, but into innumerable factions. The result, as Americans witness constantly in their own government, is gridlock. And the solution to gridlock is the assigning of the particulars of legislation to technocratic elites (i.e., lobbyists and lawyers) who design a policy that will be enforced by another body of technocratic elites (i.e., bureaucrats). As Hayek puts it,
The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions… The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be 'taken out of politics' and placed in the hands of experts – permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies…. 'It is common ground that the present parliamentary machine is quite unsuited to pass rapidly a great body of complicated legislation.' (104).
Case in point: Obamacare. The average elected representative in Congress had very little influence over the particulars of the policy; most probably didn't even know the details of what they were voting for or against. And yet the problem is not with President Obama and the Democratic Party. The same tendency is observable in Republican legislation like President Bush's signature Medicare Prescription Drug legislation. Any piece of legislation seeking to expand federal control or management of something as complicated as health care or the economy requires the rule of experts.
One need not be a libertarian to accept Hayek's basic insight on this point. And of course, it is by no means clear what Hayek's alternative would look like in practice, particularly in a country committed to federalism like the United States. What is appropriate for a body of elected representatives at the local or state level is not necessarily the same as what is appropriate at the federal level.
But Hayek's perspective is at least worth pondering. From his perspective the unpopularity of Congress today is less the result of the tendency of power to corrupt, or the irresistible need for the politician to do what will get her or him reelected, than it is the effect of the American people having given Congress a mandate it cannot possibly fulfill.
The fault is neither with the individual representatives nor with parliamentary institutions as such but with the contradiction inherent in the task with which they are charged. They are not asked to act where they can agree, but to produce agreement on everything – the whole direction of the resources of the nation. For such a task the system of majority decision is, however, not suited… There is no reason why there should be a majority in favor of any one of the different possible courses of positive action if their number is legion (105).
The delegation of particular technical tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process whereby a democracy which embarks on planning progressively relinquishes its powers… The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure (107-108).
Alexis de Tocqueville warned that when democracy went down this road it would spawn a massive interest group of government officials, bureaucrats, and associated elites whose interest would gradually diverge from that of the people. Tocqueville would not be surprised by the contemporary political battles between public unions and populist reforming governors such as that which took place in Wisconsin this past year. Yet Joel Kotkin points out that both President Obama and Governor Romney represent a set of elites seeking to manage the country in one way or another.
The middle class, we're frequently told, decides elections. But the 2012 race has in many ways been a contest between two elites, with the plutocratic corporate class lining up behind Mitt Romney to try and reclaim its position on top of the pile from an ascendant new group—made up of the leaders of social and traditional media, the upper bureaucracy and the academy—that's bet big on Barack Obama.
Kotkin interprets the Tea Party as a populist reaction to the increasingly authoritarian and technocratic character of American government. Yet he by no means conflates a President Romney with the Tea Party.
Of course, Romney himself is the very opposite of a populist. As president, he would offer four years of technocratic, corporate power. Yet at the same time, a Romney administration—contrary to the claims of Democratic operatives and at times also the mainstream media—would not embrace the savage worldview of Pat Buchanan, Sara Palin, or even Rick Santorum. It would be establishmentarian in a "sensible shoes" kind of way.
So what is the choice facing American voters? Hayek would tell us that we have given our democracy an impossible mandate: the management of the most complicated economy in the world. In this case we might want to moderate our hopes for what any politician can achieve. After all, when we go to the ballot box we are not usually voting for particular rules or policies. For most of us we are simply choosing which party, with all of its technocratic expertise, will do the least damage. Good luck with that.
[Note: I am not as cynical about the upcoming election (or some of the issues at stake) as this last paragraph may suggest. I am simply trying to put some things in perspective. Consider it a nod to the book of Ecclesiastes.]
What did Calvin think the government should do for the poor?
There are many conservative Christians who think that if pastors faithfully preached the Bible they would demonstrate from Scripture that government should not tax people for the purpose of providing for the needs of the poor, and that government should not insure health care for those same poor. The argument here is not that solid political philosophy or even wisdom lead to these conclusions; it is that Scripture authoritatively teaches them.
It is helpful to pay attention to the reality that many orthodox Christian denominations (including most notably the Roman Catholic Church) teach precisely the opposite from Scripture, and it is even more helpful to note that leading Christian theologians throughout the ages have held quite different views of the nature of property and liberty than do many contemporary Christians. That does not mean contemporary Christian conservatives are wrong economically or politically, but it may suggest that their views do not exactly derive from Scripture.
Given that many of these Evangelicals are Reformed, it is worth considering what Calvin taught was the obligation of government towards the poor.
Calvin believed that the civil magistrate is appointed as God's servant to use the sword to ensure that the poor receive at least a modicum of equity. In fact, because they receive their authority from God magistrates must imitate God by providing special protection for the poor above and beyond that of their other subjects (see Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 10:1). Writing on Psalm 72, which he views in part as a description of "the end and fruit of a righteous government," Calvin notes that "God takes a more special care of the poor than of others, since they are most exposed to injuries and violence… David, therefore, particularly mentions that the king will be the defender of those who can only be safe under the protection of the magistrate" (Comm. Ps 72:4).
Commenting on Psalm 82, a psalm of prophetic judgment on unjust rulers, Calvin writes that "a just and well-regulated government will be distinguished for maintaining the rights of the poor and afflicted." The reason for this is that it is the poor and afflicted who tend to need the magistrate, not those who are rich and prosperous. Calvin suggests that if magistrates grasped this truth, "that they are appointed to be the guardians of the poor, and that a special part of this duty lies in resisting the wrongs which are done to them, and in repressing all unrighteous violence, perfect righteousness would become triumphant through the whole world" (Comm. Ps 82:1-4).
In a sermon on 2 Samuel 1:21-27 Calvin declared that although it is very rare, "it is praiseworthy for a good prince to relieve his subjects' poverty." Indeed, it should be considered to be the virtue of a king or prince if he keeps his subjects in comfort and promotes their wealth. "Then they can grow richer as they run their households, and each one can have enough for himself and his descendents. When, I say, a prince maintains these conditions, he will be valued far more highly."
