text:
- Kimberly Powell
- Eugene, OR
- United States
This conversation is closed.
If green roofs were mandatory in cities would there be less development and building?
William McDonough knows the benefits that come from designing and implementing green roofs. McDonough has helped design living roofs for big companies such as Nike and Ford Motors. But many companies and homeowners overlook the benefits of green roofs. One benefit of green roofs is that they keep the internal temperature of a building steady throughout the year. The National Research Council of Canada found that having a green roof reduced the daily energy demand for air conditioning in the summer by 75%. Toronto is the first North American city to pass a law mandating green rooftops for all new residential, commercial and industrial developments. Any new construction with floor space of more than 2,000 square meters must devote between 20 and 60 percent of its roof to vegetation. But with green roofs comes an unwanted financial upfront cost. Will developers decide that the benefits outweigh the costs for installing green roofs?
If green roofs were mandatory in cities would there be less development and building?
Steve Means
May 23 2012: I agree with Mike Robinson, but wanted to dig a little deeper: I take it from the phrasing of your question that you are afraid that mandatory green roofs would scare off development. To me, that phrasing already concedes that Big Money has a stranglehold on our priorities. That stranglehold is exactly what we need to reverse if green building, or even environmentalism as a whole, are to take hold.
- +2
Of course, there is such a thing as a thoughtful, well-intentioned benevolent developer/corporation (very exceptional); but is further development--even smart/green development--what we really want? To me, that is just an intermediate band-aid, and not nearly sufficient to the task at hand. It was reported recently that most oceanic life is predicted to be extinct by 2049 unless we humans radically change our ways, and soon. We are hitting an environmental wall right now, and only a few people are even aware.
Given this situation, the whole paradigm of who develops what, how, and why needs to consciously shift to a much more sustainable path. Essentially psychotic corporations need to be put in their place (purely as tools of the people), and governments need to pull their noses out and get with the program!
John Lancett
May 23 2012: I find a lot of what you are saying is very poignant and insightful. The one piece that I would like to touch on is the idea that corporations should be tools of the people. I find it fascinating that people are so easily manipulated into letting business have control over their lives. Mass population has and will always have the upper hand if they unite in a cause. Look at any period in history and this proves to be true over and over again (in both good and bad ways) But, corporations are the one entity that seems to have figured out how to manipulate the masses into thinking a certain way. If people would just unite and simply communicate they could use these money magnates as for their own means instead of simply feeding the machine. Development would be a lot easier if the people that were supplying the money knew the only way they could use the building was to build it a certain way. I don't think laws are the answer to the problem, because time has shown us that corporations will find loopholes or worse simply ignore them and get reprimanded later. It is the consumer that decides the fortunes of companies, but people simply have not seemed to figure it out yet...
- +2
May 23 2012: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I think we are getting a bit off topic, but it's good that this discussion has spurred a deeper related discussion. There are probably other conversations on TED related to this very issue of finding a collective consciousness and following it, but I haven't looked yet.
This issue of laws not being the answer is also very ripe for further discussion. Laws are really only necessary when and where there are moral/ethical/behavioral differences between people. I don't see fundamental differences fading away anytime soon, so there is still a place for law. However, I would say that virtually all the laws we live by are far too complex (and many are mis-directed), thus difficult to enforce. Laws should be very simple, clear, well-directed, and most importantly easy to enforce. Hopefully, as you imply, we'll someday get to a point where laws are essentially superfluous, and we're all keyed in to a fairly unified purpose (e.g. the sustainability of life on Earth).May 22 2012: I watched a ted talk recently about the issue facing us in future, and that is how to feed a possible 9 billion people in the next century (Jonathan Foley, The Other Inconvenient Truth), when so much of the earth's surface is already devoted to agriculture, and being overtaxed. Perhaps there will be a time where we will all have to produce our own food, because the resources of the world will be unable to cope. Green roofs could be the way of the future, especially in terms of growing our own vegetables, and this would also reduce the use of industrial fertilisers, which apparently account for quite a bit of the world's emissions due to the fact that they have doubled the world's levels of phosphorus and nitrogen.May 22 2012: I hope it will stimulate innovation but am also hopeful it will lead to less development. Or more accurately I hope it will lead to less greenfield development and more brownfield development (revitalizing already existing developments).
We may also want to consider living underground or underwater if we are looking for niches to occupy that may be more efficient than square boxes exposed to the elements.
Aja B.
May 22 2012: This discussion has been selected as today's featured TED Conversation on our Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/TEDConversations) and Twitter (http://twitter.com/tedconversation) feeds. Congrats! :)May 22 2012: The saying raining cats and dogs came from animals falling through sod roofs in ole England. My grandparents in central Kansas built their house almost all underground. The temperature was consistant year around (before air conditioning). In Phoenix one of the high schools is underground elminating the need for extensive air conditioning. This is not a new thought nor is it a bad thought. Ideas come around in a circle. However I am against making it mandatory. If I was building in Toronto I would build my factory in 1,900 foot sections and link them with tunnels and walkways. All the best. BobJun 1 2012: Personally, I do not believe that by making green roofs mandatory that it will stop the development of new buildings. The price of the building will just increase due to the price increase in the production.Jun 1 2012: I do think that green roofs are a great idea and would increase the biodiversity of a neighborhood and help with energy efficiency. However, I do wonder about the risks of making this mandatory. I feel that if developers are to continue building at the rate they are going now in order to maintain their business and at the same time to implement green roofs, they might cut corners elsewhere. It is no surprise that construction sites go up as fast as possible because it is what will make them the most money. If you require them to add on green roofs and all of the extra work and special materials that go along with building a green roof, I fear that corners will be cut elsewhere and therefore possible cause a greater risk than the green roofs are worth.
- +2
Jun 1 2012: Theresa, you make a very valid point. Today, our society is big on being cost efficient. A building company would care more about the initial cost then saving earths biodiversity, simply because it is just not their job. If green roofs were to become mandatory, the developers might indeed cut cost somewhere else in the building process. With that said, do you think that there is any way around this obstacle? Is there a way that green roofs could become mandatory without it effecting the quality of the work?Jun 1 2012: It is true that there would be cuts elsewhere but I don't think that the quality of the work would be affected to a point that it was bad. What kind of work do you mean? Like the building itself? There regulations that must be followed so that it is not a poorly constructed building. Now if it is decoration that would decrease in quality , that is not a big deal. If it a reduction in the quality of work of the service provided, then that affects those in charge directly.
Dan Stark
May 27 2012: Kimberly, your question is really one of economics, and simple economic reasoning is enough to answer it without going into the details of what green roofs are and how they work (although these details are interesting in their own right, to be sure!).
- +1
The effect of compelling producers to add a new component to each of their products is that the cost of production rises. The result is that the marginal producers -- those whose costs have now been driven higher than the revenues they can obtain from the product -- are driven out of business. We end up with reduced supply and a higher market price, which in turn leads to the marginal buyers -- those who were prepared to pay the original price but not the new, higher one -- investing elsewhere, e.g. in other cities.
Now, of course people can freely purchase a green-roof building, and they will do so if the savings on air conditioning and the other benefits of such a building outweigh the additional cost -- in short, if the choice is economical. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that if green-roof buildings are economical, a government mandate is irrelevant; and if they are not, it's harmful (reduced production and higher prices).
This conclusion should really just be common sense: social wealth and well-being can't be increased by ordering the police power to forcibly prevent people from engaging in voluntary exchange.May 24 2012: Mandating green roofs seems like a great idea to spur environmentalism, as well as help people be greener in general. I don't think that developers would have a problem following a new mandate, but I do question what the individual would think. Would purchasing a space or home that has been built with a green roof increase the up front cost, and would individuals still want to shell out the money despite the promise of 75% reduced air conditioning energy demand? For people who don't use air conditioning or heating what is the incentive to purchase a home that has a green roof, especially if it's more expensive than a traditionally built house? If new mandates don't ensure that all newly built spaces require a green roof and therefore an increased purchasing cost I fear that people will tend towards traditionally built spaces and the new spaces would go unoccupied, unless the developer covered the cost of the green roof.
May 24 2012: Not only are green roofs great for reducting HVAC costs but they also have implications for global climate change. If new roofs were installed on new private homes, these places would have substantially less carbon emissions than houses without green roofs. The green roofs will be photosynthesizing constantly, making them extremely beneficial. If homeowners are only looking at the short term consequences of green roofs, they might not be as appealing but all the long term benefits are so great, it seems to me like they outweigh any bad things that could arise.
May 24 2012: I don't argue that green roofs would be beneficial with regards to global climate change, but I question how many people are willing to pay an extra up front cost for a space with a green roof. Many ways to help the environment are simply options in current society such as being vegetarian or using LED lights rather than incandescent. If the option isn't turned into a requirement I don't believe that everyone will choose something that benefits the environment, especially if there is a larger up front cost. To me the option of buying a home with a green roof is similar to the option of buying an electric car, just because it helps the environment doesn't mean that it will be the choice of every individual, particularly if it is initially more expensive.
May 28 2012: I agree, if the savings from heating and air conditioning take many years to match the upfront cost of the home, people will go with the standard home that is much cheaper. I think most people are becoming more aware about the human impact on the environment, but until the cost of green technology becomes affordable to everyone, we will stick with the cheaper option that causes greater environmental harm.May 24 2012: You have to remember that people who would make green roofs wouldn't be just homeowners. You have to think of a renting scenario as well, apartment complex owners, hotel owners, etc. For someone who owns an apartment complex with a green roof, they could charge a bit extra for the green roof and make a bit more profit in the long run, and as a renter that would be justified because you save on heating/cooling costs. There is an incentive for both the building owner and the renter.May 23 2012: I do not think that green roofs would limit building. Building cost are already high and adjusting for a green roof would not add that much cost relative to the cost of the whole building. I personally think green roofs should be mandatory for all new buildings, especially new government buildings. If the government started adopting green policies such as this it would have a positive effect on the industry and the environment. Green roofs are also very beneficial for pollination. If green roof companies created an alliance with pollination biologists and honey producers we could slow the decline of honey bees.May 22 2012: I agree with Mike that I would be happy if something finally slowed the development and expansion of our cities. I also think this is a very innovative idea and am excited to see similar innovations.
In looking at this question though, we also need to consider that as Kimberly said, buildings can save 75% of energy used in the summer. If businesses took these savings into account it could result in perhaps more new development, and also changing of existing buildings. It would be nice to see something like this required of existing buildings as well, because we shouldn't be expanding our populations or cities in the first place, but we should be focusing on changing the way we live now, not just in the future.May 22 2012: I think this is a very noble idea and one that will gain momentum over time to help our society live both more within its means and also foster a greater connection with the environment around us. These roofs aid in cooling building, but can also aid in small scale food production as has been seen throughout many cities across the globe that have rooftop gardens. They also can serve as a place for people to relax and meditate, perhaps on a lunch break which can foster a more productive day and a happier workforce.
Since I'm not an architect I can't give a completely knowledgeable answer but I believe that, with proper government support, these regulations will do little or no harm to the ability to build in a more sustainable manner. In some ways, this may revitalize these urban areas that have fallen into a state of decay and help aid in cooling our cities, making these building more cost effective in the long run and also providing a cleaner aesthetic feel to the city. Obviously this applies only to certain locations as this would probably be ineffective in say an area that has insufficient water to keep the plants moist or a location that freezes, but it is a positive start in the right direction. I think this is the future of architecture and we will only see more and more buildings designed in this manner.
May 22 2012: I didn't even think of the green space on the roofs being able to produce food during the proper seasons. Do you feel that if the roofs had to produce food that it would impact if the building grows and by grow i mean possibly start at a new location (add more buildings to the company)?
John Lancett
May 22 2012: I like the idea of green a green roof, but I like what McDonough says about the planning of new cities and buildings even better. Mandatory building codes exist all over the world why not implement them in places where the climate allows. I think of places that are cold more often than they are warm and wonder how well the idea would work. Especially since they would require standing water systems that could freeze and impose massive costs to the building owners. To me though the idea that we take advantage of the environment around buildings and design to it should be mandatory. The study of sun, wind and landscapes can mean just as much to a sustainable building that the green roof idea. cheersMay 22 2012: I personally think that green roofs are a fantastic idea. I would however have questions about the durability and lasting power of these roofs. Also, how might this roof design system limit architecture in terms of what shapes we can create with buildings? Overall it's a wonderful solution to a long time issue of combing an environmentally conscious design and one that effectively protects us from the elements. As far as making it a mandatory part of building design, I think it would be most effective to implement something like this in large metropolitan regions such as los angeles and new york where air pollution is high and extreme heat pockets in summer can kill residents. Not to mention they are just so visually appealing.
- +1
May 28 2012: I would agree with you that green roofs could be especially helpful in large cities where pollution levels are high. And as to the durability, green roofs can actually drastically increase the life of roofs. As long as the original roof is properly sealed and waterproofed there are no detriments to roof life span. The organic materials used in living roofs protect buildings from storms, UV radiation, and many other factors that usually age roofs.May 22 2012: I don't think there would be less development, but there would have to be more innovation around design and architechture, to meet the environmental standards as well as the development needs. I lived in Christchurch New Zealand that was partially destroyed last year in a massive earthquake. the new city plan for the central business district which was levelled, is for buildings to include green roofs, and sustainable design as part of the rebuilding process. Included in that are the many earthquake safe provisions and codes that are mandatory in a place like New Zealand (which is split down the middle by the Pacific and Indo-Australian tectonic plates). This disaster has opened the door to a massive jump forward in sustainable and environmentally friendly building. And lets face it, green roofs are also much nicer visually than an ugly concrete rooftop!
Rishi Patel
May 21 2012: I think that if green roofs were mandated, then many different businesses would sprout (pun fully intended) to provide that service, and would need to build, and even if the initial cost went up, people still need buildings. Development and building costs are already fairly high, and green roof initial costs are not that astronomically high that it would be so detrimental that development and building would slow. I feel the benefit outweighs that initial cost, and development would increase to replace the old.
- +1
May 22 2012: Do you think UO or any other university for that matter would take the initiative to build with green roofs?
May 23 2012: The mandatory implementation of green roofs seems like a great idea to me. In addition to the points that many people have made the already high upfront building costs, I really do think that considering the later savings that green roofs can have for building temperature regulation, etc may outweigh or at least equalize the upfront costs. Especially when you consider how long you expect a building to be in existence and how those savings add up over the years.
As to your question, Kimberly, I do think that a university may be one of the early places to take on this initiative. Not only is a place like UO full of young people who are passionate about making changes towards a more green future, including architecture, but at least at our university there seems to be constant construction and remodeling. This provides many opportunities for new technologies. Additionally students studying architecture are probably at the forefront of learning about these things and can be key assets for new green architecture implementation. This could provide opportunities for the school to save money, be a pioneer on a new green architectural front and allow students gain experience by using their education to provide input into changes in the university.May 24 2012: I think the University of Oregon would be an amazing place to start a green roofs program. We currently have a sustainability initiative and this seems like a logical next step especially with the work that Jessica Green of the biology department is doing in partnership with the architecture school. It would be interesting to find out how many current building could be retrofit for green roofs on campus as well as how to initiate a mandate for all new buildings.
Adam Cross
May 21 2012: I don't think so, in fact I think it would remain the same. The builders would merely add any extra expenses into the bill while promoting themselves as an Eco-Friendly company. In Florida mandatory hurricane codes do not hamper building, Miami is growing everyday as well as Orlando.
- +1
It would certainly change the landscape for the better though.
May 27 2012: I have to agree with Adam and the view he is taking. The assumption that new construction would decrease because of mandatory green roofs is the same as assuming new construction would decrease because different or more stringent earthquake structure regulations are put into place. The alterations of building codes happen relatively frequently and they do not result in noticeable changes in the amount of development.Jun 1 2012: Hi Allison,
