text:
Power & Market
Washington's "Suppression" of the Whiskey Rebellion Betrayed the Revolution. And It Failed.
Some conservatives are now bending over backwards to try to justify their calls for more federal intervention in local law enforcement around the nation. This has been problematic for many because some of these people also have pretended to be in favor of decentralization, local control, and a strict reading of the Constitution when it suits them. But now that the actual respect for the Tenth Amendment and the federalism built into the Constitution for the moment favors left-wing protestors and rioters, the Right is now attempting to come up with reasons why the federal government should be called in to solve our problems after all.
I have dealt with some of the claims elsewhere, such as the claim that the federal government can do whatever it wants when there is an "insurrection"—however loosely defined. And some claim the feds can do whatever they want in order to "guarantee a republican form of government."
But for the more unsophisticated participants in this debate, the memo has apparently gone out stating that federal meddling of this sort is fine because George Washington once did it. While I have seen this stated more than once, an example from the Mises Institute's Facebook page, in response to this article, will serve as an example:
The basic "argument" made by "Jack Jackson" here is that since Washington used federal troops against tax protestors in the 1790, then the president today can obviously do the same, and it must all be both perfectly moral and legal.
Yet Washington's invasion of western Pennsylvania was clearly immoral by the standards of the American Revolution, and thus a betrayal of what countless Americans had died for during the war. Not surprisingly, virtually no taxpayer in the backcountry supported Washington's expedition. After all, internal excise taxes imposed by outsiders had been a major cause of the American secessionist cause in the 1770s—what we now call the American Revolution. In other words, Jackson's interlocutor here, a "Robert Davis" is correct. Washington's grandiose ride to abuse and browbeat Pennsylvania farmers into submission was "the beginning of the end" of what most Americans imagined they were signing on for when they submitted to the US Constitution.
Moreover, contrary to what is simply assumed by those whose view of history extends not far beyond conservative talk radio, Washington's "suppression" of the tax rebellion failed. Murray Rothbard explains in detail how the Whiskey "rebels" were the good guys, and how Washington was a bumbling big-government wannabe who later—helped by the ever atrocious Alexander Hamilton—covered up his failure to get his way.
From chapter 44 of Making Economic Sense:
The Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion is that four counties of western Pennsylvania refused to pay an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.
Western Pennsylvanians failed to pay the tax, this view says, until protests, demonstrations, and some roughing up of tax collectors in western Pennsylvania caused President Washington to call up a 13,000-man army in the summer and fall of 1794 to suppress the insurrection. A localized but dramatic challenge to federal tax-levying authority had been met and defeated. The forces of federal law and order were safe.
This Official View turns out to be dead wrong. In the first place, we must realize the depth of hatred of Americans for what was called "internal taxation" (in contrast to an "external tax" such as a tariff). Internal taxes meant that the hated tax man would be in your face and on your property, searching, examining your records and your life, and looting and destroying.
The most hated tax imposed by the British had been the Stamp Tax of 1765, on all internal documents and transactions; if the British had kept this detested tax, the American Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier, and enjoyed far greater support than it eventually received.
Americans, furthermore, had inherited hatred of the excise tax from the British opposition; for two centuries, excise taxes in Britain, in particular the hated tax on cider, had provoked riots and demonstrations upholding the slogan, "liberty, property, and no excise!" To the average American, the federal government's assumption of the power to impose excise taxes did not look very different from the levies of the British crown.
The main distortion of the Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion was its alleged confinement to four counties of western Pennsylvania. From recent research, we now know that no one paid the tax on whiskey throughout the American "back-country"; that is, the frontier areas of Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and the entire state of Kentucky.
President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was a cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes. Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.
The whiskey tax was particularly hated in the back-country because whiskey production and distilling were widespread; whiskey was not only a home product for most farmers, it was often used as a money, as a medium of exchange for transactions. Furthermore, in keeping with Hamilton's program, the tax bore more heavily on the smaller distilleries. As a result, many large distilleries supported the tax as a means of crippling their smaller and more numerous competitors.
Western Pennsylvania, then, was only the tip of the iceberg. The point is that, in all the other back-country areas, the whiskey tax was never paid. Opposition to the federal excise tax program was one of the causes of the emerging Democrat-Republican Party, and of the Jeffersonian "Revolution" of 1800. Indeed, one of the accomplishments of the first Jefferson term as president was to repeal the entire Federalist excise tax program. In Kentucky, whiskey tax delinquents only paid up when it was clear that the tax itself was going to be repealed.
Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different. The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey. No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents. The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax.
Except during the War of 1812, the federal government never again dared to impose an internal excise tax, until the North transformed the American Constitution by centralizing the nation during the War Between the States. One of the evil fruits of this war was the permanent federal "sin" tax on liquor and tobacco, to say nothing of the federal income tax, an abomination and a tyranny even more oppressive than an excise.
Why didn't previous historians know about this widespread non-violent rebellion? Because both sides engaged in an "open conspiracy" to cover up the facts. Obviously, the rebels didn't want to call a lot of attention to their being in a state of illegality.
Washington, Hamilton, and the Cabinet covered up the extent of the revolution because they didn't want to advertise the extent of their failure. They knew very well that if they tried to enforce, or send an army into, the rest of the back-country, they would have failed. Kentucky and perhaps the other areas would have seceded from the Union then and there. Both contemporary sides were happy to cover up the truth, and historians fell for the deception.
The Whiskey Rebellion, then, considered properly, was a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation. Perhaps this lesson will inspire a later generation of American taxpayers who are so harried and downtrodden as to make the whiskey or stamp taxes of old seem like Paradise.
Keep Those Federal Troops out of American Cities
The violence and the utter disregard for basic human rights displayed by the Left in recent years—combined with its support for war crimes when a Democrat is president—have made me inclined to play nice with conservatives these days. At least conservatives aren't planning to torch my neighborhood any time soon, and at the moment they're no worse than the Left on foreign policy.
On the other hand, sometimes even the relatively less bad guys (for now) come to some very dangerous conclusions.
[RELATED: "About Those Spooky Federal Cops in Portland" by Jeff Deist]
Specifically, some authors at conservative publications are now demanding that the president send in federal agents and troops to make arrests and intervene in local law enforcement to pacify rioters in Portland and other American cities. These pundits are claiming that since local officials allegedly aren't responding with sufficient alacrity to rioters, it's time to send in federal troops.
It is questionable that the president has the legal authority to do this. But even if he does have this power—legally speaking—basic commonsense principles of subsidiarity and decentralization inveigh against federal intervention. In other words, a basic respect for the principles behind the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence ought to cause one to reject the notion that it's a good idea to send in federal troops to "solve" the crime problems experienced in American cities.
Here's one example: in an article titled "It's Time to Crush the New Rebellion against Constitution" at Real Clear Politics, author Frank Miele claims "the president is designated as the commander in chief" and therefore "shall be expected to act during a crisis of 'rebellion or invasion' to restore public safety."
Miele addresses two legal questions. The first is whether or not federal troops or agents can act independently when protecting federal property—such as a federal courthouse. The second question is whether or not federal troops can intervene even when no federal property is under threat.
Arguably, in the former case federal agents would be well within their prerogatives to protect federal property as a security guard might do. This, however, does not necessarily empower them to make arrests or assault citizens outside the federal property itself, on the streets of a city well outside the federal compound. The so-called constitutional sheriffs movement—which the Left hates—has it right on this. Local law enforcement ought to be the final authority when it comes to making arrests.
Clearly, however, Miele will not brook such limitations, and he supports the idea that federal troops can intervene "where no federal property is involved."
And what are the limitations on this federal power? Basically, there are none, in Miele's view. So long as we define our adversaries as people fomenting a "rebellion" nothing is off the table. Not surprisingly, Miele strikes a worshipful pose toward Abraham Lincoln's scorched-earth campaign against the Southern states of the US in the 1860s. Those people were "rebels," you see, so the president was right to "tak[e] bold action" even if it meant "skirting the Constitution." Because "there was never any doubt where [Lincoln's] allegiance lay," it was perfectly fine when he abolished the basic legal rights of Americans, such as the right of habeas corpus.
The use of the word "rebellion" is central to understanding the profederal position here. Authors like Miele (and Andrew McCarthy at National Review) have routinely used words like "insurrection" or "rebellion" in order to support their claim the current unrest requires a Lincoln-like response, including a Lincolnesque abolition of half the Bill of Rights.
The Moral Case for Local Control, Made by American Revolutionaries
As a legal matter, of course, I have no doubt that federal judges and supporters of federal meddling could find a way to slice and dice the Constitution so as to make it say whatever they want. As a moral and historical question, however, it is clear that sending in federal troops without an invitation from local leaders is blatantly contrary to the provisions of the Declaration of Independence and is contrary to the Tenth Amendment.
As I explained here, the Declaration lists that the misuse of the executive's (i.e., the king's) troops was a reason for the American rebellion of 1776. These troops must receive the permission of local lawmakers:
The American revolutionaries and those who ratified the US constitution…thought they were creating a political system in which the bulk of land-based military power would rest in the hands of the state governments. Standing armies were to be strenuously opposed, and the Declaration of Independence specifically condemned the king's use of military deployments to enforce English law in the colonies and "to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power." These principles go back at least as far as the English Civil War (1642–51), when opposition to standing armies became widespread.
Thus, any attempt to send in British troops without the approval of the colonial legislatures was an abuse. This same principle was later applied to the state legislatures in relation to federal power.