In another sermon (on 2 Samuel 5:1-5 Calvin compared a good king to a good shepherd. "Now two things are required of a shepherd. The first is that he provide his animals with good pasture, and then that he keep them safe from all thieves and wolves and trouble. Now that I say is what princes must do. If they think that they will render an account to God for the charge that is committed to them, they must see to it that their subjects live in peace and that they are maintained; and then, in the second place, that they defend them against all troubles.
When it comes to the details of how magistrates should succor the poor, of course, Calvin gives few details (he did not preach political sermons per say), but the details he does give are significant. He indicates at one point that magistrates should provide for the poor by building poor-houses, hospitals, and even schools (Comm. Is 49:23). He is harshly critical of forms of usury in which the poor are taken advantage of, and yet he insists that the alternative to usury is not refusing to lend to the poor, but ensuring that the needs of the poor are met (Serm. Deut 23:18-20). In his sermon on Deuteronomy 15:11-15 he defended a prohibition of begging for the sake of "common order and honesty" and on the basis of "nature", but then insisted that such a prohibition is only just if the government ensures that the poor do not need to beg. Part of "keep[ing] order and policy," he suggests, is establishing "hospitals … for such needs."
From this it is evident that Calvin did not view the generous acts of individuals or even the organized operations of groups as sufficient for meeting the needs of the poor. For the civil government to enforce a ban on begging it was responsible to ensure that poor relief was sufficiently funded, organized, and regulated. Calvin's judgments therefore suggest that he believed the state did have a role in providing for the poor (or at least in ensuring their provision), and he grounded that belief in Scripture.
Of course, Calvin may have been wrong. But it is worth remembering that if there was anything he was absolutely committed to in his preaching and in his teaching it was only to declare what Scripture itself declares. Calvin was rigidly careful about this. To be sure, nothing Calvin wrote or said suggests anything one way or another about the wisdom of a particular program or policy in our own day and age. But Calvin's words do suggest that if we are going to declare the teaching of Scripture regarding government's obligation for the poor we had better be sure that we are not spouting off our own political or economic opinions. And if we actually pay attention to preachers who do faithfully teach Scripture to us we might discover that it is our own views that are out of line with the will of God.
Many Christians want you to preach against Obamacare: don't do it.
In an article in the Aquila Report today Larry Ball argues that pastors need to start preaching about politics again, specifically in view of the Supreme Court's refusal to overturn the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Ball suggests that Christians are entirely at a loss about how to respond to this development, both because the national slide away from the constitution has been going on for so long, and because the church no longer teaches what the Bible has to say about these matters. Ball writes,
Christians have been kept in the dark for lack of good teaching. In essence the Constitution today is null and void. The only answer to the modern political debate on health care is a return to biblical law.
Ball's sentiment is not far from that of other conservative Christian culture warriors in this respect. As one person suggested in a comment on this blog, we should not be so quick to dismiss the importance of fighting culture wars. After all, we are called to fight the principalities and powers of darkness with the Word of God. Or as a more extreme culture warrior argued relative to the Obama administration's immigration policy: "We are living under a Criminal State. Morally speaking, we do not owe it obedience."
Ball goes on,
Conservative politicians, and even the Church, are unable to apply biblical law to the political issues of the day. We still seem to believe that the separation of Church and State voids the application of biblical law in the public square.
It should not be surprising that many churches support Obamacare and the confiscation of wealth for redistribution. The State has become their partners in the ministry of mercy. Other churches are silent and have nothing to say except a few prayers on Sunday Morning for the civil magistrate. The sermons that most preachers preach are what I call 'safe'. They deal with the legitimate and orthodox issues of the heart, but they never cross the boundaries into the realm of the duties and limitations of the civil magistrate. Most evangelical preachers never call the civil magistrate to obey the law of God.
This is a striking argument, not because it assumes that preachers should have something to say about government, but because it assumes, virtually without argument, that "biblical law" would call for the overthrow of the Affordable Care Act on the basis that it involves "the confiscation of wealth for redistribution." If only preachers preached what "biblical law" had to say on this matter, Ball argues, we would all know that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
I have three basic problems with this line of thinking. First, why is it that political conservatives are so confident that the Bible gives them a platform from which to denounce government taxation policy? If the Bible says anything about the relationship between Christians and the state, it is precisely that believers should not imagine Christ's kingdom to say anything that would remove Caesar's authority over money and taxation. Wasn't it Jesus himself who asked the Jews whose inscription was on their money? And whose inscription is on those dollars that fill the wallets, bank accounts, and pension funds of Americans?
Oh, but you might say, legitimate taxation is different from "the confiscation of wealth for redistribution." But how so? Is not the essence of tax policy the confiscation of wealth for redistribution to others, whether those others be the military, the courts, the police, or whoever? And does Scripture really teach us that certain forms of redistribution are legitimate, whereas others are not? We should not be so sure. Remember, fellow Christians, whose inscription is on the money. Remember what Jesus said about it. Don't use Christ's pulpit to advance your own political agenda.
Second, why does Ball assume that "biblical law" somehow guides our interpretation of the Constitution? On the one hand, it is entirely unclear to me what he means by "biblical law." Is he referring to the Torah? Are we supposed to enact the 30 cases of capital punishment, including death for sabbath breaking, disobedience to parents, and false religion? Should we be canceling all debts every few years, and making sure that all American families can have a plot of land that is ultimately inalienable from their family holdings? Should the government be requiring businesses and farms to leave a certain amount of work for those who are poor, so that they can provide a living for themselves?
On the other hand, I do not understand how anything found in Scripture tells us what the Constitution says about tax policy. The whole point of the 16th Amendment of the Constitution was to give the government the right to tax the income of the very rich so that that wealth could be redistributed to the rest of the country. The Constitution does not place significant restrictions on the government's power to tax. Nor does Scripture.
