text:
3 Stocks Pushing The Energy Industry Higher
Editor's Note: TheStreet ratings do not represent the views of TheStreet's staff or its contributors. Ratings are established by computer based on metrics for performance (which includes growth, stock performance, efficiency and valuation) and risk (volatility and solvency). Companies with poor cash flow or high debt levels tend to earn lower ratings in our modelAll three major indices are trading down today with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) trading down 23 points (-0.2%) at 13,146 as of Friday, Dec. 14, 2012, 11:50 AM ET. The NYSE advances/declines ratio sits at 1,344 issues advancing vs. 1,517 declining with 152 unchanged.The Energy industry currently sits up 0.1% versus the S&P 500, which is down 0.3%. A company within the industry that increased today was Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (PBR), up 2.9%.TheStreet Ratings group would like to highlight 3 stocks pushing the industry higher today:3. PetroChina (PTR) is one of the companies pushing the Energy industry higher today. As of noon trading, PetroChina is up $1.59 (1.1%) to $139.54 on average volume Thus far, 53,017 shares of PetroChina exchanged hands as compared to its average daily volume of 113,200 shares. The stock has ranged in price between $139.47-$140.09 after having opened the day at $140.09 as compared to the previous trading day's close of $137.95. PetroChina Company Limited produces and sells oil and gas in the People's Republic of China. The company operates in four segments: Exploration and Production, Refining and Chemicals, Marketing, and Natural Gas and Pipeline. PetroChina has a market cap of $253.9 billion and is part of the basic materials sector. The company has a P/E ratio of 1.8, below the S&P 500 P/E ratio of 17.7. Shares are up 11.6% year to date as of the close of trading on Thursday. Currently there are 3 analysts that rate PetroChina a buy, no analysts rate it a sell, and 1 rates it a hold.TheStreet Ratings rates PetroChina as a buy. The company's strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its revenue growth, attractive valuation levels, good cash flow from operations and increase in stock price during the past year. We feel these strengths outweigh the fact that the company has had somewhat weak growth in earnings per share. Get the full PetroChina Ratings Report now.EXCLUSIVE OFFER: Jim Cramer's Protégé, Dave Peltier, only buys Stocks Under $10 that he thinks could potentially double. See what he's trading today with a 14-day FREE pass
Eni SpA Stock Price
Eni SpA Analyst Ratings
Eni SpA Key Stats & Profile
Eni SpA Earnings
Eni SpA Ratio Comparison
Select the service that is right for you!COMPARE ALL SERVICES
Action Alerts PLUSTry it NOW
Jim Cramer and Stephanie Link actively manage a real portfolio and reveal their money management tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
- Weekly roundups
TheStreet Quant RatingsTry it NOW
Only $49.95/yr
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
- Upgrade/downgrade alerts
Stocks Under $10Try it NOW
David Peltier, uncovers low dollar stocks with extraordinary upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
- Weekly roundups
Dividend Stock AdvisorTry it NOW
Jim Cramer's protege, David Peltier, identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Alerts when market news affect the portfolio
- Bi-weekly updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Real Money ProTry it NOW
All of Real Money, plus 15 more of Wall Street's sharpest minds delivering actionable trading ideas, a comprehensive look at the market, and fundamental and technical analysis.
Product Features:
- Real Money + Doug Kass Plus 15 more Wall Street Pros
- Intraday commentary & news
- Ultra-actionable trading ideas
Options ProfitsTry it NOW
Our options trading pros provide daily market commentary and over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- 100+ monthly options trading ideas
- Actionable options commentary & news
- Real-time trading community
- Options TV


text:
Our guides are on site every day to offer you a guided tour throughout the summer.
The museum is open Monday to Friday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
The annual report (2014) of the Corporation Maison Gabrielle Roy inc. is now available in French.
Rapport annuel (PDF)
September to May | Monday and Tuesday: closed | Wednesday to Sunday: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
June, July, August | Monday to Friday: 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. | Saturday and Sunday: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This has been on my mind for a while and I've tried to come up with a reasonable opinion and I think I'm getting close but I want more opinions from people smarter than me on the subject. Big thanks to our resident dancing STD (discoandherpes) for twisting my brain around guard pulling VS takedowns like Damian Maia did Rick Story.
What should count and for how much? Those are my questions.
Should count because you're planting the other fighter on the mat showing effective grappling. My idea for scoring a takedown is that you score it like a clean, solid strike that visibly hurts the other fighter. No more, no less. The scoring stops with the takedown itself.
Successfully stopping a takedown
I think it should count for something but not as much as getting a takedown. Similar to strikes if you land a hard and clean strike that visibly hurts your opponent that should count, if you throw and miss, or the other fighter blocks, that's ineffective. To me stuffing a takedown is a grappling exchange and the fighter that stuffs a takedown is more effective than the one trying for it.
Top Control
When should top control count and when should it not? Top control by itself should not come into play unless the offense of each fighter is even.
I think guard should be a neutral position. Passing guard to half guard, side control, and mount all shows effective grappling as does regaining guard (going from a bad position to be better one) and should all score points where being in guard should be seen in the same way as two fighters standing in the center of the cage.
Pulling Guard
As D&H had said if you count takedowns "because they dictate where the fight goes" you have to count pulling guard because that fighter is dictating where the fight is going, even though they are being put into a position that is seen as inferior. I'm going to side with this because I can't have it two ways. Since I'm saying top control shouldn't count for anything unless everything else between the fighters is even and guard is a neutral position pulling guard wouldn't be putting yourself into an inferior position. This all comes back around to "what do you do with it" do you just lay there or do you work offense or does your opponent just beat you up from there?
So what are your thoughts?


text:
Click here to read the Bridgeport Diocese's Motion To Prevent Disclosure Of Documents
"I've never seen this many sexual abuse claims against priests out of one parish,'' New York attorney Michael Reck said Tuesday.
The diocese says that 23 of the abuse claims were made after 1973 and at least three of the claims were made after 1990. The court filing names two of the eight priests Gorecki and the Rev. John Cataldo.
Powel, who won an earlier lawsuit against Carlo Fabbozzi in which a jury awarded him more than $10 million, died of brain cancer in 2008. The lawsuit was filed on his behalf by the executor of his estate Margaret Jensen.
Fabbozzi was the landscaper for St. Theresa's who worked at the church and the elementary school for more than 30 years. He was fired in 2002 after Powel's original lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit against the Bridgeport diocese wasn't filed until 2006, after the Fabbozzi suit settled. The suit alleges that Gorecki was in charge at St. Theresa's during part of the time that Fabbozzi was molesting Powel. Instead of supervising the landscaper, Gorecki abused Powel.
The suit alleges that Gorecki abused Powel, who was 12-years-old at the time, once in the boy's bathroom at the St. Theresa's elementary school.
The 13-page court document filed by the diocese attorney Richard Colbert is seeking to have Judge William J. Cremins reverse his previous order that the diocese produce all of the documents for Reck.
The motion argues that any abuse allegations after 1973 are irrelevant to the Powel case and costly to the diocese. "Simply put, thousands upon thousands of dollars should not be spent by the diocese to review these post-incident, unrelated priest irrelevant acts, simple because Michael Powel alleges he was abused one-time for one-minute in the winter of 1971,'' Colbert wrote.
Click here to read the official statement released by the Diocese of Bridgeport


text:
Buzz! Quiz World PSP
- Publisher: SCEA
- Release Date: Dec 17, 2009
- Also On: PlayStation 3
- Summary: For the first time ever on PSP, you'll be able to download new quiz content from PSN as well as MyBUZZ! user-generated quizzes. Your question bank is virtually limitless! Be sure to go online to MyBUZZQuiz.com and check out all of the fun holiday quizzes that the BUZZ! community have been creating to get yourself in the festive spirit, or make your own quizzes to share with your friends and family. [Sony]… Expand
- Developer: Curve Studios
- Genre(s): Trivia / Game Show
- # of players: 4 Online
- Cheats: On GameFAQs
- More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
Positive: 1 out of 8
Mixed: 7 out of 8
Negative: 0 out of 8
Buzz Quiz World is a fun game, its just a pity that the few flaws it does have keeps it from being a great one.
As far as presentation, my only complaint is that Buzz talks too much and repeats himself far too often. Outside of that, the rest of the audio presentation is fine, the graphics are good, and the load times are great. So while you won't find the flashy presentation of the PS3 version, you certainly will find a very competent, functional, and good presentation here.
While it is a respectable game, BUZZ! Quiz World suffers from a bad case of Little Sibling Syndrome, as the PS3 offers a much better BUZZ experience.
There's definitely a better presentation to the modes and I dig the new color scheme, but the game's littered with issues. Why have the option for set names if Buzz won't say them? Why not let me download MyBuzz quizzes to the PSP to play on the go? Why not be able to tell the game I can't use sound like in Brain Age? Why have so many questions repeat so quickly?
Maybe in a few months with enough user-generated and downloadable content, Buzz! QW might be worth looking at. As is, however, it is nothing more than a completely lackluster, dull, and boring trivia game.
Buzz! Quiz World tries to offer an alternative for the console version. Unfortunately this game doesn't really succeed in bringing forth a real quiz feel, especially because of the limitations of the PSP. Its short lifespan – with all modes – will make you put down this game relatively fast.
I appreciate them trying to extend the longevity by allowing easy access to user made content, but they forgot to put the party in this party game, and what's left without that is nothing more than a bland trivia game.
Score distribution:
Positive: 3 out of 3
Mixed: 0 out of 3
Negative: 0 out of 3
May 23, 2012I love the questions of the game, it really challenges me. I also love the graphics, the loading speed (it's fast) and its diverse environment of single and multi-player modes. I just don't like Buzz himself, he is weird: the way he talks and the way he jokes. For the quiz genre, it is a great game.… Collapse
- 1:34
- (0 views)


