text:
Many historians point out that incorportation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment was a very substantial change in the nature of the relationship between the Federal Gov't and the States. But why is that the case? Didn't the Constitution limit States' rights already? For instance, Article I, Section 10.
So, why is the incorporation such a radical change?
Also, it seems to me that the fact that the States are virtually not limited in any way as to their powers regarding the individuals should bother libertarians. It is true that we worry about the Fed. Gov't obtaining too much power, and the States are a very efficient way of controlling that (plus, Federalism makes pragmatic sense), but what about the worry to limit the States' power?
FlyingAxe:what about the worry to limit the States' power?
First of all, even though you capitalize "State", I have to assume you talking about the actual individual states that make up the "United States".
Second of all, the focus of Austro-libertarians tends to be the State (period)...which includes a skepticism of and an ultimate rejection of the government of states too.
The Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government until 14 was passed.
The State were free to infringe any of the bill of rights beforehand.
A1. Sec. 10 more gives powers that the Federal government has that the state will not retain (make war, treaties, etc.)
I understand that this was a change, as in the case of any Amendment, but why was this a radical change, a change in the principle of the relationship between the states and the Fed. Gov't?
Tenth Amendment says that the states retain all the rights except those forbidden by the Constitution. Which includes whatever the Constitution said at the time, but can also include whatever the Constitution forbids to the states in the future amendments.
Third, there's a few things you (and Aristophanes, evidently) would be interested to learn about the 14th Amendment.
You're such a pretentious douche JJ. I hope you choke.
Aristophanes:You're such a pretentious douche JJ. I hope you choke.
You stay classy, phany!
1. I think the individual States should be capitalized.
2. All the more surpsing that Austro-libertarians are not concerned about the States' abuse of individual rights.
3. Where in the video does he address my specific question? I've heard and read about the Amendment not being ratified before,
FlyingAxe:1. I think the individual States should be capitalized.
I agree, as they're proper nouns. But what does that have to do with the word "states"?
They aren't?
He doesn't address your specific question, it's a lecture about the 14th Amendment specifically. I just thought you'd be interested to know the reality of it before you get engaged in discussions and start assessing things based on what we're all taught in government sponsored history class, that's all.
1. When we are talking about the specific states, it makes sense to me to capitalize them, just like when we are talking about a specific president, we should write "the President", not "the president". But, since I am an ESL person, I may be wrong.
2. In my experience, people in the Mises community who are minirchists devote much more time to discussing the dangers and oppression of the Federal Government than of the State governments. In my everyday experience, however, I have experienced more violation of my rights from the state I live in.
3. Thanks for the video. I knew, however, about the problems with ratification, etc. So, let me explain my question:
I have heard that the major problem with the incorporation in the 14th Amendemnt is that it reverses the polarity of the relationship between the States and the Fed. Gov't. The way the relationship was conceived, the States were the sovereigns who created the Fed. Gov't for the purpose of creating a union, but the Government was always subordinate and secondary in power to the States. That is why it does not make sense to say that the Government should have a power to interfere in the States' affairs that have nothing to do with the Union — for instance, whether or not a specific state enforces a particular religion, violating the individuals' natural freedom of religion.
Now, my question is: what about the clause that says that the States are not allowed to coin money or make separate treaties with foreign governments? Isn't that a case of the Federal Government telling the States what they may or may not do, individually? Especially with money coinage. It makes sense from the point of view that we want to create a union and the union should have the same common currency (a fallacious argument, possibly, from the economic point of view, but that's a separate issue; I am saying that the rationale makes sense, even if the logic and economic argument are flawed). But then the sovereignty of the States flies out of the window already in the First Article.
As an aside, isn't this also a problem with delegation of power? I have heard the argument that the government may have only those rights that the citizens have delegated (which is why the government cannot have a right to re-distribute resources), and the Federal Gov't specifically has only those rights that the States have delegated. But then how can it have a right to prevent an individual state from coining money? No states had that right to begin with, so they could not delegate it to the government.
Also, the fact that the States delegate the right to coinage to the Fed. Gov't does not automatically mean they lose those rights. If I hire a guard and delegate to him my personal right to defend myself, I still retain the right to defend myself when the guard goes to the bathroom.
So, one could say that the States contract out those rights. They alienate them, for the purpose of entering the Union, since they cannot retain those rights (as the argument goes) and be the members of the Union at the same time. But then, the same argument could be made about the 14th Amendment: the States who have ratified the Amendment alienate their rights to enforce religion for the purpose of remaining in the Union.
Is there a logical step missing here? Is there a reason why a right must be delegatable in order for it to be alienable? (I.e., one could say that the States have a right to coin money, which allows them to delegate it and alienate it. But the States cannot delegate a right to enforce religion, since the Fed. Gov't is forbidden that right by the Constitution, which also means they cannot alienate that right. But why is that the case?)
In fact, the same can be said about the 13th Amendment. The Fed. Gov't should have no control over whether a state has slavery in it or not. And yet, the States alienated their rights to make this decision. So, what's the difference with the incorporation and the 14th Amendment?
Now, I may agree with Tom Woods that this is unwise to allow the Fed. Gov't control over the States' decision to enforce religion because of the slippery slope (even though I don't like the idea of the States enforcing a particular religion locally or otherwise having a freedom to violate individual rights), but that's no different from saying that it is unwise to make the Fed. Gov't the sole entity having power to coin money. I.e., it's not really a legal argument.
Here is an interesting article on the topic, with Clarence Thomas rulling on the 14th Amendment:
FlyingAxe:1. When we are talking about the specific states, it makes sense to me to capitalize them, just like when we are talking about a specific president, we should write "the President", not "the president". But, since I am an ESL person, I may be wrong.
Right, as I said, I agreed with that. When you are talking about a proper noun, English convention says it should be capitalized. This is why you always see "Alaska" and North Dakota" capitalized. But when you are just talking about "the states" as in the collection of named territories, that is just a common noun. It's like saying "the presidents". You wouldn't capitalize that.
Like I said, if you're talking about the specific entity "the State", it would seem to make sense to capitalize that. But you kept talking about "Alaska" and North Dakota" and all the other states and calling them "the States". That doesn't make sense.
And your last sentence before my last post was incredibly confusing, as you were making a statement that "the individual states should be capitalized"...which has literally nothing to do with the word "state", so it has no relevance to the topic of capitalizing the word "state", yet that is what we were talking about. (And you capitalized the word "states" in that declarative statement.) In other words, we were talking about the notion of capitalizing the word "states", and your response was "I think the individual States should be capitalized"...something which wasn't even mentioned, and which doesn't explain why you would capitalized the word "states".
a) Who are these minarchists in the Mises community?
b) I woudn't be so sure about which tier of government has violated more of your rights. Sure, the more local the government the more visible the violation is (especially because they're the ones who do the initial enforcing.) But I'm not so sure you could really calculate an accurate comparison. Either way though, I'm not sure what difference it makes. Oppression is oppression, and government is government. If it wasn't a "state government" or "local government", it would still be an arm of some other government. It's highly unlikely that there would be a federal government and then nothing else.
Thanks for the video. I knew, however, about the problems with ratification, etc.
The "problems with ratification" as you call them weren't my main point. I think of greater relevance is the understanding that the 14th Amendment was not necessarily intended to "apply the Bill of Rights to the states".
Bingo. And that is something Tom spends a decent amount of time on in the lecture. That was largely my point. Did you even watch the video?
Again, did you watch it? Look into any of the sources he mentioned?
That's an interesting angle. Haven't really thought about that.
That's not a congruent analogy for serveral reasons, but I'll just focus on the Constitution.
Article 1, section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
Article 1, section 10:
"No State shall [...] coin Money;"
So, one could say that the States contract out those rights. They alienate them, for the purpose of entering the Union, since they cannot retain those rights (as the argument goes) and be the members of the Union at the same time. But then, the same argument could be made about the 14th Amendment: the States who have ratified the Amendment alienate their rights to enforce religion for the purpose of remaining in the Union. Is there a logical step missing here? Is there a reason why a right must be delegatable in order for it to be alienable? (I.e., one could say that the States have a right to coin money, which allows them to delegate it and alienate it. But the States cannot delegate a right to enforce religion, since the Fed. Gov't is forbidden that right by the Constitution, which also means they cannot alienate that right. But why is that the case?)
These are the kinds of questions which lead one to the understanding that Lysander Spooner arrived at almost 150 years ago. Keep along these lines and you'll begin to see why no constitution is valid, no matter how you write it.
FlyingAxe:The way I understand it, basically, in his dissenting opinion, Thomas argues that the 14th Amendment is necessary for the preservation of the Union and the Constitution, since it protects the legitimacy of the individual States' government, whose source is the legitimacy of the Federal Government and the Constitution.
That's interesting...considering the states existed before the Federal government and the Constitution, and allegedly provide the legitimacy for those concepts.
Since the States derive their moral power to government from the purpose of protecting people's rights ("...and to protect these rights the governments are formed"), when the States fail to do so, they lose their legitimacy. Therefore, it is a responsibility of the Federal Government and the Constitution, as the preservers of the Union, to make sure that the States protect individual rights.
Where does it say it is within the power (let alone "the responsibility") to "preserve the Union"?
It's definitely a very interesting argument that may be appealing (in principle) to a libertarian,
You mean a minarchist or a constitutionalist...as that is the type of person who would need to find some way to reconcile all these inconsistencies. (If they were being intellectually honest, of course.)
Sorry, I made a mistake. I meant to write the opposite: that the States are the source of the Federal Government's and the Constitution's legitimacy. (I'll answer the rest later.)
Re:States: I think the specific 50 States should be capitalized. Just like, when we are talking about Obama and Medvedev, we should write "Presidents", as in "the current Presidents of the US and Russia are jerks". The same way it makes sense to capitalize the Colonies when referring to the specific 13 Colonies.
Re: minarchists: E.g., people like Tom Woods or Don Livingston. They talk about nullification, etc., but I am yet to hear of some mechanism to limit a state's power. But I agree, this biase is somewhat irrelevant; plus, it's probably a product of what lectures I happened to have listened to.
Speaking of Tom Woods, yes, I listened to his lecture (to some parts twice), and, unless I missed something, he did not really address my question. In fact, he said that if angels were residing in the Supreme Court, he would have no problem with the 14th Amendment. I.e., he thinks it is simply unwise to allow the Federal Gov't such a level of control, not that there is a legal problem. I may agree with him on the wisdom argument, but I am still interested resolving whether there is a philosophical legal problem.
I agree that there is significant doubt over what the intent was. (Incidentally, Thomas addresses that question in his opinion as well; of course, his argument is neither exhaustive nor definitive.) There are three rational possibilies (i.e., I am ignoring the possibility that the Congress intended that the 14th Amendment guarantees a "right" to a minimum wage or health care or education):
1. The Amendment intended that the States must respect those rights that the US citizens obtain vis-a-vis the Federal Government. I.e., their constitutional rights. That would include a very narrow set of rights, such as a right to travel between the state lines or access to Federal land or Federal ports.
2. The Amendment intended that the States must respect specifically the rights from the Bill of Rights.
3. The Amendment intended that the States must respect fundamental human rights (i.e., natural rights).
Tom Woods seems to be saying something like 3, but that actually seems to be the most inclusive category. The category 2 does not make any sense, since it seems very arbitrary. (Plus, 9th Amendment recognizes that natural rights.) Category 1 is a very interesting choice and one that would seemingly not present a problem in terms of the polarity of sovereignty. The problem is: I don't think it's true. The historical context of the 14th Amendment was Black Codes whose attempt (as it was argued) was to reverse the abolition. The argument was that despite being granted the full citizenship by the 13th Amendment, the freemen still had their fundamental rights violated by the States. Whether or not we agree with what was actually happening, that seems to be the rationale for the 14th Amendment.
I don't mean by "preserving the Union" something like "keeping a state from seceding". I mean something like guarding the Union (through national defense) and preserving the existing union's cohesiveness (hence the Commerce Clause and hence the alienation of the States' rights to coin money, make independent treaties with foreign nations, or create titles of nobility). I agree that guarding the Union's moral and legal legitimacy is a novel logical step. I need to think about it. (And maybe read Federalist Papers.)
Yes, of course only a minarchist would worry about all of the above. But even for an anarchist the question of recognizing that the government's legitimacy is not a priori is a good development. Of course, a minarchist might argue that the legitimacy of the government lies in its protection of the citizens' rights, while the anarchist would (correctly, in my opinion) argue that the legitimacy comes from consent, which you never have with any government (hence,the moral need for anarchy).
FlyingAxe:Re: minarchists: E.g., people like Tom Woods or Don Livingston.
Tom Woods is a minarchist?
Can't say I've heard of Don Livingston, which would lead me to believe he's not a member of the Mises community.
One of the arguments of the south leading up to the Civil War was state sovereignty. The south argued the federal political subdivision had no authority or legitimacy to march an army on state soil. The north responded arguing states could not lawfully secede. Once the Civil War was over the south said, okay you won we shall come back to work taking up our seats in Congress, etc. The great irony of the Civil War was the north said.. whoa... you folks did in fact secede and can't come back. The south may have lost the war but they won the argument.
In your example of Article 1, Section 10 what would be a lawful remedy by the federal political subdivision for a state coining money before incorporation? Economic sanctions, coercion via invasion, expuslsion from the union, or other? After?
The south may have lost the war but they won the argument.
Well, in that case, the assertions that the Civil War destroyed the States' sovereignty are unfounded, no?
The thing I don't understand about the incorporation is: what difference does it make whether the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights specifically?
In other words, first of all, it did incorporate something. It does forbid the States to oppress some kind of individual rights. I don't know whether that extends to a right of jury or a right to abortion or a right to bear arms. But individual states cannot commit genocide, for example. So, that already is enough to ask the question about the reversal of sovereignty.
(You are right, it's not clear from the Constitution what the consequences of the idea that the States may not coin money are. It could be that the States merely willingly gave up that right. If a state exercised its right to coin money, other states could have excluded it from the Union, cut down its participation in the Congress, or whatever. Also, if you read the argumentation of the defenders of the Southern States' right to secede right around the Civil War, they use words like: "The States willingly gave up some of their rights. Now they are taking them back." So, at least in these people's minds, this "giving up of rights" was not the same as the 14th Amendment. But then, the same is the case with the 13th Amendment.)
Also, I don't really understand the outrage of some anti-incorporationists about the 14th Amendment. For example, in this paper, Laurence Vance agrees that
if the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates anything it incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed over the veto of President Johnson. This was the view of virtually every member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who participated in the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull, the draftsman of the bill, stated that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was "a reiteration of the rights as set forth in the Civil Rights Bill". [...]
The author quotes someone about what rights the Civil Rights Act gave to the freedmen:
In the first section of the Civil Rights Act Congress has given its interpretation to these terms [privileges and immunities], or at least has stated some of the rights which, in its judgment, these terms include; it has there declared that they include the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property" [quoted in Berger 1989, p. 40].
Chapter 6 boldly declares that "the Southern states possessed the legal right to secede" (p. 62). Here Woods lapses back into constitutional fetishism, of a particularly silly form. Why should any libertarian care one whit whether secession was a legal right? The vital, unaddressed question is whether the southern states had a moral right to secede. With respect to evaluating the American Revolution, do we ask whether it was legally justified or whether it was morally justified? If the secession of the slave states was truly immoral, than of what possible import was the legal right? On the other hand, if they indeed had a moral right to leave the Union, so what if doing so was illegal? Only a legal positivist would let the legality determine the morality of the act.
FlyingAxe:Which brings me to Tom Woods. The reason that I called him a minirchist is that he engages in what Jeffrey Rogers Hummel calls "constitutional fetishism" in his review of Tom Woods' PIG book (the same goes for the author of the article about Kelo case): Chapter 6 boldly declares that "the Southern states possessed the legal right to secede" (p. 62). Here Woods lapses back into constitutional fetishism, of a particularly silly form. Why should any libertarian care one whit whether secession was a legal right? The vital, unaddressed question is whether the southern states had a moral right to secede. With respect to evaluating the American Revolution, do we ask whether it was legally justified or whether it was morally justified? If the secession of the slave states was truly immoral, than of what possible import was the legal right? On the other hand, if they indeed had a moral right to leave the Union, so what if doing so was illegal? Only a legal positivist would let the legality determine the morality of the act.
Wow, that's a pretty dishonest review. Just because someone fails to mention a moral justification—which, I'm not even sure Woods did, I haven't read that book—it doesn't automatically mean he doesn't believe there is one. And it certainly doesn't mean he believes "the legality determine[s] the morality of the act." That has to be one of the worst straw men I've ever seen.
What Hummel is literally saying is "Look! This guy pointed out that what they did was legal! And he didn't even mention a peep about it being moral! Legal positivist! Constitutional fetishist!"
Give me a break. Obviously in a history book any historian worth his salt is going to try to refrain from moral value judgements and stick to the facts. And this guy is pissed off because Tom Woods simply offered the facts about legality and refrained from going down philosophy boulevard...so much so that he decides to straw man Woods' position and throw out labels as accusations. What a joke.
If you'd like a rebuttal to Hummel, see here:
Hummel on Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
I am not saying his critique of Tom Woods is completely correct. Nor do I agree with Kinsella completely either.
My point was: why would an anarchist care about whether something is legal according to positive (vs. natural) law or not? Leaving Tom Woods alone for now (I really do like most of his works and videos and respect him, so I am willing to give him benefit of the doubt re: being an anarchist), here is my question (and I asked the same question in a different thread titled something like "Why is Ginsburg wrong?"):
Imagine Jane owns some slaves. Joe marries her, and they create a marital contract regarding their shared use of Jane's property. The contract is designed to make sure that Joe does not excessively abuse Jane's slaves. The contract lists only those things that Joe may do with the slaves.
One day Jane is abusing her slaves. Joe forces her to stop. A libertarian lawyer walking by sadly shakes his head lamenting the abuse of Jane's property rights. "Now Joe can do whatever he wants with the slaves. Their safety is in question. Joe violated the contract with Jane."
But 1) isn't the contract a joke anyway (at least the part of it pertaining to the slaves) from natural rights point of view? 2) shouldn't the lawyer worry about what's being done to the slaves at the moment and rejoice at every instance when their rights are upheld (or abused less)?


