text:
This morning, we are going to continue in our study of the gift of healing. We are looking at I Corinthians 12 in our study, although we won't be looking at it in the passage this morning. In chapter 12, it mentions gifts that are given and one of them is the gift of healing, or gifts of healings. As we are continuing through I Corinthians, which is what we are doing now, we have stopped at verses 8-10 to consider each of the gifts. We find ourselves, at this point, discussing the gifts of healings.
Of course, this is a very important thing today. What I say to you this morning is important because I think it will help you understand what is going on around us. I think, and I say this in honesty and with all the force I can say it with, and yet with as much love as is possible, I believe that we face one of the most rapidly growing and deceiving movements in the history of the church.
Pentecostalism is its traditional name, but it has somewhere picked up the moniker the Charismatic movement. I think most all of its contributions are bad, but there are some benefits that have been derived indirectly from it. One of them is this, that it forces us to really examine the Word of God to see if the things that are being claimed are, in fact, so. That is good; to drive us into an understanding of the Scripture is vital.
It is important, I think, for us to be discerning. We hear today that all the miracles are still occurring, that all of the apostolic gifts are still going on, that if you're missing out on them, you're missing out on what God is doing.
Oral Roberts sends out in his mail and promises that if you invest in his ministry, he will give you the promise of God that you will get a miracle a day. There is a book called A Miracle a Day Keeps the Devil Away. I received in the mail this week my special miracle prayer cloth, and there it is. Small miracles. That's it. It says: "This special miracle prayer cloth, put in your pillow and sleep on it tonight. Or you may want to place it on your body or on a loved one. Use it as a release point wherever you hurt. First thing in the morning, send it back to me in the green envelope. Do not keep this prayer cloth; return it to me. I'll take it, pray over it all night. Miracle power will flow like a river. God has something better for you, a special miracle to meet your needs." This is just one in a long line of claims that are being made.
You turn on the television, and if you can find something other than a Christian program, you're fortunate. It seems as though television is being inundated by the Christian programming that is really, in many ways, a misrepresentation of biblical Christianity. It is a sad thing. People are claiming miracles and healings ad infinitum, ad nauseam, on and on and on. You begin to wonder just exactly how perceptive people are.
I received a letter from one of our folks who said, "Do you know that some people in your church are very attached to the PTL Club or the 700 Club or whatever?" If that's true, I would say there are some things on there that can be very helpful. But many of the things on there are not helpful; they are very deceiving. They are claiming to be what they are not. You need to be very discerning lest you be caught in the error of their own way, and deceived about what is true.
We hear today that all of these gifts are still going on. Much is being said about healing; it never ends. I hear it continually. In every city I go to and every Christian group I talk to, the people who come up and ask me questions are forever asking me about this whole subject of healing. "Is God restoring this marvelous gift? What do you think of Kathryn Kuhlman? What do you think of Oral Roberts? What about such-and-such a healing? What about this program?" and so forth. These kinds of things are confusing to people across across America who aren't saved, to say nothing of the poor Christians who are untaught in Scripture and don't know what to do with it all.
So we have been endeavoring in our studies to try to get some clear thinking about what is going on. In our study of the temporary sign gifts, which I defined for you at great length in our last study, we mentioned that there are four of them: miracles, healings, languages, and the interpretation of languages. Those four are the miraculous sign gifts that were given by the Spirit to authenticate the new revelation that constituted the New Testament. Once the New Testament was finished, those sign gifts ceased to have a function. They do not belong to the continuing life of the church.
Stephen, you'll recall, in Acts 7, was citing the signs and wonders and miracles done at the time of Moses. He went on to say that it was in connection with Moses receiving the living oracles of God. It's the same thing in the New Testament. When God poured out a revelation of His Word, at that time, God attended it with signs and wonders. That was the purpose, and we've been into that in very great detail.
The people today who claim to have these abilities, and claim to see and allow for and to conduct and experience healings after healings after healings need to be carefully brought to the test of Scripture. The question is not, "Well, I had this experience, I had this experience, what's your experience?" That's not the issue. The issue is, what does the Bible say? That's what we want to talk about. I have no axe to grind with these people; I have no great vendetta against them, I have no vengeance in my heart. It's the same problem for me as any other problem; I simply want to deal with what the Word of God has to say about it. Then, having said that, let it settle itself.
Let me begin by saying this. The temporary sign gifts, healing, miracles, languages, and the interpretation of languages, do not exist today. I think that we have sufficiently seen in the Scripture, in our past studies, that this is true. We have studied the gift of miracles, or the gift of powers as it could be better translated, and have seen what it was. It was the ability to cast out demons with a word.
Now we are studying the gifts of healings. We will study the gifts of languages and interpretation of languages when we get to chapters 13-14 of I Corinthians. We are beginning, in our biblical study, at the person of Christ. Remember our last study? Let's start and review quickly right there.
We said that, in order to understand what the gifts of healings are, we must look at Christ, who was the pattern for all spiritual gifts. He sets down the basis for their functioning. We saw six characteristics of Christ's healing power. What were they? Number one, He healed with a word or a touch. Number two, He healed instantaneously. Number three, He healed totally. There were no malingering symptoms, no part of the disease remained. Number four, He healed everybody. Number five, He raised the dead. Number six, He healed organic diseases. Jesus healed with a word or a touch, instantaneously, totally, everybody, with organic diseases, and raised the dead. Now that is the set pattern for the gift of healing.
You say, "But that was Christ's pattern." Yes, and it is exactly that that He passed on to His apostles. Look at Luke 9; it is a key portion for us this morning. Here, our Lord passes on to His apostles this power. Verse 1.
"Then He called His twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all demons." That is the gift of miracles, that was the gift of power. Keep in mind that the gift of miracles was never the ability given to the apostles and their associates to go around, working natural miracles, making food, walking on water, feeding a multitude, making a tree fall over dead, building an instant house, or anything like that. Never; the miracle gift was simply and only the gift of dunamis- power over Satan, the ability to cast out demons.
Secondly, the end of verse 1, "To cure diseases." He gave them the power over disease with an unqualified ability to cure diseases, period. They had that power. That was given to the Twelve.
Now go to Luke 10:1. Jesus extended these abilities to another group. "After these things, the Lord appointed other seventy," so He picked 70 others, sent them two by two, to preach. So He's got 12 apostles and the Seventy. Notice, in verse 9, among the things He said to them is this, "And heal the sick that are there, and say unto them, 'The kingdom of God is come near unto you.'" He gave to the Seventy the ability to heal the sick. This again is the gift of healing. The ability to heal sickness and disease. Now note, we see in the New Testament that it belonged to Christ, to the Twelve, to whom He gave it, and the Seventy, to whom He gave it.
You say, "Does anyone else in the New Testament have the ability to heal?" Yes. A few of the associates of the apostles to whom they were used of God to give the gift. So it belonged to Christ, His apostles and the Seventy, and some associates of the apostles. We never see it at random among those in the churches. We never see it just milling around in the multitude of believing people. It is a gift always associated with Christ, the Twelve, the Seventy, and the associates of the Twelve, such as Philip. We see that in the book of Acts. It never gets any further than that. It is a very limited gift in terms of the people who possessed it, as is the gift of miracles, or powers, or the ability to cast out demons.
As this early band - Christ, the apostles, the Seventy, and the associates of the apostles - as they went out preaching, proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom, this phenomenal, unbelievable new message, God gave them the ability to heal diseases instantaneously and totally in order to convince people that they were from God and thus, people would believe their message. So, these gifts were to authenticate and confirm the proclamation of these particular individuals. This is the way it worked all throughout the book of Acts.
If you look at Acts 3, you will see this very clearly. In Acts 3:1, Peter and John are going into the temple. Then in verse 2, "A certain man, lame from his birth," and we know from Acts 4:22 that he lame for over forty years, he was over forty years old. He was congenitally deformed, had never taken a step in his life. He was at the gate of the temple called Beautiful, and he was there every day, begging. He saw Peter and John and he begged.
Verse 4. "And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, 'Look on us.'" And he did, expecting Peter to give him some money. In verse 6, Peter says, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have, give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.' And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up; and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he, leaping up, stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God; and they knew that it was he who sat for alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him. And as the lame man who was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering."
Notice, the healing drew the crowd. They were amazed; they wondered. Here was a man they knew had been crippled for forty years, instantaneously walking and leaping. It's incredible! And then the key, verse 12. "When Peter saw it, he answered the people."
The point is, the healing was simply to generate the amazement that could make the message believable, you see? Then Peter launched into a great sermon, he preached, verse 13, "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Son, Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted to you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses," and on he goes. The point is, these miracles were signs and wonders pointing to the message they were preaching.
You find this all the way through the book of Acts. Paul goes into a city, performs a miracle, preaches a sermon. Peter goes in, performs a miracle, raise somebody from the dead, and people believe the Word. This is always the way. They were given to those who were proclaimers of the message to attend the message with divine confirmation, so people would know they weren't just giving their own opinion.
An illustration that might help you is in Acts 19:10. There are many, but this is one. Verse 10. "They continued in Ephesus for the space of two years; so that all they who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks." So the message got all over Asia. Verse 11. "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul," why? To confirm the message, "So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them."
That's where this guy gets his handkerchief thing. The word for handkerchiefs in the Greek means sweat band. And the word for apron had to do with the apron Paul wore when he was making tents. In other words, Paul didn't do this. They actually came to where Paul was working and took his sweatbands and aprons, and put them on sick people. They saw these tremendous miracles, so tremendous that they knew this man had power. In Acts 5:15, Peter would walk along and people would try to fall under his shadow in order to be healed because of the power attending his preaching.
So remember this: the new message delivered by the apostles was confirmed by these signs. Once the message was written down, the signs ceased to be the confirming agent and the book itself confirms itself. You can't put yourself in the Jewish situation. The new message was so jolting, was so shocking. I mean, here came these guys saying this, "You have executed your Messiah." You can't imagine the potency of that message. "You have been set aside by God and He is calling out the church from among the Gentiles." You cannot imagine the drama of that message. This shook them, it literally blew them out of their sandals. I said 'socks' in the first service, but they didn't wear socks. This was so shocking, and so dramatic, and so transforming, their responses were absolutely amazing.
You read in Acts 2:37, "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said, 'What shall we do? This is incredible! We've killed our Messiah! What do we do now?'" Those were the ones who heard it with spiritual ears. The others were furious and threw the apostles in jail and tore their hair out. They said, "You have filled Jerusalem with this doctrine! You can't keep saying this."
The jolt that was involved in this was so tremendous that God had to attest to the truth of it by miracles and healings, or they never would have believed. But as it came with these tremendous signs and wonders, they believed it, and 3,000 were saved the first day. In Acts 5, 5,000 more were saved, and on it goes. Just to hear that they had killed their Messiah was enough to shock them. A new age had come, and so God gave miraculous ability so they would understand that this was true.
Now, in giving these men this ability, this power of healing, I want you to see that they healed in the exact way in which Jesus healed, there was no difference. Number one. Let's look at it in the book of Acts. They also healed with a word or touch, just like Jesus.
Acts 9:32. "And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints who dwelt at Lydda. And there he found a certain man, named Aeneas, who had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy." This is an organic disease. "And Peter said unto him, 'Aeneas, Jesus Christ makes you whole; arise, and make thy bed.'" This guy hadn't made his bed in eight years; he hadn't been out of it in eight years. "And he arose immediately. And all that dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him, and turned to the Lord." Why? Because it was attended by the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Peter healed with a word. "Aeneas, arise."
We also find that the apostles could also heal with a touch. In Acts 28:7, Paul is on the island of Malta, or Melita, after the shipwreck. Verse 8 says, "And it came to pass that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux; to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him." Here the Apostle Paul healed with his hands. Earlier, Peter had healed with a word. Jesus healed with a word or a touch. They had the same power, the same ability. They even state 'in the name of Jesus Christ.'
The apostles, like Jesus, could heal with a word or a touch. Secondly they healed instantaneously. Acts 3:4 says, "And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, 'Look on us.' Then Peter said, 'Silver and gold have I none, but, such as I have, give I thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.' And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up; and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he, leaping up," there was no rehabilitation there. They guy had never walked in his entire life. Peter said, "Get up," and the first thing he did was jumped. He ran right into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God. There was no rehabilitation, there was no therapy, there was no nothing, just instantaneous wholeness.
That leads us to the third thing. The apostles, like Jesus, healed totally; they healed instantaneously and totally. In Acts 9:34, Peter said, "Aeneas, Jesus Christ makes thee whole." There is no progression in any apostolic healing. There is no, "I've been healed and I am steadily getting better." There is no, "I'm feeling better all the time since my healing." No. There is instantaneous, total healing.
Fourthly, the apostles, like Jesus, were able to heal everybody, everybody. I want to show this to you, this is so important. Acts 5:12. "By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people." Miracles and healings. Let's see some of them. Verse 14. "Believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem," they were coming from everywhere now, "Bringing sick folks, and them who were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one," or all. The Apostle Peter healed every single one.