Many people will not vounteer for a prosocial behaviour but when it becomes mandatory they make the best of it and adapt it to their own purposes so that they do not appear to have been maliable to authority figures. Did you ever notice how many people compost now that recycling is required?Jun 1 2012: I do not think green roofs shouldnbecome mandatory, though I could see it being strongly encouraged such as on top of apartment complexes in large cities where you know at least of the tenants would care for the plants and it would give a common space for neighbors to hang out and enjoy the nature scene together since they would not have a backyard. It would also be beneficial on hospital roofs for patients who cannot leave the premises of the building or for those visiting long hours. A fear I have about making green roofs mandatory is that I know many people would not have the time to care for the plants and it would be an eye sore for neighbors. There are already people who do not care for their lawns, shrubs and trees in their front yard and I would imagine it would cause some complaints in a residential neighborhood.Jun 1 2012: Although it will increase the upfront cost of development, it may decrease the cost over time and will definitely decrease the negative environmental impact. To alleviate the upfront cost perhaps a government assistance program could be implemented. Additionally, the costs of adding a green roof to a development project probably would not exclude a large percentage of the market. Green roofs may even inspire a new type of development which is ultra efficient to minimize the extra cost of a green roof.May 31 2012: Buildings will rise regardless of mandatory green roofs. I doubt there will be less development and building, but there may be less diversity in what buildings are being constructed. With the added cost of green roofs either the design of the building will have to suffer and be less creative in an architecture sense or the amount of companies able to build will be smaller allowing for them to experience more growth. If somehow tax dollars were able to help contribute to the expense perhaps that would maintain development of buildings.
May 31 2012: If we could use tax dollars to contribute to the development of green roofs, then I believe we could make positive headway on accomplishing the requirement! Raising taxes would not necessarily be a bad thing either don't you think?
May 31 2012: It just depends on whether or not people are willing to create a better living environment for their community. And not everyone cares or feels that tax dollars should be spent this way. Though I do think it would be beneficial in the long-run.Jun 1 2012: If green roofs were mandatory in cities, yes it might not stop development. But, it will make development better. Those companies that are creating new development, have the money and would give back to nature the space that it has altered. If the mandate was to stop development then that would be great as well. I see this as a win-win situation.Jun 1 2012: I agree with the fact that I do not think that development will stop. I do however think that the developers will find a way around the 2,000 sq meter requirement for green roofs in a way to "beat the system.Jun 1 2012: I agree that development will continue, even if if is just replacing older buildings and I think that innovation is important in that process, but it also takes a long time for new ideas and building practices to become widespread because there are so many buildings already and replacing them takes a long time. Maybe in 50 years things will look different.May 30 2012: As many commenters have posted, this ultimately boils down to money. The upfront costs of doing a green roof is prohibitive for some builders, even if the roof pays for itself down the road. I think a better alternative would be to provide some sort of reward for including a green roof in building plans. For instance, a tax holiday for a certain period to help offset the cost. The monetary benefit would be realized sooner and may entice more green roofs. Though it may cost the government some money in lost tax revenue, it may ultimately save money in the long run when accumulated environmental costs are realized.
May 31 2012: I think a small tax break for including a green roof is a good idea. The major difficulty is deciding on an amount that will entice businesses without significantly reducing tax revenue. Regardless, it could be a great transition point, allowing people to see the benefit of green roofs as a typical building component without initiating a mandate just yet.May 31 2012: This is a very good point and great idea. There are usually multiple ways of implementing things like this and the options are usually the stick or the carrot. Offering something motivational seems like a more likable change, rather than something that will make businesses comply but simultaneously piss them off.May 31 2012: As you stated, it does all boil down to money. But one aspect that I think it's important for businesses in particular to consider is that they gain positive publicity by going green. Because taking steps toward helping the environment and "going green" is becoming more and more popular in today's culture, I think businesses that decide to put up the extra money up front will see a return on their investment from customers that support their decision and choose to associate with that business rather than a competitor.
May 31 2012: To put it simply, it is incredible that going green is becoming a trend in the social and political world. Therefore, pushing the more influential people to make more environmentally conscious decisions. The more those in power do it, the more the masses will follow. Do we think it would be a good idea to demand the companies or individuals with a large enough income be required to install green roofs? Or is that too farfetched?
May 31 2012: I think that companies would really fight back if they were made to install green roofs using their own money. However, as time goes on and more and more companies start to install them in response to consumer requests, I think that most companies will follow.May 28 2012: Right now I don't think that the benefits of green roofs outweigh the costs. I think that maybe with time and the right advertising, green roofs will become more desirable and therefore the benefits will, in fact, weigh out the costs.
May 31 2012: The right advertisement might be the cities themselves. When you start adding more green and better sustainability to structures and show the people you care about the environment as well as those who live in it...well it will attract more people to live in the city.May 28 2012: I suspect that a mandate for green roofs would simply ensure developers move out of the region with the mandate, like how Portland is having so many issues with suburbs trying to get out of the urban growth boundaries in one way or another. It would have to be state or nationwide to ensure compliance. Beyond that, the cost of keeping all those plants alive with be another problem. In apartment complexes and homes, a little education and a lot of coercion would go a long way into convincing people to keep those plants alive. In office buildings, somebody will have to be paid to keep them alive, or else the space could be rented out to families seeking to grow more than their own space might allow.
May 30 2012: I agree with you that developers would likely just of the area that mandated them to build a green roof if they really didn't want to. But with more education about the benefits to green roofs, developers may not be as opposed to having buildings with them. Although it may have more upfront cost, in the long run it would save a lot of money that would have been spent on electricity bills to regulate the temperature of the building. Like most things, I feel like the introduction of green roofs will just take time and cannot be expect to be accepted over night.May 31 2012: Education will definitely be the driving factor here. I think it would be great to see public buildings taking the lead in making this happen. There is also the potential for new jobs to be created in regards to caretakers of the roofs. Although, this may only be a possibility for big businesses that can take on the extra payroll. I agree with Amanda that the green roof movement will probably be a slowly occurring one, but the right idea is there.May 28 2012: I think that green roofs are an excellent way to introduce biodiversity to cities, and they are also good because they help to lower the Urban Heat Island effect. I doubt that many developers would be overly excited to include green roofs on their buildings, but if they were informed of all the environmental benefits, and perhaps also of benefits as to how green roofs can increase roof lifespan and help with the insulation of buildings, they might be more open to using them.May 28 2012: I think green roofs are a good idea since it would reduce energy demand and the cost of heating and cooling the building. However, I don't think developers, if given a choice, would use green roofs if the upfront cost was too high. If the upfront cost is high, that cost would then be passed on to tenants at residential buildings. The fact is that unless developers are forced to, they will go with the cheaper alternative to make more money. But, I think green roofing and other sustainable building practices will gain favor among developers as the upfront cost continues to decrease.
May 28 2012: I agree that green roofs are a good idea but that building developers will be less inclined to use them in buildings if the upfront cost is too high. I think that perhaps if green roofs and their benefits were advertised more to the general public, there would be an increase in demand for them and more developers would be willing to supply them.May 31 2012: With "today's economy" I have a feeling this would be an added financial hardship that wouldn't be justifiable. It is hard to get people to see the long term effects when so much start up money is needed. Does anyone know some dollar figures for what this might entail? I'm sure it varies drastically depending on the circumstances...just curious though.May 28 2012: I'm interested in how green roofs would effect urban biodiversity. It sounds like the idea is to make the roof's plant life like the natural plant life of that area(or like a farm, depending), but what about animal, fungal, bag bacterial, etc. life? How would the differences between these green roofs and natural areas hinder or be utilized by them? There's of course the issue of elevation, especially on large buildings and perhaps even more importantly accessibility; for instance, I can't see any mammals other than squirrels or bats being able to interact with the gardens in any meaningful way. There's also things like soil depth, wind exposure, and some crazy edge effects seeing as how we're talking about little patches of soil and plants separated by a bunch of concrete(which I suppose isn't too different from yards...). I know biodiversity isn't the primary reason why people are considering green roofs but it's still interesting to consider.
May 28 2012: That _would_ be interesting. For the lower elevations/height (say 1 or 2 stories), I'd imagine the green roofs probably shouldn't cause too much difference for some creatures to go up there if they truly wish to (like, say, cats). Granted, there probably wouldn't be as many variety of insects or invertebrates like worms, unless they were already in the soil that were already laid down, or planted there by the owners themselves.
As you go higher up, it would stand to reason that there would be a selection for organisms in their ability to reach up to the higher stories (probably mostly birds) and whatever else that may be brought up there by humans (again, whether they be on purpose or accidental).
That actually sounds like a cool experiment to conduct. 'Would you find a general trend of losing biodiversity as green roofs go to higher elevations?' or something in that line of thought. I wonder if anyone has thought of testing that out?
It might also depend on what type of plants people want to grow up there, such as purely aesthetic plants, or as people have mentioned before, garden plants for growing food.May 28 2012: I think green roofs are a good idea, but it may not be practical in every situation, an alternative could be solar panels, particularly in areas that get more sun/less rain, where solar panels might produce more energy than a green roof would save. Is it possible to have both solar panels and a green roof?
I don't think that this would necessarily hinder building development, although in my opinion we could do with less individual homes instead building urban areas upwards to increase density and get rid of suburbia. People may not be willing to pay the extra costs, some may not believe that it will save them heating/cooling costs and others may consider it a hazard, but I think if they became mainstream and all new houses were equipped with them then there would be less resistance.May 28 2012: I think there might actually be more especially if restaurants and families used that space to grow food.
Jun 1 2012: Debra, you make a good point. Our society can greatly benefit from green roofs. However, since green roofs can be built now, why would production increase only if it was mandatory?May 27 2012: These seems to be a lot of support for green roofs in this forum and especially in our class, so I think it's pertinent for all of you to know that the new dorms behind the long house that will open next fall were originally going to be LEED Platinum buildings in part because they had green roofs on all three structures. Because of short term budget constraints the green roofs and other sustainability initiatives in the design of the building were cut and it will be designated a LEED Gold equivalent building instead. This is what our institution values, even after students have said that sustainability is the number one issue guiding their decisions about campus (2011 ASUO Student Survey). Because we are here for only four years long term projects escape our grasp, we do not have a place for student institutional knowledge that can help us continually be heard on the long term projects like green roofs that pay for themselves in 10 years.May 27 2012: I'm wondering how these plants on green roofs get watered. Here in Oregon this probably is answered by rainfall, but what about in a place like Arizona? Do they have to pump water up to the top of the building to water the plants? If this is what happens I would be skeptical that green roofs are actually helping the problem in this case, especially on very tall buildings. Maybe I'm completely wrong and green roofs benefits would still outweigh the water cost even on really tall buildings in Arizona, but I have to think that perhaps placing solar panels on top of those buildings may be a better use of the space. I believe solar panels can accomplish the same absorption of light and reduce the cooling costs, and in areas with lots of sun and little rain their energy production may outweigh the other benefits of green roofs.
I think in certain areas green roofs are a brilliant idea, in Portland for example I would love to see this law implemented. I don't think that requiring green roofs all over the country is a good idea. I think the government should offer incentives to cities to enact this law on their own, but leave it up to the city (or maybe the state) to decide whether they require green roofs. These more local governments should look into what would help their area the most.
May 27 2012: It's standard procedure with green roofs to mandate that the plants are native species that will survive in the naturally occurring climate. In the south west this means that green roofs are a lot of desert plants that might not get as luscious as our Northwest plants but they serve the same purpose, and contribute to the concepts of bioregionalism and the cultural values of nature spaces.
May 28 2012: Up and coming architects may have a hard time selling the idea of sage brush on building roofs. When most people think of green roofs, they think of them as green. It doesn't matter whether they live in the Northwest or the desert, we have come to expect it.
I agree with Mat that the movement of water up a building is a terrible waste of energy and water, which is scarce in the desert as is, and Ellen is right that the flora should be native. A national law mandating green roofs, however, will just mean more "inequality." The Northwest will build the desired "green" roofs while Arizona grow their cacti. I wouldn't have it any other way, but this federal law would meet endless resistance if any part of it mentions native plants. We like to design landscapes that oppose nature rather than work with it and many parts of America would oppose their native plants as fixtures for their green roofs because they don't find them aesthetically pleasing. I think a policy such as this would only work at the municipal level.
Em Crawford
May 28 2012: I disagree. I think you would have to do at the very least a statewide law. Nationwide would be better. I don't think "green" roofs should be the only option (small windmills or solar panels would be perfectly acceptable substitutes) but if you don't implement the law everywhere, companies will just go to a state or county that doesn't have the law to build large structures, and the states or counties with the law will cry foul because they're loosing tax revenue and jobs. Companies change locations for a few percentage difference in taxes, and I have no doubt that they'd move development to get out of paying for a green roof if it added significant amounts of money to building costs.May 27 2012: I agree that in certain places there should be incentives or requirements to have green roofs on new buildings. In the pacific northwest many people are very conscious of the environment and I think most would love the idea. If it can reduce our excessive need for air conditioning and maybe even keep the buildings warmer in the winter, I agree that it should depend on the area and the plants would need to be natives so that they are adapted to the area like Ellen said. I don't agree that solar panels could accomplish the "same absorption of light and reduce the cooling costs" because it takes a lot of energy to make those solar panels and the green roofs need little to no maintenance. Yes sometimes especially when they are being established may need water, but if they are natives they should be fine with the weather of the area. If water is the problem, most tall buildings already have water running to the top floor so what would be the difference between one more floor?
- +1
May 28 2012: I know that constructing solar panels is not exactly a green process. What I meant is that once they are up the solar panels will do the same job as the plants in absorbing some of the incoming light, which will lower the amount of cooling the building needs.
Also little to no maintenance? Not to harp on this solar thing, but they require little to no maintenance. I just don't see how plants baking in the sun all day could possibly not require maintenance. Again, I'm speaking with regards to certain areas. In the PNW I'm sure the plants would require little to no maintenance and would be a better solution. I don't mean to say I think we should change the idea to solar roofs instead of green roofs, I just think solar may be a better way to go in certain areas.
Jun 1 2012: Okay, maybe in some areas it would be reasonable to use solar panels instead of a green roof, but if in areas such as Arizona, using plants native to the area would allow them to survive as long as they were established. Solar panels would just increase the use of Air Conditioning because people would think that it is not harming anything, when it is just decreasing their reliance on the power grid to power their air conditioner.May 28 2012: While Ellen's point solves the problem about water I he to wonder what about nutrients? Even if something is grown in its native habitat that doesn't mean the provided soil will be able to support it and many plants deplete nutrients that are in the soil with every growth cycle. I'm not an expert on farming but depending on the plant types that grow in that area a lot of external fertilizer would have to brought up, especially nitrogen, yes? Ironically this would be an especially be problem in tropical areas because most tropical plants can only thrive because of the massive amounts of dead plant and animal matter that can be found in the topsoil of rainforest like environments. Of course providing external fertilizer is already business as usual for farms but I'd think that needing to distribute fertilizer to the top of every building would complicate matters considerably, and I could be wrong but I think potted plants (which is essentially what green roofs are, only on a larger scale) usually require more externally fertilizer than plants that are actually grown in the ground. This could be somewhat offset by having people use their compost as fertilizer but still. Again I don't know a whole lot about what I'm talking about so correct me if I'm wrong.May 27 2012: no, it would be just more expensive. P.S. were do you put solar panels on a green roof? :)
but they r cool, funny how green roofs came before green walls, makes me wonder how the roof was held up... haMay 27 2012: Upon reading many of the responses to this question I found it interesting that there is a stark separation between short term safety regulations/codes, for earthquakes as an example, and long term safety regulations, such as green roofs and the prevention of long terms affects associated with rapid climate change. Are these not the same type of regulations but viewed at different time frames. This makes me hopeful that other governments will begin to take their citizen's long term health into account when addressing safety initiatives. Anyone have ideas on this?
May 27 2012: While it seems all too logical that the current generation should invest more money into future safety, it doesn't happen on a regular basis. I think the problem lies in how much we as a society are willing to invest in people and generations we will never know. I think it could be argued it is human nature to think in the short term. In any case, I agree that investments in long-term health and safety should be given more recognition, green roofing being one of them.