text: 10 Oct 2013 Mystery Train Parinaz Mogadassi leads us to a kinetic climax in her new group exhibition at Michael Werner Words Julie Baumgardner Above: Sigmar Polke "Untitled," 2002, Mixed media on prepared paper "Tumescence" is a four person painting show curated by Parinaz Mogadassi at Michael Werner's outpost on Manhattan's Upper East Side. The exhibition draws its title from the term—which, stripped of its soft-core sexual connotations—literally means, "a physical condition of enlargement or swelling." Here, it's used as a metaphor for the psychological space within a painted image. Within the realm of "Tumescence," like any encounter of it's kind, mystery is in the discovery—and Werner's 77th street Gilded Age townhouse, with its majestic staircase and elegant moldings, strikes an inspired contrast for a painting show illuminating the subtexts of sex, debauchery, and masculine brush-stroke. Swollen with the smirking canvases of Peter Doig, Sigmar Polke, Peter Saul, and Michael Williams, the result is a kaleidoscopic taste of sexuality that feels beyond human. "It's a cross generational show and in many cases historical works are shown alongside recent works," explains Mogadassi. "Considering that works were not made explicitly for this exhibition, the connections in the paintings and drawings shared formal considerations: color, line, and imagery—in many cases is uncanny." One wall, in particular, in the gallery's front space acts as a touchstone to this eerie continuum Polke's Zwei Köpfe "Two Heads," 1971-73, which is an inspired scatter of shapes and signs, hangs next to Saul's Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile, 2013, wherein a cartoonish bodacious figure, shaded by a palm tree floats down the regal river in distinguished contrast to the abstraction on either side. The show favors heroism over innuendo, and throughout the canvases, unlikely protagonists emerge. As the curator points out, "Saul is something of a renegade, an artist's artist who has always had a knack for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This decisive side-stepping of the favored flavor of the times, is what makes his work all the more compelling." Across the room is a crisp example of the airbrushed works of Williams, a young artist based in New York who had his first show with the gallery in Berlin in April. "Ralph's Idea," from 2012, is incredibly textured, with layers looking much like those of a cracked jawbreaker. "Unlike many painters of his generation who feel they need to pursue—if not champion—a form of anti-painting, conceptual painting, and process painting in order to make a relevant picture, he embraces the act of painting in and of itself," says Mogadassi. That note comes through in the show, and is perfectly surmised in the works of Peter Doig, the Scottish nomad now living in Trinidad. Arguably, he's become one of the most urgent voices in contemporary painting. While much of Doig's recent work is widely proliferated across the art landscape, few are acquainted with his early works from the 1980s, which are featured in this show. In the main gallery, is Doig's Burger King, a satirical and lush portrait of a masked acrobat-like figure (the meat royal) that's capped by a spread-eagle nude figure. "Ugly paintings and sex—that's what I'm interested in right now," Mogadassi states. Each of the artists in the show encapsulate this very notion. The works are not visually hideous, but they don't evoke idealized physical perfection either. Mogadassi says it best: "I'm so bored of artspeak and overly analytical readings of image-making. As the old adage goes—a picture is worth a thousand words." Above: Sigmar Poke, "Untitled," 2002, Mixed media on prepared paper Peter Doig, "Untitled," 2008, Oil on linen Peter Doig, "Burger King," 1984, Oil on canvas Peter Saul, "Cleopatra, Queen of the Nile" 2013, Acrylic and oil on canvas All images Courtesy Michael Werner Gallery, New York and London Facebook Twitter Pintrest


text:
Heck, it might be game over if all the attacker does is remove existing hardware. Two years ago, disk encryption vendors were re-alerted to the fact that their software disk encryption programs could be circumvented by malicious hackers freezing the RAM memory and analyzing its stored contents on another computer. A different researcher proved he could retrieve encryption keys stored deeply inside the world's specialized Trusted Platform Module encryption chips.
This isn't news. Thousands of people around the world have known this for a very long time. You shouldn't be any more worried about it today than you've been over the past two decades -- at least until these sorts of vectors start to become popularly exploited. Most bad actors don't need physical access to your machine for exploitative actions. The fake antivirus programs and malicious email links are still working quite well and infecting tens of millions of users.
If you are worried that your assets are at higher risk of physical attack, let this column be your wake-up call and show it to management.
You can take steps to protect yourself. End-user education is always worth trying. Let your end-users know that anything they plug into their computer could launch malicious code. That free USB key at the conference show? They shouldn't plug it in, nor should they attach free mice, free keyboards, or whatever if they are at elevated risk of physical attack.
System configurators can disable unneeded ports in the system's BIOS or within the controlling operating system. Disabling in the BIOS is better; that way, OS-boot-around attacks can't succeed. Unfortunately, you can't disable every port. Make sure all the normal antimalware and computer security defenses are enabled. You may not stop the initial compromise, but you might be able to detect or stop the subsequent actions.
And until better solutions are discovered, you will have to live with some amount of physical risk.
The reality is that most of us are facing far more malicious risk from far less sophisticated attacks. Good computer security defense is about evaluating your current threats and knowing which ones to concentrate on.
This story, "Yes, even a mouse can infect your network," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Keep up on the latest developments in network security and read more of Roger Grimes's Security Adviser blog at InfoWorld.com. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.


text:
Draw a 1. That was the score of the first Classic of 2013, the first game between Real Madrid and Barcelona, corresponding to the first leg of the semifinals of the Copa Del Rey. Although there were fewer goals than we had been accustomed lately these two teams, the show lived up in a game that had crazy moments, return, And in which there were many occasions for each side.
Both goals came in the second half after a goalless first 45 minutes sometimes but not. Both Madrid and Barcelona had options, but the feeling in the first half was that Real Madrid was better, much more comfortable in that battle of comings and goings . Barca instead, quickly lost the ball, and no one dared to attack with many effective cons aware that Real Madrid could be lethal, and yet, at the Catalans won points.
The first time the Pinto resolved, saving a shot from Cristiano Ronaldo, the only fault that Barcelona did in the first half, 2 minutes. Before the Real Madrid back to shoot at goal, through Benzema in the 27th minute, the crossbar repelled a lack of Xavi and Varane saved a goal sung in goal after a gift of Carvalho. And those were the clearest plays for each team, in terms of spiking because arrivals was not enough and ended up at auction by the central defenses of each team.
In the second half if it was much better for Barcelona, with a version similar to what is usually the Barca team. And all thanks to Cesc goal after a double fault Alley. The Real Madrid striker, making defense, weak cleared first and then never again, handing the ball to the opponent's position and enabling Fabregas just before Diego Lopez no mistake. It had only been five minutes of the second part.
From here, the Barcelona found it much easier path to the goal white and almost forgave his rival. Cesc, which is just enough to Dormio Varane he snatched the ball, Pedro, who sent out with Diego Lopez and beaten, and Jordi Alba, whose shot was tipped the new Real Madrid goal, had the opportunity tohave put his team with a 0-2 would have been a major setback for Mourinho, and a tough challenge for the second leg.
The pay forgiving and the club paid for fitting the equalizer. I scored the best in the game, Rafael Varane, with a header over Pique flawless after a second play in a corner. The French not only saved a goal in goal and Cesc Marcuse prevented another at will, but equaled the race so it is worthy of all the praise and all the headlines are going to read about it in the coming days.
After the 1-1, which reached 10 minutes to go, the club decided to keep the ball and avoid a last herding of Madrid. In short, put up a result that is in principle favorable to the Catalans face the second leg to be played on February 27 at the Camp Nou. A new classic that we ask at least that is equally as vibrant and full of occasions like today.


text:
reviews for: listing #73391 - Indian Shores, Florida Condo rental
- bedrooms 2
- pool yes
- type Condo
- baths 2
- hot tub yes
- community Indian Shores
- sleeps 6
- pets allowed no
rates (USD)
$2,647 - $3,225 /mth
new family vacation spot!
Review submitted: December 14, 2012 Date of arrival: August 4, 2012
WE have family close by that initially drew us to the Indian Shores area. But after staying a week at this perfectly sized condo, we want to come back every year. We feel like we found our family's new vacation spot! We have 2 kids that loved the condo, their room, and the pool! They loves seeing the huge birds on the dock, fishing, and watching the dolphins in the Gulf. it was an amazing family trip. with great memories! The condo itself was great! great size for our family of 4. Having laundry in the condo was a must, and so nice to always have access to clean clothes. The kitchen was the most fully stock kitchen I have ever vacationed at. It has EVERYTHING we needed an more! the grill at the pool was awesome! My husband grilled lunches while the kids stayed in the pool. We have no complaints at all on the condo, or the area itself! we've already recommended it to our friends!
Thanks for a great week. hope to be back in 2013!
Recommended for: adventure seekers, families with young children, girls getaway, sight seeing, romantic getaway
Owners response: Thanks for your kind words. I am so happy that you had a great time! Come back soon!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes No
Helpful votes: 3 / 3
Thanks for a wonderful time!!!
Review submitted: April 3, 2012 Date of arrival: March 25, 2012
We had a great, relaxing time. The condo was well maintained with everything we needed. The owner was very helpful and always prompt in responding. The area is beautiful with easy access to the beach. Would stay there again.
Recommended for: age 55+, families with teenagers, girls getaway, tourists without a car
Owners response:
So glad that you enjoyed your stay!
Keep in touch!!!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes No
Helpful votes: 2 / 2
A GREAT condo....especially for families!
Review submitted: November 3, 2011 Date of arrival: July 30, 2011
While I normally would not write a review, I found myself inspired to do from the previous tenant! I am a single mother travelling with 2 small children under the age of 6. This was my 3rd trip to the condo and found it to be as delightful as the first time we stayed. Aside from having every possible amentity available within the condo (laundry, fully stocked kitchen, TOYS, movies, books, beach chairs, umbrellas, games, etc...) I found it also to be very welcoming to families WITH children. My children quickly made friends with other tenants staying in the resort, and looked forward to seeing them daily to play in the pool, make a day of it at the beach, and even so much as sharing a pizza at a local restaurant! Of the 3 visits, my family still keeps in contact with 2 separate families that we met here.
The location is also prime. It is a fairly laid back and quiet resort area, but only a short drive (10 minutes to Johns Pass....20 minutes to Clearwater) to more touristy areas. We never were at a loss for things to do whether it was a Pirates Cruise, goofy golf, walk on the pier, feeding the alligators, tons of shopping, or simply playing at the beach on very soft, soft white sand!!!! We enjoyed every minute we had here and look forward to spending more vacations here.
Recommended for: age 55+, families with young children, families with teenagers, girls getaway, romantic getaway
Owners response:
I'm so, so happy that you and your kids enjoyed your stay at my home!
Come back soon!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes No
Helpful votes: 7 / 8
Not a place for children
Review submitted: July 21, 2011 Date of arrival: July 13, 2011
The location and the condo itself were wonderful. Enjoyed the kitchen and the condo as a whole. The balcony was incredible. However, if you have children this is not the place for you. The pool, picnic area with grill and dock close early. I had trouble with the neighbors because we were up late, and not quiet as a mouse. if you are looking for somewhere to have peace and quiet, it's wonderful. If you have children and like to actually enjoy yourself without nosy neighbors, it is not the place for you!
Recommended for: age 55+
Owners response: Actually, all children of renters and owners are welcome at our condo, including my 15 year old and her friends, who usually swim in the pool until the 10pm close. The following behaviors: using towels to rappel from the balcony, climbing workmen's ladders to the roof, or screaming in the pool at midnight, were a safety issue and inappropriate. I felt that I had to post this response to clarify the behavior that was reported to me by owners, other renters, and the maintainance staff. Thanks!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes No
Helpful votes: 12 / 12
Reviews are the subjective opinions of VacationRentals.com travelers and not of VacationRentals.com, Inc.