Sending in federal troops to override local officials is in direct opposition to the moral underpinnings of the American Revolution. But this doesn't stop Miele, who then insists that Article IV of the Constitution authorizes federal invasions because the text says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." According to Miele, the "republican form of government" here "means government of the people, by the people and for the people—not the mob."
This definition of a republic is something Miele apparently just made up. This is hardly a standard definition of "republic," especially in the eighteenth century—the context most relevant for our purposes here. In those days, "republic" mostly meant "not a monarchy" and something like a decentralized state ruled by a commercial elite.
The idea that the president can send in troops anywhere whenever we decide that a local government is not guaranteeing a "republic"—based on whatever idiosyncratic definition of "republic" we might choose—is dangerous indeed.
In another example, we find authors "Because state and local Democrat officials refuse to restore order, the federal government must….Enough is enough. Those responsible for this new wave of insurrection must face the full force of federal law. "
Note the language about "insurrection"—as if a minuscule clash between some left-wing and right-wing demonstrators in Denver—an example the authors use to justify their position—requires a federal invasion.
Presumably governments are expected to intervene to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
But which government shall do that? It's a safe bet that the authors of the Declaration of Independence would say that a scuffle in Denver clearly lies within the authority of the government in Colorado. After all, the American patriots fought a war—and many died in it—to ensure local control outside the hands of a powerful executive in command of a standing army thousands of miles away.
It is indeed true that the rights of those who wished to see Malkin speak were violated. But here's the thing: the rights of Americans are violated every single day in every city of America. Murders, rapes, thefts, and even gang warfare are not unheard of across this nation, year in and year out. Moreover, the data is clear that police agencies are really quite bad at bringing these criminals to justice.
So, should we call in the feds to solve these problems? There were more than fifty homicides just in the city of Denver last year. There were many more assaults and attempted murders. Doesn't this level of bloodshed constitute a sort of "insurrection" against the decent people of the city? Certainly if we're going to be free and loose with terms like these, as is now apparently the MO of advocates for federal intervention, our conclusion could easily be yes. We might conclude the local police are unwilling to do what it takes to "establish order" and do something about these terrorists and thugs. Will sending in the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security solve this problem?
Fortunately, cooler heads have somehow prevailed, and "sending in the feds" is not a run-of-the-mill policy option. This makes even more sense when we remember that there is zero reason to assume federal cops are better at bringing peace to a city than the state or local officials. These feds are the same people and organizations that have been running a failed and disastrous war on drugs for decades. These are the people who daily spy on law-abiding Americans, in blatant violation of the Bill of Rights. These are the people who were blindsided by 9/11 in spite of decades of receiving fat paychecks to "keep us safe." These are the people (i.e., especially the FBI) who have conspired against Americans in order to unseat a democratically elected president.
Unfortunately, old habits die hard and the myth prevails on both the left and the right that if we're not getting the result we want from politicians, then the answer lies in calling in other politicians from somewhere else to "solve" the problem. But just as it would be contrary to basic notions of self-government and self-determination to call in the UN or the Chinese government to "protect rights" in the United States, the same is true of calling in federal bureaucrats to "fix" the shortcomings and incompetence of state and local bureaucrats. The American revolutionaries created a decentralized, locally controlled polity for a reason. Abolishing federalism to achieve short-term political ends is a reckless way to go.
Shelton Derangement Syndrome: Which Republicans Will Side with Fed Groupthink?
Judy Shelton's long and bumpy Federal Reserve nomination cleared an important hurdle last week when the Senate Banking Committee voted on party lines to send her for final consideration before the full Senate. Right away, Shelton's nomination received pushback from the resistance wing of the Republican Party, with Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski going on the record as opposing her nomination. With unanimous Democratic objection to Shelton, it would take just two more Republican dissenters to eliminate the most interesting Federal Reserve nominee in recent history.
While it's easy to simplify the political intrigue as just yet another inner-DC Trump proxy war, the battle over Judy Shelton's nomination—particularly in the context of the Fed's actions over the last few months—is very useful as an illustration of our wise senators' remarkably shallow grasp of monetary policy. It is true that there are reasonable criticisms of some of Shelton's past work, including her more recent pivot toward a more Trump-friendly championing of an interest rate cut last summer. However, these criticisms seem trite in a world where the Fed is engaging in unprecedented actions, such as buying up corporate junk bonds and utilizing BlackRock to effectively nationalize large parts of America's financial market.
It is noteworthy that many of Shelton's loudest critics have been completely silent on this matter.
One of the most common critiques waged against Dr. Shelton is that she would be a political loyalist and has questioned the value of Fed political independence. Ignoring the fact that documented American history has shown the notion of "Fed independence" to be a noble myth, I am curious to know what a politicized Fed would look like in practice. After all, the Fed has long tossed aside its traditional policy tools in no small part so that it can accommodate the political decisions made by the legislative and executive branches.
The proudly independent Jerome Powell had already bent the knee to the White House's wishes when he failed to follow through with a gradual reduction of the Fed's balance sheet as stock market turbulence created political headaches. Naturally, there were no cries then from the faux populist Sherrod Brown, who has long been in lockstep with fellow progressives in opposing any sort of monetary tightening. It is unclear whether these alleged working-class champions are intentionally advocating for policy that enriches the billionaire dollar class by boosting financial asset prices, or whether they simply don't understand the real-world consequences of what they parrot in public hearings.
Among Dr. Shelton's Republican critics has been Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who made the snide comment that "Nobody wants anybody on the Federal Reserve that has a fatal attraction to nutty ideas" following her testimony in February. Unfortunately, that seems to be precisely what we have, with a Federal Reserve engaging in levels of economic intervention beyond anything America has seen. Rather than rail against Jerome Powell's apparent dedication to turning America into Japan, during the last Senate oversight hearing he asked a few courteous questions of our wise Fed chair and signed off early.
In Senator Kennedy's defense, it's easy to take silly potshots at a public figure who has become something of a pinata to a certain class of Serious People in American financial punditry. It's much harder to be a critic of America's central banker at a time of crisis when elected officials are struggling to keep up with daily news. But it is precisely the fact that legislators are utterly ill-equipped to provide serious checks on Federal Reserve "expertise" that someone like Dr. Shelton would be the rare plus to the Fed's board.
While it is unlikely that if confirmed Dr. Shelton would masterfully reveal that she is actually the gold bug the media has depicted her as, what is clear is that she would give the Federal Reserve something it desperately needs—ideological diversity. This is also why Very Serious People hate her. Shelton's willingness to challenge the deified "PhD" standard of modern fiat money and question such sacred cows as Fed independence makes her a potentially dangerous threat to the groupthink that has become far too pervasive in central banks. Dr. Shelton understands the dangers of central banks becoming de facto central planners in modern economies, and she understands the valuable role that gold played in past monetary systems. She reads and respects the ideas of serious heterodox monetary scholars whose perspectives have long been completely ignored within Fed deliberations. She even received her education in places like Portland and Utah, quite a different resume from most of her Ivy League–trained colleagues.
If confirmed, will Judy Shelton be a revolutionary force within America's central bank? Almost certainly not. Just as no election will truly drain the swamp in Washington, no Fed nominee is going to restore humility to the Eccles Building.
Instead, Shelton's nomination is best seen as a litmus test for Republican senators. Are you interested in actually promoting ideological diversity within American institutions, or are you simply willing to stand with the academic gatekeepers that have given us the Federal Leviathan that we have today?
We know where Mitt Romney and Susan Collins stand. We shall soon see where the rest of their colleagues fall.
Why "Sortition" Offers an Alternative to Our Corrupt Ruling Class
As the lockdowns have shown, even well-established democracies are unable to mobilize the judicial and parliamentary tools to ward off the onslaught on liberty. Without means of legal resistance, people have had to accept that the basis of their livelihood has been taken away or at least severely damaged.
Democracy by popular vote provided no guarantee against tyranny. Given the failure of the usual system of democracy by competitive election, it might be time to give "demarchy" a try. There's no reason to assume that it would be any worse than what we have now.
Under a system of demarchy, also called sortition, the people's representatives on the legislative body are selected through lot. Concerning the method, only sortition requires a random mechanism to select a representative sample of the population to serve as the lawgivers.
The problems with the present system of democracy through the election of professional politicians who represent political parties are well known and documented.
As I've explained here at mises.org in the past, this method has a long history.
Critics of demarchy claim that a parliament whose members are selected by chance has less expertise than an elected parliament and that this would increase the power of the bureaucracy. The truth, however, is that the specific knowledge that is now present in the assemblies is in knowing how to gain and to exert power. Nonpolitical competence is missing. Even more so, the current system of party politics has led to a huge bureaucracy and a massive buildup of the power of the state apparatus. The political parties and the bureaucracy cooperate to maximize their power, which they achieve by having more state, not less.
With the public's support to change the structure of the party democracy, the first step would be to complement the present system with an additional chamber. In this chamber—a kind of senate or upper house—members chosen by lot would possess veto rights over the decisions taken by the parliament (Congress) and government (the presidency) including the judiciary (Supreme Court). Such a "fourth power" would be the "voice of the people." Although it is not yet a government and not yet the lawgiver, the senate composed of members chosen by lot has the right to stop the encroachments of government and of the state bureaucracy because of the veto power it holds.
The next step would be to create a general assembly to serve as the prime lawgiving body. The assembly must be large enough to represent the people. For that purpose, it must comprise persons who are selected randomly from among the constituency. Establishing the general assembly requires a reform of the election laws. In order to achieve this, libertarians must get a majority in the existing parliament (Congress). The final step in the reform of the state structure would be to add a supervisory body and an executive branch of the assembly.
