text:
Been here? Rate It!
New guard house
It was built as a guard house in 1816 by an architect Karl Friedrich Schinkel. It was designed as an example of French classicism. At first it was actually used as a guard house, but frown the year of 1931 it was redesigned as a monument for these, who were dead in war. Nowadays it houses remains of an unknown soldier of Second World War, also a centralized sculpture, showing mother with her dead son.
Germany's Memorial For Victims Of War and Tyranny
The Neue Wache is a Neo-Classical building on Unter den Linden and has served as Germany's central place of memorial since 1993. The building (translation: new guardhouse) was built in 1816-1818 to a design by Karl Friedrich Schinkel.
I found this memorial very simple but very powerful and effective. Inside the building, in a chamber illuminated by a solitary circular open window from above, you will find a sculpture of a mother holding her dead son made by Harold Haacke. The sculpture is an enlarged version of Kathe Kollwitz's 'Pieta' sculpture and is a fitting tribute to those souls lost in war. The sculpture itself is seated directly under the oculus above, meaning that it is exposed to the elements.
Entry is free and the building is open daily.
- Historical Travel
- Architecture
- Photography
Neue Wache
The Neue Wache was the first building designed by Karl Freidrich Schinkel for King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia, for use as a royal guard house for the nearby Palace of the Crown Prince. Built between 1816 and 1818 it is considered to be one of the finest examples of Neo-Classical architecture in Berlin. With the fall of the German monarchy at the end of WW1 the guard house was no longer required. A new use was found and from 1931 it became a war memorial though it has under gone a number of changes over the years. It was rededicated in 1993 as the 'Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Victims of War and Tyranny.'
Neue Wache (German War Memorial)
The German War Memorial is a low key affair on the main thoroughfare of Unter-den-Linden. The object of its dedication has changed over the years, but it remains a touching reminder of the victims of war. It was originally a guard house, built in the manner of a Roman castrum, but after World War 1 it was redesigned as a memorial of the war dead. During Communist times, the East German government rededicated the memorial to the victims of Fascism.
Today it is dedicated to all victims of war and tyranny, the statue of Mother with Dead Son was placed under the exposed light of the central oculus. Bathed in eerie winter light, and subject to all the elements that are thrown down on the city, like snow and rain, the statue signifies the suffering of Germans who were bombed out of their homes.
Neue Wache
Neue Wache (New Guard House) is located at the north end of Unter den Linden. It was designed by Karl Friedrich Schinkel in 1816 and is leading example of neo-Classism in Germany. The structure was built on purpose to be a Guad House for the troops of the Crown Prince of Prussia, bar later on has been used as a war memorial.
King Friedrich Wilhelm III comissioned Schinkel to built a guard house for the nearby Palace of the Crown Prince. Schinkel made plan of an structure completely exposed and free in all sides, with a portico of doric columns. In 1931 Neue Wache was redisigned into a memorial for the Germans dead in the War. During times of GDR this building become "Memorial to the Victims of Fascism and Militarism. Since 1993, after German reunification, Neue Wache was rededicated again as "Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Victims of War and Turanny".
I wonder why they didnt call it simply Neue Wache?
The war memorial Neue Wache
The war memorial Neue Wache houses the beautiful and moving sculpture "Mother and her dead son" by the Berlin artist Käthe Kollwitz.
The sculpture is directly set under an oculus and is exposed to the weathers, symbolizing the suffering of civilians during the war
Neue Wache
This small Greek temple on Unter den Linden contains a replica of the Mother with Her Dead Son statue which marks the tombs of Germany's unknown soldier and the unknown concentration camp victim. This memorial was formerly a memorial to the victims of fascism.
- Arts and Culture
- Architecture
- Historical Travel
Neue wache
After German reunification the Neue Wache was inaugurated on the National Day of Mourning in 1993 as the "Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany" with the mourning pieta by Käthe Kollwitz in Tessenow's reconstructed "monumentally void interior hall".
- 1
Show Prices
Show Prices
Show Prices
Show Prices
Instant Answers: Berlin
Get an instant answer from local experts and frequent travelers
- Save money, Book now!
- Booking.com Excellent choice, Low rates
- Book online.
- Hotels.com See maps & reviews for over 140,000 Hotels worldwide!
Sponsored Links
Berlin Travel Guide
Explore the World
- Horseshoe Beach Hotels
- Gettysburg
- Province of Quebec
- Paraguay Hotels
- Legaspi City
- Melaka Hotels
- Ipoh
- Ormoc City Hotels


text:
A new poll released Wednesday finds that Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli are running neck and neck in Virginia's gubernatorial race.
Roughly six months out from Election Day, the NBC News/Marist poll found that Mr. McAuliffe holds a slight lead — 43 percent to 41 percent — over Mr. Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general.
The survey of 1,095 registered voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll also showed that more voters trust Mr. Cuccinelli to "do what's best" for Virginia and also that voters have a more favorable impression of the Republican.
A Washington Post poll last week showed Mr. Cuccinelli with a 46 percent to 41 percent lead over Mr. McAuliffe.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Apple's Smart Buying Process Now Live!
Does anyone remember the good old days when you could walk into a Apple store and walk right out with an iPhone that was not opened or activated via an Apple store employee? Well those days are long gone but Apple did make one step in the right direction with their new smart buying process.
This process basically allows you to start the buying process at home instead of doing it all in store. You enter in all of your billing information, review your eligibility and pricing options, and the final step consists of you selecting your AT&T rate plan.
Once you're done, choose your closest Apple Retail Store and let us know when you'd like to come in to complete your purchase.** An Apple Specialist will be ready to help you personalize your new iPhone 3G, make calls, browse the web, receive email, and more.
What is the downside to all of this you ask? Well you still have to go to the store to get your phone... I know... it's a downer. Apple should have made this option available on July 11th, I'm sure it would have cut down on the wait times in all of their stores.
If anyone is in the market for a new iPhone and uses this method on Apple's web site, let us know how it goes!
(Via AppleInsider)
There are 7 comments. Add yours.
This is news? This is a "smart" process just like Catbert's advice to the boss was friendly HR policy - "just hurt them less - they'll feel it as a reward."
too bad it doesn't work... Did of yesterday and the employee could pull up the info I entered online... We had to start over - at the beginning...good thing it wasn't too busy.
What if I just want to see how much it would cost if I already have a contract with att? I mean, can I just look to see how much its all going to cost then cancel the checkout? Or will it check out as soon as I put my info in?
Yes, you can check to see if you get the sub. That's what I did. And i'm not about to raise hell with At&t because God knows I deserve a $200 iphone for as much as I've paid those $@%!#$^&
I used Apple's new online process to buy the white iPhone 3G that I'm typing this message on and I gotta say that it was pretty darn cool. Completing the online form was simple and straight forward. I showed up to the Apple store and the personal shopper was able to complete the purchase in about 15mins and I ported my num from another carrier!
Overall I was very satisfied and I am very pleased with my new toy :-).