Third, if the church does throw its weight around in the arena of health care policy, will the result really be what Ball wants? The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has made it quite clear that apart from certain provisions relating to abortion and religious liberty, it stands fully behind Obamacare because of the biblical mandate that calls government to ensure that the poor receive basic provision and health care. And here the bishops, a bastion of pro-life conservative Christianity, are quite consistent with what many of the most conservative evangelical African American denominations and churches in this country have been advocating for years.
They are also not entirely without precedent in a figure like John Calvin, who freely spoke of the government's obligation to ensure that the basic needs (he called them rights) of the poor are met, both in terms of basic provision and in terms of basic health care. It was Calvin, Ball may not realize, who argued that the diaconate of the church should work closely with the civil government in this area.
To be sure, I am not remotely defending Obamacare. I think it is bad law, and I hope it is replaced with better law. It also contains certain provisions that Christians should oppose, in line with what the Catholic bishops have said. But when it comes to health care policy the fact is that good Christians will disagree. The legislators, president, and judges who have made Obamacare the law of the United States are not the principalities and powers of darkness. They are the authorities (or ministers) ordained by God to govern this land, to whom we owe obedience, love, and service.
And that, ultimately, is the point that really gets lost here. Christ told us how we are to "wrestle against … the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." It is by walking in faith, hope, and love in obedience to the word of God, exemplifying the sacrificial service of Christ toward our neighbors in all that we do, and so witnessing in word and deed to the gospel. To be sure, that does not mean we compromise our convictions about what is best for this country, nor does it mean that we submit to government when it commands us to disobey God. But it does suggest that we do these things in a spirit of love and humility, not in the spirit of culture war.
Most importantly, we should not be so quick to assume the voice of Jesus when disputing the wisdom or prudence of health care policy. Jesus told us whose money and whose authority are at stake here. Preaching against the Affordable Care Act and its tax policy does not proclaim Christ's lordship; on the contrary, it claims Christ's authority for what is really the opinion of man. We may worry that government has taken upon itself a messianic complex, but let us beware that we do not do precisely the same thing.
The Supreme Court's refusal to fight a culture war; for the good of the country
There are now a bejillion articles on the Internet examining yesterday's Supreme Court decision and trying to figure out the implications of it all. There is no way one person can keep up with it all, and for many people it is all somewhat bewildering. Many conservatives in particular wonder how in the world it is possible for the Roberts-led decision to have been good for this country if it upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Some liberals think that the conservatives who try to find silver lining in the case are giving nothing more than a desperate attempt to come to terms with grief.
What's really going on?
There are many people, on both the right and the left who think that every significant issue that faces this country should be viewed through the zero sum lens of the culture wars. If Obamacare survives, one side wins, and if it falls, the other side wins. Take no prisoners. Give up no ground. Everything is at stake. All compromise is bad. People like this don't tend to care about the long term ability of our political institutions to handle the stress of culture war. To them the concern of a conservative chief justice to ensure the credibility of the Supreme Court in a nation that includes both liberals and conservatives is nothing short of betrayal.
More sober minds, whether or not they agree with this particular decision, look at the long term implications of the decision in all of its nitty-gritty detail, both in terms of what it means for conservative constitutional theory and the long term viability of the great experiment that we call the United States of America.
Taking this approach, Walter Russell Mead writes,
The decision should also remind people that despite the increasingly partisan nature of the process by which justices are appointed and confirmed, the court is not a partisan organization. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy both surprised much of the world with their votes; whatever one thinks of the conclusions they reach it seems reasonably clear that all nine justices vote with their legal convictions rather than their partisan interests.
Many who hate Obamacare will curse the Court and many who like the law will bless it, but the Court is functioning as a Court of law and not a political tribunal. That the Chief Justice appointed by George W. Bush cast the deciding vote to save President Obama's most important legislative achievement is a clear signal that partisanship in this country goes only so far.
In contrast, Mead notes, look at the inability of Europe to solve its problems through the ordinary structures of government. I would add that in many countries of the world a dispute of this magnitude would lead to national collapse or even war. Mead writes,
I don't think the health care policy we've adopted is a particularly good one, but at least our institutions more or less worked. The President made a proposal, the Congress then in office debated the proposal and, after much agony and pork peddling, passed a law. The law was and is controversial; it is being relitigated in two forums. Judicially, it moved through the Court system and received a full and thorough review, and a definitive decision has been pronounced. This is the law of the land, and it will and should be enforced until changed.
Like me, Mead thinks Jay Cost's initial analysis of the decision contains great wisdom.
It's going to take some time for the dust to settle, but the most interesting early take in my view comes from Jay Cost, who wrote in a tweet no less, "It is about scoring your side a huge legal victory while quieting the heat of opponents; that's ONLY way to effect enduring change." Jay's theory is that the limit on the powers of Congress under the commerce clause will matter more for America's future development than Obamacare — a law whose weak financial base ensures it will have to be revisited sooner rather than later. That's why he compares the decision to the famous Marbury vs Madison when the astute John Marshall secured Jeffersonian acquiescence for the Court's power to nullify Congressional acts by making the overturn of a law the basis for a decision that, in practical terms, got the results Jefferson wanted.
Ah, the long term. It is the actual argument that matters, not just the outcome. If you want to hear more about what exactly happened with Marbury vs Madison check out Sean Trende's analysis at RealClearPolitics.
Trende notes that in this ruling the Federalist Society, which represents the conservative and essentially strict constructionist view of the Constitution, got virtually all that it wanted.
But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.
Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress' commerce powers…
The court just constricted its Commerce Clause jurisprudence; if liberal commentators are correct, they did so by a lot. It doesn't matter today, but 10 years from now, it will probably be a different story…
Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress' ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state's refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion. I did not expect the court to rule the way it did here, much less to do so by a 7-2 vote.
What's more, Trende points out, Roberts achieved much of this even though it was in part irrelevant to the case at hand.