text:
New recap trailer for 'Resident Evil: Retribution' catches you up on the other four films
I saw the first Resident Evil movie. I even saw some of Resident Evil: Apocalypse; sorry, I couldn't stomach the whole thing. While I understand that some people enjoy those movies for the action and whatever, I'm just not one of those people. It's just not how I pictured Resident Evil movies being. So while I haven't seen Extinction and Afterlife, I've done my best to keep up with how the storyline has... er... 'progressed.'
The story for Resident Evil: Retribution is:
The Umbrella Corporation's deadly T-virus continues to ravage the Earth, transforming the global population into legions of the flesh eating Undead. The human race's last and honly hope, ALICE (Milla Jovovich), awakens in the heart of Umbrella's most clandestine operations facility and unveils more of her mysterious past as she delves further into the complex. Without a safe haven, Alice continues to hunt those responsible for the outbreak; a chase that takes her from Tokyo to New York, Washington D.C. and Moscow, culminating in a mind-blowing revelation that will force her to rethink everything that she once thought to be true. Aided by newfound allies and familiar friends, Alice must fight to survive long enough to escape a hostile world on the brink of oblivion.
With that, Sony is making it a lot easier to get caught up to Retribution's story with their new recap trailer, that breaks down the previous four films to their most basic plot points.
I have to admit, even after watching the trailer, I'm kind of lost. There's like 10 Weskers and two Alices. People are alive that used to be dead. I've seen in previous trailers that the once-dead Michelle Rodriguez is alive again, and characters are not who you thought they were.
Since I'm so behind, I'm really on the fence about seeing this movie. What do you think? Will you be seeing Resident Evil: Retribution when it releases on September 14, 2012?
You can follow Movies and Culture Editor Lance Liebl on Twitter @Lance_GZ