text:
Routes Sorted
L to R R to L Alpha
This route is probably the best moderate high ball problem at Rotary. There are many variations that begin about 10ft right of the 5.8 OW and about 10ft left of the 5.10+ finger crack on the main wall. The first 15ft of the route is the crux, with the harder variation being on the right. The difficult moves end at a horizontal rail about 15ft up. The final 20ft of climbing angles up and right on positive edges and is ~5.9. Take your time on the top out, since there is some loose rock and you are 35-40ft up. Don't fall...
Pads and a spot for the first half, or misc. gear for a TR setup.


text:
This isn't meant to replace Smokey's two-start pitchers for fantasy that comes every weekend. This is meant to supplement that, like something A-Rod's cousin would give you. This isn't two start pitchers, this is barely owned guys that could give you one start.Please, blog, may I have some more?
fantasy baseball strategy
The Verducci Effect as explained by Amerigo Verducci, "Pitchers generally feel the effects of abusive increases in workload the next year, not the season in which they were pushed. That's a no amore!" I believe Amerigo's cousin in the States, Tom, leaves off the last line when he's describing it.Please, blog, may I have some more?
It's long overdue we turned our attention to the underrepresented side of SAGNOF — the cheap steal. Long ago I realized I like my steals like I like my women, cheap. Sure, there's girls out there that know which spork to eat their Hamburger Helper with, but real value is found in girls that can have fun in a bar with sawdust on the floor and Jimmy Buffett playing on the jukebox.Please, blog, may I have some more?
Now it's time for everyone's favorite game, Fantasy Baseball, Fun With Numbers. Ding, ding, ding… Bassoon… Triangle! Triangle! Triangle! Cow bell! More cow bell! One last ding. In today's installment of Fantasy Baseball, Fun With Numbers, we're going to look at some players for the last month and try to figure out if maybe the numbers tell a different story than their names tell.Please, blog, may I have some more?
Last week I went over picking up free agent hitters. So now I do onto pitchers as I did onto hitters. I opined that there were five things to look for with hitters, after looking up what opined meant. Most of the criteria had to do with the hitter and not so much who he was facing.Please, blog, may I have some more?
Fantasy baseball trading deadlines are right around the corner, time is slipping…slipping…slipping into the future and your fantasy baseball teams need to lose yesterday's lunch or get off the pot. The worst feeling is coming within a few points of winning and pulling up short because you held too tightly to your players.Please, blog, may I have some more?
When you're looking at pitcher matchups for fantasy baseball, sometimes the cards just align for certain guys. On the right day, Rodrigo Lopez can look like a surefire start… Actually probably not. But for fantasy fourth and fifth starters it can be about the matchups.Please, blog, may I have some more?
Is there anything more fulfilling than grabbing a hitter on a short schedule day and he gives you a home run, steal or just an overall quality day? It's the fantasy baseball equivalent to taking a girl out, she pays and has sex with you (assuming you're not a paid escort, though I'm pretty sure there's not that many paid escorts reading a fantasy baseball blog).Please, blog, may I have some more?
The other day I looked at the pitchers that were getting lucky for fantasy baseball. Today, we put on our miner's helmet and pan for gold where the rest of the prospectors have abandoned. In our last look at pitchers that should get better, I pointed out Gavin Floyd, Haren, Randy Wells, Edwin Jackson, Pineiro, Harang, Correia, Masterson, Peavy and Morrow.Please, blog, may I have some more?
Last month, I told you Ubaldo, Mike Leake, Hi-Me Garcia, Buchholz, Livan, Garland, Niemann, Tim Hudson, David Price and Pettitte would get worse. Price and Buchholz were the only pitchers to have a better June than May, and Buchholz didn't pitch the whole month.Please, blog, may I have some more?


text:
Cabinet of the Utopia
- Home Office (4)
- Ministry ex Misc (3)
- Ministry of Culture (5)
- Ministry of Finance (1)
- Ministry of Food (4)
- Ministry of Health (16)
- Ministry of Technology (1)
Topics of the Utopiaadvice beta blogs breakfast c25k cameras candy carbs cleaning computers counterfactual daily check debt diet disaster eon exercise games hats jerky kids lists maps metrics mw2 oatmeal p90 pushups recipe run running sc2 see's simplicity situps skill decay soreness spring superman time unsore videogames wedding weekend wordpress
Friends of the Utopia
- Chris Hammock's Delirium is a collection of funny and insightful reviews, updated often.
- Terry Tao's updates about his research, open problems, and other topics in mathematics.
Further Usage
Tag Archives: hats
Hats could be awesome
Dapper hats are mainly worn by people who are trying to call attention to themselves, like hipsters. But if instead they were ubiquitous, hats could be unassumingly awesome.
Posted in Ministry of Culture Tagged hats Leave a comment


text:
All students, faculty, and staff, as well as members of the public participating in university activities have the right to an environment free from sexual or physical intimidation that would prevent a reasonable person from attaining educational goals or living and working in a safe environment.
All university employees have a responsibility to forward information about allegations of sexual violence to appropriate campus officials. When allegations like these arise, the university expects all its employees and volunteers to report what they have witnessed or heard to designated university officials.
Further, while everyone in the university community should report this information, some individuals on campus, because of their positions, have a heightened obligation to report. For instance, administrators, faculty, supervisors, police, student affairs staff, and athletic coaches and staff are required to report allegations of sexual violence.
Of course, if a crime is in progress or the situation presents an immediate danger to the university community, dial 911 to reach the University of Maine Police Department. Otherwise:
For more information regarding the university's efforts on education, prevention, and response to issues of sexual violence, please go to the Office of Sexual Assault and Violence Prevention website.


text:
Lakeland Mayor Gow Fields is once again answering some tough questions about the city's investigation into Lakeland's Police Department. This time though it's his own, self-appointed Citizen's Advisory Commission in the spotlight.
7/22/2013 Related Story: Town hall meeting brings out emotions, questions in Lakeland
Despite resignations from both of the panel's co-chairs, Fields says the commission is ready and eager to get to work. "We do have a lot of talent that remains on the commission. We look forward to their work," he said.
Polk State College president Dr. Eileen Holden and former Lakeland mayor Joe P. Ruthven both submitted resignation letters yesterday.
Both pledged their continued support to the efforts of the commission, but Holden in particular cited concerns about the "ambiguity that lingers with respect to (the panel's) status relative to the sunshine law".
Mayor Fields aimed to clear up those concerns today by telling reporters the commission will be meeting in public.
"We need to try to identify how can we allow them to have all their meetings in the public, but at the same time give them the ability to receive input from some members of the public who themselves didn't want to be in front of a microphone or a camera, and that's what we're struggling to strike a balance on," Fields said.
7/17/2013 Related Story: Lakeland police DUI cases called into question
The citizen commission is taxed with some very specific objectives including improving what Fields describes as the "speak up" culture at the Lakeland Police Department. Many in the community question how a sex scandal, dating back at least 13 years, involving a civilian employee and 10 sworn officers could go on undectied and unreported for so long.
7/15/2013 Related Story: Two Lakeland police sergeants fired over sex scandal
"We also wanted some input on how can we improve the speak up culture in the community and making sure citizens know when they bring a complaint either to city hall or to the police department that they can trust us to fix it, fairly hear it, understand it and the respond appropriately to it," Fields said.
The first Citizen's Advisory Commission meeting is set for Thursday July 25th at 3:30pm. It will be held in the city commission chambers at city hall in downtown Lakeland. The meeting is open to the public.
200 South Parker Street, Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: 813.228.8888
Fax: 813.225.2770
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Posted under School Accountability & School Finance & State Legislature
It's been a couple months now since the Democrats running Colorado's House Education Committee went out of their way to double-super kill school spending transparency. But no matter how uncomfortable it may make some politicians feel, the issue simply is not going to go away.
The Reason Foundation's Lisa Snell points us to a new Education Week column that explains why school officials really are without excuse when it comes to true financial transparency:
Historically, school districts have published and posted on their Web sites budget data in summary views only. Summary views answer questions such as how much a district spent on student transportation in general, but not on a particular bus route; how much it spent on energy in general, not at a particular school; and how much it spent on total employee benefits, not a particular benefit such as sick leave.
There are three primary reasons citizens should support breaking school officials' monopoly on budget-summary views.
First, officials have a conflict of interest in providing summary views. Rational administrators can be expected to use summary views for purposes of public relations rather than democratic accountability. As a matter of common sense, they will hide controversial information within large, uncontroversial categories. Their summary views will answer questions that they, not citizens, would most like to have asked. The budget presentation will be like a politician's press conference where the reporters can ask only preapproved questions.
Second, school officials cannot think of every useful budget summary, any more than Google can anticipate how hundreds of millions of Americans will search its data or a library can project how patrons will use its collection.
Third, unless citizens are given access to data down to the checkbook level, they cannot effectively integrate budget figures across different governments (for example, to compare two similar school districts two thousand miles apart) or with nonbudget data (to find out a school contractor's lobbying expenditures, for instance).
Unfortunately, I can't suggest you read the whole Education Week column, because I haven't read it all myself. I haven't saved enough pennies to sign up as an online subscriber, and my mom says it's either that or save my money for the new Lego police station. You understand … right?
4 Responses to "School Spending Transparency Opponents Are Running Out of Excuses"
Ed is Watching » To Ask Five Jeffco Board Candidates About Key Education Positions on 05 Aug 2009 at 11:19 am #
[...] work toward bringing about detailed transparency of the district's revenues and [...]
Ed is Watching » Lessons from Boulder Valley: Hoping for No Strike and Even More on 27 Aug 2009 at 9:46 am #
[...] the district budget to find more money. So why not advocate for true financial transparency and open up the books so taxpayers can see how money is being spent and look for efficiencies? If teachers are being [...]
Ed is Watching » With Jeffco in Front, Colorado Can Lead on School Financial Transparency on 21 Jan 2010 at 11:31 am #
[...] Many months ago, after a heated debate at last year's legislative session, I pointed out that opponents of public school financial transparency were running out of excuses. [...]
With Jeffco in Front, Colorado Can Lead on School Financial Transparency | education policy center on 16 Jun 2010 at 6:05 pm #
[...] Many months ago, after a heated debate at last year's legislative session, I pointed out that opponents of public school financial transparency were running out of excuses. [...]