text:
Undergoing a secondary rhinoplasty If you are thinking of going through a secondary rhinoplasty, technically known as revision rhinoplasty, for correcting the nasal flaws which still continue to bother you then you need to be extra careful the second time. When you consult a surgeon to discuss your nose job, he/she will openly talk about your possibilities of going under the knife again. Revision rhinoplasty is a complicated task for every surgeon as they must carefully modify the nose while taking into account the earlier changes made; therefore, it should be performed only by a specialized surgeon. If you are willing to undergo revision rhinoplasty, here are a few things that you must remember: How long ago you underwent primary rhinoplasty? It is important for the patient to understand that complete healing after the first rhinoplasty usually takes up to a year. In fact, the tip of the nose takes maximum time to heal as it is cosmetically sensitive. In that situation you cant lose patience and ask for another surgery. The revision rhinoplasty specialist in New York refuses to take up a case if the patient has not completed a minimum of one year from the previous surgery. Anxious patients who switch to another surgery in just few months after the initial operation are likely to experience major, complicated problems in the long run. It is always recommend waiting a complete year before considering a secondary surgery. Be wise and practical to have reasonable expectations With cosmetic procedures you cannot expect it to turn out the way exactly you had imagined as it is not a miracle cure; at the end of the day it is just a surgery and its aim is to enhance your appearance. It is imperative to have level-headed expectations from both primary and revision rhinoplasty surgery. If you are told by a surgeon that something is not possible then it is better to limit your expectations. Although you can seek different surgeons views, it is likely that most will have similar predictions about the outcome. Does your surgery needs additional grafts or implants? The first rhinoplasty surgery or nasal septoplasty in New York amongst other places usually alter the underlying nasal cartilage which ultimately weakens the nose. This has the potential to impair the breathing ability of the nose. Hence, during a revision rhinoplasty mostly the reconstruction of nasal framework is needed. To do so, additional cartilage grafts are needed which are obtained either from your nasal septum or ear. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.5.2 © 2010, Crawlability, Inc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
(AFP) – Nov 8, 2008
HEBRON, West Bank (AFP) — Jewish settlers on Saturday beat up a six-year-old Palestinian boy near the West Bank town of Hebron, and he was taken to hospital suffering from moderate head wounds, medics said.
Bilal Daana was attacked by a group of settlers near the Jewish settlement of Kiryat Arba near Hebron. They beat him up and threw stones at him, the Palestinian medics said.
The boy was taken by Israeli soldiers to a checkpoint at the entrance to Hebron from where he was transferred to the local Al-Ahli hospital.
The incident was the latest in a surge of settler attacks on Palestinians, peace activists and Israeli soldiers since the authorities dismantled a settlement outpost near Hebron last month.
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has vowed that Israeli security forces will continue cracking down on illegal outposts and settler violence in the West Bank, which Israel occupied in 1967.
Copyright © 2014 AFP. All rights reserved. More »