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Senna's World Championship McLaren MP4/4, shot by Wilson Hennessy
Wilson Hennessy was commissioned by Mclaren to shoot Ayrton Senna's 1988 WorldChampionship winning MP4/4 Formula 1 car. Shot overnight… keep reading
Senna's World Championship McLaren MP4/4, shot by Wilson Hennessy
Wilson Hennessy was commissioned by Mclaren to shoot Ayrton Senna's 1988 WorldChampionship winning MP4/4 Formula 1 car. Shot overnight… keep reading
McLaren F1 GT "Longtail"
In the years following McLaren's victory at the LeMans24 Hr race in 1995 with the racing version of their iconic F1 road car, the competition… keep reading
Bentley "95 years of Motorsport"
As part of the launch of the new Bentley GT3R, Simon Stock shot a short film depicting "95 years of Bentley Motorsport Heritage", with… keep reading
K&S portraits by Robert Wilson
Earlier in the year, photographer Robert Wilson was commissioned by German mining firm K&S to shoot portraits of their key staff, along with… keep reading
Bentley launch the new GT3R
Today Bentley have launched the new GT3R at the Goodwood Festival of Speed. Photographer Simon Stock shot the car at both Milbrook Proving Ground… keep reading
Waterproof Tech for John Lewis
John Lewis commissioned photographer Wilson Hennessey to shoot some new tech gizmos, showing their waterproof properties. Wil shot the objects… keep reading
The new 2016 Bentley GT, shot by Simon Stock
This week Bentley revealed the new 2016 GT Continental at the Geneva Motor Show. Photographer Simon Stock was commissioned to shoot the location… keep reading
Bentley launch the Mulsanne Speed
Bentley Motors recently announced a new "Speed" derivative of their top line Mulsanne car. Agency Keko London awarded photographer … keep reading
"Falling" by George Logan
We recently comp'ed and retouched these images which George Logan shot to promote a treatment for osteoporosis, and the fact there is no … keep reading
The new McLaren 650, shot by Wilson Hennessy
The all new McLaren 650, shot by Wilson Hennessy, retouched by Mustard Post …
Citroen C1 for Wilson Hennessey
Wilson Hennessey shot these ads for Havas Worldwide.
Wil shot the cars and then shot scaled cityscapes, model-made in acrylic, for us to comp together… keep reading
Cancer Research logo
We were recently commissioned by photographer Sun Lee, and Cancer Research UK to retouch this image of their logo, made up of clinical syringes. … keep reading


