text:
Freedom and Liberty
North Dakota's "Secessionist" Resolution
What to make of this trend? I think Oklahoma got the 10th Amendment push-back ball rolling, Montana advanced the ball several yards, Texas got into the game recently (albeit, too glibly), several other states are getting their shots in, and now North Dakota takes it's turn.
The resolution in the North Dakota legislature asking the federal government to begin recognizing the 10th amendment and to stop overreach into state matters, the one the Fargo Forum wrote off as being part of a "secessionist movement, has passed in the Senate. By a strictly party-line vote, unfortunately, meaning not one Democrat in the legislature had enough respect for the sovereignty of North Dakota to vote for it.
The resolution now goes to the House, where I expect it will also pass. Also, I'm guessing, by a strictly party-line vote. Which, if it happens, would be a small bright spot in an otherwise dim legislative session. It takes a certain level of conviction for politicians to vote for a resolution like this one. Would that the Republicans voting for it now had the courage of those convictions when faced with legislation that grows spending and government in the state.
At Say Anything, Rob Port has a copy of a state Senator Joe Miller's speech in support of the resolution from the Senate floor. I recommend you go there and read it.
Combined with some Governors rejecting portions of the stimulus funds, and the Tea Parties breaking out all over the country, I'd say it's a good sign that people are finally telling Washington to take a hike. Personally, I would say that both Porkbusters and the Sunlight Foundation are owed some credit as well, but either way it's about time that the federal government was reminded of its place. Granted, it's a fairly small reminder, but maybe one that can be built upon.
So where does all of this lead anyway. Is there any hope that all of this momentum will lead to less federal government interference? How about some support for repealing the 17th Amendment? I'd like to think that it will end up reducing the size of government (i.e. electing fiscally conservative representatives who will cut taxes and greatly slash spending), but once that horse left the barn, the barn was burned to the ground and a giant spending dance was done on the smoldering ashes. Nevertheless, is there some small ray of hope that the states will rein in our profligate Congress?
A Recipe For Economic Disaster
A level of economic government intrusion is now being contemplated like none we've ever seen before. If you didn't understand the one of the main purposes of the tea parties, perhaps this will help.
But what Obama rarely says about ending the "cycle of bubble and bust" is this: he's prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn't occur.
And he's willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance – the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade.
According to Austan Goolsbee, a key Obama economic adviser, the president plans to focus on stopping bubbles along with preventing busts. And in an interview with POLITICO, Goolsbee said the administration will be on the lookout for new bubbles, like the tech stocks or housing prices.
If new threats are spotted, he said Obama would use "regulatory oversight to prevent guys who want to make a quick buck from doing real harm to the economy. . .That is what it means to get out of the bubble and bust cycle."
In other words, government would decide what is or isn't a "bubble" and move to stop what it determines is a bubble. As CATO points out, one man's expansion might be another's "bubble". Are you comfortable with government calling that shot?
And government would also arbitrarily decide who was or wasn't entitled to profit from that market – it would be the final determiner of who was or wasn't making a "quick buck" from the growth.
Any idea what that would do to any market in which the government stepped in to slow down?
Yeah, nothing could go wrong that that idea, could it?
Bottom line: you have a governing elite picking winners and losers.
Thankfully, it isn't quite as easy as you might imagine to do what Goolsbee and Obama would like to do.
…[T]here's not much an administration can do in practical terms to burst a developing bubble. The best way to cool things down is raising interest rates, which is the purview of the Federal Reserve. Another option would be for regulators to order banks to curtail lending to buyers of certain kinds of assets.
The lesson here, of course isn't necessary the plan itself, but the fact that those in a position of power are contemplating this seriously. Those aren't the plans of a moderate, and certainly not those of a capitalist. They're the plans of a group who apparently believes that complex economies can indeed be controlled and manipulated successfully from above.
Amazing hubris. Even more amazing arrogance. Most importantly, incredibly dangerous economic thinking.
I have to admit to some surprise in seeing Michael's post on torture below. QandO has been pretty much opposed to the use of torture, and we've taken some heat for it every time the subject has come up. But, once you open up a libertarian blog to others to write for it, and tell them to feel free to write their own opinions without prejudice or favor, then, before you know it, they go off getting ideas of their own, disagreeing with you, and generally acting with an outrageous sense of independence.
What're you gonna do?
I understand the attraction of torture, both on utilitarian grounds, and in terms of what I will call "emotional reciprocity", so I won't re-cover Michael's arguments, tendered, as they are, more inquisitively than asseveratively.
When I speak of "torture", I want to be sure that we all have the same thing in mind when I use the word. So I will define it here as the intentional application of physical pain, accompanied by the possibility of permanent injury, scarring, derangement, or death. This will, I think, encompass the entire spectrum pf physical discomfort comfort from beatings to anything else more severe. I specifically reject a definition of torture that includes psychological pressure, such as putting a particularly nasty-looking beetle in the cell of a prisoner who's afraid of bugs. I also reject questioning methods as sleep deprivation for a couple of days, or discomfort from keeping the air conditioning too low as torture. These things might be unpleasant, but they are not physically or mentally harmful in any significant sense.
It's possible to construct any number of scenarios in which torture is acceptable–perhaps even moral. But that doesn't negate the general rule that torture is, in fact, wrong.To continue, I would then proceed to the question, "Is torture always wrong?" Well, that's a silly formulation of the question. In every human action, context matters. I think there is general agreement that lying is generally wrong, yet if a terrified woman approaches us and pleads for us to hide her from a crazed stalker who intends to kill her, I think there is also general agreement that if the stalker subsequently approaches us, we would have a positive moral duty to lie to the stalker and deny any knowledge of her whereabouts. There might also be general agreement that lying has a social purpose at times, in the sense that the answer to the question "Does this dress make me look fat?" is pretty much always, "No."
In light of the above, it's possible, then, to construct any number of scenarios in which torture is acceptable–perhaps even moral. But that doesn't negate the general rule that torture is, in fact, wrong, in the widest range of circumstances. If we actually believe in all that stuff about "inalienable rights", then certainly the right not to have hot needles shoved under our nails is one of them.
Beyond that, however, we enter a terrifically complicated area, when we begin to discuss giving the government the power to have recourse to torture as a matter of policy. As a practical matter, it is nearly impossible to construct a system in which any official sanction to torture will not inevitably spiral out of control. Once a set of rules is in place–any set of rules–there will inevitably be torture imposed on anyone on whom an official wishes to impose it. Officials will ensure that the rules will apply to the persons they wish to torture. Sure, the guy may look like an innocent Kabul taxi driver, but there will always be an official who "knows" better, and who will ensure that all the proper boxes are checked before the flensing knives are brought out.
We have elaborate rules, for instance, covering the issuance of search warrants, and severe criminal and civil sanctions for their abuse, yet, oddly enough, police agencies fairly routinely deliver no-knock drug warrants on innocent homeowners, which, not infrequently, result in homeowners or policemen getting shot. Or in the case of 90 year-old Kathryn Johnson in Atlanta several months ago, police just ignore those rules, and seek to provide creative ex post facto justifications. In that case, of course, we learned that such actions were not at all uncommon in portions of the Atlanta PD.
It is nearly impossible to construct a system in which any official sanction to torture will not inevitably spiral out of control.Providing legal sanction to use torture invites similar overzealousness on the part of officials. Moreover, if the government can point to some cases of torture's utility, the pressure to increase the range of acceptable subjects will inevitably increase–just as the drug war has increased the incidence of no-knock warrants being issued to "take down" non-violent drug offenders. And, frankly, we haven't done a very good job of guarding the slippery slope in these and similar areas of government activity.
That doesn't make me sanguine about giving the government the legal sanction to engage in torture, especially in an environment where heathen foreigners will be on the receiving end of it, and their redress in case of mistakes are…limited. That seems to me to have all the element necessary for an unconscionable abuse of power.
Now, let's look at the question of whether torture works. That answer to that is, yes, but not reliably. There are a number of celebrated cases in World War II where French or Yugoslav partisans were captured by the Germans, turned over to the Gestapo, and essentially tortured to death without telling the Germans anything. We also have, conversely, literally thousands of "confessions" of witchcraft during the Inquisition, extracted under torture.
What does that tell us? Well, nothing really that we didn't already know, which is that if you wish to get a suspect to talk, 220 volts to the genitals will probably work better than a medium-rare steak au poivre with shallots, and a robust glass of Côte de Nuits.
Whether the subject can be relied upon to tell you the truth, or just what he thinks you want to hear, is more problematic. Torture can work–by which I mean you can receive reliable information from it– through the following iterative process:
1) The subject can be induced to talk through physical pain. You can eventually get someone to tell you something, if enough torture is applied. To ensure that something is useful,
2) You must be able to verify the subject's information in whole, and provide…correction if any part of the subject's statement appears to be untrue.
You must be able to repeat the above steps until the subject is convinced of your ability to verify his statements and punish evasions or subterfuges. This can, needless to say, become an elaborate process. If you can't go through the process, then you don't really know if you're getting reliable information from it, or if the subject is shining you on to obtain relief. Perhaps he's telling you the truth. Perhaps he's just getting you to look askance at an innocent taxi driver in Kabul.
Michael asked:
Moreover, if it really is ineffectual, why does it continue to happen? Clearly, somebody somewhere is getting results.
Two things come to mind.
First, the vast majority of torture use, both historically, and in the modern world among those regimes that use it, is directed to obtaining confessions of guilt from criminal suspects. It comes as no surprise that it's highly effective at obtaining them. Again, I refer to the Inquisition, where the possibility of death at some unspecified future date became more attractive than than the prospect of a continuance on the rack in the present case.
Second, as I wrote previously, torture does provide more information than would be obtained by abstaining from it. One wonders, however, how much of that information is actually reliable, as opposed to how much of that information is beleived to be reliable by officials. Or simply politically convenient. Those two latter things may not, in fact, be the same as the former.
Finally, the question arises, "who do we torture?" Certainly, every real terror suspect has some knowledge that can be useful. Do we get to torture all of them? Most of the justifications I've seen would give us the option to torture someone in a ticking bomb scenario. Which sounds nice…if you actually know there's a ticking bomb. In the normal scheme of things, though, you really need to torture people to find out if a ticking bomb exists, not to figure out where it is.
The vast majority of torture use among those regimes that use it, is directed to obtaining confessions of guilt from criminal suspects. It comes as no surprise that it's highly effective at obtaining them.Or do we just torture the higher-ups in the terrorist movement, as a sort of fishing expedition? This is, I gather, the justification for the interrogation techniques used on some of the al Qaeda biggies. We thought they were up to something, and we used harsh interrogation to find out what they knew.