text:
How good are supply function equilibrium models: an empirical analysis of the ERCOT balancing market
We present an empirical analysis of a supply function equilibrium model in the Texas spot electricity market. We derive conditions for optimal bidding behavior in a spot market with ex ante bilaterally contracted sales. By estimating costs, we are able to derive a set of ex post-and ex ante-optimal supply functions and use a non-parametric behavioral model to compare our theoretically optimal supply functions to actual offers made. Our results show that with the exception of the largest generators, firms make offers with markups and markdowns far in excess of what a model of profit-maximizing behavior suggests. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Regulatory Economics.
Volume (Year): 31 (2007)
Issue (Month): 1 (February)
Pages: 1-35
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100298
Related research
Keywords: Electricity markets; Supply function equilibrium; ERCOT; Market power;References
References listed on IDEASPlease report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Green, Richard & Newbery, David M G, 1991.
"Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
557, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Green, Richard J & Newbery, David M, 1992. "Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 929-53, October.
- Catherine D. Wolfram, 1999. "Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 805-826, September.
- Ross Baldick & Ryan Grant & Edward Kahn, 2004. "Theory and Application of Linear Supply Function Equilibrium in Electricity Markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 143-167, 03.
- Hurlbut, David & Rogas, Keith & Oren, Shmuel, 2004. "Protecting the Market from "Hockey Stick" Pricing: How the Public Utility Commission of Texas is Dealing with Potential Price Gouging," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 26-33, April.
- Klemperer, Paul D & Meyer, Margaret A, 1989. "Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly under Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1243-77, November.
- Holmberg, Pär, 2009.
"Numerical calculation of an asymmetric supply function equilibrium with capacity constraints,"
European Journal of Operational Research,
Elsevier, vol. 199(1), pages 285-295, November.
- Holmberg, Pär, 2005. "Numerical Calculation of an Asymmetric Supply Function Equilibrium with Capacity Constraints," Working Paper Series 2005:12, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
- Holmberg, Pär, 2005. "Asymmetric Supply Function Equilibrium with Constant Marginal Costs," Working Paper Series 2005:16, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
- Holmberg, Pär, 2004.
"Unique Supply Function Equilibrium with Capacity Constraints,"
Working Paper Series
2004:20, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
- Holmberg, Par, 2008. "Unique supply function equilibrium with capacity constraints," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 148-172, January.
- Green, Richard J, 1996. "Increasing Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 205-16, June.
- Wilson, Robert, 1979. "Auctions of Shares," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 675-89, November.
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:regeco:v:31:y:2007:i:1:p:1-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.


text:
All patient images appearing in the Boston Cosmetic Surgery Center web site are the exclusive property of Boston Cosmetic Surgery Center and are protected under the United States and International Copyright laws.
The images may not be reproduced, copied, transmitted or manipulated without the written permission of Boston Cosmetic Surgery Center.
Use of any image as the basis for another photographic concept or illustration (digital, artist rendering or alike) is a violation of the United States and International Copyright laws. All images are copyrighted © 2001 - 2013.


text:
doodles hng mainly of hyukjae from suju *ignores references*
I am just really in love with his hair all the time ok. I MISS THE BLUE SO MUCH. SOO MUCH.
oh and the um, nsfw one is inspired by…. current events.
/heaves yes thank you! Yes, someone linked me to that yesterday and I messaged the user but i didn't get a reply. D:
Now it's come to the point where I just don't give a shit anymore if it's my old stuff. I mean it's still super annoying, but people will never get it. OTL I'm just going to watermark my things on this blog from now on and I think it would make a huge difference.
Thanks soooooo much for telling me, it means a lot to me that you care to do so hng
TumblrYahoo was pretty quiet about this, but as part of the new "community guidelines," posts from adult flagged blogs will begin to not show up in search engines, on mobile, or even in a damn tag search, unless you are following them beforehand.http://www.tumblr.com/docs/en/nsfw
That would certainly explain why I have been missing a lot of fanart…
Isolate the blogs, then get rid of them in a year or two? Sounds like it makes sense. Moving away from the perfectly acceptable and no-fuss DON'T USE THE SITE IF YOU AREN'T 18 YOU LITTLE SHITS to LET'S PROTECT AND ADVERTISE TO THE CHILDREN HEY KIDS!
Well, confirmed that neither of my blogs will ever show up in a tumblr tag search again. Can't search myself. Can't find slugbox or slugboxcreatureart via any tag. This is pretty upsetting, as it means any SFW or fun fanart will obviously never show up in a search, EVEN if you are already following me. For all intents and purposes, I have no reason to ever tag anything again, since it's a flag that affects the entirety of my blog.
And this affects many of you all as well, since tumblr/yahoo is capable and already handing out these Adult-Blog tags FOR you. And it's impossible to "change your ways." They have not technically censored us. Rather, they have made it essentially impossible for us to find and engage with new connections and people, by completely cutting us off from all forms of discovery.
This means the only way to gain new followers is through offsite linking. Because if a blog likes, replies, or reblogs an adult blog, they are likely to ALSO be an adult blog, and thus unsearchable.
SOoooo basically there's almost NO point to being on the site. I'm predicting a wipe of all adult content within two years. Either manually or because we'll all have left. After all, what's the point if I can't even get searched or seen?
You all know that slugboxart is my art tag, right?
See anything in there…?
#Why even tag this?
WOW this is really dumb i'm sad…
this is butts :T
jesus fucking shit see we told you, we fuckin told you
doodles hng mainly of hyukjae from suju *ignores references*
I am just really in love with his hair all the time ok. I MISS THE BLUE SO MUCH. SOO MUCH.
oh and the um, nsfw one is inspired by…. current events.
Okay I know I'm replying to this suuuper late.
But thank you so much anon :') I really reaaaally appreciate it.
I know I don't reply to all of the messages I receive on this blog, and I'm really sorry about that. I think I might have said this before, but I'm just a little hesitant about having a lot of text posts and asks on my art blog.
Just know that I read all of the ones that I receive and I JUST. I LOVE ALL OF YOU SO MUCH. SO MUCH. Also all requests are kept in mind, but I'm not really going to draw them at the moment. I have some other things I want to focus on, like commissions and personal work (I'm still deciding if I should work on having a portfolio, in case I do want to go to art school one day), but I really appreciate the interest. EVERY TIME I SEE A MESSAGE MY HEART EXPLODES WITH HAPPINESS BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE SO KIND, EVEN TO A GROSS BLOG LIKE THIS ; u;
I miss doing comics and I miss drawing dicks but unfortunately there are only 24 hours in a day SIGH
oh….my god.
are you an angel?
has an angel just written me a love song?
OMG THANK YOU A LOT I KINDA TEARED UP HAHA <33 idk if you're just being super nice but ugggh thanks a lot sweet sweet anon <3
And thanks to the other anons as well uggh I GET REALLY EMOTIONAL WHEN YOU GUYS ARE SO NICE I COULD KISS ALL OF YOU /KISSES
Also i'm trying my hand at writing.. and /CRIES. It's so hard, but it's coming along and if anything, i'll probably be drawing scenes from my fic.
It's already monday here on the bottom of the world. So here's some red pants… with a twist ;)
(via reapersun)
Um, Merry Christmas! Dirty followers, this is for you. Eunhae unwrapping presents, how cute.
(edited: tried to fix the awful tumblr formatting ew)
Pine needles tickled Donghae's nose as he leaned forward and breathed in, fumbling blindly for Hyukjae's hand at his side. Wrapping his fingers around his boyfriend's muscled arm, he tugged on the sweater impatiently. "Hyukjae. I'm hungry. Hurry up!"
Donghae was sitting childishly in front of the Christmas tree, legs splayed out and surrounded by neatly wrapped presents. He couldn't see the twinkling lights, the shimmering tinsel, or the mischievous look on Hyukjae's face, courtesy of the red blindfold that had been tied firmly around his head. But the room smelled like Christmas, warm and cinnamon-toasted, and he was anxious to get to the good part. He could hear Hyukjae rummaging through boxes until the jingle of keys chimed loud and bright, and a satisfied sigh escaped from his boyfriend."Sorry, baby. Merry Christmas." Something small and textured was pressed into Donghae's outstretched palm, and he traced the contours of the thick plastic before Hyukjae's gentle fingers held his blindfold in place. "You got me…car keys?" Donghae's voice was bewildered. He didn't need another car, nor did he particularly want one right now…but Hyukjae was shaking his head, soft hair brushing the nape of Donghae's neck as he leaned over the younger man's shoulder.
"Why don't you play with it for a bit and find out?" Hyukjae's voice took on a slyer tone, enough to make Donghae tense up and arch back against him instinctively. With Hyukjae's pouty lips close to his collarbone, Donghae flicked the remote experimentally and was taken aback when he heard a muffled buzzing noise coming from his left. Clicking the next button he felt, he started when the vibrating grew louder, and he felt the nearest box trembling against his leg. A little jolt of heat shot up through it, pulsing low in his stomach under Hyukjae's palm as his boyfriend watched him put two and two together.
"You little pervert," he breathed out, and Hyukjae's lips stretched into a smile against his neck.
My dad looked through some of my paintings (the sfw ones!) the other day, praised me, and then said,
"Can you draw something not so gay? ..or maybe not so depressing?"
so…..this happened. LMAO