It isn't like when a person went to Kathryn Kuhlman's meeting and went away sick. She said, "Well, I don't do it, only God can do it." Anyone who had the gift apostolically operated the gift strictly on the basis of volition. The leper came to Jesus in Matthew 8:2 and said, "Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me whole." And Jesus said, "I will." It is the will of the one with the gift that operates it. That is why, in Romans 12, it says that if you have the gift of giving, give; if you have the gift of prophecy, prophesy; if you have the gift of showing mercy, do it. Any time there is a command to use your gift, there is the assumption that you have the will to control it. That is true of the gift of healing like every other gift.
The people today, the reason they do not say that they heal is because they're right; they don't. They have to say that because if they claim the gift, they would be forced into answering, "Why don't you heal this person or that person?" Their cop-out is, "It's not me, it's the Lord," when, in fact, that proves it isn't the real gift because the real gift was exercised at the will of the one who possessed it, like any spiritual gift.
So they healed totally, and they healed everybody. Back to Acts 28:9. "So when this was done, others also in the island, who had diseases, came and were healed." Who was healed? Everybody who came with a disease. Again, it's the same thing.
Now look, Jesus and His apostles healed the same way: with a word or a touch, instantaneously, totally, everybody. Also, they healed organic disease. They did not go around dealing with functional, symptomatic, psychosomatic things, but with actual organic diseases. Here was a guy, forty years plus, crippled. That's typical. It was always organic diseases. I said two weeks ago, they didn't go around healing lower back pain, migraine headaches, palpitations of the heart, things that were not visible or organic.
Sixth, and this is a really good one, the apostles, like Jesus, raised the dead. That was part of the gift of healing. It must have been so exciting for Peter who, most of his life had failed at everything, to be able to go around raising dead people. Just think!
Acts 9:36. "Now there was a certain disciple, named Tabitha," or Dorcas, and she died, verse 37 says. Peter came to see her, verse 40, and put all the mourners out, knelt down, prayed, and said to the body, "'Tabitha, arise.' And she opened her eyes; and when she saw Peter, she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord." Again, you have the connection with proclamation and salvation.
Notice, Peter raised the dead. The next time someone claims to have the gift of healing, take them out to the cemetery and say, "Go at it! Lots of prospects here. One will be convincing for me; any one you pick." Listen, Jesus and the apostles healed with a word or a touch, instantaneously, totally, everybody, organic diseases, and raised the dead. I have yet to see anyone today who can do any of those things that way. That is the continuity of the apostolic gift of healing. They were confirming signs always connected with the preaching of the gospel. Listen, beloved, once the Word was complete, the signs ceased.
Joshua 5:11-12 says this, "And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the very same day. And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year."
What that says is, the miracle of the manna was no longer needed when they entered the Promised Land, and the miracle stopped. It's the same thing. Once you get this book, which is the land of Canaan in that little allegory, you don't need the miracle of the manna anymore. The miraculous sign gift is no longer needed; we have the living Word. It was never intended to be used just to run around and keep Christians healthy all the time; it was to be used as a sign to unbelievers to get them to hear the Gospel.
Let me give you another thought on this. Paul had the gift of healing, we know that. Paul shows us the purpose of this gift, because Paul, with the gift of healing, never used it outside of its purpose. For example, look at Philippians 2:25.
"I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labor, and fellow soldier. For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because you had heard that he had been sick. For, indeed, he was sick near unto death, but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow."
Now here is Paul, and he says, "I have this wonderful friend with me named Epaphroditus. He's been sick near to death. But the Lord is good, because if he would have died, oh, I would have been sad." You say, "Well, what's the big deal, Paul? Why don't you heal him? The gift of healing is something you can use at will. Why don't you heal him?" You know why? Because Paul did not pervert the purpose of the gift to his own personal ends. The purpose of the gift was not just to run around and keep Christians healthy. It was as a sign to unbelievers. It was at that point, when God revealed that the purpose was clear, and this is the time, and it was necessary for the proclamation that they use the gift.
Look at II Timothy 4:20. Paul says, "Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick." Hey, nice guy. You say, "You have the gift of healing. Why did you leave him sick?" Because the purpose of the gift is not to run around and keep the Christians healthy; it is a sign to unbelievers to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Timothy was sick in I Timothy 5, and Paul didn't say, "Find someone with the gift of healing," he said, "Take a little wine for your stomach's sake," try medicine. He himself was wracked with a thorn in the flesh, yet he never healed himself and he never went to someone else to heal him. Why? That was never the purpose. Listen, I am so tired of hearing these people say that God wants every Christian to be well. There is a book God Wants You Well. I'm going to write a sequel, God Wants You Sick. God wants you sick; God even wants you dead sometimes. You say, "Yikes! That book will never sell." That's right.
God's healing purposes are not to be perverted and twisted as they are being done today, so that they are rampantly being claimed all over the place as the panacea for everyone's ills. You want to know one good reason why the Charismatic movement grows like it does? Because there are so many sick people looking for somewhere to get well.
Dennis Bennett, in his book The Holy Spirit and You, which is mostly wrong about both, says, "God has made it perfectly clear in His Word that it is His will to heal the sick, period!" The stupidity of that is then why are they sick? It seems a lot simpler if they just didn't get sick. Then people say, "Well, Isaiah 53:5 says that by His stripes we are healed." Folks, please don't associate that verse with physical healing. That corrupts the message of Isaiah 53. Jesus didn't die on a cross so you don't get a cold. Jesus didn't die on a cross for any other reason than to heal your soul of its diseases. This has been the promise of many of the cults, and they have grown like Pentecostalism because of the same thing; there is a tremendous market for this.
Listen, in a world where sin is not excluded from the permissive will of God, why should we assume that suffering is? Paul had no such exemption. He prayed three times for God to remove the thorn in his flesh, and He never removed it because He wanted him to have it. God wanted him sick, because he had so many revelations. Paul had so many revelations that he could have been proud, so God kept him humble by his illness. Read it in II Corinthians 12, it's all there. I
'll tell you, if every Christian was well and health were a part of the atonement, then people would all be running to get saved for the wrong reason, and God's whole picture of salvation would get muddied up. God wants people to come to Him because of sin and because of His glory, not so they can be healthy physically.
Listen to this, what nonsense would be made of such virtues as long-suffering, patience, and endurance - so highly prized in the New Testament - if we were all always well. What stupidity it would be that salvation provides physical wholeness on earth but you don't get that spiritual wholeness until you get to heaven. How foolish for God to decree that all of us must die but none of us can ever get sick. Paul was sick, and he left a lot of other people sick, and that's the way it is because God wants some people sick.
In Hebrews 12:6, "For whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives." Part of that scourging is, no doubt, illness. Listen to Exodus 4:11. This is an important thing for people to remember, "And the LORD said unto him, 'Who hath made man's mouth? Or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?'" God makes them. God makes people deaf and dumb and blind because it fits His purposes.
Sometimes, like in John 9, "Who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus said, "Neither have sinned, but he is blind because it is for the glory of God." God has His own purposes. So we have to keep very clear about this. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and all the rest could heal with an, "I will." They could use that gift any way, any time. That is true of any of the sign gifts.
Why do you thing the whole of I Corinthians 14 was written? To regulate the gift of tongues, because they had control over it and they needed regulations. If it was something you had to stand there and wait until God did, you wouldn't need regulations because He wouldn't do it out of line. Do you understand? These gifts were used at the volition of the one who possessed them. Peter claimed to possess this: "Such as I have, give I thee," he said in Acts 3. So, when people come along and say, "I don't heal, it's God," that is strictly a cop-out. It's true, they don't heal. It's a cop-out to get the monkey off their back when you go and don't get well.
The question I hear all the time is, "John, how do you explain what goes on?" I hear this all the time. "I know a lady and she had a son and all this," or, "My friend's mother, and she went," and so on. "How do you explain it?" All right, let me ask you a question.
Since none of the healers can heal with a word or a touch, instantaneously, totally, everybody, organic diseases, and raise the dead; since none of them have received the gift of healing from Jesus or the apostles (they're not that old); since the Bible is complete, the revelation has ceased, and no more signs are necessary; since the Word needs no confirmation outside itself, "It is sufficient that the man of God might be perfect"; since their healings are based on faulty theology of the atonement and salvation; since they disallow God His own purposes in having some people stay sick; since their personal lives are not known to manifest the fruit of the Spirit; since so many tricks, gimmicks, and special effects are often used; since the evidence is weak, unsupported, and so-called testimonies exaggerated; since they do not go to the hospitals where the sick are, as Jesus did; since they cannot heal all who come to them; and since they do not do things which can have no other possible explanations than that God has acted supernaturally; let me ask you this question: "How do you explain it?"
You can't explain it biblically. It is fraud; they are deceived. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they don't know they are deceived; maybe they are honestly deceived, but they are deceived. You say, "Are you saying God doesn't heal?" No.
Let me reiterate some truth. God answers prayer. Do you believe that? Second, God heals in answer to prayer. God heals miraculously in answer to prayer. God heals miraculously in answer to prayer where there is faith. God heals miraculously in answer to prayer where there is faith for His own glory. Don't ever say I don't believe God heals. I've seen Him heal. I've seen Him heal miraculously. I've seen Him heal miraculously to manifest His glory. I've seen Him heal miraculously to manifest His glory in response to faithful prayer. God heals. But, God does not heal everybody and God does not heal through the apostolic gift of healing. That has ceased.
I want to close by looking at this from another angle. Why are Christians sick? We have to understand that first, before we go around claiming healing. Let me give you several possibilities. Number one, God made them sick. He wanted them there. God has made the deaf and the dumb and the blind. God allowed the man in John 9 to be born blind. God wanted Lazarus dead, did you know that? Jesus wanted him dead; He stayed away.
Some people are sick because God wants them them that way. You may have a little baby in your house, and there is something wrong. That is God's plan, and it is a gift of God's love, so He will reveal that to you as you seek His face in it. Some of you may have a congenital deformity. Some of you may have an illness. Read the book Grace Grows Best in Winterif you want to get a beautiful insight into why God allows these things to happen. It is a great book. It is by Margaret Clarkson, a woman who has lived all of her life with a congenital problem, an illness. God has purposes in this.
Secondly, it could be Satan. Satan makes some people sick. Satan makes me sick, frankly. Satan makes some people sick in the illness category. Luke 13:11 says, "Behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years." Here was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for 18 years. Here is a woman who had a spirit of infirmity. Some illness is the result of a demon. "She was bowed together, and could in no way lift herself up." This demon had bent her over into a humped position. "When Jesus saw her, He called her to Him, and said unto her, 'Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.' And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God." She had a spirit. Satan makes some sick, and God may choose to cast out those demons and heal that person of those infirmities.
It could be, too, that God lets Satan make someone sick for his own reasons. Job, right? God had a purpose; God said to Satan, "I want you to see that I have a man who can handle you. Every test, he can handle. Go to it." God may allow Satan to buffet you. In II Corinthians 12, Paul said that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him. So, it could be God, it could be a demon, or it could be God letting it happen, letting Satan do it to perfect you.
Or, it could just be God doing it. God might allow you to catch a certain disease, or be in a situation where it's going to happen, because He has a purpose. You know what His purpose might be? Well, it could be a lot of things. David pours out his heart in Psalm 119:67. He says, "Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now have I kept Thy word." Have you ever noticed that? "Before I was afflicted, I went astray. But now I have kept Thy word." Boy, I can relate to that one. Almost every one of us could. Then verse 71 says, "It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes." Sometimes illness, affliction, infirmity, and trouble drive us to His side. That is His intention. It is better for you to be sick and godly than well and ungodly, right?
So, it could be God, it could be Satan, it could be God allowing Satan, or it could be God just allowing it. Let me give you another one. It could be chastening for sin. God could be unloading the guns on you because of your sin. In Numbers 12:9, we could read a lot of verses on this, "The anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and He departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow." God got angry with Miriam and gave her leprosy. Then they had a little prayer meeting and the Lord healed her, because if illness comes as a result of chastening, if you will just get rid of the cause for the chastening, the chances are you will get rid of the illness.
I'll show you more. Deuteronomy 28:21, "The LORD shall make the pestilence cling unto thee, until He have consumed thee from off the land, to which thou go to possess it. The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blight, and with mildew." Here, He says, "If you're sinful, I'll unload the disease on you." God uses illness as a chastening.
In II Kings 5:15, Gehazi sinned and got leprosy. You can read it. II Chronicles 21 and 26 both talk about it. Look at II Chronicles 26:5, "And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding [talking about Uzziah], in the visions of God; and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper." Verse 21. "And Uzziah, the king, was a leper unto the day of his death, for he was cut off from the house of the LORD." As long as he sought God, he was healthy; as soon as he didn't, he got leprosy. God uses disease as a chastening.
In Exodus 15:26, He said to Israel, "If you keep my commandments, I will put none of these diseases upon you." Chastening the Corinthians, what did He do? Because of their desecration of the Lord's Table, Paul said, "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many are dead."
Now, if God makes you sick for His own intents and purposes, that is His choice. If it is Satan, then when you become a Christian I believe God will deliver you from the demon. I think salvation cleans you out. If it is God letting Satan do it, or God allowing it to be done to perfect you, then it will have to run its course until you are perfected the way He wants. Peter said, "After you have suffered for a while, God will make you perfect." If, in fact, it is a chastening for sin, then as soon as you deal with the sin I believe that God begins to withdraw the chastening.
That leads us to an important Scripture, James 5:14. "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be healed. The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much."