text:
Thanks in advance for any help
Moderator: Regulators
darththomas81 wrote:The top one looks like one of the bosses from house of the dead.
mpelichoff wrote:4th one looks like he is from Bucky O'hare
scorpsting wrote:The gator guy is holding a purple brain with eyes, Krang, and it is the earlier, bright green Leatherhead.
Return to General Action Figure Chatter
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
- Home
- /
- Find People
- /
Find People
Tip: Typing jones into the Last Name field will retrieve too many entries to print. But, adding R to the First Name will narrow the search.
Tip: Search for contact information for a specific department or just select Department Search to browse the unit listing.
Web pages
Tip: This will search most all UIC Web pages for files containing any of the words you have entered.
NOTE: If any of the phonebook information is wrong, it should be only changed by the departmental Phonebook Contact person(s). These PBContacts are listed, by department, in the Departments A-Z listing.
© Copyright 2015 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois


text:
Last charge against college student droppedBy Brent Curtis
STAFF WRITER | March 21,2013Rutland County prosecutors have dropped the remaining charge against a Castleton State College student who complained at the end of the case that police and campus security rushed to judgment when he was arrested and charged with assaulting two students.
Last month, prosecutors dropped one of the charges a felony aggravated assault charge against Douglas D. Krouse Jr., 21, after another CSC student, Sean M. Mowry, allegedly admitted to participating in an assault against Nicholas Bruch, 18, near the Rail Trail on campus at the end of January.
The remaining misdemeanor simple assault charge against Krouse was dismissed Tuesday days before a court hearing to review probable cause for the charge.
The reason why prosecutors dismissed the charge is unclear. In a notice filed in Rutland criminal court, States Attorney Marc Brierre wrote only that the charge was dismissed without prejudice due to further investigation.
Calls to the deputy prosecutor handling the case were not returned.
Krouses defense attorney, Matt Branchaud, said in an interview Tuesday the second assault victim, Joshua Mannings, 19, had recanted his assertion that Krouse punched him in the face during the early morning hours of Jan. 27.
The lesson learned here is that eyewitnesses cant be trusted without some evidence to support them, Branchaud said. This case was every parents worst nightmare. They sent their son out of state to college and he was jailed, charged with a crime and almost expelled for something he didnt do.
CSC officials allowed Krouse to return to campus and dismissed a disciplinary case against him last month.
But the guard on the Spartans mens basketball team wrote in a statement delivered by his lawyer that he was deeply troubled by the treatment he received from college and police officials.
Krouse wrote that he was disappointed that the (CSC) Public Safety Department and Castleton Police did not fully investigate the case before accusing and arresting me.
I told them I had no knowledge of the assault and was not involved, Krouse wrote. The head coach told them I was not involved in the fight. They did not believe me and pressed me to admit my guilt.
He continued: They did nothing to look into my alibi even though I was with other people all night. They should have taken the time to properly sort out the facts by gathering evidence that supported the eyewitness statements.
Krouse was charged after Bruch and Mannings told police they were 100 percent sure he was involved in both assaults.
But the evidence in the case changed in early February after Mowry allegedly confessed. Castleton Police said they were led to Mowry after two students reported that Christopher B. Barletta a 20-year-old CSC student charged in both assaults told them that he and Mowry were involved in the beating near the Rail Trail.
In a subsequent interview with police, Mowry allegedly confessed to assaulting Bruch, but said he had no part in assaulting Mannings.
Castleton Police Chief Bruce Sherwin could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
CSC spokesman Jeff Weld also declined to comment, other than to say that the college was pleased that the charges against Doug have been dropped.
email@example.com IN Local & StateRecovery takes time, patience and a desire to change. Full StoryMayor Louras wants the city to have a better idea on what to pay its department heads. Full StoryThe Rutland Town Select Board plans to appoint a new member next week who will serve until a... Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day 1739, 'Richard Palmer' identified in prison at York Castle as the notorious outlaw DICK TURPIN; IN 1836, Battle of the Alamo begins near San Antonio de Bexar, Texas; 1896, the Tootsie Roll invented by LEO HIRSCHFELD.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1472, Orkney, Shetland islands put up as collateral by Norway to Scotland in lieu of dowry for MARGARET OF DENMARK on her marriage with JAMES III, king of Scotland; 1962, JOHN GLENN first American to orbit Earth.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: City mayoral candidates debate campaign issues; Hartford, Conn., woman still missing; Neal Goswami reports attempts to legislate suicide; local woman loses 100 pounds through TOPS program.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1878, JOHN TUNSTALL murdered near Lincoln, New Mexico, by the outlaw JESSE EVANS; in 1930, ELM FARM OLLIE first cow to fly in aircraft, first to be milked airborne; 1955, nuke test WASP; '79, snow in Sahara.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Rutland Herald News Editor Alan J. Keays and staff writer Gordon Dritschilo discuss stories planned for the February 18, 2015, edition of the newspaper: Winter budgets maxed, legal marijuana, Springfield bank job, USPS slowdown
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1249 AD, ANDRE of LONGJUMEAU is dispatched by LOUIS IX of France to meet the KHAGAN, ruler of the Mongol Empire; in 1804, during 1st Barbary War, STEPHEN DECATUR scuttles the pirate-held USS Philadelphia in Tripoli.


text:
Additional Categories:
Mfg.: Wells
Models: Wells SS-8T, Wells SS8T
**Please Note: This item is designed and approved for installation into metal
countertops ONLY.
Description: This is a Wells built-in single 7 qt. hot food well. It can hold 1 - standard 7 qt. insert and has a thermostatic control.
The tubular element, located under the warming pan, allows for quick and efficient heating.
Positive-off thermostat (T) controls the element, allowing for adjustable and more consistent temperatures. Control is housed in oval panel with a guard ring to help prevent accidental temperature changes.
Warmers have a high-limit thermostat, which prevents unit overheating.
Warmers are designed for wet or dry operation.
"Wellslok" allows for quick and easy installation in stainless steel countertops.
The SS-8 Warmers are Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Recognized and meet NSF International and Canadian standards.
A two-year warranty on parts and one-year warranty on labor.
Availability: During checkout you will be able to order in either:
There are currently no reviews for this item. Be the first to write one.


text:
Toll Free: 888-850-0390
My cart
(0 items: $0.00)
About Us
My Account
Contact Us
How do you get fit?
Burn Bike Rubber
Crossfit / Circuit Breaker
Gym Rat
Hiking in the Woods
Holding the Couch Down
Run Like the Wind
Swim with the Fishies
free polls
Please select a valid product to review.
You may only review an order once.
About Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Customer Support
Send Us Feedback
Bookmark Us
Category Index
Product Index
Contact Us
Contract Customers
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Copyright ©
Built with


text:
|20 Отзывы :
|Номер :
|Удобства :
|Услуги :
|Mесто :
|Bustling with life and energy, Patong features the widest range of facilities, dining options, and activities for your holiday. Just 50 metres from the famous entertainment area of Bangla Road and right on Patong beach, so you can also relax and take it easy. Phuket's smiling friendly people are ready to show you their beautiful island.
|The Patong Inn has 40 air-conditioned twin/double/
triple rooms. All rooms with mini-bar, telephone, cable TV
and wireless Internet. Many rooms have sea views.
Breakfast, transfers, taxi, laundry and travel services available.
Hotel Facilities :
Shopping, Fine restaurants, and Beach activates
Part of the fun of shopping on Phuket is exploring the many shops and outlets that carry handicrafts, decorations, clothing, designer goods, electronics and music equipment. From large outlets, to the smaller establishments, all types of shopping is available.
Patong Beach
Patong Inn Hotel faces directly onto Patong Beach. All beach activities available, including: jet-skis, parasailing, long-tail boat, or you can just relax on the beautiful tropical beach.


text:
Enjoy this article? You may also be interested in these related items from our partners
Starter Pack Wii
Infinity 2.0 Marvel
Premium Value Pack (Wii U)
Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes
Guardians of the Galaxy Play Set (2.0 Edition)
Disney Interactive is giving Disney Infinity (1.0 Edition) Wii gamers the chance to upgrade their play experience to Wii U free of charge, exclusively through the Nintendo eShop. Starting today, fans who own the Disney Infinity Starter Pack on Wii can download the Wii U version of the game from the Nintendo eShop, complete with multiplayer. The Disney Infinity base and figures are required to play on Wii U once downloaded.


text:
Click on the image for a
full-sized map in a new browser window (you'll be able to
actually read the small text that way)
Go to: Top | Section Contents | MousePlanet Main Page
Copyright © MousePlanet® Inc. | Legal Information & Privacy Policy | About/Contact MousePlanet | Link to us
MousePlanet® is not associated in any official way with the Walt Disney Company, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates. The official Disney site is available at www.disney.com. This MousePlanet Web site provides independent news articles, commentary, editorials, reviews, and guides primarily about the theme park resorts of the Walt Disney Co. All information on this site is subject to change. Please call destinations in advance to confirm the most up-to-date information.