text:
Invaluable cannot guarantee the accuracy of translations through Google Translate and disclaims any responsibility for inaccurate translations.
Show translation options
Lot 1: Three Murano Glass Clowns etc
Antiques & Collectables
by Thomas Watson Auctioneers
January 8, 2013
Darlington, United Kingdom
Looking for the realized and estimated price?
Description: Three Murano Glass Clowns etc
Bid Now on Items for Sale


text:
All great looking animals except that english bulldyke. She looks dangerous and should be destroyed immediately.
- Forum Header
- Topics not covered in other forums.
- DeadHead420
- Platinum Boarder
- Posts:1784
- More negative karma please =-)
ecojaded wrote:
Duuude, if i was walkin thru the woods alone n saw ur hound, i would freak out. It looks like some kinda spirit animal. I would probly think death was stalking me. Beautiful canine furshur.
P.S. Goin Furthur on the Furthur summer o 2011 Tour. Happppppy times, & mellow vibes ahead. Hope to see a bunch o u guys(n girls) out there. =-) - Ossumpei
- Platinum Boarder
- Posts:2532
Let us all look kindly on our neighbor. - Gratefulgravesmn
- Junior Boarder
- Posts:63
Attachment pooch.bmp not found
Attachment pooch.bmp not found
- MushroomMan
- Platinum Boarder
- Posts:7999
put them in your pictures, then hit the "add file" button where it says "Attachments" and search for it, click on it and hit the same "add file" button.
should work.... - LBDowling
- Expert Boarder
- Posts:642
- We must become ourselves before someone else does
neverstop66 wrote:
If my wife saw that peekapoo she would want to run right out and get one. She says the next time we get a dog it will be a lap type dog that doesn't leave huge fur balls all over the house. Boxers are an awesome handful. Almost adopted a boxer pup but got a shepherd instead.
I got sucked into getting him with the flat face/cuteness & he does not shed at all, which is great. Regular grooming is a must, because his fur is so fine & fluffy. Great, smart dog though- extremely loyal & friendly!Someday, everything's gonna be diff'rent... when I paint my masterpiece


text:
Our old girl Star Wars: A New Hope turned 34 years old today, and she's becoming quite the cougar (although 34 isn't quite cougar age, so I believe the correct term should be Bobcat).
In honor of this, our List of the Day is a collection of the best Star Wars Fan Films ever made. Have fun losing your afternoon to this collection of 30 pieces of fan art. That's right, art. What?


text:
As the horn sounded on the fourth quarter, Grizzlies coach Lionel Hollins slumped over and buried his head into the scorer's table. The players walked to the sidelines shaking their heads in disbelief.
The Grizzlies were even with the Dallas Mavericks on the scoreboard. But the squads were far apart in terms of body language and execution on the court.
Box score
Memphis looked discombobulated.
Dallas grew more dominant.
The end result was the Grizzlies blowing a 13-point, fourth-quarter advantage Wednesday night, turning a winnable game into a 106-102 overtime loss before an announced crowd of 11,616 in FedExForum.
"We can't close out games," Griz forward Zach Randolph said. "That has been a big problem for us the whole season. We have to learn how to do that."
The Griz are working hard lately at throwing away chances to secure their first non-losing season in four years. The defeat accounted for the Grizzlies' 16th this season when they've held a double-digit lead.
In losing their third straight game, the Griz also fell for the second time in a row in overtime after seeming to have a comfortable cushion midway through the fourth quarter.
The Grizzlies led 88-75 with 4:25 remaining in the fourth quarter. They scored just one field goal the rest of the way, and watched Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki explode out of a shooting slump to steal the show.
Nowitzki made his last five shots in regulation, guiding the Mavs on a 15-2 run to force overtime. Nowitzki finished with 28 points, and took over after missing 13 of his first 16 field goal attempts.
Nowitzki's fade-away shot with 24 seconds left in overtime put the Mavs ahead 101-98 with 24 seconds left, and the Mavs held on by converting clutch free throws.
As Griz forward Rudy Gay put it: "Dirk woke up." And the Mavs notched their 10th straight 50-win season.
"I'm just glad I got going," Nowitzki said. "We really had nothing going for a long time in the fourth quarter. Jason Terry was really the only guy that kept us in the game. Our defense was phenomenal in the second half."
Hollins gave Nowitzki his due, but wasn't willing to praise the Mavericks' defense. The Grizzlies' lack of concentration and selfish play on offense did them in.
They made careless passes and consistently launched ill-advised shots — all of which undermined O.J. Mayo's team-high 27 points. Mike Conley added 25 points, and Randolph chipped in 24 points and 12 rebounds.
"We settled and took a lot of long shots," Hollins said. "We were 6 for 19 from the 3-point line. We were shooting 50 percent at halftime and then winded up shooting only 41 percent, mostly because we took bad shots."
Dallas dominated the early part of the extra period, connecting on its first three shots. The Mavs' first two baskets were layups after steals. Jason Kidd followed with a 3-pointer that gave Dallas a 97-92 lead.
Overtime ensued after the Grizzlies failed to score on a busted play as the fourth quarter ended.
Memphis' possession began 17.5 seconds after Darrell Arthur won a jump ball with Kidd.
Conley dribbled the ball at the top of the key, allowing the play to unfold. He then delivered a pass to Mayo in a crowd. Mayo didn't have a clean look and was forced to heave a desperation shot as time expired.
"It was a play for OJ. We didn't execute it very well," Hollins said. "I'll take the blame for that."
The Grizzlies' final offensive set in the fourth was emblematic of their struggles down the stretch.
"We were holding the ball," Randolph said. "We didn't have any movement. We weren't running our plays. It was a tough and frustrating game. We should have had this one."
Memphis had effectively controlled the game with an active defense and crisp offensive execution.
The Griz opened the second half with a 17-4 run, opening up a double-digit lead after both teams were tied at 50 at halftime. They took a 73-67 advantage into the fourth and quickly led by 11 with their reserves playing well.
That is, until Nowitzki took over.
Nowitzki scored 10 of the Mavs' final 11 points in the fourth quarter.
"He's a big-time player," Hollins said. "That's what big-time players do. They play within themselves and within the team framework. When it's time to win the game, they take over."
—- Ronald Tillery: 529-2353


text:
altitude2k wrote:It is a good move. Its very much a sony ideal of having a console as your central home entertainment system. Having the contract with sky helps a lot, if sky owners could do what they do but with the N-XBOX, then it means one less thing in the living room. Having Kinect built in and controlling stuff through that would work as well. Problem for sony was they had this play thing with freeview, but yet again, it was announced, and then you heard nothing from it. Problem is for MSOFT, is that they lost the Movie side of it, i don't know what steps they would have to go through to get blu ray, but sony were quite clever in stamping that feature down. Its nicely poised though from a consumer standpoint. |
PSN - Cloudsheaven
3ds: 0645-5746-4715


text:
Yesterday was one of those days, lock the keys in the house, no electricity at the fuel pumps to put diesel in the dive boat, go to Tico's to get more Johny Walker Blue, run around all the grocery stores (finally One Mart) trying to find LARGE marshmallows to do s'mores, find wood for a bonfire and then have your husband want YOU to put the boat on the dock downwind in swell and seas while he plays deckhand. It all did not work so well…I am a worse driver in those conditions in a boat then I am a deckhand and I totally suck at deckhand duties, so just ended up yelling at him.
Then found out that I have left my lens inside my port for the underwater camera on the trip across so there was a wonderful black circle he could not get out….
But all is well that ended well, as it was a great night for an evening barbecue, we were invited to dinner on the Yacht and the Caribbean Night BBQ was great with Fried Bananas, Black Beans and Rice, Carrot Salad and yummy barbecued chicken!


text:
Word: hermetical
Added on: 2010-09-27
Listened: 0 times
Add categories to hermetical
Pronunciation in English [en] Back to English
- Pronunciation by sugardaddy (Male from United States)
- Could you do it better? different accent? Pronounce hermetical in English
Accents & languages on maps
- Random word: Airdrieonians
Modify word:
· Add languages
· Add categories
Report word:
Is there anything wrong with this word?
Please report it here.