The most interesting thing about that is that we didn't have to brand these guys with hot pokers to get them to give it up. These guys apparently have little resistance. Threaten to open a box of StayFree® Maxi-Pads in front of them, and they sing like superstars. So maybe we got lucky in that some of these guys were easy marks.
But, as the Gestapo experience of WWII shows, sometimes, people will let you torture them to death without telling you anything. Even in Vietnam, our POWs in Hanoi would resist real, actual torture for extended periods before giving up a "confession" to their captors.
But I digress.
Either you are going to define the torture-liable population so broadly, that officials will pretty much have a license to torture, or so narrowly that, as a practical matter, you'll never use it. If the former, you've got a slippery slope problem, if the latter, it's not useful enough to even worry about sanctioning it, rather than just worrying about it on an ad hoc basis.
Jonah Goldberg has written often about the unwritten law, vs. the written law. Fifty years ago, it was against the law for the police to dispense street justice. In practice, the beat cop, who walked the same neighborhood day after day and who knew the residents, would occasionally rough up some troublemakers pour encourager les autres, and in so doing, kept the peace on his block. It wasn't legally sanctioned, but it worked–and the cop knew that when he did it, he was risking at least his career, if it became a problem.
For a variety of reasons discussed above, as well as other, more prudential reasons in terms of the country's image, and diplomatic reputation, I'd prefer never to see torture be enshrined in the written law.
I've noted before that, when I was on active duty, if I'd ever been faced with getting caught behind enemy lines in a Soviet attack in Europe, I would like to have the option of capturing a Russian officer, and finding out how to get back to our lines. And, if I had to hook up a field telephone, and make a collect call to his genitals, I'd do it without blinking, if that's what it took to get my guys back home alive.
I wouldn't brag about it, or mention it to anyone in responsible authority later, but if I got found out, I'd expect to take the Court-Martial. And, as long as I'd gotten my guys out, I'd have been happy to do it.
Necessity, it's often said, knows no law. But the law shouldn't explicitly bow to necessity. I would rather have it understood that any torture inflicted is done without sanction, and the official authorizing the torture may be in danger of serious sanctions if he uses it.
It's probably not the best solution. But, on balance, I think it's a better solution than giving the government explicit permission to conduct torture however they see fit. Torture is problematic for a number of reasons, and the ethics of engaging in it are, at the very least, difficult to parse. And, as Michael should well know, "hard cases make bad law".
UPDATE [McQ]: What Dale said.
Torture: What Is It Good For?
Paralleling the song, the answer should be "absolutely nothing" with a testosterone laced "Huhn!" thrown in for good measure. Personally, I have my doubts.
This is not a new topic here at QandO, as my esteemed brethren have weighed in on numerous occasions, each time settling on an emphatic "No! Torture is not acceptable." While it would be difficult, if not impossible, to put into words the esteem that I hold for my blog brothers, I have to say that I disagree. That may be because I have never been in the military, nor been subjected to anything close to the sort of forced life-or-death decision making that breeds a camaraderie distinct unto itself. And it may be because I have the luxury (thanks to said camaraderie) to simply ponder these things at my leisure. Just the same, I cannot say that I am opposed to torture of our nation's enemies, nor can I honestly say that any experience will change my opinion.
First, the reason I even broach the subject: release of "secret torture memos" (link added):
President Barack Obama's administration said it would Thursday release four memos, with sections blacked out, covering the Bush administration's justification for CIA interrogations of terror suspects … The memos were authored by Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, who at the time were lawyers for the then-president George W. Bush's Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel.
The memos provided the legal framework for a program of interrogations of "war on terror" detainees that included techniques widely regarded as torture such as waterboarding, in which a detainee is made to feel like he is drowning.
I have not read the memos, and I probably won't. The sole reason being that I've slogged through enough of these legal documents to have a pretty good idea of what's in there, and to know that there is plenty of qualifying language to mitigate whatever damning quotes are eventually culled therefrom. In point of fact, these "memos" are little more than legal research projects specifically drafted so as to provide both the underlying judicial framework for the issue at hand, and the best guess at how the current policy might fit into that framework under certain factual parameters. They are merely legalese for "this is what the law says, and this is how the policy may not run afoul of that law."
Leaving aside definitional problems (does being confined with an insect constitute "torture"?), let's just assume that what the memos described was not only policy, but a policy that was carried out. Why is that a bad thing?
Tom Maguire provides some thoughts:
IN OUR NAME: The newly released torture memos are cold-blooded and clearly client-driven – the lawyers knew the answers they wanted and reasoned backwards. Quick thoughts:
1. The US concern about actually harming someone comes through on every page. In fact, at one point (p. 36 of .pdf) the legal team wonders whether it would be illegal for the interrogators to threaten or imply that conditions for the prisoner could get even worse unless they cooperate. I suppose these memos will provide welcome reassurance of our underlying civility to both the world community and the terrorists in it.
2. There are some fascinating legal gymnastics on display. My favorite might be on p. 39, where we learn that Article 16 of the Geneva Convention does not apply because the CIA is operating in areas not under US jurisdiction. Nor do the protections of the US Constitution extend to aliens being held prisoner under US control but abroad outside of US jurisdiction.
However, another contender for the "It Would Take A Lawyer To Think Of This" prize is the argument that waterboarding does not constitute a threat of imminent death because, even though the prisoner thinks they are drowning, they are not, and anyway, the mental effect is transitory and does not result in long term mental harm – call it the "Psych!" defense. (The absence of long term harm comes from the experience of US sailors and soldiers passing through SERE school in the service of their country; whether a jihadist waterboarded by the Great Satan would also rebound psychologically is not explored here). I would think that a game of Russian Roulette played with a fake bullet might pass all these requirements other than the SERE experience.
Tom's comparison to Russian Roulette intrigues me because I think it is the perfect analogy. I've written before that, in my opinion, waterboarding crosses the legal line because of the way the law is written. I've never been convinced that the technique crosses any moral boundary because I'm not so sure that it's any different than placing a caterpillar in the same cell as a man who's deathly afraid of caterpillars. Playing on the mind's fears is part and parcel of both manipulation and torture, but does not mean that the two are equivalent. Morally speaking, therefore, I have doubts that techniques akin to waterboarding amount to "torture" per se.
But assuming that they do, again, what exactly is the problem? Aficionados of the subject will say that torture is ineffectual. Yet, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would appear to be a test case in contrast to that wisdom, as would the fact that our own soldiers are routinely informed that "everyone breaks eventually." Moreover, if it really is ineffectual, why does it continue to happen? Clearly, somebody somewhere is getting results.
Even leaving aside the efficacy vel non of torture, does it hold such moral deficiency as to abandon it altogether? Here I plead ignorance because, in my mind, I view enemies to my country as enemies to my family. By that I mean, if anyone were to hurt, or even threaten to hurt, a member of my family, I can't even begin to express the unholy hell I would visit upon such a cretin. When I view A Time To Kill I can't help but think that that the murderous, rapist scum got off too lightly (which, of course, was the point of Grisham's characterization). Other than the fear of anything nefarious happening to my children, my greatest fear is of what I would try to do to those who hurt them or even suggested that they might do so. I have the same feeling when it comes to anyone who seeks to destroy my country and her citizens with whom I've (gratefully) cast my lot. My morality directs me to say that what any of you visit upon the least of my fellow countrymen, I will repay you a thousandfold and more. That may be my Irish bravado speaking, but it speaks as honestly as any man possibly can.
So I am left with the conundrum of how my actions in response to an attack on my family should be any different than an attack on my country, and why I should feel any differently about the perpetrators of such actions, whether they have followed through with their plans or not. I understand that my response — i.e. the sanctioning of "torture" — may not be entirely rational. Indeed, if a firetruck runs over my child while rushing to save an orphanage, I would feel no less grief, and probably wish an equal amount of horror upon the transgressors as I would upon 19 hijackers who murdered 3,000 of of my fellow citizens. In fact, probably more. There is nothing particularly rational in such a response. But I have little confidence that, should I have the chance to avoid either disaster, I would refrain from running the perpetrators' minds through a psychological cheese grater if there was even a small chance that the disaster could be avoided. That may be little more than a testament to my weakness as a moral human being, but I think that I'm not alone.
Torture, however defined, is not a pretty thing. I make no bones about having zero regard for my enemies (i.e. those who want to destroy my country a la 9/11). If subjecting them to extreme psychological and/or physical discomfort, or the threat of such, will prevent further attacks, then I confess that I am happy to reward those monsters with the penalty they richly deserve. I accept that I may be wrong in such thinking, but I don't find that case has been successfully made as of yet. Indeed, I defy you to take this test and declare that "torture" can never be acceptable.
The ultimate point is, torture is a horrible thing and should be avoided if at all humanly possible. But, unfortunately, we live in a world where the "humanly possible" has limits. In those cases, why is it that torture should be off limits? Is there a rational reason? I'm willing to be convinced, but I have my doubts.
Department Of Homeland Security Reacts
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano reacts to the uproar over the, and I use the phrase very loosely when referring to it, "analysis and intelligence" report released by her department on "rightwing extremists":
The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.
Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.
We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.
I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary.
As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity.
A couple of points – if what we saw is the level of intelligence the department is gathering and is indicative of the sophistication of the analysis it sees fit to publish, we are all in very deep trouble. That is one of the worst products I've ever seen produced by an agency anywhere, and I've read hundreds of intelligence analysis in my time. No specifics, vague and over-generalized threats, and nonsensical reasoning were its hallmark. That was my primary problem with it. As I pointed out, half of America, to include the news media, falls under their "rightwing extremist" umbrella.
Secondly, as the commander of the American Legion so aptly put it, the report resorted to a "casual defamation" of all soldiers with its claim that they were likely to be recruited by right wing hate groups. So yeah, she needs to meet with him and she needs to apologize for that 'casual defamation' and also admit that the product that was sent out was, to be kind, a piece of crap.
You Might Be A Right-Wing Extremist If …
With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, the Department of Homeland Security has apparently decided it is necessary to warn the nation's law enforcement agencies about a new and growing threat – right-wing extremists.
For instance, you might be a right-wing extremist if you're a member of any groups:
"…that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration …"
The report, entitled "Right-Wing Extremism – Current Economic and Political Climate Refueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment", doesn't mention whether those who are on the left and dedicated to single-issues, such as support for abortion or unlimited immigration might be extremists as well.
You can read the report here. (pdf)
David Weigel of the Washington Independent has trouble understanding the right-wing outrage this report sparks:
Seriously, though, I struggle to find anything wrong in a close — not a willfully obtuse — reading of the report.
Well maybe it's the little things, David – like the apparent belief by DHS that any problem brewing domestically will occur only on the right. And perhaps it is implication that soldiers are likely to succumb to the draw of radical right-wingers:
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.
Of course they have to go back to the early '90s and Timothy McVeigh to substantiate this claim. Apparently they've been unable to find any more recent possible problems on which to pin their caution. And of course they also use as intel a claim made on a white-supremacist web-site which claimed (without any proof) that "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces."
Well, there you go!
My favorite "you might be a right-wing extremist if" moment came with this little tidbit from DHS:
Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.
The "perceived loss of US jobs?!" Heh … well I guess we won't need all of that 'stimulus' money for unemployment if they're only perceived losses, huh? But look at the topics – "extremist chatter" focuses on "the economy … jobs … and home forclosures?" Heck, then half the news media is extremist. And we here at QandO fall into that camp. And that's with a less than obtuse reading of the sentence above, wouldn't you say, Mr. Weigel?
And of course, DHS covers guns, gun laws and the current gun buying spree in a rather amusing way:
Open source reporting of wartime ammunition shortages has likely spurred rightwing extremists—as well as law-abiding Americans—to make bulk purchases of ammunition. These shortages have increased the cost of ammunition, further exacerbating rightwing extremist paranoia and leading to further stockpiling activity. Both rightwing extremists and law-abiding citizens share a belief that rising crime rates attributed to a slumping economy make the purchase of legitimate firearms a wise move at this time.
So when you buy that gun and ammo, which is it? Is it because you're a paranoid rightwing extremist or a law abiding citizen who thinks such a purchase is a "wise move at this time"? Only DHS knows for sure. But if you've happened to write about the "perceived loss of US jobs", the economy or "home foreclosures" on the internet and are a military veteran, I imagine you can figure out into which category you fall (heh … me included).
And don't you dare be a state's rights guy who believes that the federal government should respect the 10th Amendment:
Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.
In all, DHS is convinced that the economic downturn along with the "historic Presidental election", code for "hey, we elected a black guy", ensures a return to the '90s and the rise of skin heads and militias.
By the way, you weren't supposed to know about any of this.
LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION NOTICE: This product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of this information could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.
In reality it contains a bunch of warmed over nonsense, conjecture and unsubstantiated cites from anonymous websites. But remember, don't tell anyone in the media about this BS passed off as "Intelligence and Analysis" because if they ever got wind of it they'd conclude there was very little analysis or intelligence on display in the document – and we wouldn't want to embarrass DHS, would we?
Hope and change.
Free Speech Under Assault In The West
Is it driven by fear?
Jonathan Turley, writing in the Washington Post, says that much of the West is becoming increasingly intolerant of certain speech.
But now an equally troubling trend is developing in the West. Ever since 2006, when Muslims worldwide rioted over newspaper cartoons picturing the prophet Muhammad, Western countries, too, have been prosecuting more individuals for criticizing religion. The "Free World," it appears, may be losing faith in free speech.
Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.
Tolerance, it seems, is only reserved for speech which praises tolerance. If, instead, the speaker is intolerant of things for which the state believes they should be tolerant, there is no tolerance.
Heh … yeah, fairly convoluted but it certainly appears to be the case. And, of course, not all religions are equal in that regard. Speak of Islam or Muslims as Bardot did in France and face charges. Say similar things about Christianity, and expect your speech to be greeted with … tolerance.
There's a movement within the UN to ban religious defamation. It is backed by such paragons of religious freedom as Saudi Arabia. Imagine the fate of someone like Christopher Hitchens should such a resolution pass – it would certainly limit his ability, and most likely his desire, to travel, unless he's willing to risk being jailed in some backwater theocracy for blasphemy and the defamation of religion.
As it turns out, it doesn't even have to be a backwater theocracy for that to happen any more:
While it hasn't gone so far as to support the U.N. resolution, the West is prosecuting "religious hatred" cases under anti-discrimination and hate-crime laws. British citizens can be arrested and prosecuted under the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which makes it a crime to "abuse" religion. In 2008, a 15-year-old boy was arrested for holding up a sign reading "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" outside the organization's London headquarters. Earlier this year, the British police issued a public warning that insulting Scientology would now be treated as a crime.
And, of course, you remember the infamous Canadian Human Rights Commission "trail" of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant for daring to speak ill of Islam.
And, of course, this caught my eye in Turley's article:
No question, the subjects of such prosecutions are often anti-religious — especially anti-Muslim — and intolerant. Consider far-right Austrian legislator Susanne Winter. She recently denounced Mohammad as a pedophile for his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha, which was consummated when she was 9. Winter also suggested that Muslim men should commit bestiality rather than have sex with children. Under an Austrian law criminalizing "degradation of religious doctrines," the 51-year-old politician was sentenced in January to a fine of 24,000 euros ($31,000) and a three-month suspended prison term.
No doubt, then, this is just fine by the Austrians. After all, it is merely the implementation of the "religious doctrine" they feel compelled to protect by suppressing free speech:
A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man, a relative of the girl told CNN.
The most recent ruling, in which the judge upheld his original verdict, was handed down Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza, where late last year the same judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, who was seeking a divorce for her daughter.
Why should Austria say nothing about this?
"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said, according to the newspaper. "We should know that Sharia law has not brought injustice to women."
That's right – because pointing out this outrage against children would be considered a "degredation of religious doctrine" and the Gestapo state would prosecute you and put you in jail.
It's a sad day for free speech when speaking out against blatant child abuse and, more likely, pedophilia, can be considered a crime punishable by jail, isn't it?
In fact, it is a sad day for free speech when – in the name of "tolerance" and "acceptance" for things which have never been tolerated or acceptable in Western culture – speech is suppressed and punished.
But here we are.
Enabling Theft Should Be Punished, Not Encouraged
This is, at least to me, an example of the entitlement mentality which has been fostered in this country:
When the woman who calls herself Queen Omega moved into a three-bedroom house here last December, she introduced herself to the neighbors, signed contracts for electricity and water and ordered an Internet connection.
What she did not tell anyone was that she had no legal right to be in the home.
Ms. Omega, 48, is one of the beneficiaries of the foreclosure crisis. Through a small advocacy group of local volunteers called Take Back the Land, she moved from a friend's couch into a newly empty house that sold just a few years ago for more than $400,000.
Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said about a dozen advocacy groups around the country were actively moving homeless people into vacant homes — some working in secret, others, like Take Back the Land, operating openly.
The entitlement mentality is further enabled by morally misguided groups that confuse legitimate civil rights concerns with outright theft:
In addition to squatting, some advocacy groups have organized civil disobedience actions in which borrowers or renters refuse to leave homes after foreclosure.
I have some empathy for those who find themselves in a situation where they are forced from their homes because they can't afford to pay what they agreed to pay (and I'm especially sympathetic to those who have children). But I cannot condone activities which assume a "right" to something they don't own. And I certainly don't define actions to secure what isn't rightfully theirs as "civil disobedience".
It's theft. Property rights are a fundamental building block of a free society. Allow the subversion of those rights and the society won't be free for long.
And groups and "community organizers" that encourage such subversion or enable the thieves are accessories to theft and should be treated as such.
Instead, they'll most likely receive federal "stimulus" money.
Silver Lining?
The big Econo-boys are weighing in on the state of the economy, and providing a consensus opinion on the coming economic recovery. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey expect the recession to end in September, though most say it won't be until the second half of 2010 that the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.
Gross domestic product was predicted to contract in the first and second quarters of this year by 5.0% and 1.8%, respectively, on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate. A return to growth — a modest 0.4% — isn't expected until the third quarter. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the most recent period for which data are available, the economy contracted 6.3%.
The outlook for employment isn't quite as good, though.
Just 12% of the economists expect the unemployment rate to fall some time this year. More than a third of respondents expect the jobless rate to peak in the first half of 2010, while about half don't see unemployment declining until the second half of 2010. By December of this year, the economists on average expect the unemployment rate to reach 9.5%, up from the 8.5% reported for March. They do see the rate of decline slowing, forecasting 2.6 million job losses in the next 12 months, compared with the 4.8 million jobs lost in the previous period.
I'm a bit more negative on the above. As of today, weekly initial unemployment claims are still at 650,000 per week. If that keeps up, we'll continue to see 0.5% increases in unemployment on a monthly basis. We might be at 9% by next month, nevermind December.
I'm also concerned about the implications of the rabid expansion of the monetary base over the last 7 months, during which it essentially doubled. If that impacts signifigantly on inflation by the end of the year, then we'll be between a rock and a hard place with a weak economy, and signifigant inflation. Any Fed moves to contract the monetary base will crater the economy, in much the same way that Paul Volcker's Fed did in causing the back to back recession of 1981-1982.
There are still treacherous shoals to navigate for the economy before I begin to get bullish on economic growth again.
By A Small Majority, Americans Think Capitalism Is Better Than Socialism
This should disturb a good number of you – it certainly did me. It shows you how effective the indoctrination of our youth has been. Don't forget the radical students of 1969 are the tenured professors of '09. It also demonstrates something else just as disturbing that I'll get too at the end of the post:
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
As you'll note, the older someone is, the more likely they are to understand what socialism is and how it is inferior to captialism. The under 30 crowd, with no wisdom and little practical experience outside of academia – not to mention having not yet completly traded their utopian fantasies for the best practical system which has been shown to work – have a large group who either believe socialism is better or just aren't with it enough to have an opinion.
Once past 30, and having put a few years under their belt in the real world, suddenly the utopian scales begin to fall from their eyes and they have a bit of an epiphany. As for those over 40 being so strongly for capitalism, most of them remember the old USSR and how well socialism worked there.
As you might imagine, there's an ideological divide as well:
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans – by an 11-to-1 margin – favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
Compare the results above to a poll taken in December of 2008:
As the incoming Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership scramble for ways to right the U.S. economy, 70% of U.S. voters say a free market is better than one managed by the government.
Just 15% say a government-managed economy is best, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Question: In the intervening months, what system and what players has the Obama administration demonized?
Answer: Capitalism and capitalists.
Gee, I wonder why?