text:
Posted by gregdowney on July 18, 2008
A while back, I posted a piece on recent evolutionary psychology research on human sexuality, specifically Chicks dig jerks?: Evolutionary psych on sex #1. The previous post discussed a couple of research projects that have found a correlation between the 'dark triad' of narcissism, psychopathology, and manipulative Machiavelianism at low levels and the number of sexual partners that college-aged men reported having. The conclusion, baldly stated: chicks dig jerks, according to the researchers.
Today, I'm going to discuss a different set of articles, this time on 'female guilt,' sparked by research done by Prof. Anne Campbell, a psychologist at Durham University. Prof. Campbell surveyed people online and found that women regretted 'one-night-stands' more than men. This has led her to argue that women are 'ill adapted' for promiscuity, that the 'sexual and feminist revolutions' didn't work because women couldn't shake their inherent nature, which is to long for committed relationships and loathe themselves if they act like cheap floozies.
I delayed posting on this because I cannot get to the original article (my university library has a six-month delay on the journal Human Nature; Springer press release here). I hate posting on second-hand versions, but I feel like I don't want to wait six months to write #2 in my series on ev psych stereotypes…. I mean, 'perspectives' on human sexuality or to put in my own two cents worth of opinionation. So I have to base most of my discussion on the press release from Durham University about Prof. Campbell's recent article.
I can't imagine that I'm EVER going to persuade the hardened core of evolutionary psychologists that there is not a thing called 'human nature'; I'm not opposed to the concept for political, feminist reasons but because I don't think living organisms have 'essences,' especially when it comes to behaviour. Nothing I can say, no theoretical point or comparative data from around the world of human variation, will convince the evolutionary psychologists because they know, they just know, that human nature — especially sex — has been shaped by evolution, hardened and set in our genes (or brains or hormones…), to rear it's head when we do something against our nature (like a woman having sex and not trying to find a mate).
But if you've clicked through the link, you've signed on, at least for a bit, so I'll try to be mildly entertaining.
To repeat my most serious objections to the 'bad boys get more action' research from my previous post (there were eight, although several had multiple points), they included: a confusion about how one would test 'reproductive success,' questions about whether jerk traits are actually genetically determined, and whether there were other, more proximate, less strained explanations than 'evolution' for why these 'dark' men reported more sexual partners than 'nice guys.' Although I'm no authority on sex research, I brainstormed a few ideas that didn't require resorting to Mother Evolution, such as the men's expressed intention to have many partners might lead to them having more partners (but evolution is so much more plausible as an explanation…), the men's potential inability to maintain long-term relationships, women discovering men had the 'dark triad' and throwing them out…
Ev Psych: Repeating stereotypes, making headlines
Even with these problems, however, the 'girls dig bad boys — evolution makes it so' story had great legs, showing up all over the place. Likewise, today's story — we'll call it, 'bad girls feel regret' — got around faster than a greased pig in a sausage factory. The BBC, for example, discusses it under the headline, Sexes split over one night stands, The Telegraph offers, Women have more regrets than men over one night stands, Salon gives us, Men: Score! Women: Whoops! (having fun with the title), and The Independent gives us the resounding, Men like casual sex more than women – scientific fact (and an Indy Blog entry, too). I'd link to more, but the articles are virtually identical, evidencing the way that a story like this can circulate with minimal critical comment being able to get traction.
Bloggers also picked up the study published in Human Nature, although they are much more critical: check out Echidne of the Snakes, The Dawn Chorus, Noli Irritare Leones (and again the next day), and Dante and the Lobster (nice blog name!). I'll try not to just repeat some of the many objections that these bloggers raise to this study, but there's a lot of good ones being offered.
What does the study say?
According to the press release put out by Durham University, and echoed verbatim by virtually every major press outlet to pick up the story:
THE sexual and feminist revolutions were supposed to free women to enjoy casual sex just as men always had. Yet according to Professor Anne Campbell from Durham University in the UK, the negative feelings reported by women after one-night stands suggest that they are not well adapted to fleeting sexual encounters. Her findings are published online in the June issue of Springer's journal, Human Nature.
Okay, men have 'always' enjoyed casual sex? Really? Always? Are you sure? No society anywhere, at any time, has had anxiety about 'casual sex' among men? You get what I mean…
And, in addition, before I go further, was the 'feminist revolution' really about enjoying casual sex? I seem to remember something about equal pay, property rights, suffrage, you know… like things other than casual sex…
Prof. Campbell explains that her research is designed to test two opposing views of how women would have been shaped by evolutionary pressures. An older evolutionary psychology idea held that women should be very choosy and demand fidelity out of men with whom they mated because pregnancy and child rearing were such intensive, demanding processes. More recently, some biologists who have studied genetic evidence of paternity (and found that many 'monogamous' species are much less so than once thought) have argued that female promiscuity might be adaptive; as Campbell explains, women's promiscuity 'would increase the genetic diversity of their children and, if a high quality man would not stay with them forever, they might at least get his excellent genes for their child.'
To test whether women were adapted to casual sex, Campbell surveyed people after they had a one-night stand: 1743 people answered questions about how they felt after a 'one-night stand.' Now this is where I REALLY regret not having access to Human Nature; I can't really answer any of the many questions I have about the data collection. An on-line survey about feelings after a one-night stand? Really? And how did they know it was a 'one-night stand' if they reported immediately following the event? Oh, the mind races…
But let's stick with the study. The results were compelling, irrefutable: 'Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women.' Wait, 54% had overall positive feelings?! Somehow, I don't think that the headlines are going to be 'Majority of women pretty okay about one-night stands' or, for that matter, 'One-fifth of men programmed by evolution to regret meaningless nookie.'
According to Campbell's survey, in addition:
Men were more likely than women to secretly want their friends to hear about it [the one-night stand] and to feel successful because the partner was desirable to others. Men also reported greater sexual satisfaction and contentment following the event, as well as a greater sense of well-being and confidence about themselves.
The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been "used". Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.
We'll come back to these interesting wrinkles, details that don't fit under the heading, 'evolution means girls don't just want to have fun.' With all of these conflicting, intriguing facts from an Internet survey, fortunately we have evolution to explain everything.
Why women just aren't down with the sexual revolution: ev psych explains
Prof. Campbell helpfully explains how 'evolution' gives us emotions so that we do what's good for us:
Evolution often acts through positive or negative emotions which draw us towards adaptive behaviours or drives us away from harmful ones. For example, we enjoy other people's company but get depressed if we spend too much time alone. Basic emotions guide us down pathways that have been advantageous for our ancestors. It seemed obvious that if our female ancestors really were adapted to short–term relationships they ought to enjoy them, just like men do.
That sound you hear is me pulling clumps of hair from my scalp and running around the room shrieking; yes, I'm far away in Australia, but listen carefully… Okay, let's try this again: are we using the Internet survey on our female ancestors?
Seriously, where do I begin on this one. Let's do it nicely, if we can. For this to be true, the following would have to hold:
1) All or at least the vast majority of emotions would have to correlate with being 'good for us' (uh-oh, see recent story on 'part of the brain' which allegedly makes us want to 'try new things,' like say, those delicious-looking red mushrooms with white spots in my yard).
2) Emotions would need to be pretty inflexible in their development and it shouldn't be too easy to develop strong emotions about irrelevant issues for survival (like, say, shame at being naked or phobias about things that didn't seem to correlate to survival issues, like fear of the number '13' or of elevators).
3) It would be helpful if there weren't more proximate causes for the social emotion that might better explain it, like, oh say, hundreds or maybe even thousands of years of religious teaching, literature, popular stories, social mores, patriarchal structures, and the like that might, just might, be a viable way to explain why someone might feel a bit 'negatively' about 'casual sex' (which already seems to me like a term that casts the behavior in a negative light; how about 'entrepreneurial sex' or 'adventure sex' or 'high efficiency sex' or 'New Sex Lite with a 1/3 less commitment!'…).
4) If 'evolution' made it so, then it should be pretty uniform in the species, right!? So why do 54% of women and 80% of men feel positive about casual sex? If evolution makes it so, why isn't that closer to, I don't know, 0% and 100% respectively?
5) I know 'basic emotions' are supposed to lay down clear instructions for life, but there's another possibility for women being almost evenly split after a one-night stand: maybe their feelings depend on the quality of the event. Or, maybe people feel ambivalently about 'one-night stands.'
5) And although this isn't really in the whole 'evolutionary psychology' framework: isn't the press release confusing two different arguments? What was that stuff about the 'feminist and sexual revolutions' changing attitudes towards sex? We don't have an internet survey on one-night stands done in 1880 or anything, but do you think there's a chance that, if we did, the numbers might look a little different?
Ignoring the loose ends: Ev Psych goes silent
Buried in the later parts of the press release, unexplained by the 'evolution makes chicks choosy' argument, are all these little bits that never show up in the popular press version. For example, according to Campbell, 'Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.' Hmmm… Is this another potential explanation for the disparity in how men and women felt? Perhaps 80% of men had a good time, and 46% of women found the whole event 'less sexually satisfying' than the blokes.
That is, if you went in with a different framework for explanation — like, 'too many guys in one-night stands don't know how to satisfy women' or 'women are better at sex than men' — you could construct another story around this data that was equally plausible — no, more plausible — than women are programmed to want long-term relationship (errrr… except for the majority 54% who had positive experiences and the fact that they didn't see casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships. Again, can someone explain to me why the evolutionary-programmed fembots were doing one-night gigs at all as it is inherently against their programming?).
The kicker for me in the press release is the discussion of what emotions the women actually did feel. Did they feel emotions that were clearly linked to mating and reproduction, to those driving 'basic emotions' programmed into us by evolution to lead us down 'pathways that have been advantageous for our ancestors.' No, they felt mostly social emotions and some complex ambivalence about their own sense of identity:
The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been "used". Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.
"What the women seemed to object to was not the briefness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her. The women thought this lack of gratitude implied that she did this with anybody," Professor Campbell explained.
This account seems to me to be far richer than 'Mama-evolution-makes-girls-feel-guilty-about-getting-jiggy.' The emotions described are not 'basic emotions.' Those would be fear, anger, happiness, anxiety, panic, surprise… Instead we have complex social emotions like regret at having been used, worry about potential damage to reputation, a sense of having 'let themselves down,' objecting to being under-appreciated, and concern that a lack of gratitude suggested they were indiscriminate in sexual choices. That last one requires a pretty sophisticated sense of self, desire to been seen in a particular way by others, and attribution to others of specific attitudes. As I reread it, I'm not even sure that I can follow it, let alone feel it in the compelling sort of way that it can guide me on the right 'pathway.'
The survey wouldn't really tell us anything terribly new without the 'evolution' framework propped up around it; in fact, I was kind of surprised to hear that only 46% of women regretted 'one-night stands,' that distinctly anxiety-producing Western sexual encounter, so often defined in the negative and fueled by booze in the bizarre forums where unmarried people try to sort out sexual lives. (And by this, I don't mean to imply that married ways of sorting out sexual lives are any less bizarre, just that they don't tend to get sorted out in the same places — I can't say whether booze is more or less likely to be involved.) Campbell's data is still interesting, but a bit of longitudinal leverage might give us a clearer sense of whether attitudes toward 'one-night stands' are changing among men or women.
But I can imagine that the only reason that this piece got the mileage it did was because the 'evolution' story was tied to familiar sex-role stereotypes. I've already had a couple of goes at evolutionary psychology for tagging labored evolutionary 'explanations' onto normal (often stereotyping) psychology research (for example, Bad brain science: Boobs caused subprime crisis and Craving money, chocolate and… justice). It's hard to know sometimes whether to just laugh at the stuff or to cry, but when stories like this get so much attention, it's hard not to wind up with the weepies.
Finally, I just have to take issue with the title of one of the popular accounts of Prof. Campbell's research. The Daily Record (UK) titled its piece, Science finds evolutionary reason behind women's hatred of one-night stands. Let's just get this clear: 'Science' didn't find the 'evolutionary reason,' like it was hidden behind the shrubs or fallen between the couch cushions, or even like one 'finds' a new species or a neurotransmitter. Evolutionary psychologists tend to assume from the very first moment that social phenomena will have 'evolutionary reasons,' and then discover them. All Prof. Campbell found was what her survey data gave her; she interpreted it the way she did — the 'evolutionary reason' — although there are other, at-least-as-plausible non-evolutionary reasons that the data might look this way. As a genetics researcher recently said in an article I discuss in a later post (Bench and couch), 'finding' this sort of explanation is sort of like packing your own lunch box and then getting surprised by what you find when lunch rolls around.
Campbell, Anne. 2008. The morning after the night before. Affective reactions to one-night stands among mated and unmated women and men. Human Nature 19(2) 157-173. doi: 10.1007/s12110-008-9036-2
Credit: Graphic from Despair Inc., Demotivators (Regret).
Cartoon from www.gapingvoid.com archives. Hugh MacLeod is great — check out his site.
27 Responses to "Girls gone guilty: Evolutionary psych on sex #2"
July 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Very well said. This is the sort of stuff that runs through my head every time I see media reports about evolutionary psychology (I almost wrote "phrenology"). . . .
July 26, 2008 at 7:46 pm
One minor technical point: Are you saying that complex human behaviors and thought processes aren't shaped by evolution and can't possibly have a genetic component? I wouldn't go that far.