text:
Scrapbook MAX! Digital Scrapbooking Software
Archival Quality Digital Scrapbooking Software
Layout with Witches Brew (KapiScrap) Template by KapiScrap (offered as a freebie) Ideas of cakes for Halloween...
Last edited by KapiColors; 10-25-2011 at 04:15 PM.
KapiScrap or KapiColors aka SandrineYou can find my products in the SBM STORE! Have a look. Thanks!
View Tag Cloud
Forum Rules


text:
Directed by: John Patrick Shanley (Joe Versus the Volcano)
Starring: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Joseph Foster II
It took 18 years for John Patrick Shanley to get behind the camera again in the wake of the less-than-spectacular box-office performance of his directorial debut, the very quirky Joe Versus the Volcano. It could be said that he played it a little on the safe side by adapting his own award-winning play, Doubt, for the occasion. But has he really? True, the material works as theater, but that doesn't guarantee acceptance as a movie. In fact it's sometimes quite the opposite, and I've already noticed a tendency for the film to find less-than-ready acceptance among those familiar with the play. After all, Shanley has "opened up" the play. He's moved it from its two-set confines, gone far beyond the play's original four characters, invented new scenes and attacked the material with a strong sense of cinema. The results are bound to displease some purists. The rest of us might feel a bit differently.
I'd never seen or read the play and knew little about it other than its basic premise concerning a nun/principal of a Catholic school becoming suspicious of and engaging in a confrontation with the parish priest over what she believes to be inappropriate conduct with at least one of her pupils. Actually, armed with just that knowledge, I groaned when I was first confronted with the film. I envisioned something fairly simplistic and high-minded, with a lot of breast-beating from Meryl Streep (trying perhaps to regain dramatic credibility after writhing on the roof of a goat house in Mamma Mia!). While I did find a certain amount of the latter, I was surprised to find a rich, multilayered story that's about a lot more than the bare plot—a plot that itself has one out-of-left-field thought-provoking wrinkle.
Within the boundaries of the film's plot, Shanley addresses the changes the Catholic Church was going through with Vatican II and the attempts of Pope John XXIII to modernize the outlook of the church. Set in 1964, the story takes place during these changes—with Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) on the side of change and Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) representing the old order of things. The film often contrasts the worldly pleasures enjoyed by the priests in their off-duty lives with the spartan existence of the nuns in Sr. Aloysius' charge. In the middle of this tug-of-war is a young nun, Sister James (Amy Adams), whose sense of loyalty to her superior isn't entirely compatible with her own sense of right and wrong.
Beyond this, the post-Kennedy assassination era is central to the civil rights movement and to changes making inroads in society in general. To underscore the civil rights angle, the boy at the center of the confrontation between Fr. Flynn and Sr. Aloysius is Donald (newcomer Joseph Foster II), the school's first black student—making the presumed situation that much more potentially volatile. Since the story works as something of a mystery and is so grounded in a series of revelations that occur throughout the film, it would do Doubt a grave disservice to go into detail on any of the specifics of what happens. I can safely say, however, that much of what happens doesn't play out in the way one might expect. Sr. Aloysius' encounter with Donald's mother (Viola Davis in a wholly remarkable performance) so plays against expectations and our own beliefs that it's like a body blow—not in the least because it's ultimately so painfully understandable.
Shanley has shrewdly crafted the film to instill doubt in Fr. Flynn's actions from the very start—and he does so by showing the priest's actions as they appear to Sr. Aloysius. Her suspicions become ours, even before she transfers those suspicions to Donald's teacher, Sr. James, who begins to see events colored by the seeds of doubt. The pattern continues, but it's one that is insidious in its ability to cast as much doubt on the suspicions as it does confirm them. This is what gives the film its complexity and strength. Some of it is, of course, inherent in the stage original, but it's broadened in the creation of other characters and scenes.
It's noteworthy that Shanley's approach is wonderfully cinematic in an almost fearless manner. He uses a variety of devices throughout the film—some of which could have easily become risible, but all of which work. The skewed angles and such obviously choreographed moments as when the nuns leave their cells in the morning are one thing. Summoning up a wind storm for dramatic effect at a psychological moment is something else again in its boldness—almost as if Shanley is daring you to laugh and at the same time trusting you won't.
Yes, the movie is a field day for the actors—and Shanley makes it even more so (notice the introduction of Sr. Aloysius) by his judicious use of the camera and his staging of it all. Streep manages to make her frequently rather monstrous character understandable, even sympathetic. There are moments of humor in her portrayal of the nun and a sense of humanity, all of which is underscored by her fear of change and her doubts about the certainty of her own convictions. Hoffman walks a fine line between being the wronged man and the potentially guilty one. Amy Adams is perhaps a little too old for her role, but she carries such an innate air of innocence that it's hard to imagine anyone playing it better. However, the biggest accolades ought to go to Viola Davis, who pulls off what could have been an impossible role in a performance that is simply breathtaking.
Without question, this is pretty heavy stuff all the way around. It isn't a "feel-good" movie in any sense of the term, but it is surprisingly entertaining—as well as being powerful. It preserves a sense of the theatricality of the piece—complete with the heightened emotions this suggests—but never becomes canned theater in the bargain. One viewing sold me on its basic quality. A second look convinced me that Doubt is at least verging on something like greatness. Rated PG-13 for thematic material.
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
North Carolina Stage Company in Asheville just staged a fantastic version of this play. In my opinion no other medium can capture the intensity of a well produced stage version performed right in front of you. So while it's great that this Pulitzer Prize winning play is getting out to a larger audience, and I'm sure the performances and flmmaking is top-notch, I think I'd rather go to the cinema to see something specifically crafted for that medium, like "Let the Right One In", "The Wrestler" or "Slumdog Millionaire" and catch this one on video. |
Jason Williams Dec 26, 2008 |
In my opinion no other medium can capture the intensity of a well produced stage version performed right in front of you. I learned long ago not to argue with folks who have a solid preference for theatre over film. (And it's fine because I have a solid preference for film over theatre and am just as unshakable, so it evens out.) I think I'd rather go to the cinema to see something specifically crafted for that medium, like "Let the Right One In", "The Wrestler" or "Slumdog Millionaire" and catch this one on video. If you're harcore sold on the play, I'd suggest you stay away from the film altogether, but I so think that you should consider that the film version of this indeed is specifically crafted for film by the playwright. As such it's a special case (though not a unique one). I would rank it under Slumdog as filmmaking and possibly under Let the Right One In, but, in all honesty, I think it's better than The Wrestler in every department. |
Dec 28, 2008 |
I guess I'm just weary of screen adaptations of good plays, because for every Doubt, or Closer you have a Proof, or Bug, or (gasp) Rent. Moreover once you have a definitive film version of a play it becomes harder to separate the film and the stage production. People want to see play performed the same way as the movie, and are sometimes disappointed when that doesn't happen. Also sometimes it seems like film adaptations of plays are sometimes just a vehicle for that big name actors appear in to boost their credentials. Both of the featured actors in the the Broadway version were award winning actors, so they should be perfectly capable of playing the roles on film, but no one would go see them. They might go see Hoffman or Streep however. It's all probably a bit of elitism on my part. I guess I'm just kind of a theater segregationist. |
Jason Williams Dec 29, 2008 |
Saw this last week and was blown away by the acting and the script. [Can't really comment on how it compares to the stage version; but clearly it is a work of art in both arenas.] Maybe not a great film, but certainly a very good one, with Oscar-worthy performances by the three leads (I think that Adams deserves equal billing with Hoffman and Streep). And what amounts to almost a cameo by Viola Davis may be the single most powerful scene in the film. Even the occasional tilted camera that Ken mentions in his review (another great review from Ken, BTW)didn't really distract, and was effective IMO in helping create a sense of unease and impending drama. I think this movie should be required viewing for anyone who considers themselves 'religious', or who has never stopped to ponder the value of uncertainty and doubt. |
Jan 09, 2009 |
And what amounts to almost a cameo by Viola Davis may be the single most powerful scene in the film. For me, it is the most powerful scene in the movie—in part because it contains a surprising twist to the whole story, the one that raises a truly provocative question of a kind that the movies usually shy away from. The strength of Davis' performance and the natural (yet wounded) dignity is, of course, a large part of what puts it over. |
Jan 09, 2009 |
"a truly provocative question of a kind that the movies usually shy away from" That's your reason, right there, for seeing a play. In fact, it totally sums up the reasons my wife and I started NC Stage, (who produced the play Doubt in October/November 2008). Great plays, and welldone productions of them, raise truly provocotive questions of a kind that the movies usually shy away from. So 2 things Mr. Henke: 1. I hope you'll come see what we've got coming up. Three plays that defy description because of the richness of the material and 2. do you mind if I steal this phrase for our marketing? Thanks for the shout out Jason! |
Charlie Flynn-McIver Jan 21, 2009 |
do you mind if I steal this phrase for our marketing? Not in the least. Be my guest. As for the first question—if you'll keep me apprised of what and when, I may just do that. |
Jan 22, 2009 |
Great! I'll get you some info. Thanks for helping to keep the filmmakers and all artists honest! |
Charlie Flynn-McIver Jan 23, 2009 |