Mises the Sunny Pessimist
Ludwig von Mises was called several names and epithets in his life, by his admirers and enemies alike. His friends and colleagues dubbed him the "Last Knight of Liberalism," while his critics called him intransigent, fanatic, and even less flattering epithets.
Just recently I came across another nickname the great Austrian had in the 1920s and 30s: the sunny pessimist. Writing to Bettina Greaves in 1974, Karl Menger, the son of the famous economist, recounts how this came about:
In the years 1927–36, I often met Mises in homes of common friends. In the second half of that period he mad[e] the most terrible predictions. (Once, I was told, a lady after listening to him for half an hour retired and had to be comforted.) All his gloomy prophesies (later surpassed by reality) were uttered with complete equanimity and a constant smile, which earned him the nickname of the sunny pessimist.
It is easy to understand how Mises could be pessimistic in the 1920s and '30s, as Europe was descending rapidly into the hell of socialism. He could explain almost in real time how the policies of the Nazis and the socialists they replaced in power led to the destruction of civilization and the world war. Omnipotent Government from 1944 is perhaps his fullest explanation of the process of the destruction of German civilization, but he saw the same trends in other European countries. Thus, in 1940, in the manuscript that was later published under the title Interventionism: An Economic Analysis, Mises wrote that the Nazis had practically won before they even invaded France; the policies of the western democracies were practically indistinguishable from the National Socialists', and the French government found it more important to prosecute war profiteers than to ensure adequate provisioning of the French army.
It is more impressive that Mises kept calm and smiling throughout, just like Vera Lynn urged the British soldiers to. Already at the end of the First World War, Mises recounts in his Memoirs (p. 55), he had arrived at the "hopeless pessimism that had long pervaded the best minds of Europe." Yet his personal philosophy allowed him to escape the apathy such pessimism can lead to. Already as a teenager he had chosen a line from Virgil: tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito (do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it) as his motto. This continued to be his attitude through the darkest days of European history.
Another anecdote recounted by Rudolf J. Klein, one of Mises's pupils, may substantiate Mises's prophetic abilities. Writes Klein:
In 1935 he [Mises] came back to Vienna from Geneva for a short visit. I saw him at his old office at the Chamber of Commerce and asked what he thought would be the final outcome of the Hitler regime. He replied (in 1935!), "When one wing of the German army will be at Vladivostock and the other at Gibraltar, the whole thing will break down!"
Aside from the geographic inaccuracies—as is well known, the Germans never invaded Spain and they were stopped at Moscow and Stalingrad, not Vladivostok—Mises's foresight is eerie. Others, it is true, predicted German aggression throughout the thirties, but those predictions seem based on little more than Teutophobia. Mises, on the contrary, loved German culture, was well read in the German classics and German philosophy, and it pained him deeply to see the destruction of German and European civilization. Yet he understood the inevitable outcome of socialism and autarky: the breakdown of the international division of labor and war.
Mises's social philosophy is just as relevant today as ninety years ago for understanding the chaos around us. Ideas rule the world, and the real factor supporting the ruling elite is always the dominant ideologies. Just like Mises had to battle the Marxist and non-Marxist socialists who took power across Europe in the first decades of the twentieth century (and in most places hold on to it to this day), so today we are faced with cultural Marxists and progressive mobs. Since there is no way to defeat them in the long run except by exposing their erroneous and antisocial doctrines, and since the "progressive" barbarians may well remain in control for the foreseeable future (and cause untold damage to the economic and spiritual civilization of the West—or what's left of it), it's well to keep before us Mises' personal example. There are reasons enough to be pessimistic, but let us at least be sunny pessimists.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.
New Unemployment Increased to 1.4 Million Last Week as Recovery Falters
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.
New unemployment claims increased during the week of July 18, rising to 1.41 million over the previous week's total of 1.3 million (seasonally adjusted).
Last week was the first week of increasing job losses after sixteen weeks of gradual declines since March. Job losses peaked during the week of March 28 when a stunning 6.8 million workers filed for unemployment benefits.
Since then, weekly totals of newly unemployed had gradually declined until last week's increase.
In total, since mid-March, more than 52 million workers—41 percent of the working age population between 25 and 56 years of age—filed for unemployment benefits.
As of the week of July 11, "continued claims" for unemployment were sought by 16.1 million workers nationwide. Continuing claims had peaked at 24.9 million unemployed during the week of July 4. A decline in continuing unemployment from 24 million to 16 million shows some progress, but a "normal" total for continuing claims in recent years is less than 3 million. Arguably, "excess unemployment" at the moment totals at least 13 million.
The rising unemployment comes partly as a result of state governments forcing the closures of some businesses, or restricting operations, in the name of mandatory social distancing.
Not only has this reduced possible working hours for employees, but it has likely reduced business owners' efforts to expand their businesses due to the extreme uncertainty that accompanies "emergency orders" now issued by governments. These orders are not subject to debate or any meaningful legislative process, making them far more unpredictable than ordinary legislation.
Revenue has declined precipitously for many businesses in recent months.
The approximately 16 million workers who continue to collect unemployment benefits will face a big problem next week as the additional $600 unemployment benefit will run out. CNBC explains:
Tens of millions of Americans who lost their jobs because of the coronavirus pandemic have been able to collect an extra $600 in weekly federal unemployment benefits over the past few months on top of the standard amount given by their state. For many households, the enhanced benefits have been a financial lifeline amidst record job loss and a burgeoning recession.
But on July 31, that enhanced benefit will end — and that could have dire consequences for millions of households.
Political pressure is mounting to continue the benefit, and to pass another stimulus and relief package overall. Given that tax revenues have collapsed, this will require essentially "printing" the money necessary for an expansion of the "CARES" Act. The US is now on track to produce more than $3 trillion in deficit spending for the 2020 fiscal year, which ends on September 30.
Murray Rothbard's Underrated Argument for Self-Ownership
In his noneconomic magnum opus, The Ethics of Liberty (henceforth TEoL), Murray Rothbard outlined what he considered to be the fullest and most complete ethical system of freedom and libertarian natural law. Additionally—at least up until Hans-Hermann Hoppe introduced his argumentation ethics—Rothbard also considered this book to contain the strongest available ethical case for libertarian self-ownership, property, and the nonaggression principle. The most famous and elaborate component of Rothbard's moral case is his natural law system, which was a renovation of older Scholastic and Thomistic natural law and took up the majority of TEoL's early chapters. I do not, however, consider his natural law to be Rothbard's strongest case for liberty, even though he seemed to think it was.
Natural law is very interesting and enlightening, but Rothbard's real strongest argument is one which I rarely see mentioned (besides Kuznicki's interesting summary) and which I call the Rothbardian trilemma. Rothbard lays it out almost offhand, to the side of what he seems to think is his primary argument, in chapter 8, "Interpersonal Relations: Ownership and Aggression." Here is how he introduces it:
Here there are two alternatives: either we may lay down a rule that each man should be permitted (i.e., have the right to) the full ownership of his own body, or we may rule that he may not have such complete ownership. If he does, then we have the libertarian natural law for a free society as treated above. But if he does not, if each man is not entitled to full and 100 percent self-ownership, then what does this imply? It implies either one of two conditions: (1) the "communist" one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another—a system of rule by one class over another. These are the only logical alternatives to a state of 100 percent self-ownership for all.
Essentially, the argument goes like this: someone must control our bodies, because otherwise we are left in a contradictory state where we can do nothing with ourselves, not even commit suicide, because we would be controlling (or, in the case of suicide, damaging) property that we do not own. Now, if someone must control our bodies, there are three different ways we can arrange that right of control—which is what we call right of ownership—of bodies:
- Everyone owns ("the libertarian natural law for a free society")
- Everyone owns everyone else equally ("Universal and Equal Other-ownership," as Rothbard calls it)
- Some (group of) people own others ("Partial Ownership of One Group by Another")
Only some of these are tenable, as we shall see.
Rothbard next begins to knock down alternatives (2) and (3)—either showing them to be untenable or unethical. First, he deals with (3):
here, one person or group of persons, G, are entitled to own not only themselves but also the remainder of society, R. But, apart from many other problems and difficulties with this kind of system, we cannot here have a universal or natural-law ethic for the human race. We can only have a partial and arbitrary ethic, similar to the view that Hohenzollerns are by nature entitled to rule over non-Hohenzollerns.
Essentially, option (3) fails the universalizability test: if you would choose this option, the burden of proof falls on you to show why some should rule. Ask yourself, what is it about a king or an aristocracy that gives them the right to rule their subjects? The the divine right of kings previously supplied just that sort of justification—yet even that justification fails, because it is an impossible task. Although there are many differences between rulers and subjects, there are none which are ethically relevant.
Next, Rothbard takes (2) out of the running. First, he points out that "if there are more than a very few people in the society, this alternative must break down and reduce to…partial rule by some over others." This is because, he says, "it is physically impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man." It is impossible, in other words, for every man to get permission from every other man before he does what he wants to do: we would all die before that was possible. Moreover, as Rothbard says in the next paragraph, "it is surely absurd to hold that no man is entitled to own himself, and yet to hold that each of these very men is entitled to own a part of all other men!" For, how could they vote on what the other people should do, without exercising unilateral control over their own decision and mouths? If they did not exercise such unilateral control, there would first have to be a vote on how everyone could vote—ad infinitum! In this way, we can see that universal and equal other-ownership is already an impossible situation.