Aside from that question, though, I agree completely with your analysis. The trouble is that it's too much fun to play the "What makes this behavior adaptive?" game. But you've explained quite well the problems with assuming that there's a simple answer (for a given behavior) that can be determined by a survey. It's frustrating to see the label "Science Says!" stamped on research where the behavior data is already questionable and the evolutionary explanation component is fundamentally speculation.
July 26, 2008 at 8:15 pm
You're welcome, Blake. (Did I actually post that coinage on Pharyngula? I know I did on Dispatches…)
July 26, 2008 at 8:19 pm
One minor technical point: Are you saying that complex human behaviors and thought processes aren't shaped by evolution and can't possibly have a genetic component? I wouldn't go that far.
I don't think anyone's saying that here. I don't think anyone credible has ever said that (at least since the modern synthesis). I do think I'm sick and tired of reading that stupid strawman every time someone second-guesses the blatant bias-confirmation that passes for science in the eyes of the public by comprising the bulk of what's labeled "evolutionary psychology."
July 26, 2008 at 8:27 pm
This makes me ill. Does evolutionary psychology actually teach that all women and all men think the same? Maybe the men feel more satisfied after a one-night stand because it's simpler for them to get off…because they've evolved to have a less complex sexual response?
July 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This makes me ill. Does evolutionary psychology actually teach that all women and all men think the same?
From what I've read of evolutionary psychology, its proponents probably don't teach that; they seem to treat it as a self-evident fact so obvious that it doesn't even need to be stated explicitly.
July 26, 2008 at 8:44 pm
[...] Someone with a clue rips into a rather lax study on men, women, and [...]
July 27, 2008 at 12:14 am
@Alyssa, Azkyroth,
well, surely, there are types and categories of people, even if there are thousands of such types and categories. each could be related to a certain tactic for achieving an evolutionary end, even if a person needn't always use the same tactic from the same category.
but i don't want to defend bad science. it seems to be that a lot of the work from modern economics shows people don't report motivations accurately. i'd rather believe people expressing preferences for certain things by voting with points or money than by talking. talking can very readily get caught up on what passes the self-image censor.
see this article for some intelligent discussion of the experimental complexities and their ramifications.
July 27, 2008 at 12:40 am
The title of Campbell's study implies that the "subjects" (bit of a stretch to apply that term to internet poll respondents) of this study were both "mated" and "unmated".
It would be interesting to know the different reactions between those groups – and even more interesting if the data collection process was worth a damn.
My own unscientific conclusion(s): women are harder to satisfy; men need more education (& motivation) toward doing so.
July 27, 2008 at 1:31 am
Two things strike me here…
First is I generally agree with the evo-psych position that there is a set of characteristics called "human nature", but I think it's an extremely varied and malleable thing – a set of tendencies, or averages, that we all share in part but none of us in full. Pretty much all humans are born with two eyes and ten fingers (although there are exceptions!) because these are universally useful things and deviations from the norm can be highly life-threatening. A considerably larger number of people, however, seem to get by with outside-the-norm psychology. Most of us are grieved by the death of a child, even if it is not our own, and I don't think that's something we have to learn. Yet some people don't. Most of us court members of the opposite sex, too, and I think the fact there's an evolutionary reason for that is self evident, but some considerable percentage of the population does not and all evidence points to the fact that this has always and will always be the case, everywhere.
But we would be surprised if we found out that 80% of the population reports positive feelings at the news of a child's death, or we discovered a society where heterosexual, reproductive sex was considered an abomination and homosexual sex was the norm, and inasmuch as that is the case, an evolutionarily shaped human nature does exist. Which brings me to my second point…
If evolutionary forces as naively understood by the study were actually at play, this study appears to prove the opposite of what the headline says it does. It does provide some confirmation; 80% vs 54% obviously points to some significant gender difference, whether learned or innate. However, the fact that a majority of women reported positive feelings about casual sexual encounters suggests to me that either the evolutionary penalty for casual sex is not particularly great, or that human attitudes towards sex are shaped more by social realities than evolutionary forces.
July 27, 2008 at 4:55 am
This really makes it sound like you support that "straw man" position of total nurture instead of a nuanced view of the itnerplay between nurture and nature:
"I can't imagine that I'm EVER going to persuade the hardened core of evolutionary psychologists that there is not a thing called 'human nature'; I'm not opposed to the concept for political, feminist reasons but because I don't think living organisms have 'essences,' especially when it comes to behaviour."
You are correct that much of ev psych has huge problems and that the part of the discussion that deals with the sexual revolution is ill-advised and not directly pertinent to this research anyway.
However, let's think through things…why are men happy to have people think they'd sleep with anyone while women aren't? (I think we both agree that was an appropriate finding of this study and numerous other studies.) Is it the patriarchy? That is a funny explanation as despite your protestations that "Okay, men have 'always' enjoyed casual sex? Really? Always? Are you sure? No society anywhere, at any time, has had anxiety about 'casual sex' among men? You get what I mean…", men really do universally appreciate the opportunity for "sneak" copulations. And is it really that hard to figure out why that would be? Is it hard to imagine the that basic nature (i.e. that a man can invest 5 minutes into having a baby while a women AT MINIMUM must invest 9 months and a birth in which she has a good (about 3-5%) chance to die (at least for our evolutionary relatives) plus at least a few years of breastfeeding and social support in order for the baby to have a chance to survive) might have some differential effect on male and female behavior? That the fact women know their babies are theirs while men don't wouldn't have an impact?
While a patriarchy may reinforce (and even reverse) certain aspects of behavioral tendencies, are you really suggesting that, in the face of enormous comparative data from different species and very different human societies, males and females don't approach sex with differing amounts of discrimination for important reasons? Perhaps men have created systems to repress female sexuality because they have a need to try to guarantee that the offspring they invest their entire lives into (at least in most pre-industrial societies) are theirs? Whereas females do not have to have the same guarantee since they already have it from nature. Of course, there are plenty of reasons for females to get jealous of romantic rivals as well, but it seems incredible that you hold such little faith in evolution to shape our psyches. Evolution rarely works in absolutes; there is likely to be many situations where complexities fog simple understanding and lots of wiggle room for nurture to modify some aspects of behavior, but I think this is going a bit too far in that direction. I also think it's interesting and useful to think about why societies are structured as they are; while I don't think "evolution did it" should be the assumed answer, I do not think that society usually develops from nothing for no reason.
July 27, 2008 at 6:16 am
I have to agree that the lower percentage of women with positive feelings about one-night stands is due in great part to social conditioning. Civilization throughout most of history has turned a blind eye to "tom-catting", whereas women have been held to a higher standard of conduct, often at the cost of their lives. ( Of course, there are some exceptions, i. e. the Etruscans.) Also, the social pendulum has swung toward conservatism since Reagan. I'm willing to bet that the survey results would be much different if given to college-age women of the late sixties-early seventies.
July 27, 2008 at 7:45 am
That is a funny explanation as despite your protestations that "Okay, men have 'always' enjoyed casual sex? Really? Always? Are you sure? No society anywhere, at any time, has had anxiety about 'casual sex' among men? You get what I mean…", men really do universally appreciate the opportunity for "sneak" copulations.
I don't.
July 27, 2008 at 7:29 pm
#13: I don't mean all men everywhere all the time. I mean that, in every culture well-studied (and there have been hundreds), men, on average, tried to increase their number of sexual partners in a wider variety of circumstances than females. There are good reasons for men to sometimes be faithful and, if you believe present research, even to sometimes be gay as it seems the sisters of gay men have higher fecundity. Which doesn't necessarily mean there is a gay gene or a faithfulness gene at all, but these can be caused by environmental influences in the womb (which seem to probably have a genetic component), etc. There can be heritable differences in development, or do you not believe in epigentics and the like?
Thank you comment 14 for caricaturing my position (from #11 though you say #10) and providing an easily refutable post. I'll go paragraph-by-paragraph:
"First, on comment #10, I'd say that the 'enormous amount of comparative data' that you reference, Ryan, contradicts the point you seek to make. For example, check out Olivia Judson's very funny and enlightening, Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creatures. The comparative data is hardly compelling that there is some cross-species pattern for male-female sexuality. Far from it, mate; there's some freakish and amazing reproductive behaviour out there, animals that can switch sexes, and on and on. There's even enormous variation among primates, as Frans de Waal's work on bonobo sexual interaction has abundantly demonstrated."
—-First off, I'll tell you I have read Olivia's book and, unlike de Waal who has never seen a wild bonobo, not only have I read his book on bonobos, I have also studied them in the wild. Most of what is written about them, especially by de Waal whose interpretations are often off-the-wall, is not entirely true. But yes, they are exceptional in their sexuality. It's interesting you call them "freakish" implying that it is considerably outside-the-norm, except that you don't believe in norms, apparently. So how are they freakish if nothing is statistically more likely than anything else? And if some things are statistically more likely, does that mean nothing to you? Or are the vast majority of animals just encultured that way? The beauty of science is finding patterns in data and finding exceptions to those patterns and being able to explain both within the same framework. The Darwinian framework can, and it embraces both the patterns and the exceptions. Yes, you can find all sorts of animals with odd natural history, but you still run into the fact that almost all animals behave differently. And the fact of the matter is, bonobo females *are* more picky about who they mate with when they are maximally fertile than bonobo males are. Just because they use sexuality for coalition-building doesn't mean they don't largely conform to the same statistical patterns as almost every non-monogamous primates. But they are just that, statistical patterns. There is room for flexibility, no one is saying otherwise.
"And, no, I don't think 'men really do universally appreciate the opportunity for "sneak" copulations,' no matter how obvious that may be to some men. We have ABUNDANT evidence to the contrary, such as the Catholic Church (which recently descended on Sydney for World Youth Day); there's a whole lot of guys (and women) who are very anxious about 'sneak copulations' in that mob. And then there's gay men, individuals like Azkyroth who may not 'appreciate' these for personal or hedonistic reasons, gay men, married men like me (which is not all married men, of course), societies where men are very anxious about any sexual encounter with women (and in some, for this reason, prefer contact with other men)… we could go on and on."
—The fact that you cite a strong institution threatening your soul as the reason many men are wary of sneak copulations is telling. Early priests of most churches had many sexual partners. If you look across cultures at men who have held despotic power, they also have had many wives/concubines…many more than the average man. Even now, in socieities that allow polygyny, it is the powerful men who practice is. You try to cite single examples to refute piles of data both within and outside of humans. All in the face of logic as well—the most successful (from a reproductive success standpoint) men have had ~1000 offspring (probably more, but that tends to be the top for "legitimate" offspring) whereas the most successful females have had ~35. Why do you think men are, on average, bigger than women? Is that enculturation too? It has to be because *some* men are smaller than *some* women, right? Statistical patterns are meaningless? Assuming that seems like a poor way to do science. Do you really think that heterosexuality is not partially rooted in our genes? I'm not claiming it to be resistant to maternal effects, upbringing/environment/culture (though the gay lobby by and large does claim it is resistant to that), etc. And, as recent studies (which are linked to specific underlying factors) have shown, having some gay offspring may sometimes increase an individual mother's RS. You know that bull's horns, men's testicles, women's ovaries, our hands, size sexual dimorphism, etc also require the right environment to develop, but would you argue that those are all just encultured decorations? No, even though they have an enviromental component, they still have genetic bases. By the way, I am bisexual and married and haven't cheated on my wife. I don't just think that what I think is "normal". But further, I don't think that what is "normal", if such exists, means it is right. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy and it is limiting you. You are not willing to accept that some perfectly acceptable (or even commendable) behaviors are "abnormal" in the sense that they may be in the minority, statistically, or that they reduce the reproductive success of individuals who have them. Why can culture not have worked to reduce men's desire to stray to the point that many men feel they no longer have that desire?
"The point is not that the 'nature' of men is to be faithful (or promiscuous), heterosexual (or gay or bisexual or other) — I would say that NO single pattern is so dominant as to establish itself as 'the nature.' But, like I said, I can present this data til I'm blue in the face, and some people are still going to say, 'yeah, but, human nature is X…'"
—There is no single behavior that is "human nature". Anyone intelligent when using the term "human nature" would mean a pattern of behaviors which are complex, malleable and likely to be able to adapt to different circumstances. I believe it IS appropriate to say that human beings are bipedal despite the fact that *some* humans are born without two legs or otherwise without the ability to ever walk on two legs. I believe that human males are more likely to be larger than 6 feet than human females, and that has a genetic component. I believe that you can actually claim that human beings have 10 fingers even though we don't all have 10 fingers (some from genetics, some from environmental influences). There is no simple "human nature" such as the one you caricature. I believe that there are evolutionary reasons why the majority of people choose to engage in heterosexual sex and why they enjoy it. The fact that some people don't doesn't change that. To claim otherwise is to deprive evolution of its beauty and its explanatory power. And through this thread, most of the paces where I say "I believe", there is good data. As you haven't cited any for your position and this is already taking me too long to write, I'm not bothering to grab all the refs, but they're easy to find.
"So often, in the camp of sexuality, we argue that what 'feels natural' (to us — unless we realize that we are profoundly in the minority) must therefore BE natural. I have happily married friends who likely think it's 'natural' to be happy married, others who insist it's 'natural' to want to screw around."