text:
United States v. DrumAnnotate this Case
- Syllabus
- Case
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Drum, 368 U.S. 370 (1962)
United States v. Drum
No. 23
Argued October 11-12, 1961
Decided January 15, 1962
Each of the individual appellees owns a truck tractor which he operates under a leasing arrangement with a furniture manufacturer in the interstate transportation of the manufacturer's furniture and in the backhaul of raw materials used in the manufacture of its products. Appellees are compensated for the use of their tractors and for their services as drivers solely on the basis of fixed rates per mile driven. They bear all of the operating costs of the transportation and assume the financial risk of profit or loss thereon. The manufacturer has a collective bargaining agreement with the union representing appellees and grants them certain benefits of employees, including, inter alia, seniority rights, job security, death benefits, vacation pay and social security and workmen's compensation coverage. The Interstate Commerce Commission found that appellees are "contract carriers" within the meaning of § 203(a)(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act and are subject to the licensing requirements of § 209(a)(1), and it ordered them to cease and desist from operating without permits. The District Court held that the transportation was by the manufacturer as a "private carrier," within the meaning of §203(a)(17), and it set aside the Commission's order.
Held: the Commission's finding is sustained, and the judgment of the District Court is reversed. Pp. 368 U. S. 371-386.
(a) The Commission's conclusion that the financial risks of this transportation had been shifted from the manufacturer to the owner-operators to an extent which rendered the sanctioning of the operation as private carriage by the manufacturer a departure from the statutory design was well within the range of the responsibility assigned by Congress to the Commission. Pp. 368 U. S. 383-385.
(b) If the District Court intended to hold that the Commission was confined to the "control" test -- i.e., whether the manufacturer had any right to control, direct or dominate the transportation -- it
was in error, since a finding of shipper control does not require a resolution of the ultimate issue in the shipper's favor. Pp. 368 U. S. 381-383, 368 U. S. 385-386.
(c) If the District Court meant to substitute its judgment for that of the Commission on the question of substance on this record, it indulged in an unwarranted incursion into the administrative domain. P. 368 U. S. 386.
193 F.Supp. 275, reversed.
MR. JUSTICE Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
In an investigation initiated by it under 49 U.S.C. § 304(c), [Footnote 1] the Interstate Commerce Commission held that appellees who leased their motor vehicles and hired
their services as drivers to the appellee Oklahoma Furniture Manufacturing Company (hereinafter "Oklahoma") were contract carriers within 49 U.S.C. § 303(a)(15) [Footnote 2] and subject to the permit requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 309(a)(1). [Footnote 3] 79 M.C.C. 403.
A three-judge court in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, convened under 28 U.S.C. § 2325, in a proceeding commenced by appellees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1336 and 1398, [Footnote 4] set aside the cease and desist order by which the Commission required the lessors to refrain from their operations unless and until they received appropriate authority therefor from the Commission. 193 F.Supp. 275. The District Court held that Oklahoma was engaged in private carriage as defined in 49 U.S.C. § 303(a)(17). [Footnote 5] We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeals lodged here under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. 365 U.S. 839.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 [Footnote 6] subject many aspects of interstate motor carriage -- including entry of
persons into the business of for-hire motor transportation and the oversight of motor carrier rates -- to administrative controls, on the premise that the public interest in maintaining a stable transportation industry so required. [Footnote 7] However, although aware that
"Both [contract carriers and common carriers] . . . are continually faced with actual or potential competition from private truck operation . . . , [Footnote 8]"
Congress took cognizance of a shipper's interest in furnishing his own transportation, [Footnote 9] and limited the application of the licensing requirements to those persons who provide "transportation . . . for compensation" [Footnote 10] or, under a 1957 Amendment, "for-hire transportation." [Footnote 11] The Commission, therefore, has had to decide whether a particular arrangement gives rise to that "for-hire" carriage which is subject to economic regulation in the public interest, or whether it is, in fact, private carriage as to which Congress determined that the shipper's interest in carrying his own goods should prevail. This case is a recent instance of the Commission's developing technique of decision.
From the beginning, underlying principles have been, and have remained, clear. A primary objective of the scheme of economic regulation is to assure that shippers generally will be provided a healthy system of motor carriage to which they may resort to get their goods to market. This is the goal not only of Commission surveillance
of licensed motor carriers as to rates and services, but also of the requirement that the persons from whom shippers would purchase a transportation service designed to meet the shippers' distinctive needs must first secure Commission approval. See Contracts of Contract Carriers, 1 M.C.C. 628, 629; Keystone Transportation Co., 19 M.C.C. 475, 490-492. The statutory requirement that a certificate or permit be issued before any new for-hire carriage may be undertaken bespeaks congressional concern over diversions of traffic which may harm existing carriers upon whom the bulk of shippers must depend for access to market. [Footnote 12] Accordingly, the statutory definitions, while confirming that a shipper is free to transport his own goods without utilizing a regulated instrumentality at the same time deny him the use of "for compensation" or "for-hire" transportation purchased from a person not licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Because the definitions must, if they are to serve their purpose, impose practical limitations upon unregulated competition in a regulated industry, they are to be interpreted in a manner which transcends the merely formal. From the outset, the Commission has correctly interpreted them as importing that a purported private carrier who hires the instrumentalities of transportation from another must -- if he is not to utilize a licensed carrier -- assume in significant measure the characteristic burdens of the transportation business. The problem is one of determining -- by reference to
the clear but broad remedial purpose of a regulatory statute committed to agency administration -- the applicability to a narrow fact situation of imprecise definitional language which delineates the coverage of the measure. Private carriers are defined simply as transporters of property who are neither common nor contract carriers; and the statute will yield up no better verbal guide to the reach of its licensing provisions than transportation "for compensation" or "for-hire." Compare Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne,194 U. S. 106; Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States,307 U. S. 125, 307 U. S. 144-146; Gray v. Powell,314 U. S. 402, 314 U. S. 412-413; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications,322 U. S. 111, 322 U. S. 130-131. Because the Commission's resolution of the issue does not seem to us to violate the coherence of the body of administrative and judicial precedents so far developed in this area, we are of the opinion that there was no occasion for the District Court to disturb the conclusion reached by the Commission. We therefore reverse the District Court's judgment.
It was a wish to rid itself of certain burdens of its existing transportation operation which caused Oklahoma to enter into the arrangement here involved. Prior to 1952, Oklahoma, a manufacturer of low-cost furniture, had maintained a full fleet of tractors and trailers in which all its furniture was shipped. A full crew of drivers was employed. Oklahoma absorbed all the expenses, and carried all the risks, of its transportation operation. It utilized a system of delivered pricing which eliminated transportation charges as an identifiable element of the price of its furniture. Its status as a private carrier exempt from licensing requirements was never questioned under the pre-1952 arrangement. But that method of operation was found to incorporate certain burdensome disadvantages. Oklahoma discovered that its employee-drivers were embezzling its funds through the misuse of
credit arrangements which the company had established for the purchasing of fuel and minor repairs on the road. In addition, Oklahoma became convinced that its equipment was too often involved in accidents, and too often in need of repairs and maintenance which could have been avoided by careful operation.
In an effort to eliminate these disadvantages, Oklahoma, in 1952, altered its modus operandi. It decided to terminate its investment in tractors for long hauls and, instead, to lease them from the drivers. The original lease agreements encountered difficulty when, in 1956, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the resultant operation constituted for-hire carriage by the owner-operators which required licensing under the applicable Arkansas statutes. [Footnote 13] Following this turn of events, Oklahoma revised the leases, and also entered into a collective agreement with the union representing its workers setting forth the terms under which the owner-operators were to be employed as drivers. The current lease and collective agreement provide the factual predicate of the present litigation.
The Company presently owns 26 trailers and 6 tractors. It leases 11 tractors for long-haul use in connection with the trailers which it owns. It is solely in connection with the 11 l leased tractors and the services of their owner-operators that the Commission discerned the provision of for-hire transportation. The leases are for renewable terms of one year, but they are terminable by either party on 30 days' notice. Oklahoma is granted the sole right to control the use of the tractor through drivers employed by it; in return, it covenants that such use will be lawful, and will be confined to the transportation of the Company's property. Oklahoma pays for its
use of the tractors strictly on a mileage basis. The owner receives weekly rental payments of 10 or 11 cents for each mile the vehicle is driven, plus an extra 3 cents per mile on the backhaul if there is a load of raw materials. Oklahoma does not guarantee any minimum mileage. Operating costs -- including gasoline, oil, grease, parts, and registration fees -- are paid by the owners. Oklahoma assumes no responsibility for wear and tear or damage to the tractors, nor does it provide collision or fire and theft insurance coverage -- although it does pay for public liability and property damage insurance. The owners assume no responsibility to Oklahoma for damage to the cargoes.
Under the collective agreement covering the drivers among its employees, the drivers enjoy certain common employment privileges such as collective bargaining, seniority rights, death benefits, immunity from discharge except for cause, military service protection, and vacation pay in an amount based on their average weekly pay. Owner-drivers may be discharged for cause. [Footnote 14] Their remuneration is calculated strictly on a mileage basis, and they are obliged to pay their own living expenses while on the road. No minimum weekly pay or mileage is guaranteed. [Footnote 15] Drivers are required to maintain their trucks in good running condition at all times.
Oklahoma's actual operations were a generally faithful reflection of the leases and the collective agreement. Certain matters, not explicitly or unambiguously covered by the written instruments, are of significance. Ordinarily, the drivers were assigned to their own tractors,
though there were occasional exceptions. Oklahoma's truck superintendent testified that the owner-operators' services were not utilized each day. The owners were required to pay for all repairs, though Oklahoma conducted safety inspections. [Footnote 16] The Company closely directed all details of loading and delivery routes. It instructed the drivers as to steps to be taken in emergencies. It administered physical examinations, supervised the preparation of reports required by the Interstate Commerce Commission, paid social security taxes and withheld income taxes, and provided workmen's compensation.
In sum, Oklahoma's operation possessed a number of the hallmarks of a genuine lease of equipment and a genuine employment arrangement.
Still, the Company was able to spare itself -- and pass to the owner-operators -- certain characteristic burdens of the transportation business. The large capital investment in the tractors and the risk of their premature depreciation or catastrophic loss was borne by the owner-operators, not by the Company. The owner-operators, rather than Oklahoma, stood the risk of a rise in variable costs such as fuel, repairs and maintenance of the tractors in good operating condition, and living expenses, although the thirty-day cancellation privilege, taken together with the possible bargaining power of the owner-operators en bloc, may have affected the degree to which that burden was actually shifted. Finally, Oklahoma was able
to divest itself, to a significant extent, of the risk of non-utilization of high-priced equipment. The owner-operators received neither rental payments nor wages when their tractors were not used and they did not drive. Oklahoma did, however, carry the risk of a nonproductive backhaul. [Footnote 17]
The question before the Commission was whether, under these particular facts, Oklahoma had so far emancipated itself from the burdens of transportation that to permit it, on such terms, to secure a transportation service from these unlicensed owner-operators would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Commission resolved the issue adversely to Oklahoma and the owner-operators. Division 1, one Commissioner dissenting, held that the owner-operators were engaged in contract carriage and ordered them to cease and desist from the activities thus found to be unlawful until such time as they had secured the necessary permits from the Commission. Applications for such permits were invited, the Division's Report observing that the activities presently condemned should not prejudice such applications. [Footnote 18] This disposition was approved by the full Commission on reconsideration. [Footnote 19]
The Commission dealt with the problem before it by setting out two inquiries which would have to be satisfied before the operations in question could be held to constitute private carriage: first, it would have to be found that no person other than Oklahoma had "any right to control, direct, and dominate" the transportation. Second, it would have to be found that no person before the Commission was "in substance, engaged in the business of . . . transportation of property . . . for hire." [Footnote 20] The Commission found against the respondents on both tests. In connection with the first, or "control," test the Commission pointed out that earlier decisions had established a presumption of for-hire transportation whenever equipment was leased by a shipper, which presumption might be defeated by a showing that the shipper had retained the exclusive right to control the operation. Despite the evidence of actual shipper control in this case, the Commission held that the presumption of for-hire transportation remained in effect because
"[t]here is present, whenever the owner-operator drives his own equipment, the right and power of the lessor to defeat any supposed right to control that the shipper-lessee may believe exists. [Footnote 21]"
The three-judge District Court reversed the Commission's conclusion relative to shipper control, [Footnote 22] and that action of the District Court is not challenged by the Commission on this appeal. [Footnote 23]