text:
Voting Wrongs
When Barack Obama entered the White House, liberals hoped that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice might return to its proper mission. The agency had been gutted during the Bush years, litigating individual cases of bias without tackling the systematic levers of discrimination that affect a far larger share of the population. Obama beefed up the agency's staff and DOJ started hiring actual civil rights attorneys (unlike the strict ideological conservatives without civil rights experience who entered during the Bush administration). More recently, Attorney General Eric Holder has advocated for an aggressive stance on protecting civil rights during Congressional hearings and visited Austin, Texas, earlier this month to lay out his vision for an expansive take on voter protection.
There had been some early evidence of this new direction beyond the tough talk—primarily challenges to city police departments and an objection to Texas' redistricting plans. But it wasn't until Friday that the department truly laid bare its new direction. DOJ rejected South Carolina's voter identification law, a clear signal that the agency won't allow the Republican effort to block Democrats from voting to go completely unchallenged.
South Carolina, like the other states who've passed laws requiring photo ID at the polls, claimed that its measure was needed to protect against voter fraud. DOJ sees no evidence to support that justification. "The state's submission did not include any evidence or instance of either in-person voter impersonation or any type of fraud that is not already addressed by the state's existing voter identification requirement and that arguably could be deterred by requiring voters to present only photo identification at the polls," wrote Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. The department also found that non-white voters were 20 percent more likely to be excluded by the new law. A total of 81,938 registered minority voters lack the requisite ID.
"South Carolina's voter ID law was little more than a 21st Century poll tax," the NAACP said in a press release following last Friday's announcement. "While the ID may have been free, the underlying documents were not. For many rural and poor South Carolinians, such as those born to midwives that could not ensure they received birth certificates, getting the necessary documents to vote was extremely complex and cost- prohibitive."
Republicans have used their new state legislative majorities from the 2010 midterms to pass a slew of restrictive legislation. Many states have reduced timeframes for early and absentee voting. Before 2010, just two states had strict photo ID laws; six new states added themselves to that rank this year. Some of the most reliable liberal voters—racial minorities, the working poor, and young people—are the ones who tend to lack the required IDs. In Texas, military IDs and handgun licenses were included in the list of accepted IDs, but college IDs were excluded.
The new DOJ assessment of South Carolina's restriction is the clearest indication that the department is handling civil rights disputes more seriously than the Bush administration. When Georgia passed its version of voter ID in 2005, members of DOJ's career civil service staff examined the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The law requires states with a history of voter discrimination to get federal approval for new voting laws. Bush's DOJ produced a 70-page report, with three of the four experts arguing that Georgia's law should be blocked for its excessive impediments for minorities. The day after the report was released, Bush's political appointees ignored the assessment of the experts and cleared Georgia's law. "They weren't really interested in investigating Georgia's submission," Toby Moore, one of the lawyers reviewing the case, told TPM in 2007. "They were mainly interested in assembling evidence to support pre-clearance. Any attempt to bring up counter-evidence to suggest a discriminatory impact was ignored or critiqued."
Even though the rejection of South Carolina's law represents a welcome new tone from DOJ, there is little the Obama administration can do to overturn the whole slate of new voter-suppression measures. Section 5 only covers nine states and a smattering of counties and townships, allowing states like Wisconsin, Tennessee and Kansas to implement the same kinds of restrictions without federal approval.
The dispute over South Carolina's rule unfortunately won't end with DOJ's ruling. The state is already planning to appeal the decision to a federal court, which has the power to overturn the finding. "The president and his bullish administration are fighting us every step of the way," Governor Nikki Haley said in a statement. "It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights."
The most likely scenario is one in which this case will get fast-tracked to the U.S. Supreme Court, possibly paired with DOJ's soon-to-come assessment of Texas' similar law. University of California law professor Rick Hansen predicated such a situation on his blog last week. "I anticipate that in this litigation, South Carolina (and Texas) will argue, among other arguments, that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional—an issue which has been percolating in the lower courts," Hansen wrote.
A number of counties along with the states of Arizona and Florida have filed separate cases this year that seek to remove themselves from the confines of Section 5. "Subjecting Florida counties and other jurisdictions covered exclusively under the language minority provisions of the VRA to preclearance is not a rational, congruent, or proportional means of enforcing the Fourteenth and/or Fifteenth Amendments and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution," Florida argued in a complaint filed by the state's Secretary of State.
Reading the tealeaves before a Supreme Court case is a dicey game, but the current court has landed on the side of strict voting restrictions before. In 2008, the court heard a challenge to Indiana's photo ID law (this was a general challenge, since Indiana is not one of the nine states covered by Section 5). The court upheld the measure by a 6-3 vote with Justice John Paul Stevens joining the conservative majority. Even with Stevens' retirement, there are still five justices on the record as proponents of restricting ballot access. In a separate opinion, justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito declared that "the law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified."
Tue, 2011-12-27 19:30
If these people were really interested in proper ID to prevent voter fraud they would have developed a system that gives each and every voter a photo ID when they registered to vote. Since none of them do it is obvious that this is a ploy to disenfranchise legitimate voters under the guise of stopping nonexistant voter fraud.
Sun, 2012-01-01 20:37
Since you refuse to educate yourself, allow me to do it for you. The cost of the required ID in South Carolina is no charge. And if you are unable to get to the place to pick up your ID, the state provides free transportation to and from the ID issuance center. Exactly who cannot afford free? And it's just a red herring anyway considering the poor collect welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, HEAP and HUD, all of which require a photo ID. So obviously, the only reason you could possibly oppose these laws is that it makes it much harder to cheat. Studies have proven that the effect of voter ID laws is the registration and voting among minorities are increasing greatly. In fact, the NAACP, The League of Women Voters, ACLU and Holder promised to produce hundreds who were disenfranchised. So how many did they show up with? One. And it turned out she was denied because she lived in Florida and was registered to vote there.
And don't worry, I never charge for revealing the truth.
Fri, 2011-12-30 21:11
Sat, 2011-12-31 16:04
But if we did that we would not be disenfranchising voters, which is the true intent of the laws. The new voter I.D. laws are brillent in their evilness, they sound benign to your average middle class voter but they effectively disenfranchise thousands upon thousands of legitimate voters, which is what they are intended to fo in the first place.
Gary Boldwater
Sun, 2012-01-01 18:07
The repubs are in a tough spot. The DOJ is using laws against them that were put on the books to combat the disenfranchisemnt of voters in the 50's and 60's when democrats like George Wallace and Bull Connor were running things. How nice for those who want to make sure there is no accountability for who votes, and how nice for those who would use a fraudulent vote to cancel out a legitimate one. The repubs will just have to make it a large enough win that the scale of fraud needed to overcome those legitimate repub votes will be too obvious to pull off. It will certainly be interesting to watch. Dems will need to be careful too though. Some of the people they represent are probably getting tired of being told by their own party that they are just not bright enough to know how to do what every 16 year old I've ever known knows how to do; get a drivers license or ID. Also, the law is that employers MUST give you time off to vote. Dems should be helping their voters to the polls anyway. You can bet that when Holder is gone there will be voter ID everywhere but it will be free and that will end the argument for good. A case can be made that the disenfranchisement of a single vote is not worth the price of making sure only legitimate votes are cast. An equally compelling argument is that eliminating the taint of fraud from even one election is worth it. I can say that I want an honest election with only legitimate voters participating and let the chips fall where they may.
Sun, 2012-01-01 18:49
Creating different standards (lower) for one segment of the population over another is quite simply engaging in bigotry of low expectations. The "findings" of the Obama DOJ are subjective:
Sun, 2012-01-01 20:00
The motive for the laws is as the critics say, and not a motive flattering the proponents. The challenge is the same sort of thing, from the other side. That the whole subject is under any federal law is IMHO wrong, and the fact that the matter is litigated at all is unfortunate. Some reasonable measure of attachment to a community is to me an acceptable requirement for voting; if more than that were demanded it would be wrong and imho just grounds for armed rebellion.
The root issue, that far too many Americans ARE predictable in their voting regardless of what the candidates do or propose to do, is even sadder. It lets the two-headed DemPublican oligarchy boss us all around while laughing on their way to the bank with our money. The vote access issue is just another scam to distract us and as usual both sides are in on it up to their pointy ears and horns.
Sun, 2012-01-01 20:31
Like all liberal arguments, this author depends on smoke and mirrors and outright lies. According to him voter ID laws lead to supression of the vote of poor minorities. Oh really? Do the poor receive Medicaid? You need a photo ID. Do the poor get food stamps? You need a photo ID. HEAP? Photo ID. HUD? Photo ID. Go to the city hall? Photo ID. Fly on a plane? Photo ID.
Since the vast majority of states (and the federal government) will not issue an official identification to an illegal alien, requiring state or federally issued photo IDs can also prevent noncitizens, particularly illegal aliens, from voting in elections. Given the increase in reports of noncitizens voting, such measures are needed.[11] For example:
The Colorado secretary of state recently testified before Congress that a check of the voter registration rolls indicated over 11,000 individuals who were non-citizens at the time they registered to vote, at least 5,000 of whom likely voted.[12]
New Mexico Secretary of State Dianna Duran, reported that a preliminary check of voter registration rolls had already found 37 noncitizens that had voted in New Mexico elections.[13]
And what are the actual results in states that have voter ID laws already in place? Record numbers of black and Hispanic voters are being added in those states and numerous studies bear this out.
A study by the University of Missouri on turnout in Indiana showed that turnout actually increased by about 2 percentage points overall in Indiana in 2006 in the first election after the voter ID law went into effect.[17] There was no evidence that counties with higher percentages of minority, poor, elderly, or less-educated populations suffered any reduction in voter turnout. In fact, "the only consistent and statistically significant impact of photo ID in Indiana is to increase voter turnout in counties with a greater percentage of Democrats relative to other counties."[18]
In September 2007, The Heritage Foundation released a study analyzing the 2004 election turnout data for all states. This study found that voter ID laws do not reduce the turnout of voters, including African–Americans and Hispanics. Such voters were just as likely to vote in states with ID as in states where just their names were asked at the polling place.[19]
A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln examined data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. At both the aggregate and individual levels, the study found that voter ID laws do not affect turnout, including across racial/ethnic/socioeconomic lines. The study concludes that "concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing."[20]
A survey by American University of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi to see whether registered voters had photo IDs concluded that "showing a photo ID as a requirement of voting does not appear to be a serious problem in any of the states" because "[a]lmost all registered voters have an acceptable form of photo ID."[21] Less than 0.5 percent of respondents had neither a photo ID nor citizenship documentation. A 2008 election survey of 12,000 registered voters in all 50 states found that fewer than nine people were unable to vote because of voter ID requirements.[22]
In 2010, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters in the United States showed overwhelming support (82 percent) for requiring photo ID in order to vote in elections. This support runs across ethnic and racial lines; Rasmussen reports that "[t]his is a sentiment that spans demographics, as majorities in every demographic agree."[23]
A similar study by John Lott in 2006 also found no effect on voter turnout and, in fact, found an indication that reducing voter fraud (through means such as voter ID) may have a positive impact on voter turnout.[24]
That is certainly true in a classic case of voter fraud committed in Greene County, Alabama.[25] In that county, which is 80 percent African–American, voter turnout increased after several successful voter fraud prosecutions instilled new confidence in local voters regarding the integrity of the election process.
Actual election results in Georgia and Indiana also confirm that suppositions about voter ID hurting minority turnout are incorrect. Turnout in both states increased more dramatically in 2008 in both the presidential preference primary and the general election in the first presidential elections held after their photo ID laws went into effect than they did in some states without photo ID.
There was record turnout in Georgia in the 2008 presidential primary election—over 2 million voters, more than twice as much as in 2004 when the voter photo ID law was not in effect (the law was first applied to local elections in 2007). The number of African–Americans voting in the 2008 primary also doubled from 2004. In fact, there were 100,000 more votes in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary,[26] and the number of individuals who had to vote with a provisional ballot because they had not obtained the free photo ID available from the state was less that 0.01 percent.
In the 2008 general election when President Barack Obama was elected, Georgia, with one of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation, had the largest turnout in its history—more than 4 million voters. Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election when there was no photo ID requirement, the fifth largest increase of any state.[27]
Over the last 4 years there have been convictions or confessions voter fraud numbering 26. Of that 26, 25 are democrats cheating. No wonder people like this author don't want valid laws. It's the only way they can win is to cheat.
More specifically, in South Carolina, not only is the ID free but they will pick you up at your house and drive you to get the ID free of charge. So how does that suppress the vote? Simple, it prevents liberals from stuffing the ballot box. The other funny thing is the votes liberals steal with fraud are most often poor blacks and Hispanics.
Sun, 2012-01-01 22:45
Almost every democratic nation in the world besides the U.S. requires its citizens to have a National ID card, and requires that their citizens present their IDs when they vote to insure the integrity of their voting system. When the U.N. and the U.S. go into a 3rd world country to advise and assist them on setting up a legitimate voting system we tell them to set up a registration and voting system that requires legitimate state issued IDs to protect against massive fraud. In the U.S. you can't buy a beer, a cigarette, go into a bar or disco, board a plane, cash a check, use your foodstamp and welfare debit cards, or drive without a state issued ID. Claiming that 20% of legitimate voters don't have IDs is absurd, and IDs are easy enough to get. Most states will even waive the nominal fee and issue them for free if you can't pay the $5 or $10 fee. About 80% of Americans including a large majority of Democrats approve of requiring a state issued ID to vote, and the Supreme Court has already found in favor of states that do require a state issued ID. So with Obama lagging in the polls suddenly the most corrupt racially motivated Justice Department in the history of the U.S. starts trying to prevent states from preventing voter fraud by requiring IDs? Why? Simple folks! Obama and Holder, and the corrupt left, don't think Obama can win in 2012 without massive voter fraud. They want to get 5 million or more of the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in our country, especially in swing states, to vote fraudulently in a desperate attempt to win the election for Obama and other democrats! Obama and the democrats are simply planning the largest best funded effort to get illegal voters into the polls in our nations' history. What they are planning in 2012 will make ACORNS feeble efforts in 2008 look tiny and silly. Solyndra, Fast & Furious! The Chicago Way is running our Government and they intend to win the Chicago Way if every illegal immigrant and recently dead voter in the U.S. have to show up at the polls to do it. If they succeed the days of legitimate democratic elections, and legitimately elected Governments in the U.S. will be over! We have to require ID and prevent voter fraud, our democracy and legitimacy of future Governments depends upon it!!!!!!
Sun, 2012-01-01 23:35
The dems don't want people showing IDs to vote because that would put a stop to their people running from one voting place to another and voting multiple times during the course of the day. Everyone faintly acquainted with this issue knows that this is true. And I can say personally that I've been witness to this kind of voter fraud.
Mon, 2012-01-02 21:42
Consider two facts:
1. Rank of New York in voter turnout in 2010 elections: 50th out of 50 states (nonprofitvote.org)
2. Rank of New York among the most racially segregated states: 1st out of 50 states. (2010 US Cesus: American Community Survey)
It is quite simple: citizens ARE less likely to vote in highly racially segregated states, such as New York.
Wed, 2013-07-17 19:40
reportedly hispanics, blacks(because blacks are more likely to be poor), and the poor more likely vote democrat, because some republicans are pro-kill the poor and immigrants, pro-close the boarder, and anti-welfare. some democrats are more tolerant of immigrants and give some welfare.
some republicans think if they close the boarders, kill and arrest poor and immigrants, and supress poor and immigrant voters by putting in voter id and discriminatory qualifications, then there wont be poor or immigrants to vote democrat.
put in a new consitutional amendement that says: everyone in the country must be allowed to vote, includeing prisoners and babys. no voteing restrictions allowed.
no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states. article XIV
voter id law, and similar voter suppression tactics, abridge the privileges of citizens of the united states by disallowing many of them, especially the poor, to vote, because many of them are unable to or cant afford to get a voter id. plus it abridges the privilege of citizens of the united states to not have to pay and jump thru hoops in order to vote.
voter id law is unconstitutional.
tell voter supressors to stop the much bigger problem: politican fraud, instead of supressing voters.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
UK: New initiative "to change face of MMA in Britain"
UK: New initiative "to change face of MMA in Britain" - Fighters OnlyProfessional mixed martial artists in the UK will have to sign up to the newly-launched Safe MMA campaign in 2013, or find themselves unable to compete on shows staged by the countries leading promoters.
Several of the UK's leading organisations including BAMMA, UCMMA and Cage Warriors all signed up to the new Safe MMA programme at its launch at the Centre for Health and Human Performance at 76 Harley Street in London last night.
Safe MMA is a not-for-profit medical project, set up with the goal to help make MMA in the UK safe by offering fighters a yearly medical and twice-a-year blood tests to monitor health risks.
UFC referee Marc Godard is on the board, along with Cage Warriors director Graham Boylan, UCMMAs Dave ODonnell and Jude Samuel from BAMMA. Whilst Harley Street is represented by Dr Michael Loosemore and Dr Jack Kreindler.
Safe MMA is a culmination of a common goal and a single belief from like-minded people in the UK who all want the same thing, Godard states. For me theres simply no other place to start than, simply by the role that I adopt now, and the role that people know me best for, and of course thats being a mixed martial arts referee.
He continued: Initially, by bringing together the most established promotions, with the general consensus of doing the right thing being Cage Warriors, BAMMA and UCMMA we had the foresight of kick-starting this movement.
What we did didnt want to do was have what people may perceive as a closed room of individuals, coming up with a vision, a belief, a format or a working model and then trying to bring that to the forefront.
My belief was a lot stronger than that, and I was very single-minded in the fact that when we went to market this it was already a working idea. I think in the past, weve heard lots of guys who want to do things, but the last thing we wanted to do was make an announcement of what we plan to do. We wanted to make an announcement on something that was current.
There remains some scepticism of the project, as MRI scans are not included in the medical package, which will cost all professional UK fighters £235 just for the pack. The reasoning for not including MRIs widely accepted as the best way to monitor brain conditions was put down to cost. Hardly the right direction for a group set up to ensure fighter safety.
Those involved in Safe MMA appear to be very keen in trying to clean up the sport and make sure fighters are less at risk than they currently are. But some big questions were raised at yesterdays launch in the capital many of which remain unanswered.