text:
Catrice • Eyebrow Set • Brows
(5 reviews)
Average Rating. | 4.4 |
Would buy this product again. | 80% |
Ingredients |
Top Rated Brows
- 175 reviews
Milani Brow Fix Brow Kit
121 reviewsShu Uemura Brow Pencil
163 reviewsAnastasia Of Beverly Hills Brow Powder Duo
230 reviews
IloveShuUemura on 9/26/2013 5:22:00 AM more reviews by IloveShuUemura
Age: 18 & Under Skin: Combination, Fair-Medium, Neutral Hair: Black, Wavy, Medium Eyes: Brown
I love this product! It is so affordable! It is about 8SGD and it comes with 2 different colors, 1 brush and a tweezers. And it lasted the entire day! Good quality and good price! I've tried different eyebrow kit and they usually do not last very long because I am one of those unfortunate ones that do not have many hairs on my brows so if I do not draw my brows, they are basically invisible. But other products that I've use, will slipped off within 2 hours after I apply so it is kinda useless. But this don't! So I LOVE IT VERY MUCH. I like the packaging too but probably I was too rough and the broke the casing. But overall, this is an excellent product!
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
xMessy on 9/9/2013 7:38:00 PM more reviews by xMessy
Age: 19-24 Skin: Combination, Fair-Medium Hair: Blond Eyes: Brown
I love having dark eyebrows, I'm blonde but i love using both colours, so natural not at all an orange colour, plus love the way it has a mini tweezers and application brush AND mirror. Very compact and handy to bring in a makeup bag! FAB set for a FAB price!
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
gretchen138 on 1/4/2013 7:45:00 AM more reviews by gretchen138
Age: 30-35 Skin: Combination, Fair Hair: Black Eyes: Brown
This is a very unexpensive kit for eyebrows. The two colours are not orange or red, they are very natural. I don't like when is evident the eyebrows are painted, and with this is not noticed.
I also use the darkest colour as a normal shadow, it is well pigmented and with a prebase last long. The packaging is simple and lovely small, with a double sided mini brush that works, an a small tweezer.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
*TOP REVIEWER* triotrio on 4/18/2012 6:42:00 PM more reviews by triotrio
Age: 36-43 Skin: Normal, Fair, Cool Hair: Blond, Wavy, Fine Eyes: Blue
This product is adorable - I couldn't resist. It's a marvellously packaged thing - it has two shades of powder on top, with a mirror, and in a wee drawer underneath is a suprisingly good brush and a teeny tiny tweezers. All dirt cheap.
So where's the problem? It's slightly too dark for my blonde colouring, even the lighter shade. I gave it to my brunette sister. I'm quite sad about it though!
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
*TOP REVIEWER* jootje on 3/13/2011 10:29:00 AM more reviews by jootje
Age: 19-24 Skin: Combination, Fair, Neutral Hair: Brunette, Wavy, Fine Eyes: Green
This is a cute little set that I think only comes in one color combination. It has a light shade and a darker shade. What I like about it is that they have no red undertones. They look slightly ashy, which I find always looks best with my coloring. I have dark eyebrows that aren't sparse overall but I fill them in anyway because it adds definition. I think eyebrows are one of the most important features in a face. If I use a color in the same color of my eyebrows they will come out looking way too dark and harsh, so I actually always use light colors. That gives me the definition I want without darkening the appearance of my brows. I usually use the lightest shade all over, sometimes darkening up the end of my brows with the darker shade.
I think this set could be used for a variety of different colorings, at least blondes, brunettes and everything in between. I'm not sure about red hair.
The colors are nicely pigmented, I don't need much. There is a bit of kick-up, but I don't mind this personally. It applies just fine and it stays put all day. I don't really know what else I can say about the powders.
The packaging is cute and functional. It has a mirror and in the bottom is a little drawer that holds a small tweezer and a small two-sided brush with an angled brush on one side and a brush to comb up the hairs on the other side. I prefer my tweezerman and a brush with a longer handle for everyday use, but for traveling it's fine. You have everything you need in this little box.
The packaging is not very luxurious feeling but it's also not flimsy.
Overall I think this is a decent product for a great price (4 euros or so). I use it everyday. I especially like that the colors have no red undertones.
6 out of 6 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


text:
I Have Never Felt More Beautiful Than I Do Now — Here's Why
This is the third installment in a series of posts from The Knot Dream Wedding bride-to-be Rebekah Gregory. Follow our blog for weekly updates on everything from the proposal to her wedding planning and be sure to vote each week on the latest details: TheKnot.com/DreamWedding. I think pretty much everyone in the world... read more


text:
Priestess of the Nile
Drawn to his abandoned temple on the banks of the Nile by an enchanting song, Sobek the Crocodile God is even more captivated by the sight of the singer herself. Appearing to her as a man, he learns she is Merys, a descendant of his last priestess. Though filled with lust, Sobek believes Merys deserves to be more than just his mistress. But the rules that govern the Egyptian pantheon forbid anything beyond a physical joining of a Great One and a human.
Merys is attracted to the handsome stranger, who arouses passions in her that no man ever has. But with no dowry and no hope of ever leaving her village, she dares not dream of the future--or love.
Sobek takes every opportunity to visit Merys, taxing his resolve to leave her pure. When he saves her life, their mutual desire must be sated. But can a love between a human and an immortal survive the ultimate test of the gods?
Author Information
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews available at this time. Would you like to write a review?
Product Details
Published by
Carina Press
Publish Date
January 23, 2012
eBook ISBN
Number of Print Pages*
Adobe DRM EPUB
* Number of eBook pages may differ. Click here for more information.
Excerpt from Priestess of the Nile by Veronica Scott
The old abandoned temple remained one of his favorite spots along the Nile, overlooking the river from a small bluff, with a deserted beach below. Bek stood gazing across the sparkling water at bronze- and black-spotted crocodiles sunbathing in the final rays of the setting sun. A breathtaking mix of colors stained the sky as the Goddess Nuit spread her cloak across the heavens, sprinkling the black velvet with stars.
A beautiful soprano voice rose from the beach below the bluff. Bek recognized the words of a familiar old song, given new meaning by the hypnotizing, alluring voice. I must see this songbird. She's cast some kind of spell over me.
He strolled along the path from the ruins toward the beach. Taking the last turn on the trail, he walked out on the sand and found the woman. She waded in the water, casting a small fishing net and retrieving it, every once in a while picking out a wriggling silver fish and throwing it into a waiting basket on the beach. Her ample breasts flashed into view when she leaned over. She had kilted her skirt to her thighs, revealing shapely legs. Long ebony hair was caught behind her ears with combs in the shape of seashells.
Wouldn't I like to take those combs out and see her hair tumble down--she's as beautiful as her voice.
He must have made some sound. She stopped singing and wheeled, taking an involuntary step deeper into the river at the sight of him, a stranger. Her face paled under her tan and her eyes opened wide as she staggered, caught by an eddy of the current.
"Don't be frightened, please. I mean you no harm." He held his hands up, palms out, and smiled. "I heard your singing and it drew me here. I only wanted to give my thanks for the concert."
She laid one hand on her graceful throat, toying with an amulet on a thong. "You startled me." Poised to bolt, the girl appeared wary, probably planning an attempt to run past him.
"I apologize." He kicked off his sandals and waded into the water at an angle from her. The net drifted lazily in a whirlpool; he reached out and caught it, lifting the tangled strands from the river.
"Oh, don't! You'll ruin your fine kilt, sir." She came to him hastily and took the net from his hands. "The river runs muddy at this time of the year. Your servants will labor in vain to get the stains out."
He glanced at his waist. Oh yes, I did choose to wear the pleated white kilt of a nobleman. He followed her to the shore as she splashed through tiny waves with her net. "Fortunately, I have no servants to worry with such things."
While putting his sandals on, Bek frowned at the Nile crocodiles lying deceptively immobile on the opposite bank, then glanced at her. "You take great risks, walking into the river with those beasts nearby." One of the animals twitched. Bek glared at it. The creature met his eyes for a second, then settled onto the sand.
"Oh, I'm not afraid. I'm protected." She was busy folding the net and packing it into a compartment in the lid of her fish creel. She didn't even spare a moment to consider the predators across the water.
He coughed to cover his instinctive laugh. "Protected? And exactly how are you warded against attack?"
She stood briskly, raised her chin and tugged an amulet free of her dress to show him. It was a small green stone crocodile hanging on a frayed black leather thong. "My great-grandmother was the last priestess of the temple on the bluff above."
He indicated the amulet. "May I see it?"


text:
Wednesday, September 8th, 2010
Photo by Mark Pummell
Harry Gibbons of Tetra Tech, the consulting firm hired by the state to oversee a pilot test to treat Grand Lake with alum, answers a question Tuesday night at the Celina fieldhouse. More than 300 people attended.
Online story associated with this photograph
GRAND LAKE - If pilot tests using aluminum sulfate (alum) and silica work to curb Grand Lake's toxic blue-green algae, the state will find the money to treat the entire lake, a state official said Tuesday.
More than 300 people . . .
Additional pictures for this date
Weather forecast
for Saturday:
Mostly cloudy, rain
for Saturday:
Mostly cloudy, rain