One of the interesting features of Marburyis that the Court didn't have to decide that Marbury was entitled to his commission. Indeed, it probably should have decided the jurisdictional issue first, then left the remaining issues for the Courts to decide upon refiling. But Marshall wanted to get the most favorable for Federalists that he could, while still maintaining the Court's credibility.
Similarly, Roberts actually didn't have to reach the commerce clause/necessary and proper issues. Having decided the tax issue, he actually probably could have stopped there. That he didn't suggests that he wanted to make sure that, even in defeat, there were five clear votes for the conservatives' view of the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause.
Of course, for those who think that there is only one Christian view of health care and that the Supreme Court should have known enough about the Bible to detect that view and therefore throw out Obamacare, none of this matters at all. Who cares about procedures? Who cares about maintaining national institutions that can resolve disputes between liberals and conservatives, even if not always in favor of conservatives? Who cares about arcane matters like the commerce clause?
But as the conservative Matthew J. Franck writes as a guest on the Washington Post blog, there is no Christian view of health care that can decisively mediate between liberals and conservatives on how to solve the health care problem. In fact, there may have been just as many Christians praying that the law would be upheld as were praying that it would be overturned. As Franck puts it,
is there a single "Christian view" on health-care policy—or even a single Catholic view?
Not exactly. Like everyone else, those who take a self-consciously Christian perspective on health care fall out along familiar liberal-vs.-conservative lines. Some will claim that the responsibility for "the least of these" necessarily falls chiefly on government, because government really is all of us. The responsibility being everyone's, the response must be collective, and what is government but the active arm of the whole society? Therefore, according to this view, the Christian love for neighbor is frustrated wherever the government is held back from doing all it can do, in mercy and charity.
Others will point out that this obscures the extent to which "everyone's responsibility" means each individual's. Human needs are personal, one by one, and the works of charity and mercy must be equally personal, calling forth the virtues of voluntary action. The state is by nature impersonal (viewed in the right light, this is actually one of its virtues); it cannot love anyone, and is not a reliable channel for the love of neighbors for one another. On the way from Neighbor A to Neighbor B, if the love has to be transmitted through the state, what might have begun in charity and mercy will wind up distorted by coercion, inattention to the human element, and stunting of the free actions of persons.
The big picture in all of this is that our system is working. You may not like the results. I certainly would have hoped things worked out a little bit differently. But the fact remains that the institutions of American government are successfully channeling the process of America self-government in a way that is peaceable and procedurally just. Nothing is set in stone. If you don't like Obamacare, there is still a fairly decent chance that it will be overturned. But the way in which that may happen will be the right way, through the political process. All of this is reflective of the fact that our country, the great experiment of the founding fathers, is working.
The Supreme Court Ruling: upholds Obamacare; upholds the Constitution; refutes Obama
The Supreme Court decision on the health care law just announced is a remarkable decision. No one expected conservative Chief Justice Roberts to cast the key vote that upheld the law, with sharp opposition from moderate Justice Kennedy. No one thought the decision would revolve around the government's power to tax. No one thought that a ruling upholding the health care law would create a big electoral headache for President Obama in his campaign for reelection. Yet all of this has now happened.
Jay Cost provides a sharp analysis over at the Weekly Standard:
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
I would actually argue that this was the most important issue at stake in the case, far more important in the long run than Obamacare itself. If the administration had won on its interpretation of the commerce clause, the idea of the Constitution as a limit on federal power would have been dead in the water. The commerce clause would have truly have become the Trojan Horse for anything the government wants to do. Thankfully, the constitution remains meaningful.
Cost also notes a second way in which the ruling upholds the Constitution.
Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.
In other words, the ruling is a big win for states' rights, arguably the second most important issue in the case. States can and will defy the Obama administration on this issue. Federalism is preserved.
But, you may say, what about the power to tax? Does this not simply expand government power by placing it all in the power to tax, rather than in the commerce clause? No, it does not, because the government has always had radical power to tax. Yet this is not a great threat to American liberty, because as we have seen in the last decade and a half, Americans are very touchy about taxation. It is very difficult to raise taxes, even for a Democratic president who controls both houses of Congress. That is why when Obama campaigned for his health care law he was adamant that the penalty attached to the individual mandate was categorically not a tax.
What the court has done, then, was to tell Obama that he was wrong, and that the penalty is a tax. In other words, the centerpiece of Obama's administration amounts to a tax increase that Obama himself vowed not to support. Note carefully, then, what this means for the future. Had Obama admitted that the health care law contained a very important tax, it probably would not have passed. The bill only passed because it was based on a false assumption. Now in the upcoming election the country will essentially vote in a referendum on whether or not it wants that tax increase. And if history is any guide, that does not bode well for Obama. Americans don't generally vote to raise their own taxes.
As Cost polemically describes the situation:
The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.
To be sure, it is by no means sure that the Republicans will win in November, and even if they do, it is by no means clear that they will successfully destroy Obamacare. I am not trying to portray this ruling as a great victory for conservatives.
But I do want to suggest that we keep all of this in perspective. The ruling is a lot more complicated than the headlines suggest. The winners and losers are not as obvious as immediately meets the eye. And the most important thing in all of this – the integrity of the constitution – was upheld.


text:
How to Plan a Home Gym
If you want to get fit at home, be sure to cover all the bases when planning your home gym: aerobic fitness, strength, and flexibility. Before you even set foot in a fitness store, size up your goals, your budget, and your available space.
A complete home gym can consist of a rubber tube, a step, and a handful of videos — equipment that a student on a budget could fit into a studio apartment.
Here are some specifics to consider before you go shopping:
Look at the big picture: Think about your goals and consider what type of equipment you're going to need to succeed in all three areas of fitness. If you plan to get your aerobic exercise outdoors — walking or jogging, for example — then, spend all of your home-gym budget on weight equipment. Just make sure you have an aerobic exercise plan for the winter. Buying flexibility gadgets needn't be a priority, but be sure to buy a cushy mat. You might also install a mirror, preferably in the area where you plan to lift weights. A mirror gives your home gym that health-club feel and enables you to keep an eye on your form.