— This is a nice, subtle character attack (i.e. that everyone arguing my "position" —ie that nature/nurture is a false dichotomy and that evolution has worked on how genes are expressed in statistically likely environments such that there is no identifiable "nature" versus "nurture" but there are statistically significant relevant tendancies that have been evolved)— is labeled as a "cheater" or someone arguing for the status quo. Look, what "is" is not what "ought to be". You take the position that because you think what "is" must be what "ought to be" then you have to argue that what "is" is what you want to be. But that puts you at odd with the bulk of the evidence. What is "natural" doesn't matter in the argument of what we should do. And why can it not be natural for there to be more males who value extra-pair copulations than females, but that neither is absolute? I am a happily married person who thinks it's perfectly natural for both men and women to be monogamous sometimes and not at others. But that doesn't mean the set of conditions under which it would pay for men to be monogamous versus women to be so is the exact same. And discovering those sets *is* interesting. Just because behavior is complex and usually not caused by single alleles of great effect (but then again most cancers and such are not either, but that doesn't change the fact you can find genes that might increase your chances by a statistically significant .3% or so) does not mean it isn't gentically influenced or that evolution did not act on those genes. Evolution isn't perfect. Just as our eyes could be better adapted and that many children are born with cleft lips, hearing problems, etc, doesn't mean they weren't evolved. In fact, it would be really weird if such complex behaviors as those that underlie human sexuality weren't incredibly sloppy. But still, finding the statistically significant differences can be interesting and illuminating in terms of understanding our evolution.
"It feels very 'natural' to me to speak English, but I would never make the argument that I was 'essentially' or 'genetically' an English-speaker. In fact, my brain, ears, and other senses have become finely physiologically attuned to English — in that sense, it is now my 'biological nature' — but that is because of the way I have developed in an ecological niche that included English. Brains develop in a stew of influences, some generated by our genes and bodies, some generated by our environment; the brain doesn't neatly divide these, as we have discussed in probably around 200 posts here on Neuroanthropology."
—Indeed, it is complex how our genes, extra-genetic factors, maternal environment and environment combine to make us who we are. The fact is, you *are* genetically adapted to have a physiology that *can* speak A language and even to the point where babies attend to human voices, music, etc. Other animals (including our closest relatives) do not attend to those stimuli unless they have gone through lots of training to or are domesticated. Babies are extremely well adapted to learning a language and are adapted to incorporate their environment into their physiology. Isn't it amazing how well evolution can cause complex adaptations that rely on environmental influences? If you raise a baby in a speech-deprived or music-deprived environment, it doesn't develop normally. I would argue this then means that evolution has relied on us being raised in the relevant, statistically probably environment which is a community with speech and music, not that evolution hasn't had an impact on our ability to use language. And I would argue (as studies have shown) that specific genes and brain regions have been adapted to use language. No, not to use English, but a language. There are limits to what languages/sounds people could learn and use. We can't use sounds like bat echolocation in our languages. In fact, there are some elements that tend to be found in many languages and these seem to be related to evolutionary pressures. If there were no patterns between languages, what would linguists do?
"I'm not one to divide everyone into two camps and say 'you sound like you're in favor of nature and against nurture (or vice versa).' The problem is this kind of thinking. I quite simply don't believe in 'nature' — not because I'm some radical cultural determinist — but because I think I understand a bit more about how genes work and organisms develop. (We've got lots of posts on things like epigenetics, genetic contributions to emergent traits, and the like here at Neuroanthropology — just check on the category cloud to the left)."
— I don't divide everyone into those camps either because anyone who sees it as a dichotomy or especially anyone who takes one side is an idiot. You understand how genes work and organisms develop better than who? Me? If that's what you're claiming, you should know who you're talking to before making such a statement. I'll be honest that I don't know your qualifications, but you shouldn't assume others either unless it is obvious.
"The problem is the idea that there is an 'essence' to men and women. That's not how organisms work. (If you need a longer, more technical discussion, see Susan Oyama's The Ontogeny of Information, still one of the best works on the topic.) Much of what shapes us need not be within us because it is reliably outside of us. For example, our bones need mechanical forces to form — there is no 'essence of bone' somewhere in our genes which can produce our skeletons in the absence of gravity, muscles pulling on our bones, activity patterns, and the like. Eyes need to be stimulated by light for our brains to learn to make sense of the nervous stimulation they provide, even to receive all the stimulation that they provide. So if you were to say 'this is the essence of the bone,' or 'this is the program our eyes follow,' and then argue if I couldn't see that I was in the camp of 'nurture,' I'd say you didn't understand my argument, nor did you understand how bones form or eyes work. How could sexuality, including behavioural dimensions, self-consciousness, and things like post-sex guilt, be LESS complex in origin than bones or eyes?!"
—Our eyes reliably develop in a certain, fairly complicated, way in the kinds of environments people have lived in for millenia. In fact, it's interesting to note that non-parasitic eye problems (in terms of nearsightedness especially) are much rarer in societies without as much electronics (which evolution hasn't had time to "account for") than in industrial societies. Evolution acts on how genes work in statistically likely environments. That doesn't change the fact that evolution works on the genes that underlie traits such as the eye, bones or even behaviors. My infant son roots around. It's a behavior that I believe evolution has acted on. If he developed in a maternal environment full of cocaine, maybe he would not have the structures to make use of his rooting behavior or maybe the behavior itself would have developed differently. But evolution provided that behavior to him because most of the time it develops correctly, has the correct structures to make it work and infants are usually near lactating mothers. Why do you believe that things that can be modified by environment or cultural influence do not have a genetic basis that is accessible to evolution or that showing there's incredible amounts of slop in certain behaviors means evolution did not act on them? That seems like an incredible claim that would need incredible amounts of data to back up.
"Same thing goes with genes. If you say 'mating patterns are in our genes,' I'd say a) prove it, don't just assert it, and b) that's utterly inconsistent with any scientifically informed account of behavioural genetics, as well as being completely out-of-step with empirical data. In this case, even empirical data allegedly in SUPPORT of the argument turns out, on closer examination, to prove the opposite. If you're going to argue for 'human nature,' you better come with the proof that such a thing exists, mate, because I'd say that the cards look pretty stacked against you."
—Actually, saying that our genes influence our mating behaviors is not utterly inconsistent with behavioral genetics or the empirical data. As you have provided no data, I won't bother to go through and get citations for you. However, how about this: having a Y chromosome leads to hormonal surges in the womb that cause the development of penis and testicles, the latter of which continues to produce testosterone throughout life, especially at puberty. Having typically (as in, on average, not that all males have it or anything like that) male levels of testosterone, which is significantly correlated to having a Y chromosome, is correlated to many behaviors including being more likely to desire having sex with women and more likely to find women attractive. Interestingly, after pair bonding, a man's testosterone level reliably decreases. After having a child, it decreases even more (assuming that the man lives with the woman he's bonded with in the former and lives with the child in the latter). As for "this case", I haven't read this particularly study so I won't defend it. The quote that's being bandied about about the sexual revolution is way over-interpretation and useless, so on those measures, I'd treat the study with skepticism. Internet data frequently has problems as well. Anyone who knows anything would agree that sometimes it would pay, even evolutionarily, for women to be promiscuous, and sometimes it would pay for men to be monogamous. I wouldn't put a whole lot into this one study then (or many other ev psych studies), but I do think it is fair to say the data are consistent with men being more likely to be fulfilled by casual (ie "one-night-stand") sex. Maybe men are just easier to get off. Why? Do you think that's just a historical accident? Or does maybe the fact that men *have to* get off in order to produce offspring while women don't somehow relevant? In fact, if men typically have had patriarchies and forced women's sexuality, it creates the perfect environment for evolution to work in that way…women's pleasure becomes less important for evolution to ensure than men's. Why can't culture affect genetic evolution again? That's a pretty bold (if only implicit) argument that you're making.
"Like I said, some people are just NOT going to think this way; they are what you might call 'folk Platonic thinkers,' or something like that. Every THING must have an ESSENCE, a NATURE, an inner cosmic soul that it remains true to… I don't know. I'm making this stuff up because I do not think this way. It's not science; it's a philosophical perspective, and seen through this lens, genes and evolution look like the answer. But if there's one damn thing that Darwin was arguing, it's that species don't have an 'essence.' Natural selection produces changes in organisms, not essence."
— What do you mean by "essence"? All I've ever claimed is that organisms have statistically likely behaviors in certain circumstances. Not every behvaior and often with a lot of slop and environmental influence. In fact, it'd be pretty "dumb" not to allow environment to influence how traits develop…what pays in one environment may not pay in another (not that I'm claiming evolution is actually thinking). You use essence in many different ways though, trying to tie together things that are not the same, e.g. how Darwin and his 17th-19th century predecessors in biology used essence, some sort of Platonic essence and a nuanced view of how evolution works. You can argue well against Platonic essence because it's a straw man for the nuanced view of how evolution works. You have yet to provide a single bit of evidence against the idea that evolution can work on how genes are expressed in their statistically likely environments or that behavior is immune to evolution. Do you agree that some babies cry more than others, some may even cry maladaptively too much, and that babies differ in their breastfeeding successes at first, but that evolution still has acted on their behavior to make them likely to cry when they are hungry or otherwise in trouble and make them able to breastfeed (and attend to relevant sounds like human voices and things like human faces)? Or is it just that behavior magically becomes immune to evolutionary influence after a certain age? If you admit that behavior can be influenced by genes, then wouldn't it logically make sense that the most directly applicable behaviors to reproductive success—ie mating, pair bonding, child rearing—should be those that are most amenable to study and most likely to be affected by natural selection?
"But if all a person can see is 'two teams,' one for 'nature' and one for 'nurture,' please count me out of that game. I'd rather stay on the bench and wait for a more interesting game to come around…"
—It's interesting because you are the one who seems incredibly one-sided in this argument. Any good evolutionary psychologist thinks that there's a lot of slop in behavior and that environment has an important role, but thinks that evolution has had *some* impact on behavior via genes…acting of course on phenotype, or how those genes are, on average, expressed in statistically likely environments, not just on genotype.
July 28, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Don't worry, I won't write another long comment, but I did want to let you know that I appreciate your reply to my last comment. I did not try to attack a straw man argument but what was seeming to be your argument from the previous reply to me (and what I sometimes hear from cultural anthropologists where I'm at). While I did not think you actually believed genes had no influence on even physiology, it came across that way to me, but that may be a case where I was seeing what wasn't there, so sorry for that. I think you make several points. My intent in commenting was more to try to get out your more nuanced view that I knew must be lurking there; your post seemed overly broad in its criticism and was based on popular press accounts of the research, so I did feel that the criticism was a bit unfair. You may be right that "nature" and "nurture" both are two terms that are no longer useful to use in describing research. I have to admit not totally getting why people are so concerned with what is "natural"…I'm not saying you feel this way, but it seems many people think what's natural is right. Basing moral decisions on empirical questions about evolution (and usually sloppy ones at that) is such a horrible idea for so many reasons and really I think that is what should be fought against by every scientist in any area touching on these issues. If we fixed that misperception, I think everything else about this discussion would become close to quibbling since the popular press and people wouldn't be so keen to overinterpret these studies. Anyway, maybe I should take you up on your offer to start a blog of my own…I am going to Borneo this week, so maybe I cold find one or two interesting things to post.
July 28, 2008 at 6:31 pm
[...] that night. Whether you did so, too, or not – head over to http://neuroanthropology.net for an even more detailed discussion about this topic. And while you're at it, also check out the dissection of the "only [...]
July 31, 2008 at 8:56 am
I have two questions. Do you equate guilt with regret? Women may regret a one night stand but not all of those who do feel guilty about it.The other question is does guilt only arise from something you did voluntarily? It is my experience that feelings of guilt can be experienced by victims. Or is that self disgust rather than guilt?
August 31, 2008 at 12:21 pm
[...] to some dramatic fantasy of evolutionary selection — we've been here before (say at Girls gone guilty: Evolutionary psych on sex #2 or Chicks dig jerks?: Evolutionary psych on sex [...]
September 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm
[...] spicy article from Bitch, a beautifully argued post from Neuroanthropology (part one & part two) and just for you Mark, give Palin a break? TeH interwebs = [...]
December 10, 2008 at 12:40 am
[...] discussions are piling up much quicker than I can deal with them. Put this and this on the docket for my after-finals-and-meetings-and-analysis-and-applications [...]
December 12, 2008 at 1:50 am
[...] Risk (2) Synesthesia & Metaphor – I'm Not Feeling It (3) Poverty Poisons the Brain (4) Girls Gone Guilty: Evolutionary Psych on Sex #2 (5) About Neuroanthropology (doesn't really count! so I'm doing the Spinal Tap 11 – our [...]
September 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm
[...] in 'Human evolution and diversity': Chicks dig jerks?: Evolutionary psych on sex #1, Girls gone guilty: Evolutionary psych on sex #2, along with Bad brain science: Boobs caused subprime [...]
March 11, 2011 at 5:59 am
When Ev-psych goes trrbbllly wrong, someone is always there to cite it.
Have a look at this:
It's revolting.
May 14, 2011 at 9:47 pm
this article just keeps getting better – i keep referring back to it.
especially after reading this today: vagina having student somehow completes engineering degree
August 25, 2011 at 11:28 pm
long distance relationship…
Girls gone guilty: Evolutionary psych on sex #2 « Neuroanthropology…