text:
Aaron Sorkin: Not a Good Historian Either
How many historical errors can Aaron Sorkin squeeze into one scene? Angus Johnston watches The Newsroom and counts the mistakes. My favorites are Sorkin's apparent beliefs that SDS was founded in 1968 and that it was launched as a single-issue antiwar group.
I've got one more item to add to the list -- not exactly a correction, but a sign that Sorkin's understanding of the subject lacks nuance. At one point in the Newsroom rant, the speaker declares that "Even at the height of 1968 the Democrats wouldn't have nominated Abbie Hoffman or Jerry Rubin for any office, and no candidate would have sought their endorsement." Johnston replies:
1968 wasn't "the height" of anything in terms of Democratic Party radicalism. That year the Dems nominated their sitting vice president at a convention that saw epidemic police violence against protesters, violence that was essentially ignored by the conventioneers. The party's presidential nominee, Hubert Humphrey, never came out against the war in Vietnam, and only called for a ceasefire weeks before the general election.
You can debate the phrase "essentially ignored," but aside from that caveat all this is accurate. But it's worth pointing out that four years later, the Democrats did nominate a firmly antiwar candidate. And as that convention approached, Abbie Hoffman later wrote, the older yippies
sent a delegation to Washington to meet with McGovern's campaign staff. If they had said our support would be the "kiss of death" we would have toned it down. They did not, as we promised to do nothing that would embarrass him (though many party faithfuls said our existence was embarrassing enough).
So the Democrats didn't seek the endorsement, but they didn't reject it either. Hoffman and Rubin visited the convention floor, and some McGovern activists "escorted Jerry and me to the Illinois delegation, where we ceremoniously sat in 'Mayor Daley's chair.'" When it was time to nominate a vice presidential candidate, one delegate voted for Rubin. (Another backed Archie Bunker.) Hoffman later ran into McGovern in Minneapolis, "but I was careful to stay out of camera range, not wanting to taint him."
More on The Newsroom here. More on Sorkin here, here, here, and here. More on the Yippies here. More on SDS here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.
Of course, if the point of the monologue is to reveal what a reporter believes/knows about history then maybe the errors are intentional...
This was the heroic news anchor speaking. Sorkin was using him as a mouthpiece.
Fair enough
Is this the episode where they made up a Rush Limbaugh call to purchase guns and ammunition in the face of an Obama election?
I don't think Sorkin even writes statements for one of his mustache-twirling villains that he intends to be wrong, at least not without having a righteous hero correct him on the spot.
I've got one more item to add to the list -- not exactly a correction, but a sign that Sorkin's understanding of the subject lacks nuance.
As opposed to his well-known grasp of nuance on every other subject he's touched.
Thank you Angus Johnston for watching this crap so that I don't have to.
Has Reason written a response to the newsroom's third episode yet?
That one deserves it.
I think HBO's The Newsroom is going to give rise to a cottage industry of debunkers. God bless those internets.
It certainly won't help his pre-existing distaste for the internet.
Is all of this critical review on some HBO soap-opera because low information voters mistake it for some kind of reality?
I wonder if there's anyone watching this show that enjoys it as a sitcom/dramedy/whatever. We got people who agree with the politics, people who are debunking it, people hate-watching it, people watching just so they can be in conversations with the above; are there any "it has a fun plot" people out there?
Politics is always Sorkin's main downfall. If it was just a workplace dramady, it wouldn't be that bad. He does screwball comedy banter very well.
His other downfall is his woman problem. They are either damsels to be rescued, cheating bitches or thinly drawn ciphers.
yeah, the basic tragedy of the clown who wants to be taken seriously. He once claimed he wasn't smart, but knew how smart people talked and could mimic it. He was half-right
They are either damsels to be rescued, cheating bitches or thinly drawn ciphers.
Wait, are you saying there are other options?
They are either damsels to be rescued, cheating bitches or thinly drawn ciphers.
You think so? I have thought many times about when Sam tells Josh that Amy Gardner is "the real deal," i.e., not secretly a damsel for Josh to rescue. But perhaps she later turns out to be a cheating bitch; I don't really think so though.
Anyway, I agree overall. I've always been a fan of the West Wing but certainly not for its politics. I just want Josh and Donna to get married, dammit.
The best satire is the simple art of putting a real person's words into a fictional person's mouth.
I tried to pose a thought experiment on The AV Club where I asked if the show would be tolerable with a conservative/Republican bent.
The responses I got where, "That's just to ridiculous to even consider- the Democrats have moved so far to the right, so making the main character a conservative Democrat who hate all Democratic positions is crazy! Teabaggerz!"
I guess the point of that is: There is no way you like this show if you aren't liberal.
What name do you post under? I imagine we've traded Likes with each other (especially in Community reviews).
I was glad to see one commenter use the "there is a bias in favor of reality" line in last night's review.
It's good to watch your opponent's fairy tales. It gives you an idea of their psyche.
At least Riefenstahl's stuff had some good quality workmanship. This is just patched together and hacky.
So long as it shows a chink in the armor to exploit, sure, but what I usually encounter is a videogame mentality. Defeat them on their own debate grounds and the game just returns to the beginning like it never happened.
Brilliant - exactly so
I put my time in on West Wing.
Is there anything Aaron Sorkin is good at? Aside from spewing Clooney-esque levels of self satisfied bullshit into the air?
My guess is that he was once and could be a talented writer. But has let his smugness betray whatever talent he has. It is hard enough to write good dialog and plot as it is. When you add the requirement of it serving the cause, you are pretty much doomed to failure.
Yeah, it's basically like Springsteen. Some pretty good underlying talent, but when you try and shoe-horn a sermon into something that wasn't meant to contain a sermon you get a half-assed version of both.
Polemics are boring. And they make especially bad drama. What makes drama interesting is depth and complexity, villains that are not all bad and heroes who are not quite what they seem. Once you start writing polemics you can't do that anymore. Everyone must be a cartoon.
And that is why it is criminal that Deadwood only lasted 3 seasons.
Best TV drama of all time.
Just for the lyrical use of the word 'cocksucker', if nothing else.
Pure poetry, I tell ya!
I'm fond of reducing it to an epigram: Ideology makes bad art. If the primary point of your art is to convey an ideologiocal message, your art is probably gonna suck. There are exceptions (like The Foutainhead! No, wait...) but as a general rule, I find it to be really helpful.
You can make great political or philosophical art. It is just really hard. And middle brow hacks like Sorkin are not up to the task.
"If you want to send a message, use Western Union." Sam Goldwyn
I've long had a distaste for dystopian didactic novels, and I include 1984. I much prefer reading Orwell's essays. I suppose what I dislike most about 1984 is the fact that it is listed as a favorite or classic book by the very people who engage in conformist fascism on a daily basis. When it comes to the second-rate didactic dystopian books (and movies) we see churned out all the time, meh, fuck that.
Dystopias without all the didacticism like Mad Max can be pretty awesome, though.
I made it about three pages into the Fountainhead before giving up on it.
The Fountainhead was readable only because Rand focused on the character more than the ideological message. It can be read as a slightly interesting story with interesting characters. Atlas Shrugged, on the other hand, is a purely ideological book wrapped up in a weak "story". It is unreadable. Disagree with me, you know you want to.
This song is about the factory that used to build factories. It's called "Factory"
There is a Springsteen song called Johnny 99. It is about a guy who lost his job at the auto plant and "got a gun shot a night clerk and they call him Johny 99" for the 99 years the judge gave him. Every time I hear the song and its sympathetic portrayal of the guy all I can think of is "what about the poor bastard he murdered?"
John, he wasn't working in a factory, building things, American things, with his hands. Johnny was doing him a favor by taking his factory-less life.
That would be 'Poor Rashid' a song about a stuggling immigrant who got killed working his second job by some racist redneck named Johnny.
This song is about the factory that used to build factories. It's called "Factory"
Have y'all seen this list of "Bruce Springsteen songs, if the title more accurately reflected the subject matter"? Hi-larious.
Admittedly I'm not that familiar with his early work, so I suppose it's possible that at one time he was more than just a hack.
Moneyball was pretty good. So maybe he's good at adapting other writer's material for the screen?
He excised a critical character from the book...
What, you don't think Jonah Hill could have been a college WR?
Sorkin/McAvoy says in his rant "The Pentagon is a big building. You can't levitate it," and Johnston says "This part is true." Dude, if you can levitate a paperclip, you can levitate the Pentagon. Size is irrelevant.
Actually, McAvoy's rant is a pretty good take on a grumpy old man's take on the Sixties. I mean, by Sorkin standards, this is pretty damn accurate.
For all my fans, my take on The Social Network, "Jew or no Jew," is here: http://www.brightlightsfilm.co.....eman.php#1
You don't have any fans.
::nods approvingly::
Shhh! John! We agreed not to tell him!
Just like when we said we were going for ice cream and then put him in the home!
Or told the kids we were taking him to live on the farm...
I am Alan's A#1 fan.
I put Sports Night in my Netflix queue because I remember it fondly from when it was on TV.
I got about 1/2 way through the pilot episode before I realized how obnoxious and douchey it was and turned it off.
I eagerly await the episode of The Newsoom when a guy sleeps with a perfectly demure girl and it turns out that she's a prostitute or an ex-porn star. Because that's happened to everybody, right?
(I have no seen last night's episode, in case this has already happened.)
It's sort of like the fascination that Hollywood has with people having business meeting in strip clubs. Just because they have business meetings in strip clubs, they think it's commonplace.
You can tell Hollywood is run by dorky men. Every romantic comedy or drama consists of endless numbers of gorgeous women who can't get dates and equal numbers of fat dorky men with gorgeous wives or girl friends.
It does happen a surprising amount in Hollywood though...
I know at least one fat dorky guy with a hot wife. But you'd have to ask my wife why that is.
That show...the one with the UPS driver and Leah Remini. "How did that schlub get that chick?" is what I asked myself every episode. It was distracting as hell. It's probably why I can't remember the damned name.
I believe the explanation was that his thetan levels were off the charts..
And everyone sitting at home watching that schlub and thinking "hey, I'm just like him and have a similar job, why don't I have the nice things he has?" is probably part of our overall problem too.
King of Queens. And God I can't stand that guy. The other one that drove me over the edge was Life with Jim, where Jim Belushi was married to Courtney Thorne Smith. I have no idea if that show was even funny. I could never get over the rage of a schuck like that landing her to ever watch it.
According to Jim, and it ran for eight seasons, none of which elicited the faintest whisper of a chuckle from any living creature.
How did it run for so long if nobody liked it. Its not fair. TV is important and should be realistic. Do they think were stupid.
I eagerly await the episode of The Newsoom when a guy sleeps with a perfectly demure girl and it turns out that she's a prostitute or an ex-porn star. Because that's happened to everybody, right?
I think that was a plot line for the West Wing.
"It's a comedy that's too good to be funny!"
Pretty much! I don't know if they got rid of it in future episodes, but they had a low-volume laugh track on the Sports Night pilot. I kept looking at the squeeze saying "did you hear that? Was that a laugh track?" That, and the douchtastic dialogue, was why I turned it off.
If there's anyone the New Left hated more than the right?
It was the Old Left.
Isserman (2001) reports that the New Left" "came to use the word 'liberal' as a political epithet."[36] Historian Richard Ellis (1998) says that the SDS's search for their own identity "increasingly meant rejecting, even demonizing, liberalism."[37] As Wolfe (2010) notes, "no one hated liberals more than leftists.".[38]
Chicago was emblematic. Inside the convention, the Old Left was nominating their candidate; outside the convention, the Old Left was cracking the New Left's skulls.
We get a little taste of the same thing in regards to the Ron Paul people. Before the Paulites can revolutionize the country, they're gonna have to revolutionize the GOP. And the GOP? Doesn't want to be revolutionized.
If the Paul people come to hate the GOP for that, to the point of advocating violence, it'll be closer to how the SDS and the New Left felt about the Democratic Party.
A simple Wikipedia search would have disabused Sorkin of his false notions. My guess is that he's perfectly aware of them--it's just that hatred of the Democratic Party doesn't figure into his objectives for this election year.
In other words, the radical New Left movements Sorkin apparently admires?
They hated liberals like Sorkin.
I particularly like the long-winded defense of the Weather Underground in the comments. "No, we totally never killed anyone! Except that one time we killed one of our own by accident!"
Just because you actively planned to cease power and intern and murder upwards of 25 million Americans doesn't mean you were all bad.
Seriously, do yourself a favor and read that dialogue. It's like two joes arguing with each other.
Lefties are incapable of holding anyone on their team responsible for anything other than not being sufficiently loyal.
Is it wrong that I would pay money to watch that?
Only if you let me have a barf bag
My wife and I have watched the first several episodes of Newsroom and found it to be intolerably politically liberal. It will be coming off our series DVR recording list.
That'll show 'em!
Oh, BTW, I comment on this show at the AV Club under the handle "GonzotheGreat". Fun times are had by... no one, and I have to deal with a lot of left wing douchebaggery (currently in a fight with a guy who claims the right wing will use violence to achieve its political ends with no back up and accuses me of a "false equivalency"). But, y'know, if you ever are in that neck of the woods...
What is wrong with you? You could just sit in a nice, comfy chair at home and punch yourself in the balls, you know. Why torture yourself?
I've been contemplating an experiment to see how long it would take me to get banned from Gawkermedia.
These things are only fun if you try in good faith not to get banned, though. And that would be fucking impossible for a normal human.
I would make it a point never to use the l-word, and stick to making substantive non-snarky points. I still don't think I would last very long.
I once posted a guest comment asking why it mattered if the US was a world leader in scientific research, and the mods sunk the whole thread.
Oh, so you're gonzo. Makes sense.
I'm Close-watcher, by the way.
Hvingjust turned 18, and living in Miami, I went to both conventions. To try to pick up chicks. I remember not getting laid. I remember being high. And I remember Jerry Rubin at the Doral n thie night that McGovern was nominated. Sander Vanocur was reporting from the Doral, but McGovern never came out to speak while I was there.
Mostly, I remember being very bored. And high. Did I mention I was high?
I couldn't bare to watch more than the pilot for this show. It's well below HBO's usual standards in pretty much all regards.
Below the standards of that show with the naked porn chick talking about the history of dildos?
Umm, SIV, you got a name for that? I want to make sure I, err, don't accidentally put it on my DVR.
Katie Morgan on Sex Toys; Katie Morgan: Porn 101. She's very educational.
That almost makes me want to pay for HBO! When I first got my cable hooked up, they gave me 3 months free of HBO, Skinemax and some other shit. Anyway, I never saw a single decent thing in the listings on HBO. No Real Sex, no Taxicab Confessions. Just cheesy movies that no one in their right mind would pay a premium to see. Hell, not even Sex and the City was on, and it was supposedly still filming at the time.
I couldn't remember her name. I looked for the show under "documentaries" on the HBO site but couldn't find it.
She does the whole show full-frontal naked while sounding like a "morning chat" show hostess.
Memo to Adam Sorkin: Adam - in 1968, the Democrats were the bad guys. The Vietnam was Kennedy's and Johnson's (both Democrats) war. There is a reason, if one actually bends his mind to the concept, why antiwar activists attended the DEMOCRATIC National Convention in Chicago instead of the Republican one in Miami in 1968. There's a reason why people were chanting "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids didja kill today." But hey, details, details. What's that book title about the period after the USSR: "It Was A Long Time Ago, and It Didn't Happen Anyway."
Yeah, but it's the Democrats that cut off funding the South Vietnamese. Once we were fully out of it I'm pretty sure it went swimmingly for the region.
Meaning, if you could swim away you did. Unfortunately for the Cambodians, they were/are landlocked. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, miscellaneous trash isn't sea worthy.
"Can you imagine Humphrey or Kennedy standing for a photo op with Bernardine Dohrn or Allen Ginsberg?"
No, but I can imagine a future Democratic President holding a fundraiser at the home of Dohrn and her fellow-terrorist husband.
But we're not supposed to mention that, are we?
Any research on the man in charge that goes beyond two thirds of his name is racist.
Hoffman later ran into McGovern in Minneapolis, "but I was careful to stay out of camera range, not wanting to taint him."
So the left's radicals of the late 60s and early 70s supported the establishment democrats by hiding and the left lost.
The Right's radicals (tea party) did not support establishment Republicans and they won.
Anyway I wonder if Hoffman would support Obama's position that Business owners did not create their business.
1968 DNC -- Hoffman and Rubin were just there as a distraction for the news media as the party establishment cheated Eugene McCarthy out his rightful nomination victory:
Despite strong showings in several primaries — indeed, he won more votes than any other Democratic candidate — McCarthy garnered only 23 percent of the delegates at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, largely due to the control of state party organizations over the delegate selection process. After the Kennedy assassination, many delegates for Kennedy chose to support George McGovern rather than McCarthy. Moreover, although the eventual nominee, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was not clearly an anti-war candidate, there was hope among some anti-war Democrats that Humphrey as President might succeed where Johnson had failed — in extricating the United States from Vietnam. McCarthy eventually gave a lukewarm endorsement of Humphrey.
They pulled the same shit against Hart in '84.
I dont get it if this man is anti-American he should be banned. We don't need him on the TV. TV is IMPORTANT.
I like his work, but Sorkin isn't about factual truth, only truthiness. I remember watching a West Wing episode (which probably wasn't written by Sorkin, but he did create the show), in which a UK ambassador, with proper brit accent, talked about drinking a favorite whiskey of his, from "IZZ-lay." The place name is spelled "Islay," so it makes sense that any American who had only ever seen the word in writing, would pronounce it as the actor in the episode did. But anyone FROM there, or even a knowledgeable fan of Scotch, pronounces it "EYE-luh." What puzzled me was that the actor's bio lists him as a Brit (Welsh), so I would have expected him to correct mistakes made by the American director. In vast America, of course, not every citizen knows how to pronounce the names of places on the other side of the country, much less around the world. But I would think that people in the tiny UK would be less likely to get such things wrong. I guess I would be wrong about that. One of my favorite American mispronunciations is "Lompoc," which should be said as "LOM-poke," but for years was famously mangled by cartoons and TV shows originating in Los Angle-us, as "lom-pawk." I saw a recent episode of the TV series, "Touch," in which another central coast town name was mangled: "Saint Louie Obispo," if I recall correctly. Locals say "San Lewis," and only use the "Obispo" when necessary to help out-of-towners find the city on a map or distinguish it from other "San Luis" place names.
I don't care which way the show leans politically. It's unwatchable either way. My wife loves it, but it comes off as parody to me.
in the interest of historical accuracy please note that Archie Bunker did not exist until 1971. Perhaps ur confusing the 1972 election with 1968.
No, I'm explicitly writing about the 1972 election.