Notice. We don't have time to go into this in detail, but I want to give you the overview. Here is sickness related to chastening, because he says there are two things to do when you are sick. First, call for the elders and pray; and second thing is in verse 16. Confess your sins. That is the reason the elders are brought in. Every time you are sick, it isn't necessarily an issue for the elders, because, "the effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." But when it is a sickness that is a result of sinfulness, then it is a matter of purity for the church. The elders are the overseers of church purity and they are involved in hearing that confession and joining you to seek God for the removal of that illness.
So, there is the promise here that when confession is made, and prayer to God, believing in His power and will to heal in regard to chastening, God will respond. God heals when you pray, believing, and confessing your sin, if that disease is the result of chastening. The first thing I tell people when they are sick is, "Have you checked out every area of your life for sin? Have you confessed it openly? If there's a sin in your life and you know it, meet with the elders, let's pray about it, and believe God." If all of that is done, your life is pure and the sickness is still there, then it is God's choice for your perfection." But it is ridiculous to say God always wants everyone well. The Bible doesn't teach that, yet you have the right to look to Heaven in every illness because it may be that He wants to remove it for His glory.
You have the right to look to Heaven, and I'll give you three reasons. Number one is God's person, because of God's person. In Exodus 15:26, God says, "My name is Jehovah Ropheka, the LORD that heals thee." He is a healer. You have a right to look to Him in every illness. Second, not only because of His person, but because of His promise. He says, "Call unto Me, and I will answer, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not." He promised to hear every prayer. He promised that whatever we asked in His name He would do. The promise of God is that if it is His will, He will heal.
So God's person, God's promise, and thirdly, God's pattern. God's pattern was established in Jesus. If you want to know how God feels about disease, look at Jesus. How did He feel about it? He went everywhere healing. I believe He gave us a pattern of God's attitude. "When the evening was come, they brought unto Him many possessed with demons; and He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all that were sick, that it might be fulfilled spoken by Isaiah, the prophet, saying, 'He Himself took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses.'" Here you have the promise that God heals because of His person, His promise, and His pattern.
At the same time, I want to add a footnote. Christians believe in doctors, did you know that? Christian Scientists, who are neither Christian nor scientific, they are like Grape Nuts - they're not grapes or nuts. Isaiah 38:1 says, "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah, the prophet, the son of Amoz, came unto him, and said unto him, 'Thus saith the LORD, "Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live."' Then Hezekiah turned his face toward the wall, and prayed unto the LORD, and said, 'Remember now, O LORD, I beseech Thee, how I have walked before Thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Thy sight.' And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah, saying, 'Go, and say to Hezekiah, "Thus saith the LORD, the God of David, thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years."'"
Now that is answered prayer! Miracle! Then verse 21 says, "For Isaiah had said, 'Let them take a lump of figs, and lay it for a plaster upon the boil, and he shall recover.'" What's the deal? If you are healed of God, why do you need the remedy? I think God is laying down a principle. Do two things when you get sick: pray, and go to the doctor.
There's more. Matthew 9:12. "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." Jesus assumed that sick people needed a doctor. It's interesting that, in the case on the island of Melita, where Paul healed the people, it says that Paul, "Laid his hands on him, and healed him." The Greek word iaomaimeans 'healing;' it is also used as a spiritual term for healing. Then it says that Luke therapeuothem. Paul healed them, and Luke practiced medicine on them; it's a terrific combination. So, if you get sick, find a Paul to pray for you and a Luke to help you get better. Just let God do His will.
Remember, it is God's will that you die sometime. May it be like Peter. Jesus said to him, "By this death you shall glorify God." I hope that in your illnesses, and everything else, you keep your biblical perspective and glorify God in His purpose. All the time, remember this, you do have the promise to seek Heaven, because the One who lives there is Jehovah Ropheka, the Lord that heals. Let's pray.
Father, thank You for a clear word to us again this morning. We are challenged to be discerning and to realize the clarity with which Your Word speaks on this. For this two part series, Father, we ask Your blessing, that these tapes might go and touch many lives and unscramble much that has been confused. Help us, Father, to look to You, to accept Your will, and yet to seek Your face, as Hezekiah did, and pray with tears, believing that You are the God who heals. Do Your will in every life. For everyone that is here this morning and is ill in any way, all I can ask is that You would heal, if that's Your will. If it is not, that You would perfect, by this infirmity, that You may receive the glory either way. In Jesus' name, Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
This is a three part examination of "Truth" in photojournalism. Part one deals with the reality behind the image, part two deals with honesty, accuracy and the meaning of the word "truth", and part three deals with the power of the real photograph.
These three columns originally appeared in the January, February and March 2011 issues of News Photographer Magazine.
By John Long
(Merriam-Webster – provenance: the history of ownership of a valued object or work of art or literature)
Two iconic photographs have come under intense scrutiny in the past year or so, the famous Robert Capa photograph of the Falling Soldier and an Associated Press photograph thought to be from the infamous Bataan Death March. This column does not attempt to settle either of these controversies but rather to explore the question: "What is an honest photograph?"
If these photographs are not what we thought them to be, are they no longer honest? There has been no digital manipulation (or airbrushing, since these both predated the electronic era by many years), and the images are exact representations of what was in front of the camera when the shutter was tripped. What definition of honesty is broken if the camera did what it was supposed to do and the negative shows the reality that existed in front of the lens at that moment?
This question goes to the very nature of photography and our expectations when we look at images. If the photograph of people carrying bodies in blankets is not of the actual Bataan Death March, is it no longer real? Is it a lie? If the Falling Soldier is not dead, is the photograph a fake?
How have we come to imbue iconic photographs with a power that might not be theirs? Is photography at its soul just a myth? Is a photograph just a personal construct, much like a painting? Is an Ansel Adams photograph of Yosemite honest, or is it actually a photograph of Adams' mind or soul, not Yosemite? I remember on first visiting Yosemite being on some level surprised there was color. I was so imbued with Adams' black-and-white photographs, it seemed odd that the trees were green and the sky was blue.
Is honesty inherent in the image, or in the provenance? Is the honesty in the image or in the story that goes with the image? And what does the word "honesty" really mean?
We have come to value the "decisive moment," to believe the real photograph depicts reality. Maybe we have imbued the documentary photograph with a reality it does not actually have. A photograph is merely a collection of specs of silver (originally) or pixels that represents or copies a moment in time presented in two-dimensional fashion, symbolically. Just because it looks like a man falling does not make it a man falling. The mind must interpret the visual information and this information is limited in that it does not have smell, or context, or color or temperature or any of the multitude of things that make up reality and our perception when we are actually experiencing reality.
Provenance is an important part of a photograph and we usually pass over this aspect of the photograph because it is usually so self-evident. It is only in the rare case where provenance is called into question that we see and feel its importance.
If the soldier is not dead, the photograph loses its importance. It is still the exact same set of symbolic specs of silver on the exact same paper, but it no longer has the same value as a piece of history. It is not that the photograph lied. Provenance was at fault. It is still an honestly produced photograph but the external importance we gave it has proved to be false so this honest photograph is no longer as important as we thought it was.
One time I was covering a flash storm in Hartford that caused some street flooding. As I approached a puddle I saw a youth riding his bicycle through the water. I jumped out of my car, made one photograph, and the kid rode off. I could have called him back and had him do it again but I did not and I settled for a mediocre image instead of a good one even though the public would never be able to tell from looking at the photograph if it was real or staged.
If I set up the photograph of the kid in the water, does this make the photograph a lie? Yes!!! Because the provenance would be a lie. The kid would have ridden through the water if I had asked him to but the implied provenance was that it happened on its own, not with my help. That is where the lie would come in.
Now let's add another wrinkle: a television videographer, who believes differently in regard to set up photographs than I do, shows up at the same scene and asks the kid to ride through the water again. Do I shoot this? It's his set up. Is it ethically okay for me to shoot his set up?
Let's make this even more like the reality of today as television and newspapers merge: if the still photographer and the television shooter both work for the same company, can the newspaper photography editor choose a frame grab from the television shooter for the paper since it is a better photograph and shot ethically under the rules in place for the television shooter?
And as still photographers begin to work in same department as videographers, whose honesty will be paramount?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Feeding the hungry
Compassion | In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, local churches do not forget those living in lower Manhattan's housing projects
by Emily Belz
Posted 11/05/12, 10:57 am
NEW YORK—This city's recovery will be long, but in the first week after Superstorm Sandy when lower Manhattan didn't have the very basics—food, water, power, or gas—local churches proved vital to helping one neighborhood survive.
Along the Lower East Side, 13,700 public housing residents were stuck in 12-story brick apartment buildings. Most of the housing projects, since they were along the East River, landed in the city's designated mandatory evacuation zone. But many of the residents had nowhere else to go.
Sandy knocked out power, ending elevator service to the 12 floors in each building. The windowless hallways became inky black at night, and after dark residents said they would only walk around in large groups.
Residents gathered around fire hydrants outside with buckets they carried up endless flights of stairs, sometimes just to flush a toilet. Teenager Precious Anderson lives on the 12th floor of her building and her mom has asthma, so Precious had to carry everything up and down for her.
Shanell Adorno, 22, came across an elderly lady carrying water up the stairs. Adorno asked what floor she lived on. "She didn't speak English," said Adorno. "I'm like, '10? Let's go!'" These stories repeat themselves among the families living at Jacob Riis, Lillian Wald, and Bernard Baruch public housing.
After the storm hit, everyone temporarily had food to eat. One woman cooked up all the food in her freezer and refrigerator, knowing it would spoil, and shared the food with her neighbors. But after a couple days, they got hungry. Grocery stores, bodegas, and restaurants in lower Manhattan were shuttered. Traffic lights were dark, the streets empty. Public transit wasn't running. No one from the city came to distribute food as in other neighborhoods. No one from the National Guard came.
"I know other parts of the city got hit harder," said Adorno. "But I do feel forgotten … it's kind of like, 'Hello!'"
The churches in the neighborhood remembered. Abounding Grace Ministries, a church beside the housing projects, had families running out of food. Trinity Grace Church East Village has a youth group of kids from the projects, kids who said their families were hungry. Guy Wasko, the Trinity Grace East Village's pastor, drove to a grocery store in midtown Manhattan with other local pastors and stocked up on $500 worth of groceries for the families. But it was nowhere near enough for the needs springing up. After driving around the city picking up supplies, Wasko was running out of gas and he couldn't find any in Manhattan. He tweeted that he needed gas and someone brought him 10 gallons—from Philadelphia.
On Wednesday, a number of church leaders launched a supply distribution center outside the projects, with news that Operation Blessing had a semi-truckload of supplies on the way. Wasko tweeted, "Anyone have access to a fork lift?" On Thursday morning the churches opened up the supply center for the community on a basketball court and began serving hot meals.
At least 10 churches came together to spearhead what the mayor's office told the church leaders was the largest distribution center in the city. The city, showing up on the fourth day after the storm, told the churches essentially, "Carry on," and made the basketball court an official distribution point.
"The city didn't count on the churches having such a great role," said Libaniel Urbina from The Salvation Army, whom the city appointed as the distribution center's official supervisor. "I'm appointed by the city. I'm supposed to be supervising … but everybody's doing it already."
"The National Guard, the mayor's office is coming to us. 'Let us help you,'" said Wasko. "We didn't plan that."
The city sent police officers to keep order in lines. National Guardsmen brought Meals Ready to Eat (MREs). Then the city gave the churches master lists of people living in the projects so volunteers could check on everyone and make sure those who couldn't leave their apartments had supplies.
Outside the projects on Friday after the storm, hundreds stood in line waiting for hot meals at Mercy Chefs trucks, which were serving plates of mashed potatoes, chicken, and corn. (The founder of Mercy Chefs, Gary LeBlanc, is a native of New Orleans with plenty of both culinary and hurricane experience.) Mercy Chefs said it was feeding hot meals to between 4,000 and 8,000 people every day in the week after the storm hit. Every day they churned through all their supplies.
At least 800 Lower East Side residents stood in another line for basic supplies, bundled as the temperature dropped in the afternoon. The supply line stretched diagonally across the basketball court, with tables full of blankets, groceries, toiletries, batteries, and cleaning supplies. Behind the tables a forklift zipped around dropping off pallets of new supplies, and lines of volunteers formed to unload boxes from semis. Operation Blessing had brought the semis of food and water and simply asked the city pastors where the needs were.
Several people I interviewed in line thought the people serving them food were from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The church volunteers didn't advertise themselves. But many people knew who had remembered them. When the power came back on late on Friday, hundreds of people wrote a thank you note to the churches on a big piece of cardboard.
John Black from Forefront Church lives in the neighborhood—but not in the projects. The only time Black has been to the projects has been running through them to get to the waterfront for a jog. "I'm embarrassed," he said. "The need exists whether or not there's a hurricane. Hopefully this is an eye opener."
The need continued even after the city restored power. Some of the pastors were concerned that the city might delay on cleanup in the projects, allow mold to grow in flooded buildings, then condemn the buildings so it could move those populations away from a part of town that has been growing wealthier and wealthier.
At the end of the week New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Sandy rendered many public housing complexes temporarily uninhabitable. They said about 40,000 residents might have to be relocated, especially as winter sets in.
"This is going to be a massive, massive housing problem," Cuomo said. "You are going to need a number of options for a number of situations, short-term and long-term."
"We're here for the long haul," said Wasko. "This is going to take a long time for people to recover."
Want to help?
Trinity Grace Church's Sandy fund goes directly toward the relief efforts described in the article above. To give, visit the church's website.
Hope for New York's Sandy fund distributes support to local ministries in the city. To give, visit the organization's website.
Donations can also be sent to The Salvation Army and The Bowery Mission to help them in their efforts to help those affected by Superstorm Sandy in lower Manhattan.
Emily Belz
Emily reports for WORLD Magazine from New York City. Follow Emily on Twitter @emlybelz.