Now, it is possible that such control rights, which Rothbard would call ownership, could be exercised on a "retroactive" basis: essentially, everyone is free to exercise unilateral control over themselves until there are enough votes telling them to do something else to outweigh their partial share in their own bodies—two votes, in the case of equal other-ownership. This would solve the problem of infinite voting regress, but it would likely result in first-come-first-served aristocracy, where whoever can jet around the fastest (along with a buddy) and "command" the most people would own all of those people, including how those people vote. Additionally, this assumes that one needs only a majority of those present, and not a unanimity, to make a decision—an assumption which is in fact contrary to universal equal ownership. All this really devolves back to (3), since those who aren't around currently don't get to exercise ownership rights and become slaves of the person with the bigger army unless they bring an army of equal size. Also, this arrangement, where everyone has de facto control over themselves, but a different kind of control over others, which requires not their permission before their "property" is used, but their assertion of a contrary rule, is a double standard which would actually have to be voted for by an equal other-owning collective like the one described above, therefore not actually escaping infinite regress.
There are a few other options which Kuznicki mentions in his article which I would like to address briefly as well, since the natural objection to the Rothbardian trilemma is to attempt to break out of it. First, he muses that "in the real world, people may acquire use rights not only through ownership, but also through lease, rent, borrowing, or other forms of agreement with the owner….it is not necessarily clear that all types of use rights must stem from someone's ownership somewhere." My challenge to this, then, is to find just such a moral claim which does not simply regress to option (3) as the use-until-contradiction option I covered above does. This is a claim which would have to be substantiated, because as far as I am aware, partial ownership, no ownership, and whole ownership cover the entire breadth of possible arrangements of control rights. After mentioning briefly a possible theological turn for this, Kuznicki moves on to his final point on the subject: "if we have use rights, but not ownership, many of the same assertions Rothbard later makes will still be valid." Here I would ask, What is the difference between having use, or control, rights, and having ownership? If I have a right to control every aspect of something, that is identical to full ownership: if someone else tries to control it, that means that for a time I do not have control of it. If I have only partial control rights over something, then I have partial ownership, which is already covered in the trilemma. Hence, we return to option (1): libertarian self-ownership, which reveals itself to be the only option which is both desirable and logically possible.
In conclusion, I find this to be a much stronger case for libertarian self-ownership than any other that I am aware of. It requires, moreover, very little buildup or framework, and makes almost no assumptions, making it ideal for those not already willing to consider libertarianism. In light of this, I am very surprised to find that it is not mentioned all that often. I think that, with some extending and defending, it could even be stronger than argumentation ethics.
Why the MSM Hates Judy Shelton
Listen to the Audio Mises Wire version of this article.
Imagine if a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors said the following:
When governments manipulate exchange rates to affect currency markets, they undermine the honest efforts of countries that wish to compete fairly in the global marketplace. Supply and demand are distorted by artificial prices conveyed through contrived exchange rates.
Or something honest like:
The Fed should focus on stable money as a key factor in economic performance. Given that central banks today are the world's biggest currency manipulators, it's imperative that the next chairman prioritize the integrity of the dollar.
And what if they showed an understanding of both history and sound money principles with something intelligent:
For all the talk of a "rules-based" system for international trade, there are no rules when it comes to ensuring a level monetary playing field. The classical gold standard established an international benchmark for currency values, consistent with free-trade principles.
While she's not a governor yet, the quotes were from Trump's appointee Judy Shelton, approved this week by the Senate banking committee on party lines, at a vote of 13–12. To be nominated to the board of directors, Ms. Shelton will now be put forward to be voted on by the full senate, fifty-three of the hundred being Republicans.
Yet below we can see everything wrong with the mainstream media (MSM), mainstream economists, and American politics starting with the New York Times article entitled "God Help Us if Judy Shelton Joins the Fed." Former counselor to the Treasury secretary during the Obama administration Steven Rattner began with:
Trump's latest unqualified nominee to the Federal Reserve Board must be rejected.
The defaming article shows Mr. Rattner has no care nor understanding of economics. According to him, Ms. Shelton is known for taking "long-discredited positions in the monetary system," referring to the gold standard, as he claims it was the "culprit in deepening the Great Depression." Clearly he is no fan of (or perhaps isn't educated enough to have heard of) Mises or Rothbard.
Mr. Rattner, fueled by ignorance, continues with what some may describe as laudable on Ms. Shelton's part:
Among other heretical stances, she has supported the abolition of the Federal Reserve itself, putting her in a position to undermine the very institution she is being nominated to serve.
A similar tone was found in the National Review, a magazine which characterizes itself using the highly nebulous and ill-defined "modern conservative movement." Going back several months, the "controversy" surrounding Judy Shelton was shared in an oxymoronic write-up called: "The Wrong Kind of 'Intellectual Diversity' at the Fed." It is nothing more than a rant showing that the senior editor also knows little about history or economics but, being in a position to publish, does so with a vociferous opinion. He begins with the usual appeal to popularity:
First, she has been a single-minded advocate of a policy that most economists rightly reject: the revival of the gold standard.
What is popular is not always true, especially regarding economics. The article cites quotes from 2009 in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to discredit Shelton by showing she has not always been consistent in her stances over the past decade. The rant implies that all other members of the Fed and economists have.
Unfortunately, some people claim to like diversity, but not when it's different from their own bias. The senior editor who wrote the hit piece can be found on Twitter.
Unlike the New York Times and National Review, surprising as it may seem, CNBC's position was more neutral when discussing the Senate hearing:
She faced persistent and at-times hostile questions about her support for the gold standard, her beliefs on whether bank deposits should be insured and whether the Fed should be independent of political influences.
Last but not least, the Wall Street Journal wrote it best, much to the chagrin of its rivals:
the news write-ups inevitably described her with adjectives like "controversial." She should take it as a badge of honor, given how she would provide needed intellectual diversity at the Fed.
Only in a world this backward, where in a supposedly free country socialism is considered good and capitalism bad, could Shelton receive so much scorn. To think that one out of seven members of the board could have ideas other than inflationist dogma but would be shunned for speaking up says a lot about the society in which we are living. Perhaps the real reason is that, if appointed, Judy Shelton could be in line for the position of Federal Reserve chair?
Ironically enough, as long Congress stays partisan, we may see Shelton in one of the most powerful central banking positions in the world. It won't "End the Fed" overnight, but maybe it's one step closer!
The Return of Ben and Janet
With the Fed blackout until next week's committee meeting, former Fed chairs have been back in the limelight, pushing an agenda not necessarily in the best interest of "We the People." As explained in an article featured in the New Yorker:
Although neither of them has appeared before a congressional committee since leaving the Fed, they have both emerged in recent months as vocal supporters of using monetary and fiscal policy aggressively to support the stricken economy.
This is no surprise considering that Ben Bernanke championed the "whatever it takes" attitude during the Great Recession, authoring one of the most proinflationist/anticapitalist essays of all time: Deflation – Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here. As well as calling for money creation, Bernanke and Janet Yellen voiced concerns that the White House's upcoming spending bill shouldn't be limited to a trillion dollars, harkening back to their glory days as chair, with the idea that it's central bankers, not the free market, who bring about ultimate economic prosperity. As reported:
Yellen said it was hard to tell precisely how much financial support might be needed, so it would be unwise to impose a spending cap. Bernanke said, "Whatever it takes is probably what we need to be thinking now."
The duo's proclamations are not the first during this crisis. Last month they headlined a letter signed by over 150 economists imploring Congress to:
immediately pass a "multifaceted relief bill of a magnitude commensurate with the challenges our economy faces."
In the letter they argue that more spending is needed in order to save the economy. They even acknowledge the unprecedented levels of Congress and Federal Reserve support but insist that even more needs to be done! Strikingly, but not surprisingly given the deception and fear tactics required when asking for trillions of dollars, they warn:
Evidence from the Great Recession indicates that a prolonged economic downturn will seriously damage the economic opportunities and wealth accumulation of all Americans, but especially of families of color.
The letter was posted via the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, founded by political insider John Podesta; it's a nonprofit organization which claims to be "dedicated to advancing evidence-backed ideas and policies that promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth." It implies that the government and Fed support is for the people, especially the disenfranchised. According to the "experts," intervention in the free market is necessary in order to avoid "prolonged suffering and stunted economic growth." The option always seems to be that unless some receive bailout money, the poor will suffer. Of course, often the recipients of bailout money are those other than "the poor."
Under the guise of economic know-how, these prominent people, aided by the mainstream media, convince the world that increasing the money supply to bail some out at the expense of others is a good thing. Unmentioned are the national debt, dollar destruction, and impossible task of allocating new money to those who supposedly "need" it.
That there is no voice testifying before Congress explaining the Austrian business cycle or blaming central bankers for creating the crisis we are in currently is quite concerning. No, "The people" only see two former Fed chairs testifying before Congress, demanding more spending, backed by economists from the most distinguished universities and colleges across the nation, like Harvard, Brown, Stanford, and Berkeley. To the masses, the experts know what's best and it, of course, seems reasonable to give money to those most in need. Unfortunately, these ideas are not based on sound economic principles, and the disenfranchised groups as well as those on Main Street most likely will not benefit from these recommendations.