text:
Parttern image:
Home decor & Accents sticker
*All sizes are available, so if you need a bigger or smaller size decal, let us know.
-Colors:You can choose the color for the color card,then tell me your preferred color.
-Quality:Our decals art made of a high quality,waterproof and durable vinyl.These sticker
will last for years without peeling or fading.Your satisfaction is guaranteed!
-Material:Self adhesive removable vinyl
-Condition:Brand New
-Where to apply:Decals will stick to any smooth surface such as;walls,doors,glass,
cabinets,appliances,etc.-Anywhere you want!!
The shipment usualy takes 10-30 days via CHINA Airmail Post(with tracking number) to your address.
If you want faster Shipping,please contect me freely before your payment.
We will ship the package out in 1-3 business days after payment cleared.
1.Please don't leave negative or neutral feedback as it can not solve any problem.
2.Please fell free to ask us to fix the problems if you have any questions.
3.100% satisfaction guaranteed.
4.You can return the item for full refund if you are not satisfied.
5.Any problems with items you receive must be reported with 5 days.
6.Items must be returned in the original condition in which they were received.
About us
Hello,my friend,we are Wholesaler form China,we are doing business aboat Home decor goods,we are
the professional supplier.
If you want wholesale or resell from us,we also welcome you to vist our store to find that.
If you there is problem and other questions aboat our items and help you can offer,please contact
us freely.
Have a good time!
We do our best to serve our each customer the best that we can.
We will refund you for items returned within 7 days of you receiving them, for any reason. A full refund will be given if items are returned in their original condition.
Merchandise which is damaged or missing components is not refundable.
Buyers are responsible for return shipping with proper packaging.
On receiving items, we will refund you immediately.
Warranty &Maintenance:
We provide 1 month replacement and 12 months maintenance warranties. Items can be replaced during the first month or maintained for the first year.
***** Buyers are only responsible for the return shipping fees for warranty items.(In most cases, buyer will only have to return the problem components rather than the entire package.).
Before returning items, please make sure you get our (the seller's) return address, and write "gift" on the delivery detail sheet. Please use regular postal service and send us the tracking number. As soon as we receive the items, we will repair or exchange them ASAP.
Thanks for your feedback!