text:
Moderator: MudBug
eeyore wrote:Members, Thanks for letting me join your forum. I recently put together with the help of a gunsmithing friend a 450b built on a 700 rem adl .243. I'm having feed problems using the original mag box as its too long and the rounds stovepipe. They will single feed from the mag if they are pushed all the way to the rear. I then tried a 223 box and its too wide to single stack rounds and hold tension on them therefore they pop out the top of the mag. Any suggestions
kenn1320 wrote:Hi 450b lovers, thanks for a great site. Ive been lurking for a couple wks off and on. Im about at the point to start asking questions and ordering parts. Im totally new to the ar platform, but the 450b has my attention. Currently using a cva 44 mag for deer hunting here in Mi, but my son has laid claim to it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


text:
This sentiment from the Life Is Beautiful set is so fun all on it's own...so I wanted to make it take center stage.
I did a little bit of coloring with my Copics and placed it on a die cut panel that would really draw your eye right in.
There are a lot more great sentiments in the Persimmons Studio line from Market Street Stamps - be sure to check them out!
Thanks for stopping by today!
Cardstock: Discount Cardstock (Brilliant White 130#); Bazzill (Patina);
Stamps: Market Street Stamps (Life Is Beautiful);
Ink: Memento (Tuxedo Black);
Markers: Copic (BG11, BG15);
Ribbon: May Arts (SK-4-10);
Dies: Spellbinders (Circles - Large);
Tools: Fiskars (Trimmer, Scissors); Scor-Pal (Scoring Board); ProvoCraft (Cuttlebug);