Choose an inviting spot for your equipment: Place your equipment near entertaining distractions such as the TV or stereo (or away from them, if you want to be away from other family members). And make sure that the spot has adequate ventilation, space, lighting, and climate control. If you're lucky enough to have a spare room, consider reserving it exclusively for your gym. If you don't have an extra room, at least try to keep all your gadgets near one another.
Take careful measurements: Before you buy a major piece of equipment, carefully measure the length, width, and height of your available space. You don't want to bump your head against the ceiling when you press the incline button on your new treadmill. Measure your door to make sure that you can get your new machinery into the house. Keep in mind that many equipment stores have high ceilings to accommodate tall equipment.
Think about flooring: If you use exercise DVDs, place your DVD player in a room with a rug rather than a tile or cement floor. The extra padding provided by carpeting helps protect your joints. Plus, there's less danger of slipping. Don't pump iron on a tile floor, either. If you drop a weight, you'll crack the tile. Whatever type of floor you have, consider putting rubberized mats ($50 to $100) underneath your cardiovascular equipment. This reduces vibration and keeps your floor from getting stained by the globs of oil and other junk that inevitably drip from the underside of a treadmill or other equipment.


text:
When you launch your web browser, Microsoft Edge in WIndows 10, the first page you see is what's known as your homepage. Much like previous versions of Internet Explorer, Microsoft Edge allows you to customize your default homepage, and even open multiple pages at once.
By default, Microsoft Edge will open a Microsoft website (makes sense), but you may want to change this. To do so, pick your favorite website that you want to make your new homepage. Take note of the URL.
Select More (…) on the top right of the browser, and click Settings
2. Under Open with, select A specific page or pages.
3. Type in the URL that you want to set your homepage to, or select one of the defaults. Click the + button to save. You may add additional URLs if you want more than one website to open when you launch Microsoft Edge.
Now whenever you launch Microsoft Edge, the first page (or pages) that you see will be the one(s) you just chose in the settings.
My Homepage Changed By Itself
Sometimes, software installed on your computer will change the homepage of your internet browser. If you find that your homepage has mysteriously changed, or changed itself back to something suspicious after you tried to change it, there is a good chance your computer is infected with a browser hijacker. This can happen in all web browsers, not just Microsoft Edge.
Browser hijackers are extremely common these days, as they are bundled with most free downloads found on the internet. Usually you will be presented with the option to install a browser hijacker when you install something you downloaded. The most famous example of this is the ASK Toolbar, which is commonly bundled with Java.
To find out how to remove browser hijackers from your computers, read our guide on how to remove potentially unwanted programs.


text:
News & Events
In the Media
Duke Features
Through the work of Professor Thomas Struhsaker (Evolutionary Anthropology) and Craig Breaden (Duke Libraries), five old films about primate behavior, ecology, and conservation have been converted to... Read full article »
The Department of Evolutionary Anthropology at Duke University invites applications for two three-year post-doctoral positions at the Assistant Research Professor level to begin in July of 2018. Each... Read full article »
The 2016 Faculty Scholars: Indrani Saha, Meghana Rao and Yilun Zhou. Many Duke undergraduates have found excitement in an original research project. Junior Meghana Rao has taken her... Read full article »
Humans aren't alone in their ability to mix perfumes and colognes. Lemurs, too, get more out of their smelly secretions by combining fragrances to create richer, longer-lasting scents, finds a study... Read full article »


text:
Technology permeates life at every point these days. It's this fundamental change that has seen the technology sector become a significant driver of the weightless economy in New Zealand. We work alongside the technology companies driving this sector, whether in start-up, emerging or made it on the local or global stage mode.
The vast amount of work we do in this sector, the regularity of that work and the diversity of the projects gives us a deep understanding of what's going on.
We can assist technology companies and clients with specific legal issues across not just technology but also the media and telecommunications sectors – from licensing or SaaS models to commercial issues involving consulting, services, outsourcing, telecommunications, radiocommunications, web-based enterprise or cloud computing to regulatory issues.
We also keep close to the sector through our ongoing support, and long standing sponsorship, of the Hi Tech Awards. You can have total faith in the quality of our advice, our familiarity with the legal issues, and our understanding of the commercial challenges facing companies.
Our technology sector services include:
- Drafting and negotiating technology documentation, including supply and procurement projects, licensing, end user terms, privacy policies and ecommerce terms of use
- Working with clients on collaboration arrangements
- M&A, capital raising and listing advice
- Assisting with all aspects of establishing international structures and operating globally
- Acquiring radiospectrum rights
- Advising on regulatory issues in the telecommunications sector
- Advising on other technology issues, including security, fair trading and competition, privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property ownership
- Disputes resolution assistance


text:
Oh, how time goes by so quickly! Here is your precious new little baby... and then the months roll by and soon enough, they are rolling over, sitting up, standing up, walking, and then BAM! They are turning ONE! And then, it seems like before you know it they are turning FIVE! Yes, its so bittersweet. Because the time goes fast, I am always delighted when I get to capture children at any age so that you and your family may have the memories to cherish forever. And oh... how you will LOVE to look back at photos of each stage and milestone!!
Full Children Session - $275
Up to 1 hour of shoot time
An outdoor location of your choice OR my indoor portrait studio
Online viewing gallery of all images
20 Full Resolution custom retouched digital images via download
Print release (this means you can print wherever you want as many times as you want)
Professional media ordering options (i.e.: professional prints, albums, canvases, holiday cards, announcements, etc)
Portrait Sessions Available:
3 Month Session (Rolling over, Tummy time, Awake, smily baby)
6 Month Session (Sitting up)
9 - 11 Month Session ( Standing, Walking)
Preschool Session
Kindergarden Session
Children Birthday Session (2 year, 3 year, etc)
Now offering Birthday Party photography and Photo sessions with BUMBLE BEE TRANSFORMER!