text:
Here's an interesting post from the PharmTech Talk blog, speaking about a new UN initiative called WIPO Re:Search. Is a forum for public and private organizations to share IP to help develop new drugs and vaccines to treat neglected tropical diseases, malaria and tuberculosis. Sharing occurs through a public access database.
The National Institutes of Health as well as pharma companies like AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi have agreed to work with the group.
PharmTech Talk » New Hope for Neglected Diseases.
WIPO Re:Search members agree to license IP to researchers royalty-free in many, but not all, cases. Royalty-free licenses are really extended to the very poorest countries of the developing world and not to all countires where these diseases are prevalent.
For example, Chagas disease affects 21 countries in the America's but only Haiti (a non-endemic site) actually gets royalty-free status. In looking at the Chagas example (transmitted by black flies), it would seem the goals of WIPO Re:Search are laudable but there still seems to be room to get the bugs out in implementation.
Posted by Bruce Lehr Oct 31st 2011


text:
Blog Archives
- November 2009
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Blog Archive for %3
Posted by David Logan
11/23/2009 at 01:00 AM
In recent years Massachusetts has become the bar exam of choice for our most of our graduates (surpassing RI), and as a result Mass is now our "reporting state" for the American Bar Association. The July 2009 results reinforce how well our graduates perform when compared to all takers (which in Mass includes almost 400 graduates of Harvard, Boston College, and Boston University). Besides beating the state rate for all takers by almost 4%, we ran the table by easily topping the state average in the two key categories involving first-time takers (data relied upon by the ABA to measure the...
Posted by David Logan
11/20/2009 at 01:00 AM
For the fifth consecutive year, a leading Rhode Island law firm hosted a cocktail reception for members of the RWU Law Review and our Honors Program. Past hosts were Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP, Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP, and Brown Rudnick. This year the setting was special: a warm fall night, with the crowd spilling out onto the patio adjoining the offices of Shectman Halpern Savage, LLP. The firm, one of the fastest growing in the state, renovated an old industrial building and turned it into a stunning work space, complete with...
Posted by Library Blog
11/20/2009 at 01:00 AM
In addition to the resources of the Office of Career Services, the Law Library's Career Collection offers some publications for tips on enhancing your interviewing skills. All books shelved in the Law Library's Career Collection, adjacent to the Library Print Center, can be checked out for a period of three weeks. Here are some current publications: The Insider's Guide to Getting a Big Firm Job : What Every Law Student Should Know About Interviewing by Erika M. Finn and Jessica T. Olmon (Career,KF297 .F56 2009) Interview for Success : a Practical Guide to Increasing Job Interviews...
Posted by David Logan
11/16/2009 at 01:00 AM
One of the highlights of fall semesters at RWU Law is the annual visit of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Court comes to campus to preside over the final round of our flagship internal Moot Court Competition, named after a deeply respected member of our faculty, the late Esther Clark. The case involved a sweeping youth curfew in a hypothetical town, which was challenged on the grounds that it violated both substantive due process (the right to travel) and the equal protection clause (unduly burdening a suspect class—minors). The finalists were 2Ls Amy Broderick and John Meara...
Posted by David Logan
11/13/2009 at 01:00 AM
Our fledgling Immigration Law Clinic has hit the ground running, winning the freedom of a 27-year old Liberian college student who suffered the horrors of the Liberian civil wars, who came to the U.S. as a refugee, then became a permanent resident. The Department of Homeland Security sought to deport him because of two offenses in RI for which he received no jail time (a receipt of stolen property and assault). He had spent 10 months in jail before the RWUSOL Immigration Clinic got involved in his case. 3Ls Jessica Grimes and Ashley Ham Pong represented the client in his...
Posted by Library Blog
11/13/2009 at 01:00 AM
In addition to the opportunity to network at the 6th Annual Legal Career Options Day sponsored by the Office of Career Services, check out publications in the Law Library's Career Collection for tips on improving your networking skills. The Career Collection is located adjacent to the Library Print Center. The publications can be checked out for three weeks. Some publications are: A lawyer's guide to networking by Susan R. Sneider (Career, KF316.5 .S64 2006) It's Who You Know: The Magic of Networking in Person and on the Internet by Cynthia Chin-Lee (Career, HF5382.7 ....
Posted by Kelly Bennett
11/12/2009 at 01:00 AM
One major difference between 1L and 2L year is that you can really get a jump start on investigating internship opportunities. It's strange, but already there is rush to upload resumes, cover letters, and begin the application process for internships for the summer. It's only September!!! Well, I'm guilty of it too. I figure there's no better way to get starting that
Posted by David Logan
11/09/2009 at 01:00 AM
The results from the July bar exam in our home state have come in, and the news is very good. RWU grads beat the pass rate of all takers (RWU grads:83%; all takers:82%) and tied the rate for first-time takers (85%). Especially impressive is the rate racked up by the folks who graduated in May: 87%! This success is not accidental: our strong student body gets a rigorous education in a personalized setting, so they are well-prepared for the challenges of both the bar exam and practice.
Posted by Regina Curran
11/08/2009 at 01:00 AM
Hello from Texas! I believe I may have mentioned in this blog that I'm from Texas originally. This past weekend I had the opportunity to come back "home" (same state, different town) to represent Roger Williams at the National Black Pre-Law Conference. It was a fun event and I always enjoy the chance to talk about the law school. Plus I got to see several old friends! This is the second recruiting event I've done and I'm starting to notice one of the most popular questions prospective students have asked me is to give them my "sales pitch." I'll be honest, I don't have one. The only thing I...
Posted by Library Blog
11/06/2009 at 01:00 AM
The Law Library has several books on internships in various subject areas. They are published by the Career Education Institutes and are shelved in the Law Library's Career Collection. Even if you are not interested in an internship, these are helpful to consult as to potential employers. Among the recent titles are The Human Rights Internship Book (KF266 .H86 2010), Internships in International Law (KF266. I58 2010) and The Women's Rights Internship Book (KF266 .W66 2010). Two publications on the environment include Green Law: Legal Internships with Public Interest Environmental...