text:
by Katie Parker, sports information graduate assistant
MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. – The Georgia College & State University men's tennis team (7-4) shutout Concord University (0-1) 9-0 Tuesday at the Centennial Center Tennis Facility.
The Bobcats mixed things up today with Leo Bernardes (Sao Paulo, Brazil) and Johan Wadstein (Helsingborg, Sweden) playing first doubles, beating Andrew Iruthayarajah and Joao Mischiatti 8-3.
At second doubles, Tyler Franks (Eatonton, Ga.) paired with Jerome Leborgne (Coordimanche, France) to defeat Concord's Leo Araujo and Armando Estevez 8-3, while Georgia College's Bobby Angelucci (Acworth, Ga.) and Max Beliankou (Minsk, Belarus) downed Felix Corbella Riba and Filip Crvenkovic 8-2, giving the 'Cats a 3-0 lead after doubles play.
In singles action, Leborgne kept things going for Georgia College winning 6-4 and 6-2 over Araujo. Slotted second, Wadstein swept Mischiatti 6-1 and 6-0, while Beliankou took Iruthayarajah 6-3 and 6-2. With the most Bobcat wins this season, Beliankou now sits at 8-2 in individual play.
At fourth singles, Bernardes blanked Estevez in 6-0 sets, improving to 7-2 for the 2010 campaign. Bobcat freshman Wictor Andersson (Karlskoga, Sweden) claimed fifth singles, defeating Riba 6-1 and 6-2, while Franks overpowered Crvenkovic 6-3 and 6-2.
The Bobcats are back in action Saturday, March 13 hosting Lander University at 1 p.m.
The GCSU Department of Athletics, winners of the 2008-09 PBC Commissioner's Cup, sponsors 10 varsity athletic programs at the NCAA Division II level. As a Division II program, GCSU prides itself on balancing the life of the student-athlete, evidenced by the Bobcats' multiple appearances in post-season competition as well as documented academic success and community-service involvement. Sign up at Twitter.com username GCSUSID for up-to-the-minute reports, and visit www.GCSUBobcats.com to nominate your favorite former Bobcats and Colonials to the GCSU Athletics Hall of Fame.