Isn't it fitting that the ones who bring us into crisis are always the ones to bring us out? The Fed's playbook hasn't changed much in the last decade, other than in terms of the scope and scale of money being created. Few seem concerned with the anticapitalist policies that got us to this point, nor do they seem capable of understanding that while they claim to fight for equality, central bankers' interventionism and penchant for the printing press bring about an outcome diametrically opposed to the causes they claim to champion.
Are Austrians Necessarily Anarchists?
Oftentimes, people unfamiliar with the Austrian school tend to bundle it with political anarchism. There are—I believe—different possible explanations for that, but the most prominent ones seem to me the following two. First, it's true that some Austrians can in effect be considered political anarchists as well. Second, the Austrian school is not only a school of thought about economics, but also (at least) about epistemology and political philosophy—i.e., it's concerned with issues such as the relationship between individuals and states.
However, all Austrians share a common denominator: they all accept the teachings of Human Action, Mises's magnum opus. Hence, in order to determine whether Austrianism does necessarily imply political anarchism as well, it might be sensible to scrutinize Human Action: What does it say about the role of state and government in society and how far they can go in subjecting individuals?
Is Unfettered Individual Freedom a Natural Right?
Many anarchists ground their anarchism on the concept of "natural law" or "natural rights"—namely, the idea that something as "natural law" does really exist and that it mandates the inalienability of individual freedom to the government or the sovereign.
However, such a stance entails two logical problems. First, one needs to postulate the existence of enforceable rights which do not coincide with the ones established by law. Second, one needs to compellingly conclude that such rights are objectively in favor of freedom rather than some other ideal—say, equality, tribalism, nationalism, etc.
On the first topic Mises's answer is straightforward enough: justice exists only insofar as it is established by law. As a matter of fact, he writes,
The notion of justice can logically only be resorted to de lege lata [i.e., the law as it exists]. It makes sense only when approving or disapproving concrete conduct from the point of view of the valid laws of the country….There is no such thing as an absolute notion of justice not referring to a definite system of social organization. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 717, emphasis added)
Moreover, Mises does not only agree on ultimately resorting to laws in order to asses justice, but he goes even further—embracing a viewpoint about freedom and, more generally, human cooperation, rooted in a contractualistic philosophy. In fact, Mises writes,
It is therefore nonsense to rant about an alleged "natural" and "inborn" freedom which people are supposed to have enjoyed in the ages preceding the emergence of social bonds. Man was not created free; what freedom he may possess has been given to him by society….Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 280, emphasis added)
On the second topic Mises is manifestly skeptical when it comes to hypothesizing that we can find, or prove, any kind of objectivity about "natural laws"—or about "natural morals" that we can derive cogent "natural laws" from. In fact, he writes that
There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law….The notion of right and wrong is a human device. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 716, emphasis added)
Furthermore, Mises goes as far as stating that, were a "natural law" to really exist, it would be sensible to think of it as a ruthless law of abuse and aggression—in accordance with which no social cooperation nor division of labor would be feasible. As we can read,
nature does not generate peace and good will. The characteristic mark of the "state of nature" is irreconcilable conflict. Each specimen is the rival of all other specimens. The means of subsistence are scarce and do not grant survival to all. The conflicts can never disappear. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 669, emphasis added)
Lastly, Mises clearly lays out his skepticism about "natural rights" as a useful concept when it comes to defending property rights—a fallacious argument that can be refuted, on a priori grounds, by those claiming that "equality" rather than "property" is what "nature" imposes upon human beings. In Mises's own words,
It is useless to stand upon an alleged "natural" right of individuals to own property if other people assert that the foremost "natural" right is that of income equality. Such disputes can never be settled. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 281)
The Right Place for Government
Once the "natural law" argument in favor of anarchism is refuted, we are left with an open question: Is Government useful to human beings? For Mises, the answer is "yes, it is"—but with a few caveats.
Without entering into the details about how detrimental government interventionism is for the economy (part six of Human Action is entirely devoted to it, and Austrians are well aware of the damages caused by currency manipulation, trade barriers, legal monopolies, labor unions, etc.), we cannot deny that Mises conceived of government as something that, taken with a grain of salt, could foster human cooperation and prosperity.
For instance, he writes about taxes and government that
As far as the government fulfills its social functions and the taxes do not exceed the amount required for securing the smooth operation of the government apparatus, they are necessary costs and repay themselves. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 738)
Lastly, Mises's distrust of natural spontaneous social order and anarchism is clearly set out at the very beginning of part two of Human Action, where we can read:
An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government. (Human Action, [1949] 1998, p. 149, emphasis added)
Therefore, we can conclude that Mises accepts indeed a role for governmental intervention, that is, the enactment and the enforcement of the rule of law—whereby "naturally" weak members of society are protected against violence and abuse on the part of stronger ones.
Contrarily to what is often claimed, one can consider him/herself an Austrian disciple even without feeling necessarily compelled to be bundled with political anarchism: Austrian sound teachings about economics do not necessarily imply that no room whatsoever is left for governmental intervention.
Nonetheless, the government's role should be kept to the bare minimum, and its attempts to meddle with resource allocation—via fractional reserve banking, fiat money, legal monopolies, trade barriers, etc.—must be forcefully and explicitly opposed.


text:
Q: One of my coworkers is always making remarks like, "I'm not sure that dress style is right for you" or "You look so tired. Don't you feel well?" I'm really sick of these negative comments. How can I get her to cut it out?
A: No one likes those kinds of insensitive remarks, which are clearly different from sincere, constructive advice. To get her off your back, try a light touch first: "Gee, maybe you should check out more fashion magazines. My personal shopper says this is a great look for me!" or "Actually I feel especially well rested today." As long as you don't let your anger show, you'll avoid a flap-and the combination of subtle humor and sarcasm just might make your point. There's also the possibility that her behavior's so ingrained that your polite retorts will roll right off her. In that case, I'd take the direct approach: "I've tried to let you know your remarks bother me, but I guess you haven't taken the hint. I"d really appreciate it if you'd stop commenting on my appearance. I'm sure you understand." No doubt she will.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Summary: A good witch
Glinda the Good
Owned by: cvanscott
Gender: Female
Age: Ageless
Group: Witches
Game: The Rebuilding of Oz
Physical AppearanceTall, slender with shimmering blonde hair, Glinda is the example of beauty and perfection.
HistoryGlinda was responsible for guiding Dorothy Gale through her journey when she first came to OZ. Since then, she has taken up the role of Ruler in Emerald City alongside the leadership council of the Lion, Tin Woodsman and Scarecrow, albeit reluctantly and temporarily. She is kind and fair, wanting only peace and prosperity for the Land of OZ.
This character is owned by: cvanscott
Character questions
Recent Activity
Mentioned in the post Getting Started Mar 24, 2020, 12:18am
Mentioned in the post The cost of being Good Dec 29, 2018, 6:02pm
Mentioned in the post Guild Master Aug 27, 2018, 6:51pm
Mentioned in the post Your mission Aug 26, 2018, 6:49pm
Mentioned in the post Decisions Decisions Decisions Aug 12, 2018, 7:50pm
Mentioned in the post Come, we will figure it out together Aug 12, 2018, 6:28pm
Mentioned in the post I Accept Jul 29, 2018, 1:47am
Mentioned in the post You're staying Jul 28, 2018, 6:47pm
Mentioned in the post My Not So Blue Sky Jul 20, 2018, 4:01am
Mentioned in the post Don't misunderstand me Jul 19, 2018, 7:09pm
Updated character profile Dec 30, 2017, 2:20pm
Updated character profile May 20, 2017, 8:12am


text:
MongoDB, Inc.
MongoDB is the leading NoSQL database, empowering businesses to be more agile and scalable. Fortune 500 companies and startups alike are using MongoDB to create new types of applications, improve customer experience, accelerate time to market and reduce c
Twitter: MongoDB, Inc.
LinkedIn: MongoDB, Inc.
Facebook: MongoDB, Inc.
Youtube: MongoDB, Inc.
Ownership / Organization Type: Privately Owned
Tax Status: Full tax
Minority Owned: Unknown
Woman Owned: No
# of Employees: 0
# of R&D Personnel: 0
# of Support Personnel: 0
# of Professional Services Personnel: 0
Company Uses Contractors?: Unknown


text:
Sharing cookies on the Internet
• points · 1 comments
repost of https://hugelol.com/lol/433477
1 Comments
Trending Videos
Next Posts
A small moral dilemma I came across today
I'm not good at titles either
Mom gave me this amazing card for my bday
Oh my god just post the video next time.
Making a difference :)
Железный гигант здесь сучка
No step on snek
My parents are at a casino that has a promotion going on where you win a free pasta dinner if you get a 4 of a Kind. This was their free pasta dinner.
But is his penis feminin?
Freaking Tobias Kills Me Every Time
The many ways Americans use Nutella.
This OkCupid pic is way too real
Imagine studying journalism for 3 years and then writing this article
XBOX is savage
What a time to be alive
10 Minutes later.... HAHAHAHAHAHAH
He's gonna need 20 ccs of thoughts and prayers.
Walk across at your own risk.
even better :^)
Teen logic....
Was skyping with the gf when the Hedgehog saluted me
The 12 year old in me laughs uncontrollably when I read this book to my son
Night out---> Moring after
keep expanding
How drunk girls look at 3 am waiting for their carne asada fries.
Best Job Wanted Ad Ever?
Unlike YALL, I get my news from a reliable source
New Black Metal Band Name
A new element has been discovered!
Running gag
It's a bit old, but I hope it still checks out
I can't even remember how old I am.
good game
You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?