text:
From ancient Greek to modern designs, explore the architecture that has defined countless landscapes.
About StumbleDNA StumbleDNA
spunkypixels's Interests
Like an online museum of the visual arts, from cave paintings to Rodin sculptures to Warhol prints.
Flex your creativity by exploring performing arts, literature, music, visual arts and more.
Think ordinary is boring? Explore the weird, the strange, the obscure, and the downright freaky.
Where would movies or video games be without computer graphics? Learn about animation, modeling and more.
That software's got to run on something. Explore monitors, keyboards and other computer hardware.
Desktop or laptop? Apple or Dell? Hardware, software, monitors, CPUs, we love them all.
From algorithms to data structures to programming languages, explore computer science and engineering.
The internet and computer networks have connected us like never before. Learn more about cyberculture.
Explore the art of design, from graphic design on the Web to interior design in the home.
No more stick figures! Uncover your inner artist and the world of sketching, charcoals and pastels.
Is Firefox your browser of choice? Learn about the best downloads, updates, extensions and other tips.
Gadgets and gizmos aren't just for geeks. Check out the coolest new technology and electronics.
From logos to websites, graphic designers have perfected the art of visual communication. Check it out.
From the iPod to the Coke bottle, learn about the industrial design of the world's most iconic products.
There's no place like home! Get design and decorating ideas for every room in your house.
From wireless to broadband to networks, there's so much to browse and surf on the Web.
Networks, servers, downloads...the Web is complicated. Thank goodness for internet tools.
Text, audio, photos, videos...multimedia covers it all. Learn about multimedia players, software and more.
You'll beat that high score someday! Play online arcade games, puzzles, multiplayer games and more.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Latest Article
Ram Racing enters full 24H Series
Monday, January 26th, 2015
Following a podium finish in the Creventic 24H Series season-opener, Dubai 24 Hours, Ram Racing has entered the full 2015 championship with its Mercedes SLS AMG GT3. The series, which
Latest Video
RAM Racing CEO Dan Shufflebottom
Wednesday, March 26th, 2014
Ahead of the official FIA WEC test at Circuit Paul Ricard we caught up with RAM Racing CEO Dan Shufflebottom at the team headquarters in Silverstone, Northamptonshire . Dan discusses
Recent Articles
Second place for Ram Racing in Dubai 24 Hours
Sunday, January 11th, 2015
Dubai, 10 January 2015 – Ram Racing has finished in second place in the highly competitive and extremely challenging Dubai 24 Hours in the team's new Mercedes SLS AMG GT3
Ram Racing qualifies fourth for Dubai 24 Hours
Saturday, January 10th, 2015
Ram Racing will start the 10th annual Dubai 24 Hours from fourth on the grid in its new Mercedes SLS AMG GT3 with drivers Thomas Jaeger (DE), Adam Christodoulou (GB),
Ram Racing to return to Dubai
Thursday, January 1st, 2015
Ram Racing will make its return to competitive racing next month when it contests Dubai 24 Hours in its brand new Mercedes SLS AMG GT3 with professional drivers Thomas Jäger
The team withdraws from 2014 competition and the FIA WEC
Friday, July 11th, 2014
Following a difficult start to the 2014 FIA World Endurance Championship, with a particularly challenging 24 Hours of Le Mans, British GTE team Ram Racing was planning to return to
A look back at Le Mans 2014
Thursday, June 19th, 2014
We have a great selection of images from our time at Le Mans. To view our gallery . Go to Media, then click on Photos and you will find it