text:
We have all heard the talk about wild hogs moving into Ill and even a bunch getting released in Central Illinois a few years back. I am curious to hear about where all the confirmed sightings are. I just got word this weekend of hogs crossing I74 and seen in north knox county.
Help me fill out this map of all the confirmed counties that have wild hogs.


text:
McKinsey $1,000,000 Horseplayers 0
By Cary Fotias
Welcome to HorseRaceInsider Guest Commentary. From time to time, you will read reactions from industry leaders, racing practitioners or, like today, commentary from a professional horseplayer.
The austere Jockey Club recently commissioned a study to delve into racing's current issues. Some industry professionals say everyone tethered to the Thoroughbred already know what the problems are. Here is the take of Cary Fotias, founder and president of Equiform, a performance figure data company based in New York City
The Jockey Club has done it again, Mr. Santayana. It has not learned from the past and, thus, is condemned to repeat the same mistakes. Rather than listen to the customer, The Jockey Club has commissioned yet another study. This one will be conducted by McKinsey & Company and will "examine the sport and where it would be over the next 10 years without change while providing recommendations to improve the short-term and long-term prospects of the industry." The results of the study will be presented during the Jockey Club Round Table session in Saratoga this August.
The powers that run thoroughbred racing are clearly in denial. For over a decade, players have been complaining about high takeout rates, 40% super-trainers (illegal drugs), poor customer service, small fields, archaic withholding tax rules and the integrity of the wagering pools to name a few. The game is on life support now, and if no substantive changes are made in the next ten years, it will be all but dead. If McKinsey doesn't reach that conclusion, they will not have earned their money.
In 2004, I was a member of the NTRA Players Panel that gave a presentation at the Handicapping Expo in Las Vegas. My topic was takeout rates and I received a rousing ovation when I stated that "thoroughbred racing will never prosper unless takeout rates are lowered dramatically". Well, seven years later, rates haven't really changed, and pari-mutuel handle has fallen off a cliff.
Of the 60 or so recommendations the panel made on a variety of issues, I believe one may have been enacted. You can see the whole report here.
It would be interesting to know if any members of the Jockey Club ever read our report. If they did, it appears they decided that our concerns were not very important. After all, just because the customers are unhappy doesn't mean you should listen to their free advice. But if you pay a consulting firm a lot of money maybe it knows something better. This reminds me of what happened a few years back in the wake of a "scandal" at Aqueduct. Trumped-up charges by Elliot Spitzer led to NYRA paying a reported $3 million to Giuliani Partners to find out what any railbird could have told them. It was nothing more than using a high profile name for damage control.
Are you kidding me, Jim? Thirty-six years later you're going to do an analysis of takeout rates again? It's just a key metric in your business model, but addressing it two or three times a century oughtta do, right?
The economics of takeout rates don't really change. Try listening to guys like Maury Wolff, a member of the Players Panel who just happens to be an economist. Or how about running your game like a real business instead of a public utility? Try to free yourself from the chains of politicians and state racing commissions and allow the free market determine optimal takeout rates?
Only by working to centralize authority will the game realize its true potential. We're tired of simulcast wars, un-coordinated post times between tracks and needing multiple ADW accounts to bet all the races we want. The centralization concept has been a blueprint for success for major sports leagues. While teams compete on the field, they cooperate off the field to promote the game and maximize profits. Racing needs to do the same by listening to the fan base and try giving them what they want.
Takeout rates aren't the only reason our game is in serious decline. Several other factors have contributed to the loss of interest, but the price of the product, especially in a competitive gambling environment, is paramount. Yes, I said GAMBLING.
Without the betting and a chance to validate my opinion, I wouldn't be playing the races every day as I do now. I would probably watch the Triple Crown races and the Breeders Cup on TV and maybe go to the track a couple times a year for the "entertainment value" that some misguided track executives think is more important than gambling.
In response to high or increased takeout rates, many players are speaking with their pocketbooks and taking their action elsewhere. As a member of the Advisory Board of HANA (Horseplayers Association of North America), I urge you to join the cause. The boycott of California racing has had a demonstrable effect. The suits can spin it any way they want but they should finally be getting the message that "we've had enough and we're not going to take it anymore."
HANA (http://www.horseplayersassociation.com) is a great resource for players, and it's a shame that, after a couple of years, it has only 2000 members. Nobody is going to fight this fight for us. Horseplayers are going to have to do it themselves. It's an uphill battle for sure but it sure would nice to have 100,000 troops on the wagering front.
It was the Victorian poet Robert Browning who penned the phrase "less is more". I'm sure that if Browning were around today he would say the same about the number of dates on the American racing calendar. With foal crops dwindling, mutual pools suffering a liquidity crisis, and racing secretaries scrambling to fill cards, it should be clear what needs to be done.
But it's never easy in this industry. With all the different racing jurisdictions and their concomitant bureaucratic and political constituencies focused mainly on the short-term, the benefits of a shared self-sacrifice for the long-term are given short shrift. This is a BIG mistake. If a coordinated effort to cut dates by 30-50% was implemented, total handle would go up. You'd end up with fuller fields and much more money in each individual pool. This dynamic would be attractive to whales and minnows alike.
Whether betting at the track, a simulcast venue, or with an ADW by phone or over the Internet, a player is going to churn his bankroll whether he has 10 tracks to bet or 30. The difference is that by "concentrating the action" into fewer races, overall handle will go up due to more attractive betting opportunities resulting in increased action from larger players due to greater liquidity.
A few years ago, I was asked to give a presentation on behalf of New York horseplayers at the National Racing Museum in Saratoga. A committee was trying to decide which bidder should get the NYRA franchise and I was asked to speak about the concerns of players. I didn't pull any punches. I said that no other industry treats its customers so poorly. Of course, how could it do otherwise - it doesn't even know who they are. I've received free baseball caps and t-shirts on giveaway days but for the millions I've plowed through the windows over the years, I've never gotten so much as a cup of coffee (and I drink a lot of coffee). In NYRA's defense it does have a rebate program now, a pleasant step in the right direction.
Customer service should be a priority. Making customers happy is fundamental for any business but racing has a knack for alienating them. How about a free Coke for the $2 bettors now and then? How about track executives walking through the grandstand to talk with their customers and get feedback? Everyone likes to fell appreciated for their business, but horseplayers have always been taken for granted.
Like many of us, I yearn for the days when there were decent crowds at the track. It heightens the whole experience and makes it more exciting when you hear that roar as the horses come down the stretch.
For many years, marketing executives have struggled to reverse the downward spiral in live attendance. All sorts of gimmicks have been tried with little or no success. Here's one that actually might work. Anyone who bets on track will receive 5% back on any losing tickets bet at the host track that day. Just stick your losing tickets in an automated teller and receive a voucher for 5% of the total. After all, the track makes considerably more from "on-track" handle than ADW or simulcast handle. Now that would be a universal rebate for players of all bankrolls that would increase live churn and give people a reason to go back to the track.
Racing has done a poor job in exploiting new technologies. If the industry was really serious about attracting new blood and a younger demographic, it should concern itself less with post-race concerts and more with promoting a great gambling game over the Internet. Every track should have live streaming video of its races along with online tutorials and free past performances. Young people want action and plenty of it. And they want the convenience of a national betting platform that provides one-stop shopping using the Internet or their smart phones. For meaningful change to occur, the Byzantine simulcast regulations and ADW squabbles that currently frustrate bettors must be addressed.
The Jockey Club has used McKinsey & Company before. In 1991, it asked the firm to provide a national strategy to improve drug-testing practices. The study suggested that the national drug-testing system was due for drastic overhaul. While no immediate action was taken on the study's recommendations, it did lead in 1998 to the creation of the Racing Integrity and Drug Testing Task Force.
If the Jockey Club waits another seven years to address present day problems, racing may not die but it surely will continue to fade away.
Written by Cary Fotias | Comments (28)
Do you have a take on the state of the game, a favorite race horse, trainer or jockey? Share your ideas. Show the racing industry and media the folly of their ways. The HRI Readers Blog: "When you lose it, Use it." Submit your blog to HRI Webmaster.


text:
Dryopteris intermedia
intermediate wood fern
Family: Dryopteridaceae
Fronds of Dryopteris intermedia range from 30-90 cm in
length, and most healthy plants in our area are at least 40 cm
long. The blades are clearly longer than wide and 3 pinnate-pinnatifid.
Tan scales are conspicuous at least at the base of the stipe.
Dryopteris intermedia and D. carthusiana
are similar in general appearance and both are common. For D.
carthusiana the lower
basal pinnule of the lowest pinna is longer than the adjacent
pinnules, and it is shorter than the adjacent pinnules in
D. intermedia. Some fronds are difficult to place on this
basis and it is wise to look at a large sample of leaves if there
is any question. Fronds of D. intermedia are evergreen
and those of D. carthusiana are not, a character that is
very helpful in winter and spring. Glands on the indusia and midribs
of blade segments of D. intermedia are a good character,
but they can be difficult to see, tend to wear off as the fronds
age and generally require a good hand lens or dissecting scope
for observation. There are no glands on D. carthusiana.
D. intermedia ranges across the northeastern United States
and Eastern canada, south to North Carolina and Tennessee and
west to Missouri, Minnesota and Ontario. It is found throughout
Wisconsin, but appears to be more common in the north. Habitats
include a variety of forests, including swamps, though that is not as common.
Key to Ferns
Introduction to Ferns
Glossary of terms
List of all Pteridophytes
of page features
Contact the author


text:
5350 Summit Bridge Rd, Suite 101
Call today to get fully-loaded Internet, TV & Phone Service for your home at prices that won't break the bank. Atlantic Broadband offers amazing TV services, crazy-fast Internet, crystal-clear unlimited Phone service. Chose individual services or bundle services together for extra value. When you bundle TV service with high-speed Internet, or Phone service, you get upgrades including premium channels, DVR service and more all at no extra cost. Our competitors ask you to pay extra for popular features that add sizzle to TV. But with our bundles, you get TiVo® DVR service, access to Netflix streaming right on your TV, over 10,000 On Demand movies & shows as well as Starz & Encore included, and HD picture and sound for one low monthly price.Services are subject to availability. Please contact Atlantic Broadband for details.
If you've been to or used
Atlantic Broadband, leave a review.
It's easy, only takes a couple of minutes and you'll help thousands make an informed decision.


text:
USER EDITORdhaworth
Ian and his estranged wife Laura (Nicky Whelan) find themselves forced to make one last desperate attempt to save their daughter before the clock expires.
With the help of a questionable criminal client, Ian devises a plan to get his daughter back from 'The Watchers.'
With the clock counting down, Ian uses everything at his disposal to save his family and comes face-to-face with the sadistic people in charge of the game.
Narrowly surviving his first day in the game, Ian finds himself and his family in further danger as tactics taken by the game's creators continue to infiltrate his life.
An unsuspecting father and lawyer, Ian Mitchell (Milo Ventimiglia), is thrust into a deadly game when a mysterious wooden box, containing a photograph of a stranger named Daniel Easton (Diedrich Bader) and a loaded gun, appears on his doorstep.moreless