text:
- Font:
- +
- -
LAS VEGAS — Sony Corp. on Sunday said it is introducing to the U.S. market a high-quality organic LED television only as thick as three stacked credit cards.
The 11-inch XEL-1 television, to go on sale this month, is Sony's first television for the U.S. to use organic light-emitting diode technology, which enables superior picture quality on super-thin displays. The company also is demonstrating a prototype 20-inch version at the Consumer Electronics Show this week in Las Vegas.
The XEL-1 has a contrast ratio — the difference between maximum and minimum brightness — of 1 million to one, because pixels can be turned off completely for a near-perfect black. That compares with 30,000 to one for a good conventional flat-panel TV, which can't show a perfect black.
The high picture quality comes at a hefty price: about $2,500 for the XEL-1. It sold for $1,700 at its launch in Japan in December.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
Not long ago, no one gave a single thought about how smart their home was. Simply having Wi-Fi and a flat-screen TV was enough to make a house seem modern. It's taken a while for wider adoption, but it seems the "Internet of things" is finally making smart homes more desirable.
A recent Coldwell Banker survey found that overall the majority of buyers prefer a smart home over a traditional option. But when you break the information down into segments it becomes clear that smart homes are of big interest to young families and Millennials.
Not only do many smart home devices sync together, they can also interact with your phone, tablet or smartwatch. With the right selection of smart home devices, you can always be connected to your house no matter how far away you are. If you want a "smart home" here are eight ways to make your house more intelligent.
If you want a comprehensive smart home system you'll need a hub. Hubs can now refer to two smart home devices. The traditional hub connects to compatible devices so that they can access the Wi-Fi and speak to one another. Newer products like Echo are a different type of hub. You can talk to the speaker to activate the virtual assistant feature and it will respond.
Security Equipment
Home security was one of the first areas of the house to become smarter. The Wi-Fi technology used to make devices talk and sync with one another was a perfect basis for comprehensive home security that could be monitored from anywhere.
Nortek Security & Control is one of the innovative home security manufacturers that is noticing an increased demand in smart products. The company recently announced plans to expand manufacturing due to the growing smart home technology market. Their experts recommend that a smart home security system includes a control panel with an alarm, motion sensors for the exterior doors, a Wi-Fi connected camera at the front entry and motion-sensor, remote control lights both inside and outside.
Smart home products are an invest, but thermostats like Nest can actually pay for themselves. A smart thermostat eliminates the need to program your HVAC system for maximum efficiency because the thermostat does it for you. After several days of use, a smart home thermostat gathers data on your preferences and schedules to automatically adjust the temperature as needed.
Smoke Alarms
In 2015 alone there were over 1,345,500 fires that caused $14.3 billion in damage and 3,280 deaths. Smoke alarms have long been an essential device in saving lives and minimizing the destruction of a fire. Today's smart smoke alarms are taking the old technology and using IoT to make the devices even more beneficial.
Not only can a smart smoke alarm send an instant alert to your phone, some are so smart they can tell the difference between a cooking mishap and an actual fire. They also overcome another common problem – failing to regularly test the batteries.
Light Bulbs
Another money-saving smart home product is intelligent lighting. Smart light bulbs use energy efficient mechanisms, but they can also be scheduled to go on and off at certain times to save electricity. You'll also never have to worry about walking into a dark home again since you can turn on the lights from your driveway using an app.
Window Treatments
Now homeowners can open and shut their blinds or curtains without pulling a cord. Smart window treatments are being touted as energy savers that can both optimize control over natural light and regulate room temperature. A small mechanism in the base of the window treatments connects to the Wi-Fi so they can be controlled via an app. You can also sync some smart window treatments with other devices like your light bulbs.
With today's latest appliance models you'll never have to worry about whether you shut doors and turned off the heat. Smart appliance talk to you to alert you if something is wrong. Compatible devices can also be used to provide a virtual look inside the fridge before you go to the grocery store.
There are also a number of small smart appliances like coffee makers that kick on when your morning alarm goes off. You can also start a meal in your smart crock pot and receive an alert when it's reached the perfect temperature.
Smart TVs
Smart TVs have Wi-Fi capability built in so you don't need streaming devices to play shows from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube and more. Before selecting a model, find out which apps come included.


text:
View interracial Singles in Bedford Park
By clicking continue, I agree to receive transactional and promotional emails from Match.com. I understand that I am free to withdraw consent at any time.
By using our site, you agree to the Match.com Terms of Use.
Your one stop for singles in the Prairie State of Illinois. Match.com is how people know you're located in Illinois and ready to meet the right one. Connect with singles in Bedford Park,Illinois for online dating, friendship and romance. Single in Bedford Park? Subscribe now and start e-mailing Bedford Park singles today!
Argo, Berwyn, Bridgeview, Broadview, Brookfield, Burbank, Burr Ridge, Chicago Ridge, Cicero, Countryside, Evergreen Park, Forest View, Forestview, Hickory Hills, Hines, Hodgkins, Hometown, Indian Head Park, Indianhead Park, Justice, La Grange, La Grange Highlands, La Grange Park, Lagrange Highlands, Lyons, McCook, Mount Greenwood, North Riverside, Oak Lawn, Palos Hills, Riverside, South Suburban, Stickney, Summit, Summit Argo, Summit-Argo, Western Springs, Wicker Park, Willow Springs, Worth view all states »
Asian , Black , Catholic , Christian , Divorced , Free Online Dating, Gay Singles, Gay Dating, Jewish , Lesbian Singles, Single Parents, view all communities »


text:
With RadSpeech, we aim to build the next generation of intelligent, scalable, and user-friendly semantic search interfaces for the medical imaging domain, based on semantic technologies. Ontology-based knowledge representation is used not only for the image contents, but also for the complex natural language understanding and dialogue management process. With the incorporation of higher level knowledge represented in ontologies, different semantic views of the same medical images (such as structural, functional, and disease aspects) can be explicitly stated and integrated.