text:
RFE: Conference Listings
This service is a joint project of RFE and EconBiz.
Euromoney Seminars, Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC
- Dates:
- November 26-27, 2009
- Description:
- 6th Annual Syndicated Loans CEE Conference
- Location:
- Vienna, Steigenberger Hotel Herrenhof, Austria
- Subject:
- Now in its 6th year, Euromoney Seminars?? annual Syndicated Loans in CEE conference has firmly established itself as the most prominent syndicated loans event in the region and the best networking platform for loan market professionals operating in CEE, Russia, Turkey, and associated markets.The current financial market conditions have prompted a change in the priorities of professionals in syndicated lending, a market which, until recently, was considered immune to the turmoil sweeping through the global capital markets. Strategies to minimise risks (credit, underwriting, refinancing and currency risk amongst others) are top of the agenda.[gem?_?? den Informationen des Anbieters - according to site editor's information]
- Notes:
- JEL Code:
- Sponsor:
- http://www.euromoneyseminars.com/EventDetails/0/1092/6th-Annual-Syndicated-Loans-CEE-Conference.html


text:
Desperately seeking salvation
Vegas's tour of US churches tells us more about his own quest for happiness
Johnny Vegas'
Vegas's tour of US churches tells us more about his own quest for happiness
Johnny Vegas'
by Rachel Cooke Published
I turned on Johnny Vegas's Guide to . . . Evangelical Christianity (11 September, 11.05pm) under the illusion that it was a guide for us, the audience. Not so. It really was Johnny Vegas's guide, as in:
"Here you go, Johnny. We'll fly you to Nevada, let you loose in Las Vegas for a bit to emphasise just how sinful you are, and then abandon you to a lot of smiling born-agains with giant teeth, because we know that: a) you used to be quite keen on God and even joined a seminary and b) you are, as you acknowledge, miserable-bordering-on-depressed, you drink far too much and it makes you feel like shit, and you're desperate to change your life.
"So, see what you make of it all, Johnny. If you fancy salvation, fantastic. Hello, Jesus! You can move to Colorado Springs, the so-called 'Evangelical Vatican', and attend a church the size of the Home Office three times a day for the rest of your life, cranberry juice all the way. If not, no worries: the beers are on Channel 4."
You'll notice that the above is in speech marks. Four months into this job, and I'm adept at imagining the cynical pitches that producers make to commissioning editors and celebrity presenters alike. Or at least I think I am. Who knows? What I'm trying to say is that what the documentary lacked in facts, it made up for with wobbly close-ups of Vegas's kindly but monstrously swollen face, an approach that was moving, but also painful to watch. For all his sweetness, for all his bluster, it's clear that Vegas is slowly killing himself with fags and booze, and that he knows this, but is powerless to do much about it.
Rather than baiting the born-agains, he genuinely hoped to find solace in their embrace, and you ached for him when, for a few brief hours, he did. But it was worse when, at the end of the film, he staggered around in the Nevada sun, pink and drunk and rambling. I didn't want Vegas to take up the guitar, become a homophobe and get himself a set of rodenty new porcelains; but nor do I want him to go on being unhappy and ill. What kind of a deal was this show offering? From my point of view, if not that of the good folk of Colorado Springs, he was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't.
So what did we learn of the American evangelicals? The usual stuff: that their churches are vast and carpeted; that they think the Grand Canyon was made by God in a more than usually magisterial creative moment; that the way to avoid sleeping with your girlfriend before you get married to her is to remember, constantly, that she is a daughter of the Lord. And what of Vegas, a 36-year-old comedian and actor from St Helens? Though he often tied himself up in rhetorical knots, he was also insightful. He explained that his desire to be a priest (he joined a seminary twice, at 11 and at 24) was born of a need to please others, notably his father, a devout Catholic - a thought that stayed with me once he arrived in Colorado Springs, where new churches sprout like warts. The harder the people he met smiled at him - people like Terry MacAlmon, America's most famous touring "worship leader" - the more you sensed his desire to embrace their Lord, much as he might praise their pot pies or admire their gleaming SUVs. But there was more to it than that. After a chat with a pastor, Vegas announced: "That was life-changing, that!"
I don't believe that he was only trying to make them happy. He was hoping for the slate to be wiped clean: to wake up the next day and have no need of tranquillising Guinness and daytime television. So when, soon afterwards, you saw him selecting kitsch religious gifts for his son (a model of Jesus skiing, anyone?) before his flight home, his laughter was not entirely convincing. I was relieved that he hadn't fallen for the pastor's spiel. But there are worse things than sophistry, aren't there?
Pick of the week
Starts 15 September, 10.35pm, ITV1
The professional Yorkshireman's last ever series.
Michael Palin's New Europe
16 September, 9pm, BBC1
From Estonia to Albania with the nicest man in TV.
The Wild Gourmets
18 September, 8.30pm, Channel 4
New foodie series: Tommi Miers and Guy Grieve try to live off the land.