text:
One Angel necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 390 diseños de 148 diseñadores freelance.
Angel Effect
We create positive chain reactions around the world. People do a small thing which leads to a positive gigantic impact that extends not only to other people but directly impacts their life as well.
the idea is that every one of us is an angel, we do little things each day that create beautiful massive effects all over the world and in our lives. the angel must be cool, and appeal to both macho men and feminine women. if we can incorporate a chain reaction into it that be great.
the domain ends in .me (AngelEffect.me), if possible we would like the logo to emphasize an individual (like anyone is an angel)
background MUST be white, logo not too much detail, simplistic, ideally have an angel in logo so people can identify with it
ps: our site is a portal
ps: by angel i mean an actual angel, not just wings, or halo, if possible we need an actual angel figure there (people find it easier to identify with a human like figure, and thats what we are after), but not too feminine, neutral and cool :)
Here's an example of what we mean by an angel: http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/8328 (something like this but cooler, and if possible to elicit a powerful feeling in the viewer :)
if you guys do submit 2 designs then please make one an angel and another as wings, for wings something like this: http://www.kaweahdelta.org/giving/guardian.asp (here the wings can be interpreted as the smalles thing in the centre sets of a massive chain reaction, which is our message with the business - smalles act by anyone, creates a massive chain reaction)
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
Gland, Switzerland (01.11.01) IUCN-The World Conservation Union. An IUCN Species Survival Commission member is central to the remarkable recovery of some of the most unusual members of the rhino world - the desert-dwelling black rhino of Namibia.
Blythe Loutit of Save the Rhino Trust (SRT), who is also a member of the IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG), has worked for more than 20 years Desert rhino by IUCN's Sue Mainkato conserve rhinos in the northwestern province of Kunene. She helps local people improve their lives while safeguarding their natural resources. In 1982, when the Trust was established, poaching had decimated local populations of wildlife, including black rhino. Numbers had declined to less than 70. Following two decades of dedication and commitment, rhino numbers have doubled. SRT work includes anti-poaching patrols, ecotourism development, and research - all involving local communities.
More than 130 black rhino are now thriving in extremely rugged conditions under the protection of the local communities. In Kunene, everyone is concerned about rhino - farmers, tourist lodge operators, concession owners and visitors, as well as the Namibian Government. In October 2000, in response to an unusually high death rate of rhino calves, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism wrote to all safari groups, lodges and tour operators with guidelines to follow when visiting Kunene.
The AfRSG has identified the desert rhinos in Namibia, Diceros bicornis bicornis, as key to the survival of desert rhino in the world. This subspecies is largely limited to Namibia, but there are also a few small newly-introduced populations in the arid western areas of South Africa. The two major populations in Namibia are rated as "key" populations for the survival of this subspecies by Group. Any conservation programmes aimed at maintaining or enhancing the viability of these populations are therefore strongly supported.
For further information contact
Save the Rhino Trust, Welfare Organisation Nr. 53, P.O.Box 224, Swakopmund, Namibia; Tel./Fax: +264 (0) 64 403829; E-Mail: [email protected]
Anna Knee or Andrew McMullin, IUCN Species Programme Communications Officers
Tel: +41 (0)22 999 0153
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]


text:
Clutch is not isolated to down the stretch of a Super Bowl staring down Bill Belichick and the Patriots or throwing through the arctic blast at Lambeau Field or repeatedly pulling his battered body off the soggy Candlestick grass.
Whether or not to put "elite'' in front of Eli Manning's name is a tired and pointless discussion, but as the Giants' franchise quarterback he has been his best at the right time. In order to remind everyone of that rare and coveted reputation, in the next two weeks he needs to get his team back to the playoffs.
Manning won't be asked to tackle Ray Rice on Sunday in Baltimore, and if the Giants cannot somehow clean up their shoddy run defense — this team's most alarming, season-long failing — the postseason might be an afterthought before Christmas. Manning, though, is asked to score more than he did last week in Atlanta, which was not at all, more than he did at Washington (16 points), more than he did in Cincinnati (13) and more than he did in Philadelphia (19). Manning this weekend is asked — loudly — not to throw anything remotely sloppy in the vicinity of Ed Reed because the Pick Six that follows will have nothing to do with betting horse races or buying lottery tickets.
Manning is asked to get his act together and get the Giants where they unquestionably belong, as one of the six NFC playoff teams. He has already secured his postseason legacy and the Super Bowl MVP automobiles he has been awarded don't get driven away if the Giants go one-and-done in January. There is nothing career-defining about what comes next, but Manning is probably 60 percent done with his quarterback life and there are no guarantees that every December will afford these opportunities.
The Giants, after their requisite 6-2 start, after dominating first-place teams such as the 49ers and Packers, would be bitterly disappointed not to get into the NFC tournament. It would actually be embarrassing on some levels because it would constitute a late-season meltdown that could not be traced to a spate of injuries or a run of bad luck.
Yet fear is not a Manning motivator.
"I think the excitement and opportunity to make the playoffs is the greatest motivator,'' he said. "I don't think fear is a motivator.''
Sitting in this spot one year ago, at 7-7 and knowing two wins captured the NFC East title, the Giants weren't backed into a corner as much as they were thrust onto the high-wire circus act with no net. The emotion of the Christmas Eve tussle with Rex Ryan's "Big Brother'' Jets nearly overshadowed the playoff implications and riled the Giants up to a frenzied level. The next week, the Cowboys arrived for an elimination, winner-take-all, loser-go-home division championship.
This year it's all about how the numbers tumble. The Ravens represent nothing to the Giants other than a failed Super Bowl XXXV back when Manning was a freshman at Ole Miss. If the Giants win in Baltimore, they try to clinch a playoff berth against the Eagles, the league's greatest crash-and-burn story with Andy Reid closing out his tenure and his fractured team in full spoiler mode.
That they did it last year is fine and dandy and, Tom Coughlin says, if anyone wants to breathe in confidence from it, go right ahead. But Manning isn't taking in those fumes.
"It's different situations,'' he said. "I don't think it gives you extra confidence. Confidence comes from your teammates, the character of your teammates, your coaches and preparation during the week of the game. I don't think confidence comes from something that happened 12 months ago.''
Confidence also comes from demonstrated performance and what Manning has demonstrated recently isn't awe-inspiring. In his last eight games, he's thrown nine touchdown passes and 10 interceptions. The highs of piling a combined 80 points on the Packers and Saints are mitigated by the lows getting nothing done against the Bengals and even less in Atlanta.
"We've tried like heck to talk about ascending and not having that very good game, then that not-so-good game and then a very good game,'' Coughlin said. "Evidently, we haven't got that message across.''
Calm and steady are two of Manning's greatest traits; he'd rather analyze than obsess. He does not embrace or condemn an entire game, he breaks it down in painstaking detail. That's why what confounds everyone — scoring 52 points one week, none the next — can make sense.
"Again, I don't look at the scores, I look at each play, the execution, the circumstances that we are in and how we executed in those situations,'' Manning said.
Thus, what goes in the books as a shutout loss to the Falcons is viewed in pieces. "We got the ball on our second possession, drive right down there, do some good things, settle for a field goal [that missed],'' Manning said. "Next time we get the ball, drive down again, go for it, don't get it. We responded pretty well, we just didn't finish it.''
It now is all about the finish. The Giants right now don't need Eli to be elite, they just need him to figure out a way to score just enough points in two games to get his team where it belongs.
Baltimore boos for the home team
Up Next is an opponent in a strange situation. The Ravens are reeling, mired in a three-game losing streak after a 9-2 start. Yet they have already clinched a playoff berth and likely will retain their hold on first place in the AFC North, as they own the tiebreaker advantage on the Bengals, who at 8-6 are one game back. Joe Flacco is struggling and not putting himself in position for a fat new contract, injuries have hit hard — middle linebacker Jameel McClain is the latest loss — and the Ravens last week were booed often at M&T Bank Stadium as they got beat 34-17 by the Broncos.
"That to me is painful,'' coach John Harbaugh said. "There's no question about it. It stings, but rightfully so. That's the way that we had played. We had done things that you just can't do if you want to win a football game against a good team. We deserved it. We've got to go earn those cheers. That's up to us."


text:
UK Online Storage is basically storing your data online within a cloud infrastructure so it can be accessed from anywhere, such as a smartphone/tablet or between work and home computers. UK Online Storage services vary depending on hosting or server packages, as well as being offered as a stand alone service for individuals. If you're looking for online services similar to UK Online Storage, consider our Personal Online Backup or Server Online Backup service categories.
5 Reviews
1 Review


text:
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Fishing Out of the Wrong Pond
He told me the 40-49 year old set were all too eager to grab up the guys on Jdate since they know their stock isn't that valuable. They wouldn't dare wait around for guys to contact them because they know most guys, like me, are going after the 27-35 year olds. He suggested that I raise my age limit to the above 40 crowd and see what happens. I generally like to set my age limit to no more than 35, 36 tops, but he insisted that I give it a shot, if for no other reason than to see what would happen.
We were in his office and he told me to log on to Jdate on his computer. I did, and I immediately found a woman who listed her age as 46. She was attractive, so I figured what the hell? She wrote that she was looking for a guy who was born during the Eisenhower administration, and I emailed her asking how she felt about guys born during the Nixon administration. I hit "send," and told my friend I'd probably never hear from her. Within less than a minute, after I refreshed the page, I saw that I had a new message. It was the 46 year old writing, "I have no problem dating someone born during the Nixon administration, if you have no problem dating someone who's really 54."
I thanked my friend for his advice, and found a 29 year old to email. I hit refresh around a dozen times after I emailed her, but no response. Almost 24 hours later, I've hit refresh many more times, and still nothing. I know I'd have more luck in the older pond, but I think I'd rather drown in the one I'm in now.
10 comments:
She's not too far off from the truman administration herself.
- June 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM
If you're 64, 54 is a catch. If you're in your thirties, not so much.
- June 27, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Bring some geritol and a tube of ben-gay and go party with her. She may just rock your world.
- June 27, 2007 at 4:23 PM
- Shoshana said...
I do feel for those women, and understand why they have to be so aggressive. Because all the men in their age range are busy emailing chicks WAY too young for them. I can't tell how many e-mails I get from men in their 40's and 50's, even though I clearly state in my profile that I am not interested. Ugh.
- June 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM
So the guys in their 40s and up don't want the women their age. The women in their 20s and 30s don't want the guys 40 and up, but barely respond to the guys in their 20s and 30s. So how in the hell are people actually hooking up online?
- June 27, 2007 at 5:08 PM
54? Ah, just go for it. You may hate yourself in the morning, but think about the amazing post you'll have for the blog.
- June 27, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Funny stuff. I just found your blog today (and read all of it including comments).
Ironically, I'm 38, and receive e-mails from 20-somethings more than anything. I guess if I was a guy, and they were not, this would be fabulous.
Oh well.
PS-I especially loved the entry about your Brooklyn grandmother and the "busts."
- June 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Yes, I agree, a little too much of an age difference if you're in your 30s and she's 54. I'm 35 and my boyfriend is 47. I never thought I would be with someone almost 12 years older, but it's working out very well!
- June 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM
DD your're a great writer and your blog adds some welcome comic relief to my office day. You had my full sympathy until this post.
When I was on Jdate I got messages from men who were beyond my age range and I never bothered replying. At the time I was 29 and when I got 50 year old men getting in touch it grossed me out.
Why is it so inconceivable to date a woman your own age or even g*d forbid a few years older? I don't get it?
- July 19, 2007 at 9:03 AM
- Marc F. said...
same age or a few years older...no problem.
20 years older...big problem!
- July 19, 2007 at 9:15 AM