We strive for more efficiency during the medical finding process and for more structured finding reports including semantic image annotations.
RadSpeech Publication
RadSpeech's Mobile Dialogue System for Radiologists
RadSpeech Flyer
RadSpeech — A Semantic Speech Dialogue System for Radiologists


text:
Dear YaYa,/
Today you had a meltdown over the fact that the perfectly good plan that you had set into place (lying down on the bed and reading in peace) was annihilated by the presence of your three-year-old brother, who insisted on crowding you and trying to hang out with you. Also, to kick at you with his heels.
It was a meltdown of catastrophic proportions. It was Chernobyl. It was unfixable by any means and not even the privilege of being completely and luxuriously alone on Mama and Daddy's bed could alleviate your frustration. Not even a long cuddle. Your idea! It was so perfect! And it was taken out of your control, it was trodden on, ruined. That's it, start over, nighttime had better come soon because this day is has been flushed down the toilet.
I was reminded of two things. The first: What a trooper you are! How rarely, in this wild life of ours, do you melt down in any way. Your lovely, sensitive, artistic nature must at times threaten to rise up and choke you, you with your three brothers and the little space in your life for quiet. But you are so strong, always finding a way to make peace, a way to cut yourself a little corner of calm. And normally you are the very best with Solo. You help him with everything, you are giving and fierce and brave.
The second thing is that I can completely relate. I understand that curve that you turn around the mountain, when something that was going to be so cool! so good! so right! gets interrupted or smashed up and at that moment it feels unbearable that there is no rewind button. No way to make the imperfect disappear no reset button on the day. The day can now only be tolerated. Senses have been overwhelmed, the yo-yo strings are zinging, the brothers are sniping, and all that will fix it is a good sleep and a new morning.
I just want to commiserate. I'm STILL trying to learn how to get reset after overload, my dear. And I try all my ideas on you. Music? A dark place? A book? A blankie? It's a crazy world we live in, little friend. Full of grocery stores and fluorescent lights. Somehow we'll make our way through.
You just turned eight. This has been a momentous year for you, the year of being seven! It started off with a train journey to Nepal. Caves, monkeys, a green lake. A month without Daddy, a trip to Thailand, a couple of jaunts to Burma. Then we made the big decision to move here, to make a new life in Thailand, leaving behind your beloved Arambol. You love everything you see, Beautiful. All along the way you make friends and turn the shower of affection on, and when you see stars and skies, you really SEE them.
You are pensive.
And goofy. From second to second, nothing with you is the same.
You told me a story recently. You were at our friend Rani's tipi camp. Daddy was playing music and you were sitting and talking with a new friend of yours, a grownup girl from Germany. The moon was full. "The music," you said, "the music and the moon and the fire was there too. We talked and talked and looked at the sky, with the coconut trees and the moon and the music was playing..." You sighed a big sigh, telling me. "It was SO beautiful. It was the best night of my life."
I don't think God could have given me anything in life that is more special than the kids he gave me. I love you, YaYa darling. I love you with all of my heart.
(I put the camera on continuous shutter to try to take a good photo of you, but your face changes from instant to instant and in the end I had about a hundred different expressions. Here are a few of them.)


text:
PowerShell Europe 2015 Agenda
As has been announced registration for the PowerShell Summit Europe 2015 opens on 27 February 2015. http://powershell.org/wp/2015/02/20/powershell-summit-europe-registration/
Other details on the Summit can be found here: http://powershell.org/wp/community-events/summit/powershell-summit-europe-2015/
The agenda for the Summit can be found on the event site for the Summit http://eventmgr.azurewebsites.net/event/home/PSEU15
Change to DSC Resource Kit release strategy
The PowerShell team blog http://blogs.msdn.com/b/powershell/archive/2015/02/13/new-and-improved-resource-kit.aspx details the new resources and bug fixes in wave 10 of the DSC resource kit. This is a much smaller release than the of late but includes new resources for initializing and formatting disks
One point in the "small print" is important to note. This is the last release of these resource as a big zip file for download from the TechNet script gallery. In future these resources will only be available through the PowerShell gallery. Use Find-DscResource to discover the resources available in the gallery and Update-Module & Install-module to get the modules containing resources from the gallery.
DSC Resource Kit Wave 10
The next release (wave 10) of the Desired State Resource Kit is available. You can download the whole of the resource kit from https://gallery.technet.microsoft.com/scriptcenter/DSC-Resource-Kit-All-c449312d
This version includes the IIS resources that were missing in wave 9
WMF 5.0 February 2015 preview
A new preview of Windows Management Framework 5.0 (PowerShell) is available.
See http://blogs.msdn.com/b/powershell/archive/2015/02/18/windows-management-framework-5-0-preview-february-2015-is-now-available.aspx
for details.
The release notes indicate which new features are considered stable and which are still regarded as experimental and therefore subject to change.
Downloads are available for Windows 8.1 (x32 and x64), Windows Server 2012 R2 Windows 2012. You will need .NET 4.5 installed.
Copy a file with WMI
A question came up on the forum about copying files with CIM (WMI). I normally use Copy-Item rather than CIM as its easier. The questioner was using CIM_LogicalFile when I've normally used CIM_DataFile so I decided to take a look at the class. In reality the two classes are very similar and CIM-datafile could be substituted for CIM_LogicalFile in the code that follows.
The obvious starting point is to use the Copy method on the CIM_LogicalFile class
$files = Get-WmiObject -Class CIM_LogicalFile -Filter "Path = '\\Test\\' AND Extension = 'txt'"
foreach ($file in $files) {
$newfile = "C:\Test2\$($file.FileName).$($file.Extension)"
Couple of points to note. In the Path part of the filter you have to escape the \ delimiter. Extension doesn't include the '.'
You have to give the full path – including file name - to the loaction to which you want to copy the file. In this case you don't have to escape the \ delimiter. Consistency is a wonderful thing and usually absent from WMI.