But a finding of shipper control does not require a resolution of the ultimate issue in the shipper's favor. [Footnote 24] It is true that, until recently, "control" has been at the focus of the Commission's efforts to delineate verbally the permissible area of nonlicensed leases of transportation equipment. The initial technique of the Commission was to assess the lessee-shipper's assumption of the burdens of transportation in terms of the degree to which he undertook to "control" or "dominate" it. [Footnote 25] The interest in "control," in turn, generated an interest in whether the drivers of leased equipment were in substance treated as the shipper's employees. [Footnote 26] Throughout, however, Commission
reports have taken note of various factors which clearly transcend any narrow concept of physical direction of the details of the operation; and it has always been apparent that the vesting of such physical "control" in the shipper would not, in itself, suffice to render the transportation private carriage. [Footnote 27]
Latterly, the Commission has begun to move away from "control" as the verbal embodiment of its manifold inquiry. [Footnote 28] The Commission thus accords explicit recognition to a premise which has long been implicit in its decisions:
that some indicia of private carriage may be assumed, and detailed surveillance of operations undertaken, without a shipper's having significantly shouldered the burdens of transportation. The test of substance with which the Commission supplemented its "control" inquiry in this case thus betokens no heedless departure from the beaten track of administrative decision which might occasion a judicial curb upon the exercise of administrative discretion. [Footnote 29] No more so does the inclusion in the arrangement between Oklahoma and its owner-drivers of a number of particulars also discoverable in arrangements found to constitute private carriage in earlier Commission decisions. We deal in totalities; indicia are instruments of decision, not touchstones. The Commission allowably dealt with this novel situation as an integral and unique problem in judgment, rather than simply as an exercise in counting commonplaces. Nor did it leave the basis for its decision unarticulated.
The Commission's meaning in applying the test of substance in this case is clearly told in the following language in its report:
"Here, each owner-operator assigns his motor vehicle for a continuing period of time to the exclusive use of the company, furnishing a service designed to meet the distinct need of the company. He provides a service in which the equipment is furnished, maintained, and driven by the owners thereof to transport property in interstate commerce. He guarantees a fixed and definite cost for the transportation, bears the risk of profit or loss from such transportation hazards as delays in transit, breakdowns of equipment, and highway detours, and meets all of the cost of operation including appropriate licenses and trip expenses."
79 M.C.C. at 412.
It is evidence that the Commission here refused to allow Oklahoma the status of a private carrier because of its belief that financial risks are a significant burden of transportation, and its belief that such risks had been shifted by Oklahoma to the owner-operators to an extent which rendered the sanctioning of the operation as private carriage a departure from the statutory design. We think that such conclusions were well within the range of the responsibility Congress assigned to the Commission. The District Court explicitly recognized the propriety of the Commission's inquiring into the substance of the arrangements. Yet the court's conclusion that "what is involved here is private carriage on the part of the Company, rather than transportation for-hire by the owner-operators." 193 F.Supp. at 281, rests on no articulated premise other than that Oklahoma did have control. If the court intended to hold that the Commission is confined to the "control" test, we think it clearly in error in view of the
statutory objectives which we have set forth above. If, on the other hand, the court meant to substitute its judgment for the Commission's on the question of substance, we think that, on this record, it indulged in an unwarranted incursion into the administrative domain.
* Together with No. 24, Regular Common Carrier Conference of American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Drum et al., also on appeal from the same Court.
Interstate Commerce Act § 204(c), 49 Stat. 547, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 304(c):
"Upon complaint in writing to the Commission by any person, State board, organization, or body politic, or upon its own initiative without complaint, the Commission may investigate whether any motor carrier or broker has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, or with any requirement established pursuant thereto. If the Commission, after notice and hearing, finds upon any such investigation that the motor carrier or broker has failed to comply with any such provision or requirement, the Commission shall issue an appropriate order to compel the carrier or broker to comply therewith. Whenever the Commission is of opinion that any complaint does not state reasonable grounds for investigation and action on its part, it may dismiss such complaint."
Interstate Commerce Act § 203(a)(15), 49 Stat. 544, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 303(a)(15):
"The term 'contract carrier by motor vehicle' means any person which engages in transportation by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce, for compensation (other than transportation referred to in paragraph (14) of this section and the exception therein), under continuing contracts with one person or a limited number of persons either (a) for the furnishing of transportation services through the assignment of motor vehicles for a continuing period of time to the exclusive use of each person served or (b) for the furnishing of transportation services designed to meet the distinct need of each individual customer."
Interstate Commerce Act § 203(a)(14), 49 Stat. 554, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 303(a)(14), defines "common carrier" as follows:
"The term 'common carrier by motor vehicle' means any person which holds itself out to the general public to engage in the transportation by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce of passengers or property or any class or classes thereof for compensation, whether over regular or irregular routes, except transportation by motor vehicle by an express company to the extent that such transportation has heretofore been subject to chapter 1 of this title, to which extent such transportation shall continue to be considered to be and shall be regulated as transportation subject to chapter 1 of this title."
Interstate Commerce Act § 209(a)(1), 49 Stat. 552, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 309(a)(1):
"Except as otherwise provided in this section and in section 310a of this title [exceptions not here pertinent], no person shall engage in the business of a contract carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a permit issued by the Commission, authorizing such person to engage in such business. . . ."
See also Interstate Commerce Act § 203(c), 71 Stat. 411, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 303(c):
"Except as provided in section 302(c) of this title, subsection (b) of this section, in the exception in subsection (a)(14) of this section, and in the second proviso in section 306(a)(1) of this title [none of which exceptions are here pertinent], no person shall engage in any for-hire transportation business by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, unless there is in force with respect to such person a certificate or a permit issued by the Commission authorizing such transportation, nor shall any person engaged in any other business enterprise transport property by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce for business purposes unless such transportation is within the scope, and in furtherance, of a primary business enterprise (other than transportation) of such person."
The United States intervened as defendant, 28 U.S.C. § 2322, and appellee Weather-Seal and appellant Regular Common Carrier Conference intervened as plaintiff and defendant respectively, 28 U.S.C. § 2323.
Interstate Commerce Act § 203(a)(17), 49 Stat. 545, 49 U.S.C. § 303(a) (17):
"The term 'private carrier of property by motor vehicle' means any person not included in the terms 'common carrier by motor vehicle' or 'contract carrier by motor vehicle,' who or which transports in interstate or foreign commerce by motor vehicle property of which such person is the owner, lessee, or bailee, when such transportation is for the purpose of sale, lease, rent, or bailment, or in furtherance of any commercial enterprise."
49 Stat. 543-567, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §§ 301-327.
See S.Rep. No. 482, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 2; H.R.Rep. No. 1645, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S.Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 14-15, 22-23 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on the Regulation of Transportation Agencies).
Id. at 14.
See S.Rep. No. 482, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1; H.R.Rep. No. 1645, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 4; H.R.Doc. No. 89, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on Transportation Legislation).
Seenote 3supra.
See S.Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (Report of Federal Coordinator of Transportation on the Regulation of Transportation Agencies). That concern has found recent legislative expression in a 1958 amendment designed to curb so-called "buy-sell" evasions by purported or "pseudo" private carriers. 72 Stat. 568, 574, amending the Interstate Commerce Act § 203(c), 49 U.S.C. § 303(c). See S.Rep. No. 1647, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 23-24; H.R.Rep. No. 1922, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 17-19.
Robinson v. Woodard, 227 Ark. 102, 296 S.W.2d 672.
While such a discharge would not automatically terminate the affected driver's truck-lease agreement, it seems obvious that he would immediately exercise his 30-day cancellation privilege, and thus remove his truck from Oklahoma's service.
In contrast, the short-haul drivers of company-owned tractors received $50 per week plus two cents per mile.
The provision of the collective agreement that the owner-drivers "shall be required to maintain the truck in good running condition" superseded, in the parties' practice, Oklahoma's undertaking in the lease agreement
"to keep and maintain said motor vehicle equipment at all times while in operation under this lease agreement, in first class operating condition and in complete compliance with all safety rules and regulations of all State and Federal regulatory bodies."
See 79 M.C.C. at 406, 407; 193 F.Supp. at 278.
Oklahoma paid an extra three cents per mile rental when there was a load of raw materials in the backhaul. This differential was explained as covering the cost of additional wear and tear and fuel purchases occasioned by the heavier raw materials transported on the return trips. At least to the extent that the differential was in fact absorbed by such incremental costs, it cannot be said to have represented the shifting of any financial risk.
79 M.C.C. at 415. Appellees assert that there is no presently licensed carrier able or willing to provide the type of service essential to Oklahoma's survival as a competitor. See Brief for Henry E. Drum et al. at 3. That circumstance should be presented to and considered by the I.C.C. in passing on appellees' permit applications, but it is not a reason for bypassing the Commission's licensing power if Oklahoma is not a private carrier.
79 M.C.C. at 409-410.
79 M.C.C. at 411.
193 F.Supp. at 281-282.
See Brief for the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission at 17, n. 8:
"In this appeal, we do not challenge the district court's conclusion that the evidence did not warrant a finding that Oklahoma lacked full control of the details of the operation. Nor do we argue as to whether the court below gave too narrow a meaning to the Commission's control test. We assume, for present purposes, that the court below correctly applied that test as relating only to the operational aspects of the transportation."
We need not and we do not now pass on the Commission's view that, if the shipper does not direct the details of the operation, he cannot be a private carrier.
The leading case is H. B. Church Truck Service Co., 27 M.C.C. 191, 195:
"Essentially the issue is as to who has the right to control, direct, and dominate the performance of the service. If that right remains in the carrier, the carriage is carriage for hire and subject to regulation. If it rests in the shipper, it is private carriage, and not subject to regulation. . . ."
It was the H. B. Church case which established the presumption that a lease of equipment results in for-hire carriage. The presumption was said to
"yield to a showing that the shipper has the exclusive right and privilege of directing and controlling the transportation service, as, for example, if the equipment were operated by the shipper's employee."
27 M.C.C. at 196.
See, e.g., Watson Mfg. Co., 51 M.C.C. 223, 226; R.N.G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M.C.C. 665, 670.
Teamsters Union v. Oliver,358 U. S. 283, did not, as appellees suggest (Brief for Henry E. Drum et al. at 29), hold that owner-operators are in any sense "employees." That case held that a bargaining unit including an overwhelming majority of concededly employed drivers of carrier-owned equipment was entitled, under § 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 142, 29 U.S.C. § 158(d), to bargain to impasse concerning minimum rentals to be received by owner-drivers. It was not necessary to determine whether the owner-drivers were "employees" protected by the Act, since the establishment of the minimum rental to them was integral to the establishment of a stable wage structure for clearly covered employee-drivers. See id. at 358 U. S. 294-295.
See, e.g., Edward Allen Carroll, 1 M.C.C. 788; Centre Trucking Co., 32 M.C.C. 313; William A. Shields, 41 M.C.C. 100; John J. Casale, Inc., 44 M.C.C. 45; Motor Haulage Co., 46 M.C.C. 107; Jacobs Transfer Co., 46 M.C.C. 265; John J. Casale, Inc., 49 M.C.C. 15; R.N.G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M.C.C. 665.
See Pacific Diesel Rental Co., 78 M.C.C. 161, 172-173:
"The primary question here . . . can be asked in two forms -- namely (1) is the transportation here involved such that any person or persons other than the purported private carriers have any right to control, direct, and dominate it, or (2) are any persons here, in substance, engaged in the business of interstate or foreign transportation of property on the public highways for hire? . . . We are convinced here that, even if all the responsibilities of an employer with respect to the driver are assumed by a shipper, the service offered . . . is, in substance, for-hire motor carriage subject to regulation under part II of the act. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the remedial purpose of part II, and would be in contravention of our duty imposed by Congress. . . . It is evident that, were we to hold that the shipper's assumption (as an employer) of certain responsibilities which more normally fall upon a carrier transforms an operation which, apart from such assumption, is clearly a for-hire carrier service, into an operation different in substance, we would open the door to unfair and destructive competitive practices contrary to the national transportation policy declared by Congress."
The courts have commonly articulated their plotting of the boundary between private and regulated carriage in leased equipment cases in terms of over-all substance, rather than simply in terms of "control." See Georgia Truck System, Inc. v. ICC, 123 F.2d 210, 212 ("[A]ppellant, in substance and in reality, operates a transportation business."); A. W. Stickle & Co. v. ICC, 128 F.2d 155, 160, 161 (test of "substance and reality"); Lamb v. ICC, 259 F.2d 358, 360 ("Simply stated [the issue] . . . is who was transporting the goods in question."); B. & C. Truck Leasing, Inc. v. ICC, 283 F.2d 163, 165 (test of "substance and effect"); ICC v. Isner, 92 F.Supp. 582; United States v. La Tuff Transfer Service, 95 F.Supp. 375; ICC v. Werner, 106 F.Supp. 497; cf. Bridge Auto Renting Corp. v. Pedrick, 174 F.2d 733; John J. Casale, Inc. v. United States, 86 F.Supp. 167, 114 Ct.Cl. 599. But cf. Earle v. Babler, 180 F.2d 1016; Vincze v. ICC, 267 F.2d 577; Motor Haulage Co. v. United States, 70 F.Supp. 17, affirmed, 331 U.S. 784; ICC v. Gannoe, 100 F.Supp. 790; Allen v. United States, 187 F.Supp. 625.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK joins, concurring.