text:
Last Activity: Yesterday 07:15 AM
Most Thanked
Thanks | Post Summary | |
3 | Then you will need the newest MicSwap kernel. AJK 4.9 MicSwap. If your going with AllianceROM you will be much happier with version 9- http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=35200926 Just flash AJK 4.9 MicSwap directly after the ROM... | View... |
1 | Is there a way I can get the stock Samsung jelly bean camera app on cyanogenmod? I find it better quality than the focal camera. Also, no matter what cyanogenmod based ROM I use, it crashes when I try to use the camera through third party came... | View... |
1 | Please try disabling "fast boot" in performance settings, to see if this fixes Bootloop. If it doesn't, please try using a different kernel Gesendet von meinem GT-N7105 mit Tapatalk 2 I'll try it out and get back if I encounter any problems... | View... |


text:
Irvine Welsh: The 'unfilmable' Filth finally makes it to the big screen
It's been 15 years in development, but Irvine Welsh's Filth is finally here. It's 'ultra-dark', the Trainspotting creator tells Matt Ford with glee
When Trainspotting arrived 17 years ago, it changed the face of British cinema, giving birth to the Cool Britannia era of film-making. Director Danny Boyle and his cast received their share of the credit, but it was Irvine Welsh's unmistakable voice that proved the true revelation. Though still early in his career, Welsh had established himself as a challenging literary figure, the unrelenting mediator of Britain's cultural underbelly.
Now, at 54 years old, Welsh is one of our most revered writers. And putting aside the relatively unremarkable adaptations of his novella The Undefeated and the short story anthology The Acid House, it's almost unbelievable that it's taken this long for another of his full-length novels to make it to the big screen. It's not for the want of trying, though: Filth, adapted from Welsh's 1998 novel, languished in development hell for the best part of 15 years, with the project passing through the hands of numerous producers. As far as Welsh is concerned, it was worth the wait.
"People who are interested in cinema will be arguing this point for years to come." he says. "What's better, Trainspotting or Filth?"
Welsh might not be asking this question if Filth had been successfully rushed into production back in 1998. The film would likely have been resembled Trainspotting, both aesthetically and tonally, in an effort to strike gold twice in as many years.
Fortunately, the 2013 version of Filth has the freedom to do things on its own terms, which is does to the extreme; it's a surreal and vivid journey into the corruptible mind of its lead character, Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson (James McAvoy), the Edinburgh copper whose personal and professional problems find him losing his grip on reality.
It's what Welsh correctly describes as "an ultra-dark, head-fucking film". And though Filth is a very different beast to Trainspotting, they remain equally credible and faithful interpretations of the Welsh's writing.
"I can smell the books on both films," says Welsh. "They've kept the essence and respect for the material, but they've got a very different cinematic structure. The first 20 minutes of Filth are like Trainspotting's style… then it completely moves into this area of a Greek or Shakespearean tragedy."
It is, of course, the "essence" that's key to a successful novel-to-film adaptation, not complete fidelity to the original story (no matter how much the purists cry heresy). To make Filth work, it needed a film-maker who understood what was at the core of the book. It also needed Welsh to step away and allow the adaptation process to develop on its own. Enter director-screenwriter Jon S Baird, who impressed Welsh with his inventive script and passion for the project.
"I adapted my own book The Acid House and it wasn't very good," Welsh says. "You've got to have a bit of distance. I could tear apart anybody else's book but it's hard to do it to my own. You need to get somebody in who's really going to try and find the cinematic heart to it. Sometimes you have to throw away stuff… sometimes really good stuff. I remember [Trainspotting screenwriter] John Hodge telling me he had to throw away some of his favourite scenes because the narrative thread just wasn't working. But on this movie Jon has made some good choices."
There was little chance of Filth arriving on-screen completely intact. This is mostly thanks to the book's defining feature: a tapeworm that grows inside of DS Robertson and occasionally interrupts the story, posing existential questions and acting as Robertson's conscience. It's the kind of sinister but strangely comic element that Welsh's stories are known for; it's also something that works perfectly for a novel but is near impossible to replicate in live action. It's this kind of thing that gives a novel a reputation as "un-filmable". But Baird's cinematic vision for the book succeeds in reinventing the material, adopting an alternative means of peering into Robertson's damaged psyche. Forget the details, what's important is that both versions share something deeper. And whatever that is, it's very disturbing indeed.
Though Filth may be way out there – needless to say, Welsh is a writer who has enormous fun exploring the darkest recesses of human capability – there's also something frighteningly familiar and real about the story. And 15 years after its publication, Filth's political edge still rings very true.
"At Edinburgh council there a lot of guys like Bruce that were the system," says Welsh. "The council had changed from being this old bureaucracy into this big equal opportunities 'right on' place, but they were working with these dinosaurs who were still wandering around in this kind of culture. I thought it would be great to do something about that, but then the council's kind of boring – if you've got a fucked-up council official, you might not get your rubbish taken away on time. But if you've got a corrupt cop it's much more interesting."
Indeed, Bruce is one of the most fascinating police officers to appear on film, in a different league to scores of bent coppers we've seen before. Though undeniably abhorrent, like those around him Robertson is a victim of his own psychological deterioration, made all the more human by James McAvoy's inspired performance.
"I made him totally dissident," says Welsh. "His beliefs and actions are out of synch, and he has a full mental breakdown as a result of all that. What's interesting about Bruce Robertson is that he's in a strict bureaucracy and functions on certain rules, but he's this fucked-up, transgressive guy. He has more enemies inside the police force than he has outside of it… He wants to destroy them all. The people he's got his sights on are the people in the office. He doesn't care about the people selling drugs in the street. That sense of the enemy within, the whole sabotage thing, that transgression is always appealing."
It won't be another 15 years before an Irvine Welsh is adapted. Porno, the long anticipated sequel to Trainspotting, has already been announced for production. It's also likely that Filth will spark something of a resurgence of interest in Welsh's back catalogue. So what else can we expect to see on the big screen?
"We'll see what happens," he says. "The way it is these days, you can't just have a book or film or TV series, you've got to have the lot."
'Filth' is released on 4 October
Arts & Ents blogs
- 1 What happens to your body when you give up sugar?
- 2 Drugs Live cannabis trial: Hash is less harmful than any other drug, expert claims
- 3 Have sex with your iPad thanks to the new sex toy no-one asked for
- 4 African jawbone discovery pushes birth of humanity back by 400,000 years
- 5 The 'sex selfie stick' lets you FaceTime the inside of a vagina
The Great Comic Relief Bake Off, TV review: Alexa Chung impresses, but Chris Moyles makes Paul Hollywood gag
Fifty Shades of Grey movie shows first sex scene 'after 40 minutes'
Seth Rogan's pot fumes delay hacked Sony boss's office move
India's Daughter: BBC Four documentary provokes outrage on Twitter
India's Daughter, TV review: Delhi bus rape documentary is about women's rights around the world - not just in India
Durham Free School: 'Creationism taught at' free school facing closure
Nearly 100,000 of Britain's poorest children go hungry after parents' benefits are cut
Ukip would cut billions from Scottish budget to fund English tax cuts
End of the licence fee: BBC to back radical overhaul of how it is funded
Ukraine crisis: Top Chinese diplomat backs Putin and says West should 'abandon zero-sum mentality'
Boris Nemtsov shot dead: Outspoken Putin critic who had expressed fears for his life is killed near the Kremlin
Legendary isle of nights
The festival that made rock'n'roll history boasts a star-studded line up.
Crowdfunding: The end-end solution for business success.
Calling all entrepreneurs! See how crowdfunding can provide you with a full-circle, end to end solution for your business.
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.