You can also use Invoke-WmiMethod
$files = Get-WmiObject -Class CIM_LogicalFile -Filter "Path = '\\Test\\' AND Extension = 'txt'"
foreach ($file in $files) {
$newfile = "C:\Test2\$($file.FileName).$($file.Extension)"
Invoke-WmiMethod -InputObject $file -Name Copy -ArgumentList $newfile
use the new CIM cmdlets
$files = Get-CimInstance -ClassName CIM_LogicalFile -Filter "Path = '\\Test\\' AND Extension = 'txt'"
foreach ($file in $files) {
$newfile = "C:\Test2\$($file.FileName).$($file.Extension)"
Invoke-CimMethod -InputObject $file -MethodName Copy -Arguments @{Filename = $newfile}
In this case you have to give the argument name for the method as well as its value. You can discover the method parameters using Get-CimClass
$class = Get-CimClass CIM_LogicalFile
£> $class.CimClassMethods["Copy"].Parameters
Shutting down machines in parallel
My test lab is a set of virtual machines running on a Lenovo w1510 laptop. When I've finished working for the day I want to shut down the virtual machines and the laptop. I may have anywhere between 2 and 8 (or more) VMs running so scripting the shutdown helps a lot.
Machines can be shutdown independently so this is an action that is ideal for parallel execution through a workflow.
workflow stop-allvms {
$vms = Get-VM | where State -eq "Running"
foreach -parallel ($vm in $vms) {
Stop-Computer -PSComputerName $vm.Name -Force -Verbose
Get the running VMs. use foreach –parallel to run stop-computer against each VM. Notice I've had to change the parameter on Stop-Computer from –ComputerName to –PSComputerName
Another little workflow that makes life easier. I looks like workflows aren't going to be the game changer that we originally thought but they do add some interesting options.
Testing AD replication
I thought that using a workflow with its foreach –parallel construct would be a good way to test AD replication.
I found that I got double the results – the foreach seemed to go to each machine twice.
Eventually decided to perform the task sequentially
Get-ADDomainController -Filter * |
foreach {
Get-ADReplicationUpToDatenessVectorTable -Target $($psitem.Hostname) -Partition * |
select Server, LastReplicationSuccess, Partition,
@{N='Partner'; E={(($_.Partner -split ",")[1]).Remove(0,3)}}, USnFilter
} | ft –a
There are a number of cmdlets for working with AD replication that are worth investigating
Typing variables
I was recently asked a question about typing variables after thinking about it came up with this demonstration.
Create a variable with an integer value
£> $a = 2
£> $a.GetType()
IsPublic IsSerial Name
-------- -------- ----
True True Int32
AS you would expect – you get an integer type.
If you do this
£> $a = '123'
£> $a.GetType()
IsPublic IsSerial Name
-------- -------- ----
True True String
It changes to a string. Which means you can also do this.
£> $a = 'gdyegf'
£> $a.GetType()
IsPublic IsSerial Name
-------- -------- ----
True True String
PowerShell variables will adapt their type to the data they contain.
However if you type the variable:
£> [int32]$b = 2
£> $b.GetType()
IsPublic IsSerial Name
-------- -------- ----
True True Int32
You start with an integer as expected
If you use a string that can be converted to an integer – that will happen and your type is still an integer.
£> $b = '123'
£> $b
£> $b.GetType()
IsPublic IsSerial Name
-------- -------- ----
True True Int32
If you try to put a string in the variable
£> $b = 'effAG'
Cannot convert value "effAG" to type "System.Int32". Error: "Input string was not in a correct format."
At line:1 char:1
+ $b = 'effAG'
+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : MetadataError: (:) [], ArgumentTransformationMetadataException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : RuntimeException
It fails because you can't convert 'effAG' to an integer.
Untyped PowerShell variables can change their type. If you want to ensure the variable always contains a specific type then force that by typing the variable.
Modifying AD attribute – PO Box
I was left a question on this post - https://richardspowershellblog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2762&action=edit
Asking how to modify the PO Box value for a user account.
This attribute can be set on the Address tab of AD Users and Computers but isn't directly visible through AD Administrative Center.
The first trick is to discover the real name of the attribute. One method is to use the Attribute Editor tab in the GUI tools or you can do this:
£> Get-ADUser -Identity richard -Properties * | select *box*
This is where life gets interesting because the actual name of the attribute is postOfficeBox.
Still to set the value
£> Get-ADUser -Identity fgreen -Properties * | select Name, POBox
Name POBox
---- -----
Fred Green
£> Get-ADUser -Identity fgreen -Properties * | Set-ADUser -POBox 'MX234'
£> Get-ADUser -Identity fgreen -Properties * | select Name, POBox
Name POBox
---- -----
Fred Green MX234
Set-ADuser has a parameter specifically for that attibute
If you need to set the PO Box as part of a bulk change follow the style given in the post at the top of this article and add the –POBox parameter to Set-ADuser
Starting VMs based on WSUS state
I use WSUS in my lab to update machines – means I only have to download updates once. The issue is that I have to start the VMs so they can communicate with the WSUS server. WSUS will start to flag warnings if machines haven't contacted the WSUS server for more than that length of time.
Putting that together I can use the UpdateServices (WSUS) module and the Hyper-V module to start machines that have been turn off more than 7 days.
$date = (Get-Date).AddDays(-7)
Get-WsusComputer -NameIncludes 'W12R2' |
where LastReportedStatusTime -lt $date |
foreach {
$name = ($psitem.FullDomainName -split "\.")[0]
$vm = Get-VM -Name $name -ComputerName server02
if ($vm.State -eq 'Off') {
Start-VM -Name $name -ComputerName server02
Start-Sleep -Seconds 30
Set a date 7 days in the past.
Use get-WsusComputer to pull the machine names. I filter on W12R2 (all my machine names contain an abbreviated OS type) and check the last status report time.
Any machines that haven't reported – the VM data is retrieved and if the machine isn't running it's started. Machines take about 25-30 seconds to boot on my lab so a sleep of 30 seconds means I'm not starting them all at once.