text:
LAWTON — One of the U.S. Army's highest-ranking officers says that if the force is cut to below 490,000 active soldiers it will "absolutely" have an impact on how the Army is able to perform its tasks and missions.
Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. John Campbell says the Army is drawing down to 490,000 active soldiers, but that was before sequestration. If sequestration continues, he says the Army will be forced to draw down more and that could increase the risks associated with missions.
Campbell spoke at a news conference with Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond Chandler at Fort Sill on Tuesday. Campbell and Chandler were at the southwest Oklahoma Army post to look at what programs are successfully improving the health of soldiers and their families.


text:
More Cartoons
- Why all drugs should be legal. (Yes, even heroin.)
- What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
- Here's the schedule very successful people follow every day
- 7 ideas from ancient thinkers that will improve your modern life
- Why you should really take a nap this afternoon, according to science
- The big, gaping hole in the liberal policy arsenal
- How to trim $500 from your monthly spending
- Are there too many good shows on television?
- Comic-Con 2014: Everything we learned about Avengers 2, Batman v. Superman, and more
- Paul Ryan's anti-poverty plan is another sign of life in the GOP
Subscribe to the Week


text:
By Shane Frederick
NEW ULM — Not every guide at the Schell's brewery starts his or her tour the same.
Dick Wilbrecht, a New Ulm native, likes to start at the beginning, as in 1860, the year August Schell first started making beer below the bluffs of the Cottonwood River.
"I was born and raised here," said Wilbrecht, who has been giving tours for 10 years since retiring from 3M. "I've always had a keen interest in New Ulm and its 150-year history. ... The No. 1 attraction people come to see here is the brewery."
Several guides start their tours outside the old brewery's newest building, the 2-year-old visitor center, which houses a museum, gift shop and post-tour tap room. But Wilbrecht begins inside, in front of the portraits of five generations of Schell and Marti families who have operated the brewery since the beginning, making it the United States' second-oldest family-owned.
From there, the tour goes outside to the brewery gardens and mansion, to an older section of the brew house and, finally, back to the visitor center for a video on the brewing process. No tour is complete without tasting the product.
Asked what he appreciates most while giving tours, Wilbrecht said:
"Just the rich history of the brewery, the fact that it's still going after 148 years and that the outlook is very promising for it to continue."
Schell's gets about 50,000 visitors a year, according to president Ted Marti.
"Actually it's been as good as it's ever been (this summer)," Marti said.
While a brewery tour may not sound family friendly, there is something for tourists of all ages.
Schell's makes the popular 1919 root beer, and kids — as well as teetotalers — can sample that while the adults are sipping a few of the brewery's signature suds, including its Light, Firebrick, Pale Ale, Zommerfest and Stout (Schell's makes 16 varieties of beer, including seven seasonals and Grain Belt Premium, plus brews and bottles several others for other companies).
Wilbrecht even found a couple of peacock feathers — peacocks roam the brewery grounds and gardens and deer are penned behind the mansion — and gave them to the kids in the group at the start of the tour.
"We've always seen young families come here," Marti said. "The gardens are very friendly for kids and for everyone."
Wilbrecht said he has taken many brewery tours, including some of the big breweries like Budweiser and Miller and others in Germany, where August Schell was born in 1828. All of the tours, he said, have their high points, but his hometown brewery ranks at the top of the list.
"The whole package together is really unique," he said. "I've seen some good tours. I think our gives you the personal side. We stay with people, from the beginning when we greet them until they leave."


text:
Missing Stroud woman found safe and well (From Stroud News and Journal)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting SNJ NEWS to 80360, or email us
Missing Stroud woman found safe and well
9:16am Tuesday 4th September 2012 in News By SNJ Reporter
A Stroud woman has been found safe and well after she was reported missing in the early hours of Saturday (September 1).
Jessica Toledo, 25, called her mother at about 7pm tonight to let her know she is safe and well and officers are currently with her at an address in Gloucester to check her welfare.
Police would like to thank all those who helped with the search for Jessica.