text:
Man issued 2 summonses after bringing gun to RIC
A Disputanta, Va. man was cited at Richmond International Airport Oct. 8 after it was discovered that he had a .25-caliber handgun in his carry-on bag. TSA officers detected the gun as the man's carry-on baggage passed through the checkpoint metal detector.
TSA officials contacted the Capital Regional Airport Commission Police, who regularly patrol the airport. The police responded, confiscated the weapon and issued two summonses to the man related to state weapons charges. There was no impact to airport operations. The man, who was ticketed to fly to Atlanta, was able to continue on his flight.
Some weapons are permitted to be transported in checked baggage if properly packaged, but passengers should check with the airlines for proper procedures as well as checking into local laws before doing so.
Passengers can review the prohibited items list on the TSA homepage or they can download the free MyTSA application from the TSA homepage. The TSA web site and the MyTSA app have a "Can I Bring?" feature that allows users to type in items they plan to bring on a trip to get an explanation of TSA's security policies for the item, including whether the item can be taken in carry-on luggage through the security checkpoint, packed in checked baggage, both, or neither. The mobile app is available to download for free at http://www.tsa.gov/mobile.
'Proof of Heaven' coming to Glen Allen
Dr. Even Alexander, a New York Times best-selling author who has been featured on Oprah and Dr. Oz, was in town last week to promote his June 27 talk, "Proof of Heaven," at Glen Allen High School.
Alexander (pictured, at right, while Unity of Bon Air church member Harry Simmons interviews him) has written about what he considers to be his journey through the afterlife.
Tickets to this month's event are $25 and will support the new Bon Secours Hospice House being built later this year. > Read more.
Innsbrook Rotary celebrates 25 years
The Innsbrook Rotary Club, which is celebrating its 25th year in 2015, has completed a number of volunteer projects this year and raised thousands of dollars for various organizations through three events.
The club's annual rose sale, benefit for youth live auction and Virginia Fire Games competition, combined with individual and corporate donations, have raised nearly $70,000 – money that the club contributes back to the community.
FeedMore is the beneficiary of the club's 25th anniversary project, which provides refrigerated trailers to be used for the distribution of food throughout Central Virginia. > Read more.
Weekend Top 10
For our Top 10 calendar events this weekend, click here! > Read more.
No one injured during fiery morning wreck on I-295
Va. Guard soldiers, airmen eligible for Va. Veterans ID card
Land Lovers, Clean Businesses honored
Henrico Schools holding job fair to recruit bus drivers
Fairfield MS band wins 5 awards
- More News
Print Edition
Jul. 2, 2015Click here to read the print edition.
Weekend Top 10
Voltaggio to host three-course dinners at Family Meal July 21-22
Fan favorite shines in new West End home
Weekend Top 10
Weekend Top 10
- More Entertainment
Obituary – Ruby White
Obituary – Thomas Stewart Gammon
Obituaries – Frances Inthavong
- More Obituaries
'Proof of Heaven' coming to Glen Allen
Innsbrook Rotary celebrates 25 years
Holman student named Miss Va. Coed Junior Teen
- More Community
My daughters' other dads
All hail to mothers and the hardest job of all
Cabin fever cures - and blessings
- More Opinions
Athlete of the Week – July 3: Kayla Sell
Athlete of the Week – June 19: Sydney Whitaker
Steward School's Enright drafted by NY Mets
- More Sports
Reader Survey | Advertising | Email updates
ClassifiedsDONATE YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR BOAT TO HERITAGE FOR THE BLIND. Free 3 Day Vacation, Tax Deductible, Free Towing, All Paperwork Taken Care Of. 888-617-1682
Full text
Place an Ad | More Classifieds
CalendarThe Henrico Theatre Company will present "Come Blow Your Horn" July 10-26 at The Cultural Arts Center at Glen Allen. Evening performances begin at 8 p.m. while matinees start at… Full text


text:
Daily Sales Up to 70% OFF Limited-time deals start every day at 12 pm ET.
If you love your dog and treat your dog like family, you're dog people just like Snoozer. Snoozer makes fashionable, long-lasting beds and other pet products you'll love almost as much as your pet. Snoozer. For dog people. By dog people.
Snoozer began business in South Carolina in 1985, and is still headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina. A genuine American company, Snoozer is a small outfit specialized in making the finest pet beds on the market, at prices you can afford.
Snoozer products are of such good quality, they even provided a doggie napping spot in the White House when President George H.W. Bush was in office. A Snoozer dog bed was used in the White House because the royal blue color matched the White House seal. After realizing what remarkable quality their first Snoozer bed was, the President and Mrs. Bush ordered a second.
Give your pet the long-lasting comfort you know they deserve, whether at home or on the road. Snoozer offers a wide variety of beds, car seats and accessories for your dog or cat, with many fabric options to suit your taste.
Cozy Cave Hooded Dog Bed
by Snoozer Pet Products


text:
Enlarge / Alternate Images
Repêchage Hydra Moisture Mask for Dry SkinTransforms dry skin into a smooth dewy complexion. This deep acting moisture formula, rich in Marine Moisture Factor from seaweed also contains waterlily and the amino acid proline to reduce redness and irritation. Natural light reflecting minerals make skin look beautiful under any light. Skin becomes illuminated and virtually flawless.