To protect and serve alcohol.
Sad Truths About Mythical Creatures
In light of recent events
I saw a familiar face today on the side of a bus. Couldn't stop laughing.
This picture makes me incredibly happy.
haha stupid
Cheeky Japanesy
Well, it seems you've discovered our secret. How unfortunate for you...
The sole reason HL is still running
Snap back to reality...
Patrick Stewart talks about his manhood...
James Cameron is hilarious.
fill in the blank
That didn't seem to work...
Happy women's day
I was bored during class and painted along with Bob Ross using MS paint.
meanwhile in Venice
Butthole Tickler Caught?
The attack of the clones
Meeting with my therapist
Because regular bikes aren't already foot powered
He's the hero Gotham needs right meow.
Just your average sh*tpost
The Shatner Comma.....
Morty's first squeak toy. It's a pig. He thinks we hurt it when squeezing it, so he's been protecting it for the last 45 mins.
ravioli, ravioli end my life so i wont feel lonely :')
I'll take "Intentional Mistranslations" for 800, Trebek
So uncivilized
Hold my grape juice
*Angery reacts only*
How to speak fluent Italian .
hey look it's me !!!
zZzZz just 5 more minutes
This is a terrible idea, who thought this would be good?
When u can't play with legos anymore
Music cape
***ing furries
Human Reproductive System
Colonel Volgin knows how to cook 'em
This is what happens when you let your boyfriend take the cat to the groomer.
another good song from not so way back.
When you turn on the Mature filter
That will get her moving
Classic Samuel Jackson
Ebony and Ivory
"I can't leave you alone for one minute, can I?"
Essential Oils
I would inform him that it'll all be worth it
Titles are not my strong suite
Who are you?
Granny Bush, YEE!
When your local school shooter gets a upgrade
How to use Google to find where the rich people live
Rob Lowe robbing Lowe's
The pig's dilemma
I wish people in my genereation could appreciate REAL artists
Honey Nut
Food budget


text: FatBad-KT Posted January 25, 2018 Hi Cyan, Currently, the level 6 landing reinforcement allows entry to hidden barracks, which is no longer available in the game. Is this something Korea Aion kept in for their landing buff in 5.8 even though the instance was removed? Maybe you can update this landing reinforcement to remove that instance from the list and add additional entry for another instance maybe? Maybe 2 additional entry to frozen monolith would be a great motivator for factions to work together and work hard actively to boost the landing reinforcement. I'd like to hear what you think about it, or what you can propose. Thanks. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Sold Out
$45.00 $28.00
This product is sold out
This Dan-Pak Hydration Pack is for you spacey cool creatures. It features a greyish purple holographic shine with a mint green patch and a matching purple and mint removeable butterfly mouthpiece. It holds 2 liters of water and is super lightweight so you can hydrated while you dance, hike, or whatever!


text: Sex is a key part of any relationship and a means of creating intimacy and maintaining your connection. Because it's so important, when you're in a dry spell or stuck in a routine, it can reduce the quality of your time together and thus impact how you and your partner feel about each other. To get yourself back on track, these three strategies to spice up your sex life can help.


text:
Long haired boy on the beach at Melanesia
Vanuatu is at the crossroads between Polynesian and Melanesian migration, and its population often demonstrate stunning combinations of their respective attributes.
Long hair is any hairstyle which is relatively long. Exactly what constitutes "long hair" can change from culture to culture, or even within cultures. For example, a woman with chin-length hair in many cultures may be said to have short hair, while a man with the same length of hair in some of the same cultures would be said to have long hair. Scientists view long hair as playing a large part in any animal species' natural selection, since hair length is frequently a sign of health. Freudian psychoanalysts also see it in a sexual light, as a representation of the id's release from the suppression of the superego.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Trendy Long hairstyle for boys
Posted by admin at 11:02 AM
Labels: Boys hairstyles, long hairstyles
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Girls Rock!!!!!
This weeks Atlantic Hearts Sketch designed by Michelle Stewart.
What a great design it is, I'm in love with this one.
Looking at the sketch the first thing that came to mind was the girls rock stamp set. I knew I was going to work it into the card. And from there I decided Claire Paper Pack was the paper I was going to use.
From that point the card come together in no time.
Products Used:
Ink: Hollyhock. Z2128
Olive. Z2137
Outdoor Denim. Z2140
Sunset. Z2191
Paper: Claire. X7166B
Stamps: Girls Rock. C1538
Embellishments: Durables Round. Z1706
Shop for your supplies here. Scrappin with Carrie


text:
The other night, I was at a restaurant with my friend. After checking out the menu, I decided to order the veggie tacos, since they sounded like a pretty safe bet…and my friend said to me in surprise, "Huh. I thought you were going to go with the quinoa bowl" (she knows me well).
I reread the menu description for the quinoa bowl and responded, "yeah, I guess the menu description didn't really entice me."
You see, that's the power of words.
Let me elaborate…
The Power of Words
When you go out to eat, you often don't know what the food will taste like (unless you've tried it before). The only thing that you can use to make your decision are the menu descriptions.
And the way that those menu descriptions are written can make all the difference. One study even found that well written, descriptive menu descriptions "…increased sales by 27% and improved attitudes towards the food, attitudes towards the restaurant, and intentions toward repatronage."
Bad menu descriptions can do just the opposite. And worst case scenario: They can cost a restaurant its customers.
The same goes for your product descriptions. A good product description can build trust, set high expectations, and increase conversions.
Want proof? Teespring found that a simple change in language resulted in a conversion increase of 12.7%.
Here's yet another example that demonstrates the power of words: In an experiment, a social psychologist asked to cut a line to use a Xerox machine. She asked the same question in three different ways:
- Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine? 60% said yes
- Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I'm in a rush? 94% said yes
- Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies? 93% said yes
Simply stating a "because," no matter the reason, can therefore mean the difference between a "yes" and a "no."
Now that I've presumably convinced you just how powerful words can be, hopefully you know how important it is to have a good product description.
You might also want to find out how to write a product description that sells. If that's the case, then today's your lucky day! In this blog post, I'm going to share with you 10 different ways that you can do that.
How to Write a Product Description That Sells
1. Use Power Words
There are certain words that elicit emotion. These are called power words. You can think of them like the superfoods of copywriting.
Want to trigger greed? Curiosity? Fear? Someone's inner laziness? Believe it or not, there are a number of power words that can help you do all of this.
Depending on the emotion(s) that you want to bring out in your prospects, try sprinkling these proven power words throughout your product description…and watch your conversions increase.
2. Simplify Things
In the early days of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg described the social media platform as "Something where you can type someone's name and find out a bunch of information about them."
In 2011, Travis Kalanick pitched Uber as "You push a button and in five minutes a Mercedes picks you up and takes you where you want to go." And now, Uber's one-liner is even simpler: "Tap a button, get a ride."
What do those descriptions have in common?
They are uber simple (pun intended) and easy to understand.
Just like Facebook and Uber did, make your product description so simple that in the very first sentence, your customers can understand what your product is all about and what its main benefits are. Steer clear of fancy jargon and convoluted sentences—otherwise you'll lose your prospects.
3. Speak Your Customer's Language
I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you're trying to appeal to everyone, you're going to end up appealing to no one.
You should know your ideal customer inside and out and your product description should be written to that customer and to no one else. Know the words that they use and how they speak on a day-to-day basis—and use the same language in your copy.
Inject a little personality into your writing, if relevant to your audience and brand. Have fun with it, like the men's short shorts brand, Chubbies, does:
They don't just list the features of their shorts and call it a day. Rather, they turn something that could be boring to read into something that's fun to read. The pithy feature descriptions actually make the reader laugh and want to keep reading.
Here's another one:
Granted, it might not be your style to be that humorous and laid back…what's important is that you know how your audience talks and speak to them in their language, whatever that may be.
Not sure what language that is? Do a little research to find out. Talk to your customers if you can. Pay attention to the way that they compose their emails and speak about your products. Read reviews (if you don't have any yet, you could also read your competitor's reviews). Notice what words they use to talk about your products and then use those words throughout your product description.
4. Tell a Story
Stories captivate and intrigue us. They trigger emotion and allow us to connect with the storyteller.
Take a look here at how storytelling affects the brain:
Given all of that, you probably won't be surprised to know that stories also sell. In an experiment, Rob Walker and Joshua Glenn set out to prove this. They believed that they could resell cheap, mundane thrift store products on eBay at a much higher price, simply by adding interesting stories to the product descriptions.
So they spent $129 at a thrift store on a variety of ordinary products. The average cost of each product? $1.25.
They then hired a team of writers to craft captivating stories for each of the items, which they resold on eBay.
One horse bust, originally purchased for 99 cents, sold for $62.95 (a 6258.58% increase!).
All of the items reeled in a similar profit margin; in total, the project ended up making a whopping $8,000. And all thanks to great product stories.
But all of that being said, you don't have to share a novel in your product description. You could tell people how the idea for the product originated. Or you could come up with a story where your reader is the protagonist, like drunkMall does.
drunkMall is a website that curates different products from around the web, promotes them, and then gets a commission on products that are ultimately sold.
What makes the site interesting and fun to read are the product descriptions. Take a look at this one for example:
And compare that to the original product description:
drunkMall takes something that could be totally boring and unremarkable and turns it into something cool, fun and exciting.