text:
Follow GEORGE
Subscribe to our email list:
hello i.d. tag
Greetings. Made of lightweight die-cast zinc with complimentary engraving on the reverse side. The 1-1/8" diam. tag can accommodate up to three lines of copy. Please type the word "none" into undesired fields.
When purchasing ONLY id tags, shipping via the U.S. Postal Service is complimentary. Even though the "shipping cost" displayed on subsequent pages will appear on your order, the shipping cost WILL NOT be charged, unless you specify an expedited service (UPS next day, or UPS 2nd day.)
line 1:
line 2:
line 3:
Privacy Policy
Return Policy


text:
TNT's reboot of the"Dallas" struck oil. Its Wednesday premiere drew nearly 7 million viewers, making it the No. 1 scripted series premiere on all of cable so far this year.
The rebirth of the classic CBS series, which stars veterans Larry Hagman and Linda Gray reprising their roles as J.R. and Sue Ellen Ewing alongside younger brethren Jesse Metcalfe and Josh Henderson, garnered 6.8 million viewers. The debut unsurprisingly drew hefty numbers in the older demographic: Nearly 1.9 million folks who tuned-in were in the advertiser-coveted 18-49 demo and 2.5 million were 25-54. You can guess who made up the remaining million. Who said older people don't watch cable?


text:
Our percussion department offers private lessons and ensemble coaching with a high caliber, caring faculty. We teach drumming and percussion in styles ranging from classic orchestral to rock, jazz, and Latin rhythms.
Michael Kuhl, drumset
Mike Kuhl studied at Towson University and has over fifteen years of experience as a performing drummer, percussionist, recording artist, composer and music instructor. As well as having over forty students in his own teaching studio, Mike is also a member of the Howard Community College faculty. He wrote the Drum Set curriculum used by HCC.
As a band member of the internationally acclaimed singer/songwriter Jenny Boyle and many other professional acts, Mike has toured extensively throughout the United States, Europe, Africa and the Mediterranean. He also tours in the Middle East as part of the USO in support of the troops stationed there.
Known for his vast knowledge of a wide range of music genres, from Jazz to Rock to World Music, Mike is a first call studio musician in the Mid-Atlantic area with his name credited on over thirty recordings. He is also the first call for numerous commercial jingles for the Discovery Channel and National Geographic at Clean Cuts studio.
Mike can be seen and heard performing every Tuesday night with Jazz guitar great Paul Wingo at Bertha's in Fells Point.
Timothy McKay, percussion
Tim McKay (BM Oberlin Conservatory; MM University of Maryland) currently serves on the music faculty at Howard Community College where he teaches applied percussion lessons and the percussion ensemble. He maintains a strong private teaching studio of students from Howard County and beyond, many of whom have participated and excelled in county and state level competitions and ensembles. He is also the percussion coordinator of the Howard County High School GT Orchestra.
Professionally, he has performed with the Kennedy Center Opera House Orchestra, and the Annapolis, Roanoke, West Virginia and Syracuse Symphonies. He has performed at numerous concert venues across the country including the Kennedy Center, Strathmore Music Center, Meyerhoff Symphony Hall, the National Cathedral, the Getty Center, Merkin Hall, and the Cleveland Museum of Art, and has worked with world renowned conductors including Leonard Slatkin, Robert Spano, David Robertson, Jo-Ann Falletta, and Gerard Schwarz. In 2009 he performed the first movement of Christopher Rouse's percussion concerto "Der gerettete Alberich" as an alumni soloist with the University of Maryland Symphony Orchestra. He was chosen as a finalist in the Howard County "Rising Star" competition and performed at the Celebration of the Arts Gala in March 2012.
Along with music, Tim is an avid sports enthusiast. He enjoys all sports, but his true love is baseball. You will find Mr. McKay and his two girls at Nationals Park enjoying games throughout the season. When baseball season subsides he shifts his attention to Capitals hockey, Maryland basketball, and Michigan football. Aside from sports he enjoys going to the gym, baking bread, and being a stay-at-home dad! Tim resides in Columbia with his two beautiful girls - his wife Amanda and their daughter, Isabelle.


text:
sure most visitors to this site are sufficiently interested in wine
and knowledgeable about wine prices to have been thoroughly frustrated
by the pricing on most restaurant wine lists. One establishment
in Britain has a particularly enticing wine selection PLUS a particularly
fair wine pricing policy. I thought I'd reproduce below the statement
at the beginning of the wine list at Gidleigh Park, the Michelin
starred hotel-restaurant at the end of a long lane between Chagford
and Dartmoor in Devon, in the hope that it might inspire other restaurateurs
with its combination of generosity to customers and sound business
sense. The upshot is that Gidleigh Park encourages its customers
to drink as well as they eat, but the wine list is still run at
a profit.
Gidleigh's mouth-watering wine list and prices at http://www.gidleigh.com/restaurant/wine.html.
Forgotten password?
Article search
All these words
This exact word or phrase
One or more of these words
Tasting articles
Free for all
Inside information
Our views
Wines of the week
Nick on restaurants
Travel tips
Don't quote me
Jancis recommends
Alder on America
Alex on taste
Max on Oz
Instant expert
Learn about wine
Wine regions
Wine grapes
Wine & you
Wine language
Food matching
Where to buy
Merchant directory
Links & addresses
Where to store
Tasting notes archive
Your turn archive
Date of publication


text:
Adam Lambert has been a superstar since he was deemed runner-up on American Idol, and his fans love his unique sound. Thursday the site lalate.com is breaking news that there is someone who doesn't think Lambert is unique enough, as they are suing him for copyright infringement. The suit is tied to Adam's song "Beg For Mercy," and the plaintiff is Colwel Platinum Entertainment Inc.
The complaint was filed November 1, and Adam Lambert is listed as the sole defendant. Copyright registration was filed in 2009 for "Beg For Mercy," and Wilshire Records Limited is listed as the claimant "by written agreement." There is no comment as yet from Lambert's camp, and the complaint is not available as of yet for the public to view. The plaintiff is requesting a jury trial, and next up is a discovery process.
More details will emerge over the next few weeks on this one, and Adam Lambert fans are hopeful this will turn out to be much ado about nothing. They are already buzzing about the situation and are standing firmly behind Adam. The complaint was filed in Los Angeles, and lalate.com said the complaint should become available for viewing by Friday or so.


text:
Selma Blair
Selma Blair will star opposite Charlie Sheen in his upcoming FX comedy, Anger Management, Deadline.com reports.
In Anger Management, produced by Bruce Helford (George Lopez), Sheen will play Charlie, a former baseball player with anger issues who becomes an unconventional anger management counselor. Blair will play...
read more
Shawnee Smith
Becker alum Shawnee Smith has been cast as Charlie Sheen's on-screen ex-wife in his upcoming comedy, Anger Management, Deadline reports.
In Anger Management, produced by Bruce Helford (George Lopez), Sheen will...
read more
Nancy Travis
Nancy Travis will play Tim Allen's wife in the comedian's new ABC pilot, according to The Hollywood Reporter.Stay up to date with the latest pilot castings herePreviously titled The Last Days of Man, the project revolves around Tim Fitzgerald (Allen), who's fighting ...
read more
Betty Garrett
Betty Garrett, best known for her TV roles in Laverne & Shirley and All in the Family, has died, according to The Associated Press. She was 91.
Garrett died Saturday, probably from an aortic aneurysm, at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, her son, Garrett Parks, told the news agency. She had checked into the hospital the day before with...
read more
Diagnosis Murder courtesy Paramount, St. Elsewhere courtesy 20th Century Fox, ER by Paul Drinkwater/NBC
Wanna play doctor? Cause a whole bunch of our TV favorites have and scored big time. On screen, of course. And seeing how I have seen way too many doctors in the last week two friends had babies and I had a checkup all within four days I decided that it was the perfect time to examine some of the best medical shows on DVD. So turn your head, cough and please find someone to call me in the morning!Becker Before Ted Danson got his creep on for Damages, he was a nasty Harvard-educated House in the Bronx from 98 to 04 in this surprisingly tart CBS comedy. A merciful far cry from the Tiffany networks insult-coms of the last few years, the first season is finally available and totally worth the coin. To sweeten the deal, Ill just add that Star Trek deliciousness Terry Farrell is on deck as the diner boss who wants to both fork Dr. Jerk and do something to him that sort of sounds like fork. Got it? Good.Buy Becker on Amazon.comER Do...
read more
Ted Danson as Becker courtesy CBS
New releases announced today, January 8:Becker - The 1st Season will be coming out April 1Beverly Hills, 90210 - The Complete 4th Season will be coming out April 29 Cheers - Season 9 will be coming out April 29 Laverne & Shirley - The Complete 4th Season will be coming out April 22Martin - The Complete 4th Season will be coming out April 1Matlock - The 1st Season will be coming out April 8Perry Mason - 50th Anniversary Edition will be coming out April 8Young Indiana Jones Chronicles - Volume 3: The Years of Change will be coming out April 29Visit TVShowsOnDVD.com for the complete stories on these and other news items.
read more
Question: Without a doubt, last year's My Name Is Earl was the breakthrough comedy of the season. But what about this year? I heard positive things about The Class, but it does remind me too much of Friends, primarily because of the ridiculously waspy cast. Then I saw a preview for ABC's Help Me Help You. At first, the name sounded terrible to me, and it didn't help that I don't care for Ted Danson (I hated Becker). But the supporting characters, like the promiscuous Asian woman and the guy who refuses to accept he's gay, seem to make this show really funny. What do you think? Should I bother with this one, or are the previews misleading?
Answer: Too soon to tell. The patients are the funniest thing about Help Me Help You, though Danson's scenes with his character's ex-wife (Jane Kaczmarek, a recurring guest star) show promise. But is it a breakthrough/breakout hit, even on the modest scale of Earl (my fave new comedy of last season)? Not likely. The Class seems to me a terrific fit for
read more
Last summer, Becker was brought back from the dead with an eleventh-hour renewal for a sixth season. But don't expect it to happen again, even though CBS hasn't officially canned the series. "They never really cancel things," says star Ted Danson. "They just let them disappear. I think canceling is bad juju, so [series] just don't show up again."
The Becker finale airs tonight at 9:30 pm/ET, and the episode title is "DNR" — as in "Do Not Resuscitate." He admits it's a not-so-subtle message to the network that the Becker set is closed for good. In it, grumpy Dr. Becker finds happiness. "But," Danson says, "he's morose over the fact that he's happy. I love that."
Danson's grateful for the chance to end the show "with some degree of grace," even though the cast and crew knew, going into Season 6, that they "weren't the flavor of the week" and would be gone by mid-season. As for shooting the wrap-up, he says it was "very sweet.
read more
More Products
Download the TV Guide app for iPhone, iPad and Android!