If I read the Court's opinion as my Brother HARLAN reads it, I would dissent from the disposition that is made of the case. The Commission is not a free-wheeling agency that can impose its ideas on this industry by fiat. Congress has provided the standard by which the Commission must adjudicate each case. And it is required to make not only findings that support its decision (Interstate Commerce Comm. v. J-T Transport Co.,368 U. S. 81), but also findings that are intelligible and complete. United States v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.,315 U. S. 475, 315 U. S. 488-489. The case is, for me, a marginal one on which commissioners as well as judges might differ.
Hence, I join the opinion of the Court.
* Three judges in the District Court disagreed with the Commission (193 F.Supp. 275) and one of the three Commissioners dissented. 79 M.C.C. 403.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER joins, dissenting.
Were this an instance of a District Court's substituting its judgment for that of the Interstate Commerce Commission on a matter which Congress had reserved for agency determination, I would be among the first to maintain that the Commission's action should be respected. Cf. ICC v. J-T Transport Co.,368 U. S. 81, 368 U. S. 126-130
(dissenting opinion). But the order entered by the Commission in the cases now before us is so utterly lacking in evidentiary support, so inconsistent with the uniform course of agency and court decisions, and so contrary to the regulatory plan embodied in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and its later amendments, that I cannot join in the judgment which reinstates that order. As I view this record, what the Commission has done here amounts in effect to an exercise of power which it does not possess.
Under the Motor Carrier Act, two things are indisputably clear: (1) Congress, in subjecting "private" motor carriage only to safety regulation, did not mean otherwise to regulate interstate transportation by persons of "their own goods in their own vehicles for commercial purposes" (79 Cong.Rec. 5651 (1935), remarks of Senator Wheeler, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce); [Footnote 2/1] (2) one engaged in the business of leasing motor vehicles for commercial carriage is not, by that fact alone, made a "contract carrier," subject to full Commission regulation; in other words, equipment rentals, as such, are not reached by the statute. [Footnote 2/2] Under the plain terms of the Act and Commission rulings, economic regulation of such rentals comes into play only where "for-hire" motor carriage has been shown. [Footnote 2/3]
This, then, is not a case like Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.,322 U. S. 111, where the construction of an inexplicitly defined term in a statute which was broadly remedial was left to the agency enforcing the law. Despite strong suggestions to the contrary, [Footnote 2/4] Congress saw fit to exempt private carriers from economic regulation under the Motor Carrier Act. If we were to permit the Commission to exercise its discretion to sweep in a variety of arrangements which legitimately constitute private carriage, we would be authorizing disobedience of the legislative mandate as surely as if we allowed the agency to remove from regulation what clearly amounts to "for-hire" carriage.
Until late 1952, Oklahoma Furniture Company, a manufacturer of low-priced furniture, shipped its product to retail purchasers throughout the United States in company-owned tractors and trailers, driven by its own full-time salaried employees. Discovering that some of its drivers were misusing company credit cards, given them to enable their charging against the Company operating and living expenses while on the road, Oklahoma revamped its long-haul transportation system in such a way as to remove these temptations. [Footnote 2/5] In essence, the new
arrangement involved, on the one hand, leasing from each of 11 of the Company's employee-drivers one of the tractors used in long-haul service, [Footnote 2/6] and shifting to the driver the economic incidents of its maintenance and operation; and, on the other hand, preserving to the Company the exclusive use of the tractor in the conduct of its business, and keeping, in every practical sense, the employee relationship between the driver and the Company. The details of the arrangement and its operation are accurately summarized in the District Court's opinion. [Footnote 2/7]
The process of reasoning by which the Commission reached the conclusion that this rearrangement changed to fully regulatable activity that which had theretofore been subject to Commission jurisdiction only from the standpoint of safety is, at best, obscure. However, the true measure of what the Court now sanctions is revealed
by laying bare the extent to which the agency's conclusion involved a departure from the common sense criteria that have heretofore entered into Commission determinations as to whether particular arrangements reflected "private" or "for-hire" motor carriage. [Footnote 2/8]
The Court holds that the shifting of three economic burdens from the Company to the drivers justified the Commission's determination: (1) the substantial capital investments in the tractors, along with the risk of premature loss, were borne by the drivers; [Footnote 2/9] (2) they undertook the costs of maintaining the vehicles and their own living expenses on the road; and (3) they bore the risk, as the Court envisages it, of "nonutilization of high-priced equipment" and of their own unemployment. These factors, either singly or in combination, do not, in my view, suffice to warrant the Commission's ruling. The first of them is the normal concomitant of any equipment rental; its presence cannot serve to change the character of a relationship which is not of itself subject to Commission regulation, except from the standpoint of safety (supra, p. 368 U. S. 387, note 1). The costs of gas, repairs, and garaging are commonly also assumed by those leasing out motor vehicles for private use. [Footnote 2/10] See, e.g., R.N.G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M.C.C. 665; Scott Bros., Inc., 32 M.C.C. 253; U-Drive-It Co. of Pennsylvania, 23 M.C.C. 799. The third factor, whatever may be its weight when supported by actuality, is, in the circumstances depicted in this record, no more than a pure abstraction (pp. 368 U. S. 394-395 infra).
As the Court appears to recognize, the other provisions of the arrangement, relating to the cost of maintaining the leased equipment, all point to "private" carriage. Past
cases in the Commission where "for-hire" carriage has been found, in the face of similar provisions, all involved other factors not present here. Under this arrangement, the Company was entitled to exclusive use of the tractors during the rental period (cf. Joseph A. Bisceglia, 34 M.C.C. 233); it loaded, dispatched, and routed the trucks (cf. William A. Shields, 41 M.C.C. 100); [Footnote 2/11] it instructed the drivers as to details of service (cf. McKeown Transportation Co., 42 M.C.C. 792); it assumed the risk of loss or damage to the cargo (cf. Edward Allen Carroll, 1 M.C.C. 788); it paid for liability and property damage insurance (cf. Centre Trucking Co., 32 M.C.C. 313); [Footnote 2/12] it undertook to inspect the tractors to insure compliance with safety regulations (cf. Driver Service, Inc., 77 M.C.C. 243); and it shipped the goods without bills of lading (cf. Jacobs Transfer Co., 46 M.C.C. 265).
Nor is the Commission's case strengthened by the circumstance that the appellees, in addition to supplying the vehicles, provided their own services as drivers. That factor would be significant only if the appellees furnished these services as independent contractors, for it is only then that the arrangement differs from an equipment rental in which the lessee mans the leased vehicle with his own employees. It would be strange indeed to attribute to Congress a purpose to classify as a "for-hire" carrier any employee who, as a condition of employment, is required to purchase a vehicle in which his employer's goods are to be transported.
All the standards by which the Commission has previously tested a purported "employment" relationship
prove the existence of such a relationship here. The Company paid the drivers' wages (cf. Columbia Terminals Co., 18 M.C.C. 662); [Footnote 2/13] deducted social security and federal income taxes (cf. Motor Haulage Co., 46 M.C.C. 107); retained drivers' trip logs and medical certificates (cf. Watson Mfg. Co., 51 M.C.C. 223); bargained with the drivers' labor union over conditions of employment (cf. R.N.G. Commercial Auto Renters, Inc., 73 M.C.C. 665); and reserved the right to engage and discharge (cf. John J. Casale, Inc., 49 M.C.C. 15). In Teamsters v. Oliver,358 U. S. 283, we held that an agreement setting a minimum rental and other terms for the use of a lessor-driver's equipment was "within the scope of collective bargaining as defined by federal law." Id. at 358 U. S. 293. In light of the dissenting opinion, id. at 358 U. S. 297-298, it seems clear that the Court concluded that the lessor-drivers were employees, not independent contractors, for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.
Despite the total supervision thus exercised by the Company, if the record revealed that these drivers really risked having no work at all, thus earning no wage, over any period of time, there might be room for argument that they were, in fact, independent contractors. Under the terms of their employment, such a theoretical possibility exists, but the facts prove it could not happen.
The appellees were paid rental for their vehicles and wages for their services on a per-mile basis. But the testimony of the Company's truck superintendent shows that the Company deliberately attempted to distribute the work so as to assure to each driver weekly wages which were within limits acceptable both to the individual concerned and his labor union. Six tractors continued to be
owned by the Company, and individual employees were assigned to these tractors, one to a vehicle, just as the appellees were in effect assigned by the Company to the tractors they owned. Those assigned to company-owned tractors were paid $50 a week plus two cents a mile, and they were dispatched on short hauls. The appellees were sent on long hauls, so that their total mileage would make up for the absence of any fixed wage. [Footnote 2/14] In addition, if one of the appellees was sick, a driver usually assigned to a company-owned vehicle would be directed to operate the tractor belonging to the incapacitated man in order to assure him of at least the rental payment for his equipment. In short, there is nothing in the record which warrants a finding that the status of the appellees was anything other than that of bona fide employees, or that they in fact shouldered, or anticipated that they might have to bear, any of the economic burdens undertaken by independent contractors.
I am not unmindful that the Interstate Commerce Commission has, of late, been much concerned with the problem of drawing the line between legitimate equipment rentals, which it concedes to be "private carriage," and what it has come to call "pseudo-private carriage," i.e., contract carriage disguised as lease of equipment. [Footnote 2/15]
Obviously the Commission must have the power to deal with schemes that have been devised to avoid regulation. No one would suppose that the Commission was acting beyond its authority if it pierced through the form assumed by a business enterprise purportedly engaged in providing equipment for "private" carriage and disclosed that it was really supplying "for-hire" carriage. Decisions of District Courts and Courts of Appeals have uniformly approved the application of the test of "substance" in such circumstances. E.g., Lamb v. ICC, 259 F.2d 358; ICC v. Isner, 92 F.Supp. 582; ICC v. Gannoe, 100 F.Supp. 790. I disagree with the result reached here by the Court not because the Commission has supplemented its earlier test of "control" with one of "substance," [Footnote 2/16] but because the application of the very test that is now urged persuades me that this was in reality an employment relationship with an employer engaged in private carriage, and not a "for-hire" carriage arrangement.
In sum, this is a case in which there is no allegation of subterfuge and no basis in the record for attributing a devious motive to the lessee; in which the economic risks transferred by the arrangement to the lessor are no more,
and possibly even less, substantial [Footnote 2/17] than those in the ordinary rental of equipment; and in which the actual conditions of hire disclose that the drivers are bona fide employees of the lessor and are protected by their union representatives against overreaching by the employer. The Commission's order is not saved by the "totality" test which the Court now brings to its aid. For, however viewed, this record adds up to nothing more than a mere rearrangement of Oklahoma's private carriage activities in such a way as, and for no other purpose than, to protect the Company against being cheated by its long-haul driver-employees.
If it is within the range of the Commission's permissible discretion to classify these appellees as contract carriers -- and thus subject them to the rigorous standards of financial fitness and suitability that the Commission's regulations require of such carriers -- what has been thought of as the "gray" area becomes black, and, in truth, much of what has heretofore been taken for white is now gray. What, for example, would have been the result had title to these tractors remained with the Company under an arrangement whereby they were leased to the drivers and then subleased back to the Company, with the Company assuming the risk of catastrophic loss or destruction? Or what if the drivers had been guaranteed $50 a week in
total rental and wages? Would either of these changed circumstances have ousted the Commission of authority to hold the contracts to be "for-hire" carriage?
Indeed, the Court's decision goes far to encourage the Commission to obliterate entirely the congressionally drawn distinction between private and contract carriage. It will be interesting to see as time goes on whether there will be an aftermath to this decision similar to that which followed the blurring of the line between common and contract motor carriers effected by the Court's decision in United States v. Contract Steel Carriers,350 U. S. 409. See ICC v. J-T Transport Co., supra, at 368 U. S. 107-109 (dissenting opinion).
I would affirm.
See also S.Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1934); H.R.Doc. No. 89, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 17 (1935); S.Rep. No. 482, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1935); H.R.Rep. No. 1645, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1935).
There has been some equipment rental regulation by the States; whether it is also desirable as a matter of federal policy has yet to be determined by Congress. See Nutting and Kuhn, Motor Carrier Regulation -- The Third Phase, 10 U. of Pitt.L.Rev. 477, 487-491 (1949); Note, 39 Ky.L.J. 338 (1951).
The relevant statutory provisions are set forth in footnotes 1 2, 3 and 5 of the Court's opinionSee also U-Drive-It Co. of Pennsylvania, 23 M.C.C. 799; Scott Bros., Inc., 32 M.C.C. 253. In Lease and Interchange of Vehicles by Motor Carriers, 51 M.C.C. 461, 521, the Commission did not premise its authority to regulate lease and interchange practices among common and contract carriers on any authority generally to control vehicles engaged in interstate commerce. The Commission rather inferred from its authority to regulate the transportation offered by common and contract carriers the power to regulate, as well, "the procurement of transportation." This conclusion in no way suggests its authority to regulate the rental of vehicles by noncarriers from companies engaged solely in rental activities.
See S.Doc. No. 152, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 26 (1934); Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 333, 345, 347-350 (1935).
Short hauls of company products in company-owned and driven equipment remained unaffected by the new arrangement, presumably because there was less opportunity for the misuse of company credit cards in connection with such hauls.
The record does not show the terms on which the drivers acquired the tractors, whether they were bought from the Company or others, and if from the Company, what, if any, consideration was paid. The trailers drawn by these tractors continued to be owned by the Company.
"The leases provide in substance as follows: (1) the Company shall pay the owner-operator 10
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.