Check out this one too:
Unless it's Halloween, you might look at that costume and think: What use do I have for a squirrel costume? When would I ever wear that?
drunkMall addresses that hesitation right off the bat. Reading that product description, I can actually visualize showing up at a bar where my friends are one night and randomly surprising them by wearing that costume. Can't you?
The original product description on Amazon, on the other hand, doesn't quite have the same effect…
Research has found that even just imagining owning a product can increase the desire for that item. So paint a picture for your audience. Help them imagine what it would be like to own your product and how they might use it.
5. Focus on Benefits, Not Features
If you really want to write a product description that sells, then you've got to focus on the benefits of your product, not its features. Because benefits are what ultimately sell.
What's the difference? Features are the characteristics of your product, while benefits are how your product provides value for your customer. Benefits answer the question "what's in it for me?"
So a few features of the iPhone X are:
- Facetime
- True tone display
- Liquid retina HD display
- 1792-by-828-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
But who cares about all of that? Personally, I don't really know what all of that even means (except for Facetime).
Now let's take a look at the benefits of those features:
- Being able to connect with family and friends from around the world (Facetime)
- Being able to work longer without feeling as much eye strain (true tone display)
- Having a more enjoyable screen experience (the latter two)
Much more convincing, right? Wouldn't you be more inclined to buy the iPhone X knowing all of the ways that it can actually better your life? I know I would.
Now, don't get me wrong: It's important to mention your features somewhere in your product description. After all, features help to increase credibility. But for each of your features, try and think of at least one benefit. And focus primarily on those benefits when writing your product description.
Check out how Bose does it on their product page for "hearphones":
The first half of the page focuses entirely on the benefits of the product and how the hearphones will better the lives of its users. It's not until halfway down the page that they mention the features of the product. And even when the features are mentioned, they are only mentioned in relation to the benefits. They don't talk about the features without saying how those features will benefit the user:
Notice also how often the word "you" is used. "You" is one of the most persuasive words in the English language, so use it in your product description…and use it frequently.
6. Solve a Problem
Every good product solves a problem. For some products, this problem might be more obvious than others. The hearphones mentioned above solve the problem of listening in loud environments. Sunhats and UPF clothing help solve the problems of sunburn and skin cancer.
But what about a Louis Vuitton purse, for example? What problem does that solve?
Louis Vuitton is not a cheap brand, by any means. So we know that a Louis Vuitton purse isn't utilitarian. Some might say, however, that it solves the problem of feeling excluded. It makes people feel like they are of a higher status and a part of something exclusive.
According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, everyone is always trying to achieve one of the following needs (starting at the bottom):
So a Louis Vuitton purse would fulfill the esteem needs, higher up on the pyramid. The Bose hearphones might help meet the belongingness and love needs (since they help people to hear better and have better conversations). Sunhats and UPF clothing help fulfill the safety needs, since they keep people safe from sun damage.
Think about what needs your product is fulfilling and the problem that it is helping to solve.
See how ThinkGeek does it for their "Stake-Grilling Multi Tool":
Notice how ThinkGeek turns their reader (and potential customer) into the hero of the story (they even use the word "hero"). They speak directly to their audience's pain point (not knowing how to use a grill) and explain how the product will help solve that problem.
One might argue that a grill tool would meet a human being's basic needs (since it helps to make food), but the product description doesn't really talk about how the grill tool will make tasty meat. Rather, it focuses almost entirely on the fact that it will help the user to be the "star of the cookout" and impress everyone. It therefore fulfills the esteem needs (or at least one would think that it does after reading the product description).
7. Cut Out the Fluff
Ernest Hemingway once made a bet with his friends that he could write a six-word novel. His friends didn't think he could, so he wrote on a napkin the following: For sale: Baby shoes. Never used." And his friends forked over $10 each.
You know what those words mean together; nobody has to explain to you why there are unworn baby shoes for sale. You know that it can probably only mean one thing. You might even be able to imagine and feel the loss of the person who posted that ad.
Hemingway's "novel" relied on the iceberg theory, which is the idea (coined by Hemingway himself) that there are some things that go without saying. You don't have to explain every little thing to your reader…there are certain obvious things that they will pick up on naturally.
So you could say something like "This will taste as refreshing as a tall glass of lemonade on a hot summer day," and your readers will know what that tastes like. You don't have to elaborate further or explain what a hot summer day feels like.
Consider the iceberg theory as you're writing your product description. Cut out the fluff and leave out any unnecessary details. Let your readers connect the dots themselves.
8. Address Objections
Many of your potential customers are probably going to have a few hesitations about buying your product. They might be thinking well, this looks great. But does it…? Or But what if…"
It's your job to find out what those objections are and address them in your product description. Are you selling clothes? Your customers will probably be concerned about the fit and might be reassured by the fact that you offer free returns. Or you could offer a size guide, like the swimwear company, Andie does:
Is the price of your products very high? Let your customers pay in monthly installments or offer them a free trial period of your product.
The prescription glasses and sunglasses company, Warby Parker, recognizes that a big hesitation in their customer's buying process is the fact that people can't try the glasses on before buying. So they offer an at-home trial period for their customers:
Like the aforementioned brands, discover what hesitations your customers have in the buying process, and then address those objections in your product description.
9. Repeat Often
According to the illusion of truth, the more that we hear something, the more believable that information becomes.
Take advantage of this in your product description. Think about the main benefit of your product and the principal point that you want to drive home. Then try mentioning this several times throughout your product description. Chances are, your customers will come to believe it.
10. Improve Readability
Let's face it: When it comes to your product description, nobody wants to read huge chunks of text.
In fact, one study found that 79% of online users scanned content; only 16% read each word. So to improve readability and increase the chances of people actually reading your product description, you've got to make them scannable.
What does "scannable" mean exactly?
- Use a large, easy-to-read font
- Include bullet points
- Bold important words or phrases that you want your readers to pay more attention to (like your product benefits)
- Add headings throughout your content (if you have more than a few paragraphs)
- Break up your paragraphs so that you only have a few lines per paragraph
- Make sure that you have plenty of white space throughout
- Rely on the inverted pyramid (share the most important information first, followed by less important information; and finally, share the least important information last)
Conclusion: How to Write a Product Description That Sells
Getting your prospects to make the leap from website visitor to customer isn't easy. It requires well-written, enticing product descriptions, along with a little eCommerce product page optimization.
If you've been trying to figure out how to write a product description that sells, hopefully this blog post has provided you some helpful tips on how you can do that.
But before you even think about writing your product descriptions, spend some time really getting to know your audience. Understand exactly who they are, what their pain points are and how you can help them solve a certain problem they're having. Find out how they talk, taking note of the words and phrases that they use.
Then when you sit down to write your product descriptions, keep all of that in mind.
Tell your readers a story. Think about how you can connect with them on an emotional level.
Stress the benefits of your product and make your audience understand how their lives will change after owning it.
Address any hesitations and concerns that your prospects might have in the buying process.
Be descriptive and use power words to get your point across.
But more importantly, speak their language.
Need help writing your product descriptions? Let our team of copywriting experts do the heavy lifting for you! Get in touch to find out about the eCommerce marketing services that we offer.


text: Brock 3,446 Report post Posted April 19, 2011 I was just watching Ricky Loses His Voice, and Hazel's performance is so interesting. (To me, anyway. LOL) Before this appearance, she is limited to simply walking by or loitering in the background of a scene, with the one notable exception being her appearance in The Quiz Show as the woman who went over Niagara Falls in a barrell. But in Ricky Loses His Voice we have her simply CUTTING LOOSE here and being absolutely hilarious in her dance number. I always wonder why they finally decided to draft her for this musical number. She obviously had talent -- Wanda said that before she got a job as Lucy's girl Friday she was also a professional dancer -- but to the best of my recollection she was never used in another musical number until "Hello!" in Lucy Plays Cleopatra. Any other musings on the enigmatic Hazel Pierce? How about her mysterious disappearance between "Lucy Sues Mooney" in November 1967 and "Lucy & Jim Bailey" in November 1972... and then never to be seen again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Communication with your customer
Posted on Sat 10 March 2012 in Developer Read in 2 min.
Today I was having a flight from Egypt, Cairo International Airport to Kuwait International Airport and when the airplane was almost reach Kuwait the pilot keep flying in circles and never enter the Kuwaiti boards and fly to the Arabian Gulf for 15 minutes we are wondering Why is he flying in all direction but not the one to Kuwait?
This situation give me a sight for How your customer will feel when you haven't or stop giving him/her information about the software. s/he'll keep wondering what is he doing to my product? Is it done? Is it won't be done? and sometimes his/her mind will go to the opposite direction of what you are doing.
Finally we found that there is a sandstorm at Kuwait International Airport and the visibility is zero and we can't land, so we changed our direction to Dubai Airport to land there and what for the sandstorm to stop so we can get back. None of us thing in this.
The part above I wrote while I'm sitting on floor beside the power socket to charge my laptop s I can write these thoughts and here I'm from another date and time after one week from this journey sitting on my couch continue writing this post, as I felt and saw the final result of what the airline did to us, after suffering from lack of information and even if we got it we get it too late, after we landed at the destination everyone forgive the airline because it deliver what we want, we want to get home have some rest in our bed, we want to get home whatever it takes and this what the airline did but with so mistakes but after it did it we become a happy customers.
The bottom line: keep communicate with your customers and tell them what you're doing even if it's not the best way to do it or what you're facing right now, and remember what the customer want is the most important goal you must get it whatever whenever however.