text:
It was more than just good times being had Saturday at the AMF Bradenton Lanes bowling alley. Manatee County employees, along with their families, friends and members of the community, came together to bowl in a effort to raise money for the United Way.
Nick Wagner was all smiles as he bowled, ate pizza and drank with his team made up of buddies, mostly from the county utilities department.
"We've won the last three years. They don't like it when they see us come in," Wagner said jokingly. "It's a good group every year."
This year the team was down one of its star players, though, so it had to bring in a rookie, he said.
Dylan Clark wasn't disappointing, though.
"They needed someone to bowl, so they called in a ringer," Clark said. "I've been bowling for quite a while, since I was 12 or 13."
Mary-Pendleton-Brown, fiscal services manager for the county's Community Services Department, helped run the show on Saturday.
"These wonderful baskets were put together by employees," she said. "What's significant this year is we got $2,700 donated toward the
baskets and for the sponsorships of the teams."
Raffle tickets began selling Friday, she said, starting the fundraiser with $1,000.
A total of 26 teams participated, with five players per team bowling league style.
"Once we pay the bowling fees and the prize payouts, all the money will go the United Way," she said. "Each year, most bowlers donate most of the their cash back, however."
Katie Becker, development director for the United Way of Manatee County, was pleased with the great turnout. The county staged a United Way Sporting Clay Shoot at Ancient Oak Gun Club in Lakewood Ranch that was also a success.
"Similar to the clay shoot, this is all organized by Manatee County employees," Becker said. "There is a lot of community support here outside of just county employees."
The event does more than just provide a financial impact but an awareness, she added.
"It shows our presence in the community," Becker said. "We are out here bringing people together and showing a united team."
Carmen's Italian Cafe was among the Bradenton-area buisnesses that partook in the event.
Denise Berte played on the team of the restaurant she loves.
"I did it with them last year, and I had a great time," Berte said. "Just knowing it's for charity and who I am bowling with makes it fun."
Kay Rizzo, Carmen's wife, was excited Saturday to be having fun and paying it forward.
"We also believe in giving to the community and good causes," Rizzo said.
The Rizzo family knows what it is to have the community reach out to them. Less than a year ago, Carmen Rizzo's daughter was diagnosed with cancer. The community rallied together to raise money for their grandaughter's care and education. Home Depot even came in and remodeled a room in the family's home.
County Commissioner John Chappie bowled Saturday as well.
"It's fun, it's all for a great cause," Chappie said. "The employees are great. They do things throughout the year to raise money for the United Way."
Jessica De Leon, Herald law enforcement reporter, can be reached at 941-745-7049. You can follow her on Twitter @JDeLeon1012.


text:
- Visit
Today's Hours
8:00am to 5:00pm
- Calendar
- The Estate
- George Washington
- Education
- Library
- About
- Search
8:00am to 5:00pm
There are 32 wonderful little shortbread cookies in this blue and white tin with an image of George Washington's Mount Vernon on the lid.
The cookies are made from wheat flour, butter (cream, salt), and sugar. Net weight is 10 ounces.
Shortbread "cookies" were served in colonial times although at that time they were often referred to as "cakes". Shortbread cookies make a lovely hostess gift or a nice treat at tea time!
Please note that this item cannot be shipped internationally.
This website was generously supported by The Robert H. Smith Family Foundation.
©2014 Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Satisfaction Excellent
Value Score Poor Value
Good For Families
Show Prices
Show Prices
Show Prices
Show Prices
4* hotel with indoor pool and sauna
My girlfriend and I stayed at Hotel Haffner for 2 nights during a visit to Sopot in January 2010.
We booked our stay directly with the hotel via its website and paid 240 Zloty (about £50) per night for a double room with no breakfast.
I had visited Sopot a few years earlier and stayed at the Zhong Hua hotel on the beach. This time, we were attracted by the indoor pool and sauna facilities at Hotel Haffner (given the cold wintery conditions outdoors!) and the attractive off-season room rates.
Hotel Haffner is located on Jana Jerzego Haffnera, a street that runs parallel to the seafront, but some 400-500m inland.
A 5 minute walk along this street brings you to Bohaterow Monte Cassino, a pedestrianised street lined with restaurants, bars and shops which I have come to think of as the centre of Sopot. A further 5 minutes walk towards the sea then brings you to the "Molo" pier.
Alternatively, from the junction of Jana Jerzego Haffnera and Bohaterow Monte Cassino walk inland for a little over 5 minutes and you will find Sopot's train station which has frequent trains to the neighbouring cities of Gdansk and Gdynia.
We arrived at Gdansk airport some time after midnight on a cold January night (temperatures plunged to minus 28C!) and thankfully we had the foresight to pre-arrange our taxi transfer to the hotel. We booked this directly with the hotel at a cost of 85 Zloty (approx. £17) and they arranged for a driver to be waiting for us outside the arrivals gate.
Our room was well furnished, comfortable and everything I'd expect from a 4* hotel.
The double bed (a proper double, not two singles squeezed together) was large and comfortable.
Furnishings included a desk with a stool, a coffee table and two chairs, a cupboard with a TV on top of it, bedside tables, a set of drawers and a large wardrobe. There were also plenty of lamps to give the spacious room plenty of light.
The thing that I most remember about the room is that it was toasty warm! The outside temperature was the coldest that I'd ever experienced (minus 28C), but the room was delightfully warm. It was so warm that it lulled me into a false sense of security that I could go outside with fewer layers on. It was so warm that I would occasionally open the window for a blast of fresh air, before slamming the window shut a few seconds later as I remembered just how cold it was out there!
The en-suite bathroom was rather elegant; a mixture of ornate tiling, polished wooden panels and large mirrors. It was spotlessly clean and contained a bath tub with shower attachment. Fresh towels and complimentary toiletries were provided.
We paid extra for breakfast on one of the mornings of our stay. It was exceptionally good, but somewhat expensive at 70 Zloty (£14) per person.
The buffet consisted of cereals, fruit, yoghurt, pastries, cold meats, cheeses and a number of cooked items such as boiled eggs, bacon, sausages and mushrooms. There was also an egg station where you could get a freshly prepared omelette or fried eggs. There was a selection of fruit juices, teas and coffee.
An excellent breakfast – but I wouldn't pay that price every day!
The main reason for us booking this hotel was the indoor leisure facilities – namely the swimming pool, jacuzzi and sauna.
With the outside temperatures so cold, it was great to be able to retreat into the warmth of the sauna and hot tub after a chilly day of sightseeing.
The swimming pool was a good size and ideal for swimming lengths. It also contained various power jet settings; I found it good exercise to turn on the jets and attempt to swim against them.
We enjoyed a nice meal at the hotel's restaurant and then retired to the plush bar area where we sampled Goldwasser vodka (vodka with pieces of gold leaf in it) for the first time.
A warm and comfortable retreat from the harsh Polish winter. Stylish rooms, an exceptional (but costly!) breakfast and indoor swimming and sauna facilities. Highly recommended!
Excellent hotel with great value for money
I've stayed in the hotel Haffner on 2 separate occasions, for about a week each time. The whole experience makes it one of the nicest hotels I've stayed in, which was great, as I wasn't expecting it.
The staff are young and enthusiastic (which always helps if you're looking for a good place to go on a night time) and they speak English, the bar is well stocked and cheap (for westerners), they have a REALLY cool art collection in the main lobby with some very original and interesting pieces of sculpture and paintings that you can buy, I wish I had a photo to show you guys, but believe me, they were really really well made and showed excellent craftsmanship.
The hotel rooms are modern, clean and very relaxing to be in, the hotel is located about 10 -15 minutes walk from the centre of town, literally walk out of the door, turn right and keep walking, you'll get there.
Unique Quality: The morning buffet is exquisite, a very large spread, omellette chef with grill ready to make the omellettes of you choice, again, friendly waiters and a really nice restaurant too.
The food in general at the hotel is to a very high standard, I can't remember how many stars the hotel has, but it really is very good.
Directions: If I were you, I'd look in my transportation tips and phone Marion, he'll pick you up from the airport and bring you there.
- 1
Popular Hotels in Sopot
Powstancow Warszawy St 12/14, Pomorskie, Sopot
Powstancow Warszawy 12, 81-718, Sopot
Sheraton Sopot Hotel, Conference Center & Spa
Powstancow Warszawy 10, Sopot
ul Haffnera 59, Sopot
Explore the World
- Campanile Coventry North
- The Oberoi - Sahl Hasheesh
- Phoenix Inn Suites Wilsonville
- Econo Lodge Mount Shasta
- Capri Laguna Inn On The Beach
- Paradiso Bed & Breakfast
- La Baia di Rio
- Coyaba Beach Resort & Club
- Snow Valley Resort Dalhousie
- Clarion Suites Southern Cross Sydney
- Morgan Hotel
- Comfort Inn Near Legoland
- Sabah Hotel Sandakan
- Amalfi Resort