text:
Videos > Monique Alexander > Pussy munching Jessica Lynn licks and fingers Monique Alexander moist muff
We Live Together Flange loving flatmates get to taste their friends' peachy twats and plunge them with their favourite fucktoys! There's no need for nobs here I'm afraid - these hot bitches know exactly how to please their eager pussies!!


text:
Dolly, the fourth named storm of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season, is expected to make landfall in Mexico.
Mark Ingram is joining forces with key leaders to announce a statewide effort to improve the money management skills of students.
New Orleans
Saints running back Mark Ingram with Alabama Treasurer Young Boozer, John Turner, Executive of Regions Financial, and
representatives from Visa will join for an event launching "Financial Football", a free educational video game and classroom curriculum, on Friday, January 24th.
During the launching event Ingram and Boozer will coach students, who have been divided into teams, in a game of Financial Football projected on a big screen in the room.
"Financial Football", which is developed by Visa Inc., which helps tackle the issue of
financial literacy among Alabama teens, will be
distributed by the Treasurer's office to every public middle school and
high school in the state of Alabama.
Copyright 2014 WSFA 12 News.
All rights reserved.
12 East Delano Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36105
(334) 288-1212
FCC Public File
EEO Report
Closed Captioning


text:
lantern. Even if the lamp broke in a flammable
atmosphere, no accident would result. It was
used for firefighting in Paris and New York, in
mining, and for finding gas leaks.
STAGECRAFT TO AIRCRAFT: A living chandelier of
dancers adorned in Trouvé's electrically lighted
jewelry for The Chicken That Laid the Golden Eggs,
performed in Paris and Berlin; electro-mobile jewelry
by Trouvé included a drumming rabbit, flapping bird,
and chattering skull; Trouvé's second "mechanical
bird" ornithopter, driven by gunpowder.
Did you ever invent just for fun?
Of all things, I became an international sensation
as a jewelry maker and theatrical designer.
I started making electro-mobile jewelry in
1865 — rabbits drumming, birds and butterflies
flapping, decapitated heads talking, a grenadier
playing a drum. Everyone wanted them! Mounted
on gold or on tiepins, the minuscule creatures
were animated with the aid of an invisible wire
attached to a cigar-sized, sealed battery hidden
in a waistcoat pocket. Très amusant!
After the military events of 1870, I made
electrically illuminated crystal jewelry in myriad
colors and shapes. It, too, was all the rage, but
nothing compared to the audience and media
acclaim when I incorporated lighted crystals in
dance, theater, and opera costumes and props.
Neither language nor images can sufficiently
convey the effect on the major stages of Paris,
London, Berlin, and beyond. For the time, it was
the most considerable application of electrical
illumination directly from batteries. Imagine a
ballet of illuminated amazons, a bejeweled chandelier of sparkling dancers, Neptune's chariot
aglow, and the duel in Faust with lighted swords
flashing on a darkened stage. Quel plaisir!
Given the many inventions I exhibited at major
expositions, it seems fitting that my last spectacle
on the international stage appeared in 1889 at
the Exposition Universelle in Paris. My enormous
lighted fountain, which I would patent in 1893, was a
sensation at the end of a transformational century.
With hope that in some small way I lit their
paths or electrified their imaginations, I salute
all inventors and makers who succeeded me.
Au revoir et bonne chance!
Karen Hansen makes classical music, stories, and
photographs in Minneapolis and on her travels throughout Europe, Asia, and America. She interviews artists,
entrepreneurs, gardeners, judges, professors, and makers.
36 Make: Volume 17
Click to subscribe to this magazine