text:
Wait, I don't think you've spent enough time drooling over the pictures of this sweet machine. Go back and salivate some more before you read on, hehe...
This is the third and final incarnation of this bad boy. I posted it on my flickr page a while ago but I knew I had to black it out more. This thing fucking KILLS it now! Suuuuuper smooth and super fast, fast, FAST!!! I also acquired this frame from the same place as my Mercian. I promised a proper explanation when I posted the Mercian so here it is. Like I said, a LONG fucking story. Be prepared for some wicked nerdy reading...
Easton EC90 Track bars
Easton EC90 seatpost
Chris King Headset
Sugino 75 Cranks
Phil Wood BB
MKS RX-1 Pedals
Super Toughness Chain
Custom Painted Zipp 440 rims laced to SLR Option Phil Wood Hubs
Brooks Swift saddle with Ti rails
UPDATE: Turns out this is one of only FOUR Asymetrics Kiochi ever made!


text:
UFC on FX 7's Michael Bisping says he's perplexed by Vitor Belfort's hypocrisy | News
"I'm shocked," Bisping today told MMAjunkie.com (UFC blog for UFC news, UFC rumors, fighter interviews and event previews/recaps). "I'm getting a lot of respect. I'm getting a lot of people rooting for me and not Vitor, surprisingly.
"With that said, I'm still expecting them to boo me on Saturday night. But a lot of people are saying to me, 'F--- Vitor! Kill that motherf---er!' Seriously, I've got it on video of them chanting it at the mall yesterday. But yeah, I'm still expecting to get booed, of course."
In all likelihood, Bisping is a single win away from a long-awaited shot at UFC middleweight champion Anderson Silva. In Saturday's FX-televised headliner at Sao Paulo's Ibirapuera Gymnasium, Bisping (23-4 MMA, 13-4 UFC) takes on Belfort (21-10 MMA, 10-6 UFC), who fights for the first time since a failed bid to take the 205-pound title, at 185 pounds.
UFC President Dana White said a win likely will earn Bisping, who fights for the 18th time under the UFC banner, an elusive title shot. However, much of the pre-fight attention hasn't focused on Bisping's championship chances, and instead, it's centered on Belfort's evasive answers about testosterone-replacement therapy and whether or not he's using it.
It's something that's annoyed Bisping.
"I'll be honest: I'm very disappointed," Bisping said. "I could be a little controversial here, but for someone who talks about honor and respect and f---ing Jesus and the Bible and all that, he's been busted for steroids in the past, he's dodging questions about TRT, and obviously he sounds like he's on it. Otherwise he'd just be answering the question.
"That's disappointing. That said, I'm focused on what I'm going to do. It's going to be a tough fight, but he could be on f---ing rocket fuel for all I care. Saturday night he's in for an ass-kicking."
Bisping most recently fought in September, when he defeated Brian Stann. It marked the Brit's fourth win in five fights, and the lone loss came in a close title eliminator with Chael Sonnen.
Against Belfort who's defeated the likes of Anthony Johnson, Yoshihiro Akiyama and Rich Franklin in recent years most fans believe a long fight favors Bisping and a shorter one favors his opponent.
Bisping, though, doesn't think that's necessarily the case.
"It's not that simple," he said. "I'm expecting Vitor to be able to go five rounds. He fought Jon (Jones) not that long ago, so some of that conditioning is going to carry over into this camp. But from what I hear, he's lost a lot of muscle mass, so that's going to influence his stamina.
"As fights go on, I generally get stronger, even in sparring. Don't get me wrong, though. I can finish this guy in the first round as well. I know I haven't had the one-punch knockouts or whatever in the UFC. I've had plenty in my career before the UFC, but I had them before the UFC. So who knows, you could see that Saturday night. But if I were to predict? Third- or fourth-round TKO."


text:
Apr 9, 2009
4 comments:
- Matthias Paul Scholz said...
There is something Mayanish going on here...
- Apr 10, 2009, 1:06:00 AM
- Sidneys1 said...
Might have to do with the previous post... (http://thenxtstep.blogspot.com/2009/04/14-04-n-90-09-w.html)
There's a weird 'bright spot'... You never know...
Here's my theory:
The 'super NXT' met up with some aliens, and now LEGO is having a conference with them down in Guatemala. The aliens are demanding royalties on Lego 'Mars Mission' sets. They're having the meeting in Guatemala because they aliens were great chums with the Mayans.
My other theory:
Jim's going on a real Mayan adventure!
Have a nice day,
- Apr 10, 2009, 1:32:00 AM
- megamindstorm101 said...
"My other theory:
Jim's going on a real Mayan adventure!"
I think you are right sid. I was always thinking of super nxt and stuff but this sounds a bit right. He has the passport and everything.
- Apr 10, 2009, 2:38:00 AM
- Eric D. Burdo said...
Definitely Mayan. Jim, pack some extra batteries. It's hard to charge your NXT in the middle of a Mayan Temple. :)
- Apr 10, 2009, 9:54:00 AM


text:
The Home of Fashion Film
Report by Kiki Georgiou on 16 September 2012.
Truth be told, while other London designers have forcefully established their identities with their last few collections, Schwab has appeared to be wavering. But if he just needed some more time, it was time well spent.
"The flat raffia sandals and those belts were killer!" - @TTomasiHill on @mariosschwab #LFW
@MariosSchwab Constructed leather, delicate knits - stunning! @Apartment58 @RudeToStare http://t.co/qP6ORevo
SPOTTED: Lina Zhang, Amanda Ware and Alex Wurfel at @MariosSchwab in Navaho fringing and tassles #lfw #LOVEIT
Somerset house has been turned into a wind tunnel for the Marios Schwab show. Let the leather fringing fly!
OMG @MariosSchwab show opening with tirbal Dead Can Dance soundtrack and beautifully simple warrior dresses. GO MARIOS!! #FIERCE
More innovative fabric manipulation from @MariosSchwab this season with @triumphlingerie under-pinnings #LFW #triumph
Not sure about the "humble nature of tribalism" quote on press release though #MariosSchwab. So over lazy conflation of cultures in fashion
Anna Del Russo front row at #MariosSchwab in backless white floor length skimming Tom Ford dress and colourful petal headpiece, fab! #LFW
Fashion power trio Massenet/Tillman/Rush sat opposite me at Marios Schwab #lfw
Packed house at hot ticket @MariosSchwab with @BritishVogue editor #AlexandraSchulman @TeleFashion Lisa Armstrong #SarahMower and many more!
'Swarovski crystals will frame both body and garment...reminiscent of the armour of amazon warrior' @MariosSchwab #LFW #SwarovskiCollective
Ernst Haeckel promised as influence at #MariosSchwab. #excited #MarineLife #ArtFormsInNature #LFW #HashtagFrenzy
According to the show notes @mariosschwab is exploring "both nature and human ancestry" for spring/summer 2013 #lfw
Now to Marios Schwab with @TallulahHarlech at Somerset House. Woopeeeeee
Native Americans inspiring Anthony Turner backstage for @lorealprofuk @MariosSchwab - with a modern twist, naturally. http://t.co/95cnz80D
There's a whole lota weft work going down at Mario's Schwab. #LFW http://t.co/Yrc6jnpc
American Indian girl at #mariosschwab. Long thick locks being helped along with lots of hair extensions #lfw #ss13 http://t.co/nMIpNlYe
Marios Schwab will be showing his new collection with Ciate manicured models, we're on our way to the show! #LFW http://t.co/mjGTdBqc


text:
The video was made by Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham and incorporates footage from his 55 min. documentary The Billionaires' Tea Party (2011).
A short animation detailing the effort of billionaires oil barons Charles & David Koch to undermine belief in climate change and prevent legislation that threatens their profits. Take action
1 - 12 of 1383 results.
Multimedia hub


text:
Moderators: Tonyblack, Jason, Toothy
Square12 wrote:Ok so what are your predictions for the Eurovision voting?
Just to explain for those of you who have never seen the Eurovision Song Contest, it is basically an ingenious way to prevent world war 3 by letting all the European countries who officially hate each other, vent their frustrations on an annual basis by deliberately not giving their rivals any points. Oh and before this political popularity contest there is some sort of amateurish musical warm up act for a few hours.
Now some of the more obvious scenarios include: Scandinavian countries voting for each other, likewise former soviets, Spain and Portugal usually help each other out as do Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Surprisingly France often manages to get some points and Ireland inevitably win, because they get every one else drunk and give them the wrong number to vote for in countries that have a telephone voting system.
Bickaxe wrote:I live in hope that one day it will be based on talent.
Square12 wrote:Hmm may have to watch the father ted song for Europe episode
You DO realise Jenn that the Eurovision contest has a huge gay fan base right? Didnt perhaps notice the very large number of well dressed men crowding the stage????Sister Jenn wrote:The song has a wonderful message... And the men look sexy.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Who's Wee Dug and 5 guests