text:
You Are Here: Home > Products > Dampers > Dampers By Type > Special Dampers > 6" Round Motorized Retro Damper by Jackson Systems
6" Round Motorized Retro Damper by Jackson Systems
6" Round Retro DamperThe Retro DamperT is the easiest and least expensive way to zone an existing home or building. With traditional round zone dampers, it is required that a section of the existing ductwork be removed and the damper be installed in this section. With the Retro DamperT, a small 1" slot cut into the existing ductwork is all that is required. Then it is simply fastened to the ductwork with four zip screws. Installation is that simple!
Another benefit to the Retro DamperT is its actuator. It uses a high torque, low power actuator. This allows up to 20 dampers to be wired directly to the zone control panel (no additional relays or transformers required). Installation is that simple!
And because the high-quality Retro DamperT is low cost, almost any home or building can now be zoned easily and cost effectively. It is that simple!


text:
Car News
Top 10 Daringly Designed Affordable Cars
In the heyday of automotive design during the 1950s and 1960s, lavish attention was paid to the styling of even inexpensive vehicles. But by the mid-1980s, affordable, every-day cars with truly beautiful or cutting-edge designs seemed to have virtually disappeared.
Over the last few years, however, automotive designers seem to have been re-empowered. The result is a new breed of affordable and yet stylish vehicles.
In honor of this new era of design inspiration, we've compiled a list of ten affordable vehicles with daring designs.
Better known these days for boxy vehicles like the Town Car and the Navigator, Lincoln chose to put its design foot forward with the new MKS. Hoping for a reinvention, Lincoln has begun rolling out a series of new cars featuring a new design language.
Even if you don't like the MKS (some critics have made allusions to its grille looking like a baleen whale with its mouth open), there's no denying the distinctive front fascia and strong bodylines are rather striking. The 2013 MKS coupled with the MKX Concept unveiled at last year's LA Auto Show, are clear proof that Lincoln is pushing the boundaries of its once conservative designs.
In markets outside the U.S., the Scion iQ has been on sale since 2008 as the Toyota iQ. Rebadged here as a Scion, the iQ arrived in late 2011 as a 2012 model.
While there are other subcompact city cars on the market (like the Fiat 500 and Smart ForTwo), the iQ stands out for several reasons. First, it has a relatively wide, aggressive stance that gives it a more substantial look. Secondly, it has huge wheels in proportion to its size. Scion gave the iQ 16-inch alloys, giving it a giant's stature amongst its diminutive brethren. Lastly, unlike the vintage-inspired design of the Fiat, the iQ looks futuristic - like a sci-fi Anime star - which easily puts it a decade ahead of the rest of the herd.
The Juke is the oldest vehicle on the list (it went on sale here in late 2010), but still stands as one of the most distinctive looking cars for sale. Love it or hate it, everyone has an opinion on the Juke. And to us, that's one of its best features. For too long automakers have shied away from risky designs, resulting in bland blobs of metal. Nissan designed a polarizing vehicle that got people talking. Regardless of your opinion, you have to admit that Nissan made a gutsy move with the Juke. Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
The A7 is a car that came out of left field and made the motoring press scratch its collective head. Falling between the A6 and the A8, the A7 didn't seem to have an obvious place in the market. That is, until they popped the hatch.
To the uninformed eye, the A7 looks like yet another sleek German luxury sedan with a bit of extra weight in the back. The A7 cleverly hides its brilliant secret design: a long, sloping hatch. Open up the back, and the A7 is big enough to fit your golf clubs, some groceries, and perhaps your briefcase - all at once. The shape of the A7 has a subtle, sensual appeal, but it's the hatch that takes it from a thing of beauty to a vanguard of automotive design.
Given a moment's glance, most people might guess the 2013 Fusion was an Aston Martin long before they'd guess it a Ford. It wasn't long ago that Ford might be accused of phoning in its designs. Now, with the new Fusion, it's pushing the boundaries of how an every-day midsize family sedan can look and behave, challenging some of the reigning luxury brands for aesthetic dominance.
Not only is the new Fusion stunning, it marks a new step for Ford: One Ford. For years, Ford products sold in the U.S. differed dramatically from the Ford vehicles available in the rest of the world. Ford seems to have finally realized that Americans want and deserve the same level of quality and detail that the rest of the world has come to expect from the brand. The 2013 Fusion and its outstanding design is just one of many exciting new products coming as part of One Ford.
At first glance, the Buick Encore isn't really special. Why it's on this list isn't readily apparent. That is, until you learn that it's a subcompact crossover. Underneath its luxurious interior and recognizable Buick bodylines, it's a Chevrolet Sonic: a subcompact car. But what makes a subcompact crossover a daring design choice? Simply because it's the first of its kind in the US market.
While not expected to be a sales juggernaut in the U.S., Buick is hoping the Encore will sell like hotcakes in China.
The Range Rover Evoque was named North American Truck of the Year for 2012, and for good reason. Aside from its competitive price and excellent ride quality, the Evoque features a stylish design with the cutting-edge look of a concept car.
When automakers show off a new, boundary-pushing concept car, the production version tends to be much more watered-down. The Evoque retained its remarkable form all the way from the design studio to dealer showrooms. For that, Range Rover deserves a lot of respect and a spot on this list.
Although the Subaru BRZ is fairly attractive, its looks aren't all that got our attention. It's what's underneath that's really interesting.
The BRZ is a joint venture between Subaru and Toyota. Subaru designed and built it, and Toyota paid for it. With its performance-oriented rear-wheel drive layout, the BRZ marks a shift away from Subaru's longtime focus solely on all-wheel drive vehicles. The design of the BRZ harkens back to early sports cars: lightweight, compact, sporty but not overly powerful, with a focus on nimble handling. The BRZ will be the lightest closed-wheel, rear-wheel drive car for sale in the U.S. Couple that lightweight with the 200-horsepower "Boxer" engine and the BRZ should be a blast on twisty roads.
The Hyundai Veloster is kind of like the Audi A7; at first glance, you might not be able to see what all the fuss is about.
Open all the doors, however, and the answer becomes clear. What initially appears to be a 5-door hatchback is actually two cars in one. Approach from the driver's side, and it appears to be a 2-door coupe. But approach from the passenger side, and you'll find two full-size doors for the front and rear passengers. Add in the hatch out back, and you have an improbable 4-door vehicle with a lot of versatility - and personality to spare.
2012 Mitsubishi i
Last but not least is the Mitsubishi i. The i is the only electric car to make our daring design list. We like the i because it's both technically and visually daring.
We love that it looks distinctly futuristic, like it was zapped back in time from downtown Tokyo, circa 2040. But no matter the place or time, the i garners a lot of attention. With a range of around 80 miles per charge, the i benefits from an unique look and relatively low price when compared to other electric vehicles currently available.


text:
HANG TIME HEADQUARTERS — Andrew Bynum's first training camp with the Philadelphia 76ers will get a late start. In fact, Bynum will miss 21 straight days of basketball activity due to a bone bruise in his right knee. He had a surgical procedure performed on both knees in Germany during the offseason.
The Sixers announced Monday that he would be allowed to continue "low-impact conditioning drills." Bynum had injections of plasma-rich platelets that supposedly stimulate healing in arthritis-affected areas in both of his knees. The Sixers said last week he was cleared to play in camp.
Bynum went to Germany for the same Orkothine therapy procedure that former teammate Kobe Bryant had done before last season. He's had issues with both of his knees in the past. He dislocated his left knee cap in 2007-08 and had arthroscopic surgery after the regular season ended. He also has surgery on his right knee after the 2009-10 season.
The Skinny: Whatever time Bynum misses in training camp will be well worth it to ensure that the Sixers get a full 82 games, or as close to it as possible, out of a player set to become a restricted free agent at season's end. The prized big man acquired in that blockbuster, four-team deals that also sent Dwight Howard to the Lakers and Andre Iguodala to the Denver Nuggets, will still be around his new teammates during camp and whatever chemistry they forge then should be sufficient. But this latest injury issue does raise a bit of a red flag for skeptics who wonder whether Bynum is ready for his role as the face of a franchise.