text:
Date First registration: 15/02/1991, Color: Black, Chassis number: WBABA91070AL04832, Fuel: Petrol, Transmission: Manual, Selected mode odometer: 148800KM, Engine capacity in CC: 2500, Power in kW: 171PK, Environmental class:, CO2 emissions g / km:, Equipment:, Interior: Not applicable, Supplied on-board documents: Certificate of registration, Certificate of conformity, Inspection certificate, Maintenance booklet, Number of keys: 1, Extra info: Major maintenance: oil + filter, air filter, fuel filter, brake fluid, coolant, gearbox oil + differential, spark plugs, Brakeflexibels Petrol pipes Timing belt, water pump and v belts Fuel pump Brake discs and brake pads.
Auction: VAVATO Classic Cars & Exclusive cars Poperinge 25/10/2018
Start date: Friday October 12, 2018
End date: Thursday October 25, 2018, 7:00 PM
Location: Ouderdomseweg 26a, BE-8970 Poperinge Belgium
I am not a natural flatterer, I like to think that I "tell it like it is", politely I hope. So when I tell you that I am very impressed by the contents of your website, it is just not English politeness. I of course love the subject matter but you deal with it in an energetic and respectful manner. I am overwhelmed by the research that has gone into compiling the list of coachbuilders/bodybuilders for Europe and North America. I have never heard of the vast majority of them.
Congratulations on an excellent website.
- N. Maltby of Car Scene International
We use Coachbuild.com almost daily as our main reference source!
- Schloss Dyck Classic Days
We use Coachbuild.com all the time for references!
- Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance
We are very impressed by your website!
- Bicester Heritage UK


text:
Introduction: Studio Sweat (a Work Place)
I love projects! Remodeling projects , sewing projects , painting projects , all kinds.That's where the room I am sharing with you comes in. It's my studio! I love having a place to be creative, and work on projects. However, this studio varies slightly from the one that I see in my head. So without further adieu......
Here is my studio!! I know I am pretty lucky to have a crafting space all to myself and I am so thankful. It's not a large space, it's kind of long and narrow. With that in mind I would like to keep most of the storage along the back wall {the one with the window}. Ideally I would install some floating cabinets right under the window and top that off with some type of counter top solution, that would be so much better than the eco friendly cardboard box shelving unit I have right now. {The Brick House has a great example here } Above the cabinets some floating shelves would be fantastic for displaying art and other accessories like the EKBY JÄRPEN wall shelf. My work table is just a cheap dining table that my boyfriend and I no longer need. It works for now, but I would love something like the Jonas or the Expedit Work Station so I could spread out and have more storage. With a better work surface I would love to have something to look at! All my walls are blank white, which is not very inspiring. I would love a nice eclectic collection of art and frames, including this frame, this piece of art, and some other pieces. Art isn't the only thing these bare walls need. Since I'm in the basement some more windows would help, wait I can't have more windows? Well maybe some faux windows in the form of mirrors! I would love to have a grouping of these HÖNEFOSS mirrors somewhere. And speaking of lighting, I would love to update that situation stat! I would love some more modern track lighting like this. And maybe something with a little more presence to set off one area of the room like this. And just to keep things clean looking I might install this TUNDRA floating floor. With all the white on white on white I think having some colorful accessories would be very important, and perhaps adding an accent wall would define the space. I love the idea of putting metallic sequins on the back wall between the cabinets and shelves like this picture here.
Participated in the
Share Your Space Challenge
Be the First to Share
3 Discussions
I hope you win!!!
@emilygracedavis: I'm not to instructables savy, but if you click on one of the links you'll be directed to my blog where I document all of my projects!
I would love to see some instructables about your projects!


text:
"Vikings" was officially renewed for a 10-episode Season 3 in March. And since that delightful news was announced, fans of the hit History Channel series have been sitting on the edges of their seats waiting for the Michael Hirst drama to return to their TV sets. But never fear – our loyal Nordic warriors have refused to leave viewers hanging, which is why they've decided to raid your social media accounts with a first peek at the show's newest season.
From photos of the cast's Season 3 wardrobe to stunning sights of set locations, our bearded and braided Viking beauties have opted to document the filming of their newest installment for fans to oogle over. They've even given their followers something to chuckle at with images of behind-the-scenes shenanigans! Ever wonder what Alexander Ludwig, who plays Ragnar's eldest son, Bjorn, looks like as a mermaid? Well, now is your chance to find out!
Take a look below at the jaw-dropping photos from Season 3:
Katheryn Winnick, who portrays the role of Lagertha, introduced some of her newest co-stars to fans:
"My co-stars are heading to set to line up for their shot. #professionals #behindthescenes #Vikings," she captioned the photo.
How cute are these Viking munchkins?
Ludwig took a tip from Winnick and introduced his favorite teen Viking to his fans:
"#readytoraid w my buddy #vikings," he wrote.
The cast then showed off some of their views from set. Prepare to be jealous:
"Setting up the crane shot.. Can you spot it?#behindthescenes #vikings," Winnick challenged.
"Road trip! Chickens are all packed and ready to go.#Vikings #behindthescenes #today's shoot," she said.
The cast and crew visit the city of love for Season 3.
Winnick then gave fans a peek at her iconic style:
Braids? Check!
Warrior vest? Check!
Some fancy clothes in case of a fabulous Nordic dinner party? Check!
The sword-fighting dame even showed fans an exclusive still from Season 3:
But despite the cast's commendable work ethic, these Vikings still know how to have fun! Just check out this mother/son duo:
Alyssa Sutherland, who plays Princess Aslaug, caught Ludwig trying out his new sea legs -- or should we say sea fin?
Maude Hirst, who plays Helga, took on a new perspective during Season 3:
Who said Vikings didn't know how to have a good time?
Are you excited for Season 3 of "Vikings"? Which photo was your favorite? Sound off in the comments section below!


text:
Floyd Mayweather Praises Bone Collector For Dropping Him During Charity Basketball Game! "My Bank Account Won't Change"
Floyd Mayweather ain't mad or embarrassed about being put on his back by streetball legend Bone Collector -- telling TMZ Sports, "My bank account won't change!". Floyd did get MVP of the game and his team won by 40 points. Floyd says he's still one of the wealthiest men in the history of pro sports ... and an international icon. Posted BY Persist


text:
Amber Rose Explains Twerking Video EXCLUSIVE
31 Jul 2017 21:24
A video of two girls twerking over a coffin as they give a seductive send-off has emerged. Possibly not, but it confident has produced it's mark so far on the industry only time will tell if it can solidify its place in dance music for very good. It appears that you already have an account produced within our VIP network of web sites on To keep your private info secure, we require to confirm that it is genuinely you. So please, my fellow white (-passing) girls — take a moment to believe prior to producing twerk videos or employing terms you heard on Drag Race. Benzie's mother agrees, stating that twerking is harmless and just component of today's pop culture. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have reserved particular evenings over the past eight years to celebrate music that has helped shape America.Within a week, the video accrued far more than 9.eight million views soon after becoming featured on dozens of news media sites and culture blogs that week, which includes Reddit 36 , The Huffington Post 26 , Buzzfeed 27 , the New York Post 28 , the Telegraph 29 , World Star Hip Hop 30 , E!She documented the trip in a series of posts on social media, sharing pictures and videos of her sexy orange swimwear. Acquire the most recent in Footwear, Style, Music and Creativity in our newsletters. Following the New Directions watch Blaine's scandalous twerking video, Will is inspired by it and introduces a new assignment: Twerk.And in guiding the market, white consumers dictate the offered imagery of blackness. The skilled dance group grind and twerk in a disused carpark (because we're genuinely paying interest to the production) twerking video and some of them look freakily like Margot Robbie.
Comments: 0
page revision: 0, last edited: 31 Jul 2017 21:24


text:
Having a basic knowledge car maintenance skills can help. While there are lot of things that average car owners a person learn, basic skills can help save you big bucks in repairs. If your vehicle breaks down, you will be able to access is important, fix the flat tire, and go on instead of having to rely on a tow vehicle.
Start your quest for knowledge with similar local Utah Auto Repair turn. Many Utah Auto Repair and do not auto parts dealers has the capacity to give you great suggestions. They should be soon on your way offer basic tips to maintain car in top metal framework.
From there you should learn more specific information on your own vehicle. Take the period learn how the parts and systems rrnside your car function. This type of understanding will certainly help you if you need do minor repairs on a car.
It can be hard for people not understanding cars to accomplish simple car repairs. There is a cause of that. Understanding how your car works and knowing components of your car will help you decide be more aware of problems mainly because they happen.
Take the time to know about your car so it is time to better able to have problems that may surface. You will be more capable of doing quick, easy fixes in the eventuality of car breakdowns, and identify strange sounds should your car starts acting forth. This type of knowledge can come in handy.
A lot of Auto Repair will need to be fixed by a adviser, but simple repairs can be made by the car founder. Many jobs are as easy as adjusting loose screws or putting coolant in the overheated radiator. Knowing choosing these easy Car Repairs can save you from having to play with it to a Utah Auto Repair retail outlet.
Always keep a basic car service toolbox in your trunk for the car emergencies. These tools can be very handy if you need fix your car traveling. Be sure the kit is fitted with wrenches, screws, jacket cables, and a generating jack.
There are plenty of places that will help you learn how to repair basic car issues. Consider books from the database, talk with your wardrobe Utah Auto Repair mechanics, and look up long distance tutorials and videos on the web. There could even work local mechanical course being taught. Look around for these things opportunities and start studying now..