text:
Chandon Pictures
About us
The Acquisitions team is responsible for acquiring completed programs for ABC TV, ABC2 and iView:
- Researching, sourcing and requesting material that aligns with previously agreed genre content strategies;
- Providing sound editorial judgement and ensuring that program content satisfies ABC Editorial standards;
- Evaluating and making recommendations regarding programs submitted to the ABC by content suppliers.
For ABC3 and Childrens acquisitions, please direct your queries here.
Who's Who
Dallas Krueger
Senior Acquisitions Manager
Katrina Ray
Acquisitions Manager
Hannah Stone
Acquisitions Coordinator
Who's who - iview Acquisitions
Penny Wright
Internet Broadcasting Programmer


text:
HTML Newsletter Problem in Email AutoResponder
Closed - This job posting has been filled.
Job Description
I have created an HTML "email" newsletter for my Get
Response email autoresponder database.
However, when tested and sent to Yahoo email provider,
it doesn't show correctly.
All the paragraphs are scrunched together.
However, this same "html" shows correct in gmail, hotmail,
iphones, androids, etc ... just not yahoo.
I need someone to play around with the html of the newsletter
to figure out how to make the format display correctly in
yahoo ... while still appearing correct in the other
email providers.
Skills: yahoo, gmail


text:
Dictionary » S » Sulphaurate Sulphauratesulphaurate (Science: chemistry) A salt of sulphauric acid. Please contribute to this project, if you have more information about this term feel free to edit this page
This page was last modified 21:16, 3 October 2005. This page has been accessed 583 times. |
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved.
Register | Login
| About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Disclaimer & Privacy | Powered by CASPION


text: Hooksett students may very well stay right here in Manchester. The Union Leader this morning is reporting that Manchester school officials are reaching out to the Hooksett school board showing interest in keeping a relationship. Although many Hooksett parents would like to see their students go to a different high school, many others like the relationship with Manchester. Earlier this week, it was announced talks with Pinkerton had broken down but were continuing.