text:
.XXX Advertising Credits for Search.xxx
Not what you're looking for?
We want your feedback!
You know the benefits of registering and renewing domain names, but one particular TLD offers perks that are totally exclusive: .XXX.
The ICM Registry wants to give .XXX customers a $75 advertising credit for every .XXX domain name they renew or register by Jan. 31, 2013. The promotional credit can be used towards advertisements on the Search.xxx Ad Program –the ICM Registry's keyword advertising platform (it's like a search engine for adult content only).
Check out the following advantages that the Search.xxx promotion offers:
- Search.xxx is a search platform that advertises .XXX domain names and adult entertainment content only – all visitors are there looking for one thing!
- You can increase your online visibility and drive traffic to your site if you advertise on Search.xxx.
- There is no obligation for you to purchase additional credits or ads after using your promotional credits.
- All sites advertised on Search.xxx are scanned by McAfee for Malware and labeled by Metacert.
- All .XXX sites listed on Search.xxx comply with the International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) Baseline Policies.
- Visitors can customize and save their search preferences on Search.xxx.
Once you register or renew your .XXX domain names, the ad credits will be available in your ICM membership account.
Learn more and read about the Search.xxx terms and conditions right here.
Comments are closed.


text:
Brad May has certainly brought what he was supposed to bring. Some toughness and willingness to get dirty.
It's currently between the 2nd and 3rd period of a very dirty affair between the Leafs and Canadiens. There is some bad blood, to say the least, between these two teams. Kostopoulos's pile driving of Van Ryn's face into the glass, Kostitsyn's trip of Schenn, and Grabovski's quite flagrant spear are in the minds of the players tonight. And it shows.
It has been chippy from the get go.
Thanks to Jamal Mayers for avenging the cheapshot.
I'm a believer that the bare knuckle fist fighting that goes on hockey doesn't need to be there; But I'll certainly cheer and get excited for a good old fight.
Am I crazy, or does Sportsnet have Paul Hendrick as a pseudo-analyst as well? I can understand why a TV station run by MLSE could make such a idiotic decision. But Sportsnet? They can do better than that.
One of Hendrick's quips tonight was this, and I'm paraphrasing slightly because I didn't write down the exact quote since my eyes went red with anger at the stupidity of this man: "Blake just pushed a Canadien player as he skated to the bench".
Really? A hockey player nudged another hockey player? That never happens. Thank you, Hendrick for advising us of that breaking news.
This man needs to be bound, gagged and locked in closet from the moment the puck drops in any hockey game within 50 miles of him, until the final whistle. He is not a hockey analyst. There are coaches of blind hockey teams that know about about hockey this guy. (Ed Note: There are actually blind hockey teams out there. My father coached one. The puck beeped. Players aren't 100% blind, but rather, legally blind.)
Anyway, I'm going back to the TV to watch the Leafs play more stellar defensive hockey and eventually lose 8-1.
I hope Ian White's Mustache gets into a fight with a Kostisyn. Either one. I'm not picky.
[Weekend FTB] Die, August, Die
18 hours ago


text:
if you haven't had the opportunity to listen to Peter King's webcast with Shad Khan http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/podcasts/peter_king/listenlive.player.html?file=http://ht.cdn.turner.com/si/peter_king/audio/2011/12/20/122011.king_khan_mcginn.mp3 do yourself a BIG favor and do so. The next guy who writes or talks about the "LA Jags" will have about as much credibility as Harold Camping.If Shad Khan's interview with Mr. King is any indication of how he operates professionally or who he is as a person, it's easy to understand why he's been so successful. And it's also an early and unmistakable indication of how he will transform the public's perception of the NFL's version of its own red-headed stepchild.
16-year old college freshman from Pakistan who sleeps at the Y and makes $1.20 an hour washing dishes goes on to create a business that grosses $3 billion a year and buys an NFL team.
You'd never know it from his demeanor.
The traits he praises in Gene Smith -- open, honest, thorough, thoughtful, doesn't take offense to being questioned -- are evident during Khan's interview with King. HIs answers are revealing as to who he is as person and what he expects.
What's unexpected, however, is how the interview ends. Khan becomes to inquisitor, peppering King with questions about his perspectives on what makes a good coach, how the NFL should grow its brand overseas, and several other topics. He cleverly praises King as an "NFL guru" and undoubtedly impressed him with his potential be an influential contributor in how the NFL will operate in the future.
My impression is that we have heard the last from Peter King about how the Jags are at the top of or anywhere on a list of teams with the potential to call LA home. And considering the lemming-like nature of national NFL pundits, no one with hopes of appearing credible to a national audience will raise that possibility in the future.