text:
SodaStream Fizzles
I don't know what the future is for SodaStream, but the company previously stated expectations of hitting the $ 1 billion mark in revenue by 2016. I'm not sure that's possible. Admittedly, I'm surprised they reached the $500 million sales mark.
I've tasted the product, and it's very good. I also like the fact that the company sells syrups that are sweetened with cane sugar, which is making a comeback because it tastes better than corn syrup-sweetened drinks, and also because some consider sugar the healthier of the two sweeteners. But I can pick up a case of sugar-sweetened Mexican Coca-Cola (KO), in glass bottles, no less, or a 12 pack of Pepsi (PEP) Throwback, also made with sugar, at the grocery store. I just don't see the benefit of making it at home. Perhaps I'm just lazy. But I'm not alone.
It will still be interesting to see where the stock heads from here. Now trading at about 15 times earnings, it's gotten a lot cheaper. I've sometimes taken positions in former growth darlings which were punished beyond what seemed reasonable (eBay
(EBAY) for example), but I am not interested here.
I can't help but think that the problems during the fourth quarter may be at least partially due to waning consumer excitement about the product.
At the time of publication, the author held no positions in any of the stocks mentioned.
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
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
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Dividend Stock Advisor
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
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Options Profits
Our options trading pros provide over 100 monthly option trading ideas and strategies to help you become a well-seasoned trader.
Product Features:
- Actionable options commentary and news
- Real-time trading community


text:
"The harder you work, the luckier you get." by Gary Player
Below is the poem entitled -Jesus-to-Christ which was written by poet Jacqueline R. Mendoza. Please feel free to comment on this poem. However, please remember, PoetrySoup is a place of encouragement and growth.
Read Poems by Jacqueline R. Mendoza
Best Jacqueline R. Mendoza Poems
He wants me to propagate that He is the Highest Priest of Catholic or Roman Catholic Church. To continue with Reverence and add "Eternal" to God. Thank you for helping me.He's the Highest Priest and we call "Father" our parish priest to represent Him on earth. He wants us to call Him "Father Christ".
Become a Premium Member and post notes and photos about your poem.
The name "Jesus" When He was a Jew The name "Christ" When He was baptized to Christian


text: Funeral for Garrett Reid, son of Eagles coach, scheduled TuesdayBy the CNN Wire StaffUpdated 3:57 PM ET, Mon August 6, 2012Story highlightsGarret Reid's funeral will be held Tuesday, according to the funeral homePolice say 'no suspicious activity'Reid was found dead in his room at Eagles training campPlayers and staff offer their condolencesThe funeral for Garrett Reid, son of Philadelphia Eagles head football coach Andy Reid, will be held Tuesday morning, according to the website of the Philadelphia funeral home handling arrangements.Tuesday is the team's previously scheduled day off this week.Police have ruled out suspicious activity regarding Reid's death and turned the investigation over to the coroner, CNN affiliate WFMZ reported.Reid, 29, was found dead on Sunday in his room at the Eagles training camp at Lehigh University."This is a tough morning for all of us in the Eagles family," the team's general manager, Howie Roseman, said Sunday, holding back tears as he announced the news to reporters."Garrett grew up with this team, and this makes this news even harder for us to process."Training camp will continue, he said. Offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg and defensive coordinator Juan Castillo will oversee the team until Andy Reid returns, according to the team.Eagles chairman and CEO Jeffrey Lurie said Reid, while grieving, regrets being away from the team."I expect Andy to be coaching this week; in fact, I know he feels that way and he is very, very focused on both his family and his profession," Lurie said.Mornhinweg spoke highly of the head coach's character, offering the team's support in return for Reid's years of devotion."Andy is a rock. He's given us ... great support for many, many years and it's just very simple: We're here to support him now," he said.The 29-year-old was assisting the strength and conditioning staff at training camp, the team said. He was a guest of his father, not part of the staff, a team spokesman said.The younger Reid had "bold laughter and zest for life" and was "proud of his rank as an Eagle Scout," said an online statement from the Frank C. Videon Funeral Home in Philadelphia.He planned to begin studying sports management in the fall, the statement said.More from footballGreek football league suspended after latest fan violence Dimitar Berbatov strikes as Arsenal faces Champions League exitQatar 2022: FIFA rules out compensation for clubsPowered by Livefyre


text: When he branched out on his own after more than two decades of working with Wynton Marsalis — in his septet and as part of the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra — alto sax player Wessell "Warmdaddy" Anderson had more time to work with his own group as well as the brand-new quartet Boxcar, which features bassist Anthony Cox (who's worked with Joe Lovano, Stan Getz and others), pianist Jeremy Walker and drummer JT Bates. While all have a long history of making music together, they will have played only two gigs together as Boxcar by the time they hit Dazzle for a two-night stand. Don't miss this rare chance to see four jazz heavies developing an ensemble sound that draws from the panache of New Orleans, the drive of New York and the free-spirited underground jazz of Minneapolis. Visit backbeatblog.com for a full interview with Anderson.


text:
Here is an illustrated tutorial on how to customize your My Stuff home page. You can print it our for easy reference, or add it to your bookmarks.
To get to your My Stuff home as fast as possible from the HASA home page, click on the "My Stuff" button and choose "My Stuff Home" from the menu.2. LOG IN TO MY STUFF
There is a login form at the top of the page. Fill it in and login right there. You can bookmark this page, rather than the HASA home page, and make it your starting point on HASA.3. DEFAULT MY STUFF PAGE
It is a little bland, we admit it. It has one main column pod - Welcome to HASA! - and one right-hand column pod - My Info - already in place. The important link on the page is in the right-hand corner just below the green button bar. That's the "Customize Page" link. Click on it and go to the Pod selection page.4. PICK A COLUMN TO CUSTOMIZE
Pods are specific to columns, so your first step is to pick either the main or the right-hand column. It doesn't matter wich one you choose. For the tutorial, we're using the Main Column.5. CHOOSE YOUR PODS
Now comes the fun part, picking your pods! There are a lot to choose from and they tend to be lists of things - lists of comments, lists of stories, lists of authors. When you are starting out, you can't go wrong by just picking a few at random and giving them a try. If you hold your mouse over the names in the select box, a tool tip will pop up with an explanation of that pod. Unfortunately, the screen shot did not capture the tip.6. SET AN ORDER TO YOUR PODS
Once you have picked your pods (say that five times fast!) you can put them in the order you want. If you look at the screen shot, you'll see that we dropped the default "Welcome!" pod from the list since we don't need it any more. It goes back onto the selection list.7. TWEAK POD SETTINGS
After you have picked your pods and put them into the right order, go back to your My Stuff home page. On that page, look over your pod selections. They usually will show you five items on the list pods, and everything on the other pods. Now you can experiment with how many to show.On the title bar for most pods, you'll see two small icons that are miniature versions of the Customize Page icon. The one on the left, with the pencil in the corner, pops open an editing bar where you can increase or decrease the number of records to show in the list. The one on the right, with the little red "X" in the corner, will remove that pod from the page. On a few pods, where the pod simply shows you a complete set of records, you will only see the remove icon.
That in a nutshell is how to customize your My Stuff home page with pods. The best way to learn how to do this is by experimenting on your own and see which pods are the best for you. Try them all out, change their order on the page, adjust how many show and get your My Stuff home looking just the way you want it.Have fun!


text:
Definition of suberins
plural of suberin 1
The word "suberins" uses 8 letters: B E I N R S S U.
No direct anagrams for suberins found in this word list.
Words formed by adding one letter before or after suberins (in bold), or to beinrssu in any order:
a - urbanises d - burnsides sideburns h - burnishes l - burliness
List all words starting with suberins, words containing suberins or words ending with suberins
All words formed from suberins by changing one letter
Other words with the same letter pairs: su ub be er ri in ns
Browse words starting with suberins by next letter
Previous word in list: suberin
Next word in list: suberise
Some random words: age kaoliang aasvogel lukewarm vocable jiao aroid
This is not a dictionary, it's a word game wordfinder.
- Help and FAQ - Examples - Home
2015 Mar 01 - 21:32:35 - Privacy Policy - © Copyright 2004-2014 MoreWords.com - V - e2k - 7.973mS